Longdendale Siege plan 'pedestrian crossing' demonstration next week

Longdendale Siege's Mike Flynn gives the exclusive to this week's Glossop Chronic that he and his chums are planning a novel demonstration next Wednesday morning: they plan to stand at pedestrian crossings along the route of the A57 and A628 throughout Longdendale, constantly activating them in order to create massive tailbacks of traffic between 9.00 and 9.30 a.m. Siege realise that time is running out for Bypass 2.0, since the Comprehensive Spending Review that is due on 20th October may well cut this scheme, as well the original bypass program, which is currently shelved.

This is not a new idea: similar protests were reported in May in Dorset, where some people used the tactic to protest about HGV traffic going through small villages. Now Dorset is one of the few English Counties that has no motorways running through it, and it's not clear that the protestors in that case were calling for new roads to be built. But is must be remembered that Longdendale Siege have continually refused to back calls for a HGV ban along the road, which demonstrates their insincerity about seeking a solution to the problems with congestion.

Of course, the irony is that Longdendale Siege's main constituency has been a mythical one - 'the motorist'. But although we don't believe there is such a thing, from their perspective, it seems a bit daft to alienate those you most rely on for support. If they agree with the government that money is tight, and if they are so desperate, then why not call for a HGV ban? In the Chron article, Flynn mentions the Hattersley Tesco almost as an afterthought, no doubt hoping to attract some passing anger and link the two up.

In the Dorset case, the response to the protest from persons unknown was swift. The button that activated the pedestrian crossing was glued tight. Now there's an idea...

Siege must be choking

After a long, long wait, the Longdendale Siege Committee have finally updated their website, and the most noticeable addition is a new page about Nitrogen Dioxide pollution in Hollingworth.

From an academic point of view, the data they provide is useless - in the sense that they do not provide sources for their data. If there are no points of reference for the information they provide, then it cannot be effectively verified or checked.

Now don't get us wrong: we are not saying that there is not pollution in Longdendale or Hollingworth, but we would like to be able to examine the validity and accuracy of the data they present. We feel that this is not unreasonable.

So in the absence of proper references, we can only turn to the information put before the Public Inquiry. The Highways Agency's Air Quality expert, Mr Bean (seriously), presented a lot of information about pollution. The accuracy of his data and the methodology deployed may be looked at in a future post here, but for the time being, we'll accept his figures as accurate.

That being the case, Longdendale Siege choose two particular areas to demonstrate their data - Green Lane & Market Street. In Mr Bean's supporting data, these sites are given the designation R8 & R30 respectively.

Regarding Green Lane, where Siege have provided a figure of 21 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) in the year 2000, whilst the Highways Agency say it is 31.4 μg/m3 in 2005 - a rise (page 51). But their own study goes on to show a drop to 24 μg/m3 by 2015 without the bypass, owing to anticipated improvements in Car Engines etc. Add the Bypass, and it only achieves a further drop of 1.2 μg/m3 by 2015 to 22.8 μg/m3.

Regarding Market Street, Siege provide a figure of 46 μg/m3 in 2000 and 85 μg/m3 in 2007. But the Highways Agencies info is much lower - 23.1 μg/m3 in 2005, with a drop to 18.8 μg/m3 with or without the bypass by 2015 (page 51). In this case, the building of the bypass makes no difference by 2015 to literally 'doing nothing'.

Two quotes from the article are highly significant (emphasis added):

"There would be a small increase in NO2 concentrations along all road links due to an increase in road traffic with the operation of the Scheme" (i.e. the bypass - page 42, paragraph 5.7.2.9)

"The regional assessment indicates that the Scheme would result in an increase in all emissions compared to without the Scheme for both the Main and Air Quality Extended Study Areas" (page 47, paragraph 6.1.12)

So the Highways Agency's own expert says that the Bypass will entail an increase all forms of pollution in the area they have studied.

Returning to the Siege website, the key here is Siege's chosen year of 2007. This suggests they have access to data that not even the PI has before it. Either that, or it is a fabrication. Our contacts have emailed them to ask for more information., but have not had replies.

All of this leads us to two conclusions. Firstly, why are they publishing this data on their website and not at the PI? Is it because it will not stand up to scrutiny, or is there some other reason? Their submission to the PI does not mention pollution, or quote any data, although presumably it was as much of a problem then as it is now.

Secondly, if we accept that emissions from slow-moving vehicles causes pollution along the A628 and A57, then why not implement a HGV ban now? It's no use demanding a bypass that is at least 4-5 years away if you want to lessen pollution now - if it's bad enough now, advocate a trial HGV ban now.

