A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

New Mersey Crossing

Edseam | 24.08.2004 14:06 | Liverpool

There can be little doubt that the current Runcorn - Widnes bridge is in a shocking state. However, is it really feasible to have two crossings?

The Liverpool Daily post is currently running a series of articles dedicated to promoting the idea of a second Mersey Crossing. Support comes from local businesses and politicians in the area. What they fail to understand is that more roads will inevitably mean more cars and therefore the problems associated with that.

In fact local businesses may be seriously affected by this scheme to their detriment. larger corporations will have an easy through-route and will be able to bypass the local area in terms of investment. Also, local suppliers will be opened up to greater competition from across the country. Reports have shown and argued this for many years.

When we consider the cutting of funding for Metrolink (despite its Serco association it is still a valid scheme to support) and the removal of a rail link that currently serves Liverpool - Chester via Runcorn, are we to understand that the North West is to be given over to the car?

Edseam

Comments

Hide the following 15 comments

Common sense post

25.08.2004 11:33

Good post Edseam. Disappointing coverage from the Daily Post, but not unexpected if you look back at their coverage of "Fight for a Flight".

Letter sent today to the Post:

There are a large number of people throughout Merseyside and Cheshire who recognise that building more roads leads to more congestion and more traffic. The idea that a second crossing will alleviate the problems of the current congestion is simplistic and not supported by the historical fact.

When a road is built, more people will make use of it, until that road is beyond its capacity. It would be better if we actually held onto the Liverpool - Chester rail link that runs through Runcorn and serves North Wales as well.

How many cars cross the bridge each day carrying just one passenger? Car sharing, priority access for public transport and increased use of rail could all alleviate congestion now, without massive expenditure on a new bridge.

I am disappointed that these options are not even being considered and I urge the Daily Post to investigate these alternatives instead of whole heartedly backing this short sighted scheme.

Peter Cranie
mail e-mail: greenliverpool@hotmail.com

Flaws

25.08.2004 13:41

The reasoning behind an ADDITIONAL Mersey Crossing (not a replacement) are fundamentally flawed relying on assukmptions that have no basis in either fact or economic reality.

The calculation for road use of the bridge is also flawed.

I have sent a paper into the Daily Post arguing these points but am not hopeful that they will dedicate a page to the arguments against thise scheme.

It disappoints me that councillors of all colours are supportive of the scheme, believing the misinformation instead of the facts.

Edseam

go on

25.08.2004 14:35

ask which construction companies have been taking council officers out to lunch recently. nothing to do with traffic congestion, everything to do with construction contracts. daily post interest? forget it.

- -

Right

25.08.2004 15:23

Sadly I think that you are correct in your cynicism. When we have "Sir" David Henshaw accepting that traffic will increase and then suggesting we treat the symptoms rather than the causes, one feels they are not committed to reducing dependency on the car.

The car has brought freedom for some but at huge costs due to our inability to use it correctly.

What infuriates me is that so-called business people in the local economy are unable to see what a detrimental effect increased road building can have on them, in favour of the larger corporations.

Again, one amusing thing was the Daily Post asking Ford Halewood whether they thought a new road needs to be built! (In case you cannot guess they suprising said "yes" because it will help when they start producing SUVs!)
I'm just off to ask an alcoholic if he wants a pint!

Edseam

ey?

25.08.2004 16:43

Another crossing = more cars? How do you work that one out? Just because there's another root across the river doesn't mean their will be more cars, just people won't have to rely on paying the tunnel toll to go the other side of the water. Sounds like your just protesting against it for hell of it.

scall

Crossing info

25.08.2004 18:10

The SACTRA (Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment) report was published 1994. It concluded that building more roads generated more traffic.

I can understand people being sucked in to the simplicity of

extra road => less traffic => less cars

But actually the process is more like

more road space => less initial traffic => more cars use road => reliance on road => more congestion

You would literally have to cover the suburbs of cities and the countryside with 6 lane motorways to get rid of congestion through road building, and even then you would still get bottlenecks at certain times in certain places.

No one is making this stuff up scall - it has been researched and shown to be the case. Increased car sharing could immediately reduce the congestion, TOMORROW! We wouldn't have to pay for a new bridge either... but does the media even consider this?

There are undoubtedly profits in road building and car manufacture. Anything that encourages less use of cars reduces their potential profits. We are actually looking at a fundamental difference in opinion not just in how transport evolves, but also society.

Peter Cranie

SACTRA

25.08.2004 21:19

The SACTRA report is the single most important study into the value of building roads nd their effect on economics and congestion. In fact the final report was printed not so long ago in 1999. The recommendation was that restricting car use may actually benefit the economy rather than harm it.

