Cycle Hereford

For those who are interested in keeping track of this story, the Hereford Journal covered the 2011 MTRU report (Sustainable travel for Hereford — the way forward, see ‘Further push for cycle friendly alternative’) on its 21st of September front page, ‘Council slams flawed report’. Their 5th October edition letters page carries the following reply, explaining why the report is not flawed.

Report sets out options for reducing city’s congestion

You report (110921) that Herefordshire Council condemned the MTRU report as ‘flawed’ because sustainable options not involving road building have been examined.

The question which the MTRU report addresses is whether the best performing sustainable option has been tested. It concludes a) that it has not and b) that given all the modelling work carried out by the Council, such a test would be straightforward.

The three sustainable option packages tested by the Council assumed an increasing shift away from car use at peak hour in 2026, by 10%, 15% and 20%.  The increasing shift from car assumed an increasing number of sustainable alternatives to car use.

The ‘most sustainable’ packages modelled by the Council included ‘reduction’ or ‘significant reduction in highway capacity due to bus priorities’ on the most congested parts of Hereford’s road network, especially the A49.

However, the Council’s modelling showed that despite the bus priority, travel time for bus passengers remained virtually the same in all scenarios (all sustainable options modelled without a road and with a Western Relief Road).

The modelling also forecast that the overall proportion of trips made by bus would decline slightly by 2026, from 10% to 9%.

This is one reason that MTRU concluded that the best performing sustainable option — a package of measures to reduce car use by 20% without also clogging up Hereford’s road network — has so far not been tested.

The law requires the Council to test realistic alternatives in order to demonstrate the soundess of the development plan.  If it can be shown that they haven’t done so, their plan will fail at the Examination in Public. This risks wasting valuable time and scarce money.

Despite its initial response, we hope that the Council will give the MTRU report serious attention.  If, as the report suggests, there are low-cost sustainable solutions to Hereford’s traffic congestion that will allow for the growth the Council says is needed, without damaging the environment and increasing our carbon emissions, it would benefit everyone.

Paige Mitchell

Cycle Hereford

PRESS RELEASE from Here For Hereford, Cycle Hereford and Herefordshire Friends of the Earth

LOCAL GROUPS WARN OF MONUMENTAL WASTE OF MONEY IF COUNCIL FAILS TO TEST ALTERNATIVE TO RELIEF ROAD

A new report out today [Tuesday 20th September] will further increase pressure on Herefordshire Council to examine a real alternative to its relief road scheme.  Local groups say the alternative could tackle congestion more effectively than the road proposal while still allowing for the growth sought by Council.

They warn that the Council is potentially risking hundreds of millions of pounds of local taxpayers money if it does not heed laws requiring it to test alternatives.

They point to:-

•  Money already spent on developing and consulting on the local development framework (£1.5million to date), which hit a wall last year due in part due to the unpopularity of the road proposal — the Council will restart the consultation on Monday the 26th of September with the road proposal intact.

•  More money spent on the consultation starting next week.  The plan is likely to fail at Inquiry if alternatives are not properly tested in accordance with planning law.

•  Money that could be wasted in road planning and construction costs and fines if the relief road scheme is stopped due to well founded court challenges. Road schemes that threaten to damage habitats protected by EU law have been stopped by the courts, even though construction had already begun.

•  Money wasted on a ‘white elephant’ of a road that will not solve congestion problems but will burden county tax payers, like the Rotherwas Relief Road —
only 10 times worse. The relief road will cost over £100m on current estimates.  The alternative suggested in the report would be far less costly and less environmentally damaging, with offering better conditions for all road users, including car drivers.

The report’s author, Keith Buchan of the London based consultancy MTRU (Metropolitan Transport Research Unit) said:

 ’It is surprising that there has so far been no published test of a sustainable package with no Relief Road.’ 

Herefordshire Council insist that sustainable measures are needed to support the road.  The report’s findings turn this view on its head:

‘The question that has not been answered is whether road building is an essential accompaniment to a sustainable transport package.’

The report predicts that congestion would stabilise or fall ‘even taking into account population growth and new development’ if the right combination of policies for walking, cycling and public transport were pursued

Buchan made a site visit to Hereford at the beginning of September and saw conditions for himself, including traffic congestion associated with the school run.

Liz Morawiecka of Here for Hereford said:

‘Here for Hereford want the best solutions for tacking congestion in Hereford, and tackling it NOW.  We feel that all of Herefordshire will pay too high a price for the continuing mistakes of Herefordshire Council.’

