I think that the noise, pollution and congestion of traffic is the most serious single problem affecting Lancaster.

I fought the last General Election with a commitment to do everything possible to achieve a major improvement in the current situation within the lifetime of this Parliament.

I firmly believe that significant reductions in traffic in the City Centre, major improvements in public transport and safer residential streets would be good for business, for tourists and most importantly for the quality of life of all those who live here.

For many years I have considered that investment in a Western Bypass of Lancaster would be a necessary basis for achieving the local transport system that we need. As an MP. I have pursued this objective assiduously - lobbying at local, regional and national level.

I now no longer believe that a Western Bypass is attainable, given the development of Government policy in the Transport Act, the Transport White Paper, the 10 -Year Transport Plan and Planning Guidance.

In particular, I think that statements in Lancashire County Council's public consultation on the 'Completion of the Heysham to M6 Link' that 'some congestion would be expected within a period of about 15 years' and acknowledging that the western bypass would have ‘an adverse impact on the integrity of internationally designated (environmental) sites’ make it impossible to argue a case for the road.

The recent objection from Government Office for the North West that 'the preference for the western route appears perverse' kills it completely.

If we continue to pursue a Western Bypass we will simply waste our time and squander the opportunities which are available to resolve our traffic problems.

We must face the fact that the Western Bypass is unattainable and move on.

There may well be a need for a new road link between the M6 and Heysham and the only option may be a Northern Route.

However, it is also clear from Government policy that we need to take a completely different approach to our consideration of Lancaster's traffic problems.

It is vital that we set out clear objectives and in the first instance we aim to address these with a comprehensive programme of measures which are more environmentally sustainable and much less expensive than a programme of road building.

I do not believe that we will be able to make any sort of case for a Northern Bypass without instituting such a programme, without fully implementing it and carrying out an effective evaluation to determine whether or not a new road is needed.

During the course of the General Election Campaign I offered to institute a wide ranging programme of discussions about possible alternatives to road building in Lancaster.

I would like to thank County Councillor Jonathan Sear, Councillor Emily Heath and Professor John Whitelegg for their assistance in this matter.

Over the past few weeks, some or all or one of us have held discussions with colleagues from Government Office of the North West, Lancashire County Council, local business, First North Western, Stagecoach, St Martins College, Morecambe Bay Acute Health Trust, Lancaster Labour Party, Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Lancaster Civic Society. We will be meeting Lancaster City Council Cabinet this morning.

I will also be holding a public meeting on September 28th at 7.30 at Lancaster Town Hall to which everyone is welcome.

The meetings held so far have been largely positive. The traffic and transport debate has been dogged for too long by a polarisation of views. However, I now believe that it may be possible to achieve a very wide degree of consensus.

I would like to propose that Lancashire County Council amend its Local Transport Plan, dismiss the Western Bypass and commit itself to a two stage strategy.

In the first instance we should develop a bid for a comprehensive sustainable Lancaster Transport Plan. This could well cost in excess of £20 million and we should seek Government agreement to finance it by December 2002.

This comprehensive plan would build on a number of County Council initiatives to
provide an integrated package including:
- Investment in public transport.
- A 'safe routes to school' initiative for every school.
- Green commuter plans for all Lancaster's major employers
- The development of 'Home zones' on streets ringing the City Centre

If an evaluation of the impact of these measures show that there is still a need for major road building I believe that we would then have much more substantial grounds for a bid for a Northern Bypass during the second half of the 10-year Transport Plan period from 2005.

I consider that a two stage proposal will have much greater chance of success in attracting Government funding than simply hoping that they will commit £60 million to a new bypass in the first instance.

Most importantly I think it could transform our City for the better, in the best interests of all who live, work, visit and do business here.

Hilton Dawson M.P. August 29th 2001

Green Party Press Release
Wednesday 29 Aug 2001

Greens welcome step forward in city transport debate

Reacting to today’s statement from Hilton Dawson, MP for Lancaster & Wyre that “We must face the fact that the Western Bypass is unattainable and move on.” County Councillor Jonathan Sear said

“The Green Party has long argued that the Western Bypass was an unacceptable proposal which would do little to solve Lancaster’s transport problems. The small and short-lived reduction in city centre traffic could never have justified the huge cost and environmental damage involved.”

“Hilton is to be congratulated on his initiative to find a non road-building solution to Lancaster’s transport problems. I hope that Lancashire County Council will follow his leadership and waste no time in developing a comprehensive plan that will enable everyone to get to and from central Lancaster more easily.”

“I am confident that if the right choices are taken, and in particular provided that sufficient road space is re-allocated to public transport, we can achieve a comparable or greater level of urban traffic reduction without a bypass.”

In opening the sustainable transport debate, the Green Party is suggesting a strategy based upon one third of local journeys being by car, one third by public transport and one third on foot or by bicycle. This has been achieved in many European Cities, and would make a huge difference to the traffic situation whilst allowing people to use cars when they are the most appropriate type of transport available. It would enable us to increase the number of people coming into the city centre, whilst reducing traffic congestion. The current split in Lancaster is roughly two thirds by car, 8% by public transport and almost all the rest on foot.

Cllr Jonathan Sear added

“I hope that everyone will contribute constructively to the debate about travel within Lancaster and Morecambe. The Green Party does not support the Northern Bypass. However whether people want a new road or not, the logical next step is a major bid for sustainable transport in Lancaster, as Government policy is only to support new roads when all alternatives have been tried.”

ENDS

ADDITIONAL LINKS ON THIS SITE

• What we would lose if the western bypass went ahead

• LCC update

• Hilton Dawson's statement on why he now believes the Western Bypass should not be built and local party responses (This Page)

EXTERNAL LINKS

• Have your say LCC Consultation Site

• British Energy Generation plc / Heysham - M6 Link Committee website (now defunct)

TOP