All road building schemes necessarily use false calculations when considering traffic growth. They consistently fail to factor into them the effect an increase in supply (more roads) has on traffic growth.

More roads it has been proven, equals more traffic. Even the calculations used by the Second Crossing proponents is invalid as it makes the smae mistake.

I will post a full reply to the proponents of this scheme soon.

Edseam

re SACTRA, scall and how to oppose 'em

26.08.2004 00:12

By the by, the SACTRA report was a government report - saying exactly what people'd been saying for year, more roads = more cars = more roads = etc etc

In the North West, there's also the proposed new River Lune crossing near Lancaster/Barrow, there's the Stockport bypass & other roads south of Manchester linking up with the Mottram & Tintwhistle bypass (ie connect it with other schemes, and you've got a new Pennine crossing to 'aid' the M62 from the M6 south of Manc to the M1 near Sheffield.

At the recent Earth First! summer gathering, people talked about getting together more on roads issues (again!) in the North West. There'll be a national anti-roads gathering towards the end of the year, and you can always check out the great campaign resource Road Raging out of print but available at www.eco-action.org/rr

Mancunian

Roads

26.08.2004 08:18

The problem I have with many anti-road protests is that they come at it from the angle that all roads are bad. That is not necessarily the case. However, it is right to object when a road is suggested simply because it is the easiest thing to do rather than the right thing.

The second mersey crossing falls down on all the arguments given for it. They even use the request by TfL for a huge new bridge across the Thames (to carry 20million vehicles a year) as an excuse - a sort of North/South divide issue - which is an equally unjustified scheme. Ken's sap to the motoring lobby methinks.

The SACTRA report also showed that there was no link between increased traffic/car use and the economy - precisely the argument put forward for the Second Crossing.

Edseam

roads

26.08.2004 16:50

fair enough, loads more roads = loads more cars but i doubt the bridge will make a big contribution to increasing the amount of cars already on the road. most likely a lot of traffic that would've used the tunnel will take the bridge instead - so we won't have to pay the toll charge they want to increase with the Mersey Tunnel Bill

scall

tolls

26.08.2004 18:47

you think they can't / won't put a toll on the bridge?

check this infamous example:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ray_shields/bridge.htm

- -

Tolls

27.08.2004 08:24

"Demand management" is the latest approach from the Department for Transport - just check out the M6 toll (and its proposed extension) and the proposed satellite tracking of cars to charge them for the roads they are on.

It is my feeling that the bridge will not be built unless it is a toll bridge.

Edseam

Scall

31.08.2004 14:22

What you are failing to understand is the fact that, even if the bridge is built and attracts people away from the tunnel the following scenario occurs:

Bridge attracts tunnel traffic
Tunnel becomes less congested
Traffic flows increase to take advantage of new capacity in tunnel
Both bridge and tunnel now congested

It is what has happened across the country in just about any major road-building scheme.

And if the new bridge becomes a toll bridge then the old one will have to be restricted in its use.

Also, studying the Skye bridge scheme, a toll on a Mersey bridge would justify the Skye bridge toll (due to promises made).

Edseam

NCE

31.08.2004 15:19

New Civil Engineer (NCE) stated that the Second Mersey Crossing was one of its Top Ten major schemes that needed to be completed, based on a reader survey. NCE is read by those who have a vested interest in seeing major building schemes go ahead (ie the developers and builders themselves) so no surprise there then.
It says that any accident on the Silver Jubliee bridge causes chaos as far back as Warrington and Liverpool. This may well be the case but the solution is not necessarily to have two bridges.
One bridge that is capable of handling current and expected traffic flows coupled with policies of demand management and so-called soft measures can have dranatic effects and result in a win-win situation (see "Smarter Choices" from the DfT).

The claim is that £335million will result in £600m of savings. The DTI's index of road schemes shows that since 1992 they have risen in cost by 77% and we can expect no different. This means that the financial benefits will be outweighed by the cost yet we will have a worse situation in years to come.

The one notable thing in the bridge project comes in the NCE article:

"This means it needs some government funding, and the council is reluctantly exploring the
use of tolls to subsidise some of the cost."

Therefore, the council is already examining the case for applying tolls to the bridge.

Edseam

LTP

31.08.2004 15:22

The bid documents for the second mersey crossing should already be completed as there was a deadline of end of July for it to be ready in time for the LTP.

Therefore, any changes that will be suggested, such as the possibility of Merseytram going on the bridge, should already be stated, rather than being possibilities.

Edseam

UK Indymedia

New Mersey Crossing

Comments

Common sense post

Flaws

go on

Right

ey?

Crossing info

SACTRA

re SACTRA, scall and how to oppose 'em

Roads

roads

tolls

Tolls

Scall

NCE

LTP

Global IMC Network