Tameside MBC - Death Race 2008

A front page article in this week's Tameside Advertiser speaks volumes about the priorities of Tameside MBC and their contemptuous attitudes to public safety in and around their borough. The article reveals that TMBC consider Roadside Memorials to those killed by motor cars are 'distractions' and - even more bizarrely - 'dangerous'. Their plan is to remove them after a month of display. 

The whole matter is a stark illustration of how such deaths are depoliticised, and precisely because they are a 'necessary' part of the social existence entailed by the capitalism. The depoliticisation comes about in the description of these deaths as 'accidents' - i.e. inevitable and incidental, when in fact they are anything but. 

Earlier this year, the World Health Organisation forecast that deaths from car use could reach 20 million worldwide between 2000 and 2015, with 200 million facing serious injuries. If one is to include the bereaved and those left to care, the figure rises to 1 billion people affected by the motor car worldwide over a 15 year period. 

At these rates, the car industry kills more people than diabetes and malaria - 1.2 million people per year. It ranks seventh amongst the world's biggest killers. And yet huge amounts of human energy and money are poured into the industry and subsidiary concerns such as road building, which exacerbate the problem -  the veritable cause of death, and on such a colossal scale. 

All of which is why Tameside MBC make a conscious decision to remove any obstacles that stand to remind us of these facts (to the extent that the public is not already completely marginalised from learning about such shocking statistics). The Advertiser article quotes Councillor Peter Robinson (a former funeral director FFS! - no doubt his nickname is 'the grim reaper') stating that the place for tributes to the dead is in the cemetery, not on the road. The subtext is that the machine rolls on, and the dead and the reminders of them, must be cleared away, lest they hinder 'progress' and 'business as usual'. 

Business as usual (or the folly of petitions)

The Government has published a response to the (now closed) e-petition against the Longdendale Bypass today. We'd rather comment on it before we publish it here, then you can choose to read it if you can be bothered.

Let's face it, you know how it reads, you've heard it many times before. But what is a real slap in the face is the last two paragraphs that appear to stamp out any hope that the government will listen to reason about Woodhead. Clearly, the time for polite campaigning and asking the government to do things is drawing to a close. Only today, NASA (of all people!) have pointed out that the EU's Carbon Emission Reduction targets are set far too low. In a phrase that should send a chill down everyone's spine, Dr James Hansen from NASA said further cuts were needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed".

Clearly, the future does not lie with those who will not change radically, nor their institutions. This veritable 'Gas Chamber of Commerce' that seeks to place the economic considerations of a few rich bastards above every other poor victim on this planet cannot state it's 'business as usual' - Rome is Burning.

Read it and weep...

The Government remains committed to a safe and reliable trunk road network as part of the overall provision of transport for the country, and will provide improvements to the network where they are shown to be required. However, this is subject to the need to show that alternatives to road building have been investigated and where appropriate can be implemented.

Any improvements to the road network need to provide the highest levels of environmental mitigation, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Peak District Park.

The Highways Agency (Agency) was asked to identify a Scheme that considers all these issues. A history of the scheme can been seen on the website http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/16360.aspx

The Agency does not believe that it is necessary to withdraw the A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass scheme as it remains firmly of the opinion that a bypass is the optimum solution to the problems of congestion within the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle.

However, the Agency is currently considering the alternatives proposed by other parties and will be responding to these matters during the Public Inquiry.

In Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle there are 446 properties immediately adjacent to the Trunk Road. These properties are mostly residential but also include commercial, community use and recreational facilities. These residents currently have unacceptable levels of traffic noise, visual intrusion and severance, poor environment, air quality, safety and accessibility problems.

The proposed scheme would remove a significant proportion of traffic including HGVs from the trunk road within these villages and the journey times for travellers on the trunk road would be improved. The Route Restraint Measures on the A628 would reduce the attraction of the route to long distance traffic, and the Safety Measures would offset the effects of additional traffic on the trunk road network.

Mitigation measures would include new speed limits, additional traffic signals at Flouch junction, Langsett and Midhopestones, signs, rumblestrips and safety cameras.

There are no plans to re-open the Manchester to Sheffield route via the Woodhead Tunnels (known locally as the Woodland Pass). The Government's strategy for the development of the railway is contained in the White Paper 'Delivering a Sustainable Railway'.

Although the White Paper seeks significant increases in capacity on Trans-Pennine routes, this can be achieved by running longer trains and by Network Rail proposing capacity enhancements on existing routes, should this be required.

Missing the Point

I have read the refusal - supposedly by the PM - to the petition to stop the plans for the Bypass, and unless other issues are still ignored completely, the Bypass will happen and no Woodhead rail scheme will be implemented.

The evidence substantiated by facts has been completely ignored up to now by most parties as to how the Bypass will impact once increased traffic is funnelled down the M67 towards Manchester.

