Thank you very much to those of you who were able to attend the Long Ashton meeting on Tuesday 23 January. There were over 70 people at the meeting and we particularly appreciated the exchange of information and ideas that will enable us to take our campaign forward. We feel that, in particular, we will be able to fight phase 1 more effectively with a Long Ashton Group leading the way! We will arrange a follow-up meeting in the near future.

Thank you very much to those of you who were able to attend the Southville meeting on Wednesday 24 January. Although there were just a few of us we are optimistic that the Southville Group will give us an added dimension to our campaign.

 

Another new Route for the South Bristol Ring Road?

Bristol City Council* has issued yet another option of a section of phase 3 of the South Bristol Ring Road in the Whitchurch/Hartcliffe Area. 

The current proposals are:
Hicks Gate, Stockwood, Whitchurch. -Along Dundry slopes and around to Hartcliffe roundabout.

Callington Road, Airport Rd. to Hartcliffe roundabout.  (The Callington road link is now a priority and looks likely to go ahead)

Hicks Gate, Stockwood, Whitchurch and along Whitchurch Lane to the Hartcliffe roundabout.

 Bristol City Council have stated that each route will be granted equal consideration.  

It is also noted that a decision on phase 3 will be in 2013. However, we feel this will be fast tracked before this date, as the developers will push the council for a conclusion. 

Just to keep you all informed, phase 1 of the South Bristol Ring Road is A38 to A370 and phase 2 is Hengrove to A38.  This is more fully “explained” in the Bristol Development Framework document (available from the Strategic & Citywide Policy Team, Brunel House, St Georges Rd., Bristol BS1 5UY.   Tel 0117 9036720).  It is worth getting a copy of this.

This extra route and the extensive time delays now place further blight on our areas, along with current blight already occurring along the rest of the proposed route.

When will Bristol City Council realise that new and extensive road building is not needed. We just don’t need more large roads. They just don’t work.

The questions we are asking Bristol City Council include:
If our Councillors are actively promoting green issues and its benefits why are they proposing such road building, more traffic use, more pollution, and the destruction of our open spaces?
Why can’t Bristol City Council get to grips with a substantial investment in public transport, as they keep promising? The proposed “showcase” bus corridors and a Bus Rapid Transit is good news but hardly adequate
Is the council being placed under pressure from Developers?
Are there now preliminary studies for a South Bristol Ring Road and who is doing this?
Where is the money coming from for these studies and for the proposed building?

We would encourage you all to keep protesting and to ask relevant questions.  Please direct them to relevant officers of your council.

(Please note the bypass for Whitchurch village has been cancelled.  Residents of Whitchurch Village – please think about this, especially when the South Bristol Ring Road will be near your village!)

*Reference: David Bishop (Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainable Development, Bristol City Council and Chief Executive of the Strategic and Citywide Policy Team)

                                                                                                    Alliance against the South Bristol Ring Road
                                                                                                                                                  

7 June 2008

Rt. Hon Hazel Blears MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU

Dear Hazel Blears,

I understand that you have received a copy of the South West Regional Spatial Strategy in order to for you to make any amendments that you feel are necessary, prior to final publication.

During the consultation period a number of respondents indicated their opposition to including the South Bristol Ring Road (SBRR) in the Strategy. The actual number of respondents was not published but I believe that it was over 200. Two local MPs, Kerry McCarthy MP and Dawn Primarolo MP, also responded to the consultation and stated that the case for building the road had not been made. Our organisation was represented at the Enquiry in Public and we gave evidence as to the reasons for not including the SBRR in the Strategy.  The opposition to the SBRR is acknowledged in the EiP report but the road is still included and the only real reason given for this is that the road proposal contributes to a number of objectives. There is no evidence that the SBRR would meet these objectives. So the argument put by our local MPs has not been met.

I hope that you will consider removing any reference to the SBRR in the final Spatial Strategy document and in order to inform your decision I have outlined below the reasons why our organisation believes that the SBRR should not be built and therefore should not appear in the final document.

            We welcome those parts of the Strategy that propose improvements in public transport, although we do not believe that these go far enough. Since the draft RSS was written there has been a major shift in the way that climate change is perceived. The Stern Report (October 2006) gave an insight into how economies will be affected if we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the government have recognised this as indicated with this statement by David Miliband, (the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) ‘a new model of economic growth will be required to address climate change and to marry productivity with the green agenda’ (7 February 2007). Parts of the Strategy need to be revised to take account of the new situation and, in particular, the part of the document referring to the South Bristol Ring Road (4.2.13) should be withdrawn.
           