Hostages to fortune

Day 15 of the Public Inquiry (PI) - amazing isn't it? it's been running for more than 6 months, yet it's only just managed to have a fortnight of 'sitting days'.

The Highways Agency have managed to go one better than at the last hearing on November 6th. For now, they have managed to get the PI postponed indefinitely.

Stephen Greenhalgh (for the Highways Agency) was unable to say when their evidence would be sufficiently in order to present to the PI, but promised to return 'after Easter' to give an update. The Inspector, John Watson, wanted him to be more specific:

JW - There is an awful lot of time, I hope, after Easter 2008. How long after Easter 2008 do you have in mind?

SG - I don't know at this stage, sir.

For once, the Peak District National Park looked like they had some bite. Their Barrister, Mr Cannock, set out a perfectly reasonable possible order of events:

• The Highways Agency withdraw the Line Orders
• They produce new traffic forecasts
• They introduce a consultation on a Peak Park-wide HGV ban and how route restraints measures will be secured
• If the bypass still remains the optimum solution, their new evidence can be produced

These are serious points. Anti-bypass campaigners have always asked that a HGV ban be trialled, then that part of the argument can be dealt with. The promoters have always said 'it won't work', but there's no harm in trying, and it could have been running in the interim, during all this wasted time. Most reasonable people would surely agree.

Mr Cannock stressed that, as things stand at present, there is no valid evidence in support of the road proposal from either the Highways Agency or TMBC that is actually in existence. This left any future scheme approved by the Secretary of State under a real risk of a future legal challenge.

John Watson seemed to echo the latter point when he said even if he agreed that the proposals should go forward, he would have to explain to the Secretary of State why he had confidence in the 5th version of the HA's proposals (as things stand currently - it could be 6th soon!).

Predictably, Charles Calvert announced that the HA had no intention of withdrawing. So the show goes on.

John Watson insists that he is bound by the procedures - his beloved 'rules' that he referred to last time. He increasingly comes across as someone who wishes he could be put out of his misery. In our view - and probably his - the PI is being held hostage by the Highways Agency: they know that the rules mean this charade can go on and on.

It's in these circumstances that John Watson has decided to adjourn indefinitely or an 'unspecified date' as he put it. And to cap it all, objectors will only have 3 weeks notice of any future hearing when the HA has got it's act together.

So that's all for 2007. Who knows when we will meet again...

(Today's transcript can be read here - opens PDF)

Roy Oldham: 'He wears a Crown and builds a new road'

The Dark Lord has spoken, and Longdendale cowers: our Nemesis, Roy Oldham, has placed himself centre stage at this crucial time with a letter this week to the Reporter Group Newspapers (Tameside Reporter & Glossop Chronicle).

To show how even handed we are, it's regurgitated verbatim below:

'Ban plan has so many flaws'

As we approach the long overdue Public Inquiry for a decision to be made on this piece on infrastructure, the antibodies are still pushing the threadworn and hypocritical suggestion of alternatives such as a HGV ban on the A628.

They are vastly aware that this suggestion is flawed in a number of ways.

First the cross-Pennine traffic consists of more private cars than HGVs.

Secondly, they will not put the argument against traffic that arises in the Peak Park and the tourist traffic that visits the towns and park areas.

A significant traffic flow moves in and out of the Peak Park, HGVs from the quarries and cement works, private vehicles taking Peak Park residents into the Greater Manchester area to work and play and vice versa.

Will the bypass objectors ask for a ban on these vehicles?

Will they ask for a prohibition of tourist vehicles - some 17 million per year? Will the local objectors who live off the village' main roads, who without hesitation add their own vehicles to the congestion, use public transport?

I suggest the answer to all the questions will be met with a mealy mouth, "let's find alternatives", instead of a honest "no" - it's do as I say not as I do.

They pay their lip service to how the problem of congestion is terrible but their care for the school and children or the residents of Market Street, Hollingworth, is second to all others.

The fact seems not to matter that vehicular pollution via engine exhausts, particularly from brakes, tyres and clutch pads, invades the school and resident's homes, be it from the objectors' own vehicles or others.

The support from those elected by the people is immense.

The whole 10 Councils of Greater Manchester (including Tameside), the Regional Councils of the North West and East Midlands, Derbyshire County Council and High Peak Council, and the four MPs.

Let the Inquiry make its decision and it it's positive, get on with the construction, so as to bring relief to those who live with the problem on a daily basis.