The MTRU report, ‘Sustainable travel for Hereford – the way forward’ (189Kb pdf) can be downloaded here.

Just as Herefordshire Council gears up to once again make its argument that a Relief Road is essential to the future of the county (1), a technical study it has tried to ignore (2) is being republished.

The study, A New Sustainable Option for Hereford, shows that a ‘No Road’ option making efficient use of available road space would perform better than the Council’s plans for a relief road and sustainable measures.(3)  This No Road option would deliver the increases in sustainable travel that the Council has promised but that its own evidence shows won’t materialise if a Relief Road is built.(4)

The report by consultants MTRU was commissioned by Cycle Hereford and Herefordshire Friends of the Earth and submitted during last year’s consultation.

The report concluded that the best sustainable transport option for the city was not tested by the Council.  This throws doubt on the case for the road as well as failing to meet legal planning requirements.(5)

In order for their plans for the future of the County to get official approval, the Council must test a realistic alternative to road building and show why it won’t work.  If they fail to do this the plans will have to go back to the drawing board.

Paige Mitchell of Cycle Hereford said:

‘The Council is threatening all of us with a monumental waste of time and money on a consultation that won’t meet required standards unless alternatives have been properly tested.  Why is it afraid to investigate real alternatives to road building?’

DOWNLOAD THE MTRU REPORT! (1.2MB pdf)

Notes

(1) Herefordshire Council (2010) Shaping our Place 2026 Local Development Framework Results Report for Preferred Options Documents December 2010.  86% of respondents to the Hereford Preferred Option consultation in autumn 2010 rejected the Movement Policy which relied on a Western Relief Road for Hereford, as does the entire Core Strategy. See Agenda for Cabinet meeting of 15th September, p10.  ‘[T]he importance of the relief road scheme to the overall Revised Preferred Option’ was cited as one reason against holding a poll on the road, in case the poll went against the Council.

(2) Herefordshire Council (2011) Shaping our Place 2026 Local Development Framework Preferred Option: Hereford Consultation Report June 2011.  The Council’s account of the MTRU report ignored one of its main conclusions (featured prominently in the report’s title): ‘A new sustainable transport option for Hereford’ would meet Council targets for growth and ‘match or exceed the highway performance of the Relief Road options.’

(3) MTRU (2010, 2011 edition) A new sustainable transport option for Hereford with September 2011 Introduction by Paige Mitchell. The report examined modelling by the Council’s transport consultants and tested a different option better reflecting the potential for cycling in Hereford.  They were asked to do this because the Council’s traffic forecasts indicate that cycling would account for only 5% of trips on Hereford’s road network in 2026.  This figure was considered very unrealistic given our already high levels of cycling, sensible policies to enable cycling, the effect of legally binding national carbon reduction targets and predicted increases in the price of oil. For this purpose they assumed levels of cycling common in European cities today (and in the UK, in Cambridge), around 20%.

MTRU 2010 concluded:

•  The modelling, in particular the use of Diadem, needs to be improved to reflect the impact of policies directly.

•  The current modelling clearly shows that car travel time variations between all options, with and without the Relief Road, are very small and probably not perceivable.

•  The only option tested by the County which is likely to achieve significant emissions reductions from traffic is the maximum sustainable option with no Relief Road; none of the Relief Road options would achieve such reductions.

•  A new sustainable option, No Road + More Cycling, which reflects the special nature of Herefordʼs traffic and the clear opportunities for more cycling, could meet targets both for development growth and emissions reductions, and match or exceed the highway performance of the Relief Road options.

4) Herefordshire Council has claimed that a Relief Road is needed in order to enable a ‘step-change’ in sustainable transport in Hereford.  Its traffic forecasts show that the main step-change is in the number of trips made on foot.  Cycling is forecast to increase from 3% to 5% of trips and the proportion of trips made by bus is forecast to decline slightly, from 10% to 9%, by 2026.  This and other areas where the Council’s own evidence contradicts its case for a Relief Road are examined in ‘A Relief Road for Hereford — or Not???’ a May 2011 report by Paige Mitchell and available from http://questionsquestions.wordpress.com/reports/relief-road-or-not/

(5) See Section 19.2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires local authorities to have ‘regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State’ when preparing development plans.  Policy Planning Statement 12 is the relevant guidance and states in paragraph 4.36 that for a Core Strategy to be justified it must be ‘the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.’   This requirement is retained in the draft National Policy Planning Framework (para 48).