Promoting the SBRR totally contradicts the draft RSS/RTS ambitions to reduce car travel. There is ample evidence that a new road of this type increases traffic. In particular the July 2006 study by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Agency found that the A34 Newbury Bypass, the A27 Polegate Bypass and the M65 Southern Bypass had led to faster growth than predicted (the 2010 forecast levels were reached by 2006) and extra traffic has flowed onto local roads as a result of the schemes, undermining the claim that the Bypasses would reduce congestion. There is no evidence that building the SBRR would lead to a reduction in levels of travel by car.
           
            Bristol is one of the only large urban areas in England not to have a Passenger Transport Executive that would be accountable to a Passenger Transport Authority. In Prime Minister’s Question Time in the House of Commons Bristol MP Dr Naysmith said: “Despite increased investment in public transport in recent years the situation for my constituents who use First Group’s disastrous commuter trains and unreliable and expensive buses is dire” He then went on to argue that public transport in the Greater Bristol area would be greatly improved by setting up an integrated transport system. We agree with this and feel that the RSS should reflect this need. This should take priority over any reference in the RSS to a road proposal for which no case has been established. We should be trying to reduce the amount of car travel across the region and within the greater Bristol area in particular. Congestion costs Bristol over £1 million a week according to Bristol businesses and road accidents over £1.8 million each week (Bristol Local Plan Update 2002). We believe that further measures should be identified in the RSS that would encourage a much higher percentage of people to commute into the centre of Bristol by public transport. The transport proposals in the draft RSS for the Greater Bristol area offer insufficient measures to alleviate the existing levels of congestion. Bristol is the major economic and business centre in the region and the draft RSS does not address the need to improve public transport in order to reduce travel by car. It does not address the problems of carbon emission in sufficient detail and to include the proposal to build a road that will only add to the problem of pollution is not sensible. The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study states that ‘It will be important to develop the full potential of the range of approaches to encourage alternative modes before embarking on major infrastructure developments.’ (Final Report, Executive Summary). We agree with this statement and it should be reflected in the RSS. With Consultation on phase 1 of the proposed South Bristol Ring Road due to be started in 2008 (JLTP Table 10.1) this does not give anything like the required time to develop alternative modes.

            The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study recognised that it will be necessary to increase the number of people using buses and much of the report was about improving the bus network within our area. This was also the case in the Joint Local Transport Plan. We were pleased to see that the Greater Bristol Bus Network has received approval from the Secretary of State for Transport. Unfortunately neither of these addresses the issue of the cost of commuting by public transport that we believe is one of the highest in the country, if not the highest. There is an opportunity for the RSS to ‘put this right’ and to make recommendations as to the relative costs of travelling by car or by public transport, as currently the high cost of public transport encourages car use. The draft RSS identifies an expansion in the number of homes and jobs within the Bristol area so there should be serious consideration given to a light rail system, or an ultra light rail system, rather than spending significant sums of money on a new road that would have very little effect on the traffic going towards the centre of Bristol.

            There are areas in South Bristol (Areas A and B) in which it is proposed to build new houses. The GBSTS stated that ‘the design and implementation of the new developments should be planned so as to reduce the total volume of travel and encourage the use of alternative modes to the car. Such policies should include the concentration of developments within transport corridors easily served by public transport.’ We agree with this but there is no evidence in the RSS that this has been addressed. Indeed if it had been, then there would be no need for the proposed SBRR. The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study states that ‘ It will be important to develop the full potential of the range of approaches to encourage alternative modes before embarking on major infrastructure developments.’ (Final Report, Executive Summary). We agree with this statement and it should be reflected in the RSS. As already mentioned with Consultation on Phase 1 of the proposed South Bristol Ring Road due to be started in 2008 (JLTP Table 10.1) this does not give anything like the required time to develop alternative modes.

   The Bristol International Airport Masterplan has serious deficiencies particularly to do with the issue of climate change. Both Bristol City and North Somerset Councils have expressed reservations about the Masterplan and its failure to address this issue. While aviation accounts for around 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions at the present time the figure could rise to over 15% if growth predictions are fulfilled. This is unsustainable. We do not have any objections to measures that encourage the use of public transport to access the airport. For example a free bus service to the airport with far more nodal points of access would increase the use of such a service and this could be funded by a very small increase in airport charges. At present airport usage levels there are very few problems in accessing the airport to the east of the A38 for those who have to use a car. To the west of the A38 the proposal to build the red route (phase1 of the SBRR) bring almost no improvements to airport access by car. The figures in table 6.5 of the GBSTS show journey times between Bristol City Centre, Thornbury and Portishead to Bristol International Airport. For the first two journeys there would be no saving at all on journeys of 22 minutes and 47 minutes respectively and a saving of one minute on the third journey of 22 minutes. We do not think that a case has been made to justify the building of the SBRR for this purpose. Proposing to spend at least £20 million pounds on phase 1 to save 1 minute on the three total journey times of 91 minutes is ludicrous.