Oldham has to rally his troops -or rather 'minions', because they are by and large a truly pathetic bunch totally in thrall to him. This is his greatest battle, and at age 73, possibly his last. His central charge here, is that a HGV ban will not work, because most of the vehicles using the existing roads are not articulated lorries. There's a certain amount of truth in this - after all, anyone who uses the route knows that during the school holidays, the road is remarkably empty.

But it's also disingenuous to assert that HGVs don't make a huge difference. For a start, they're a bloody sight longer & slower than cars. Consequently, a few HGVs can make a difference to congestion and traffic flow. After all, everyone who uses the road knows that all it takes to bring the whole route to a standstill is for one lorry to break down at the top of Mottram Moor, as they frequently do.

But what of local public opinion? It's telling that Oldham falls back on the 'those elected by the people' myth. Most people in Longdendale didn't vote for him in 2006 (63.2% - only 36.8% turned out), and only 51% of those who bothered to vote selected him. Furthermore, in 2006 none of the parties fielding candidates, not even vile opportunist scum like the BNP, mentioned the bypass in their campaign or literature. So he can't say Longdendale backs him.

Indeed, the only people who have gone out and asked local people what they think and what they want are our friends at Save Swallows Wood. In a recent survey, they found that 82% of people questioned thought the problems were due to 'too many lorries', and a further 70% identifying a HGV ban as a solution, with 49% wanting it as a 'first choice'.

In addition the haulage industry itself is indifferent to the bypass. A report by the South Pennine Integrated Transport Strategy found that whilst hauliers didn't oppose the bypass (what tarmac heads don't!), they were uncertain that it was needed. Like most sensible people, they know that's what the M1 and M62 are for.

If you read between the lines of Oldham's letter, the truth emerges. Those who want the bypass are 'elected representatives' - Councillors, Local & Regional Authorities. Because they think they know what is good for us. Take a look at Ashton Moss and Rossington Park if you want to know what they have decided our future holds. This is what the man's greatest achievements are - cultural and spiritual deserts - warehouses and 'living dead' retail parks staffed by those reliant on the minimum wage.

Oldham's assertion that existing pollution is a reason for having the bypass is quickly and easily discounted by the fact that the Highways Agency own data shows that CO2 emissions in the valley will rise by 9% as a result of its construction.

And as for the idea that Objectors to the bypass are authoritarian, this is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Oldham's record (which may be the subject of a future post given that his wikipedia page has been locked by lickspittle admins), is proof enough of this individuals nasty, domineering, arrogant & authoritarian style. It's partly why he surrounds himself which such weak-minded cretins - they're the only people who can possibly make him look respectable and worth listening to.

Let's hope the old goat turns out on Tuesday - those present might be subjected to another of his boorish rants and see him for the clapped out one-trick pony he really is.

Purnell's bleating in the Chronicle again

Purnell 'prematurely' begins work on the bypass. Is he premature in other respects too we wonder?

But he can't quite manage a front page like last week's article on the Peak District National Park objecting to the bypass. Though I'm in danger of boring you all to death, here's his letter in full:

"Bypass is now the only answer"

I write in response to your front page story last week regarding the Peak District National Park Authority and the Mottram-Hollingworth-Tintwistle Bypass.

I must insist that the record is set straight on the issue of possible alternatives to the bypass. All alternatives - including an HGV ban and major public transport improvements - have already been carefully analysed and rejected as being inadequate.

The forecasts showed that an HGV ban would only reduce the traffic flow in Mottram by two per cent. It is no longer enough for those who oppose then bypass to offer empty rhetoric in place of a solution. My constituents need relief from the traffic coming past their homes, and the evidence is clear that only a bypass will solve this problem.

As you'd expect of a politician, Purnell is using the research selectively. A response by the Highways Agency (HA) (opens PDF) to a Freedom of Information request in April last year shows his 2% reduction in traffic figure applies to the Hyde Road A57. Mottram is said to be 'negligible' (no figure given), but Tintwistle (not in his constituency of course) showed an 18% drop.

What he's not telling you is that the model the HA used was for a HGV ban on the A628 from the summit of Woodhead between the A6204 and the A616 - i.e. not the entire route. Unsurprisingly, the model showed HGVs using other routes to avoid it. And at the end of the FoI response, the HA trumpet that they are conducting a study into an 'Area Wide' HGV restriction in the Peak District National Park of which "the conclusions are not yet known".

So where is this study, and will the HA have it ready in time for the Public Inquiry? Or will it be conveniently be buried? In the meantime, Purnell's 'smoking gun' is clearly only 'half-cocked'.