South Bristol is already being re-generated at an impressive rate. For example, housing at the former Wills site, a new Tescos store at the Imperial Park Complex, the Symes Avenue development involving Morrisons’ supermarket and the Hengrove Park project that includes a hospital, leisure pool and an office for a major international company. This is on top of recently completed developments at the Hengrove cinema and Leisure Complex and the nearby Trading Estate. All of this has been built, or planned, without the SBRR. Businesses do not invest as they have in areas that people do not have reasonable access to. We do not believe that an area in which there is a relatively low car ownership will benefit from the proposed road as is claimed in the draft RSS. We feel strongly that a road along the indicative route will divide communities.  A dual carriageway will impede people’s access to amenities and open spaces and will have a disproportionate impact on the young, the elderly and those without access to private motor vehicles.  It will create a physical barrier between where children live and where they go to school. Residents in long established neighbourhoods will be divided and the isolation of many will be increased rather than enhanced as pedestrian access to facilities – shopping, banks, leisure and recreation are made more difficult.The preferred indicative route shown in the GBST shows the road passing through Green Belt land. The Green Belt to the south and south east of Bristol is a valuable amenity and should be preserved. It also prevents the coalescence of settlements. Inevitably any new roads have environmental impacts in the loss of green open space as would occur along the edge of Stockwood, the Dundry Slopes, adjacent to the Gatehouse Centre in Withywood and on Highridge Common.

The indicative route for parts of phase 2 and 3 shows the road very close to housing and schools. A number of studies have shown that there is an increased risk of asthma and other lung related illnesses, particularly in children, from traffic related air pollutants. In a study carried out in Southern California (Traffic, susceptibility and childhood asthma, Environ Health Perspect. 2006 May; 114(5);766-72) results showed that residence near a major road is associated with asthma. A number of other studies reached similar conclusions (see references below). Perhaps an even more alarming conclusion was reached in a study on the long-term effects on lung development (Effects of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 – 18 years of age, the Lancet 2007 369 571-577) in which it states that there is strong evidence that vehicle emissions stunt crucial lung development in children. There is also evidence in these studies that many of the problems are associated with diesel fumes. This is of particular concern as constructing this road would place many more vehicles that use diesel fuel close to children. The problem of noise pollution is now becoming clearer. In a report in 2003 (London Health Commission August 2003 ISBN 1-904 340-06-7) it states that ‘Children’s cognitive and learning skills can be affected by environmental noise and that road traffic is one of the causes of noise related sleep disturbance.’ In view of this research it would be a disservice to the population of South Bristol to build this road. The GBSTS and the local authorities give the reason for choosing the route for phases 1 and 2 as ‘it is a protected route’. It is true that parts were identified for a possible route many years ago. This was certainly well before the affects of traffic pollution on children were known. It is no longer appropriate to build a road with such highly predicted volumes of traffic that is so very close to housing, schools and community buildings.

There are practical objections to the proposal for the South Bristol Ring Road. The existing ring road (Avon Ring Road) to the east of Bristol is already heavily congested at peak times, particularly at Hicks Gate and the approach to the M32. Undoubtedly the South Bristol Ring Road would generate extra traffic most of which would use the existing ring road. This is acknowledged in the GBSTS (paragraph 6.46) which state that ‘flows on the existing Avon Ring Road increase as a result of the scheme’. It also states that ‘in the absence of any other measures such as demand management, secondary measures would be required to increase junction capacity’. This issue has not been addressed in the JLTP, nor in the SWRA’s RFA. Building the South Bristol Ring Road will therefore bring further congestion, at least at peak times.

 

            The failure to justify the building of the South Bristol Ring Road is demonstrated by the significant level of local opposition. The Alliance against the SBRR organised a petition against the South Bristol Ring Road with over 2 300 signatories and this was presented to Bristol City Council. Meetings have been held in various locations along the indicative route including Long Ashton, Hartcliffe, Bishopsworth/Withywood, Whitchurch and Stockwood. All have been well attended and people have made it abundantly clear that they do not wish this road to be built. This contrasts with the advocates of the proposed road who have not held any meetings to allow residents any opportunity to give their views.

We believe that there is ample evidence to show that this proposed road should not be built and we ask you to remove its concept from the RSS.

Copies of this letter have been sent to the following:

Kerry McCarthy MP (Bristol East)
Dawn Primarolo MP (Bristol South - Minister of State for Public Health)
Dan Norris MP Wansdyke)
Dr Liam Fox MP (Woodspring - Shadow Secretary of State for Defence)
Mark Bradshaw (Bristol City Council– Executive Member for Transport and Highways)
Charles Gerrish (Bath & NE Somerset Council – Cabinet Member for Transport & Highways)
Elfan Ap Rees (North Somerset Council – Executive Member for Strategic Planning, Highways & Economic Development)

 

Yours sincerely

Mike Landen
(Chair, Alliance against the SBRR)