The campaigns so far have not related to this problem, which surprises me because it's too obvious for words what will happen, not just based on rhetoric, but the recognised facts concerning the M67/M60/A57 major interchange. Could I remind all campaigners that Ministers and Supporters have completely focused on their continued themes of improvements for Tintwistle/Hollingworth and Mottram.

But how strange that there's no mention whatsover on the following substantiated and already known facts.

Denton & Audenshaw, adjacent to the M67/M60/A57 major routes, have 47,000 residents in a compact urban location, with no open environments for leisure or recreation, whereas
8,000 residents are spread throughout the Longdendale Valley which has vast areas of open land, vistas and recreation facilities, ALL of which need protecting.

In the main, the Hollingworth/Mottram region experiences 2 lanes of slow moving vehicles, but why ignore the 23 lanes of already heavily congested traffic encountered at the M67/M60 interchange?

If you check the HA/TMBC Map Evidence you will note the extended areas that comprise their evidence. But also note the deplorable & devious manner in which it draws a line straight through the M60 Motorway at the M67/M60 interchange - deliberately and disgustingly axing 11,000 people out of the picture in Denton West who live directly adjacent to the Interchange and Motorway. Compare this with references to Flouch etc, which are considerably further away in an extended area than Denton is to Mottram (5 miles).

Note how the DfT/HA/TMBC have deviously written off 11,000 people who live within metres of a daily minimum 220,000 vehicles, most stopping and starting at the interchange.

I am not deriding any part of the objectors concerns whatsoever because I support 100% all their claims, however I'm not sure whether everyone is aware of the substantiated facts - not by me, but by the HA/TMBC, that the largest Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) which presently exists is in the M67/M60/A57 region where it's confirmed that Government Pollution targets will "Never Be Achieved".

If you check the AQMA maps provided by TMBC during the past 8 years, you will note how TMBC have used duplicity and devious methods to create false AQMA locations in the Mottram/Hollingworth location by falsifying comparisons between various localities and this is FACT beyond contradiction, as my evidence to the Public Inquiry will (eventually) show.

How Ministers can plead the case for Tintwistle/Hollingworth/Mottram residents experiencing 2 lane slow moving traffic as "their reason for the Bypass" and completely and totally ignore the impact on the location and residents in Denton/Audenshaw is an absolute scandal. Why should we have to daily ingest daily pollution from 220,000 vehicles with a further 35,000-40,0000 added on with the Bypass? Can anyone tell me that it is fair and provide any form of case? I think not, so why have all the aspects of the Bypass completely ignored such a deadly serious issue?

The Highways Agency's reports over the past 6 years repeatedly state the insurmountable difficulties which exist at the M67/M60/A57 interchange, and my evidence contains the reference numbers of their detailed references, so why add to the existing tremendous congestion without a mention in their evidence?

I have asked 6 Councillors in this region (2 in Longdendale) and 3 MPs, plus 2 Longdendale Siege members, to accept my invitation to meet with me on the pedestrian road bridge at the M67/M60/A57 to observe the reality. But unfortunately, sheer cowardice resulted in no acceptances and no replies which tells me the type of cretins I have been communicating with.
I doubt if even one person in the Longendale Region has a clue as to how pedestrians in Denton West - 11,000 of them - have been "cut off" from a reasonable access to their local Denton town shops because the alternative is as follows:

Cross the A57 near the access to the Denton Golf Club and walk towards the M67/M60/A57 interchange, then halt at pedestrian signals before crossing onto the M67/M60/A57 major traffic island, surrounded 23 lanes of dense traffic circling around you. Imagine the elderly, infirm, children, mothers with babies having to walk onto this Major Interchange Island, then walk around the Island perimeter until you reach a further designated pedestrian traffic signal crossing, and then once again stopping the numerous vehicles circling the traffic island and exit to yet another route still at the interchange to again cross the M60 to then access the A57 route to Denton. I can state with confidence that this pedestrian route is amongst the most dangerous in the UK, so what alternatives are available? Well, a road bridge which entails a steep climb to traverse the M60 Motorway, then descend to a croft area and finally access the A57 approaching Sainsburys. Now I challenge mothers with prams, the elderly or the disabled to get across this enclosed road bridge known to the locals as "muggers alley" because of the climb to cross the road bridge.

There is just one remaining route - by walking through Denton West to its other side near Windmill Lane: walking along a 2 foot pavement on one side only (no pavement on the other side) and being within 2 feet of 2 lanes of fast (and I mean fast) moving vehicles travelling under the rail bridge tunnel on Windmill Lane.

Now if anyone wishes to make the short journey to what I have totally accurately described as our only pedestrian routes to "our shops", then I challenge anyone to see what the real road dangers are compared with Longdendale. It really is a pity that no-one (to my knowledge) has considered that the region I have described is worthy of a visit - some 15 minutes from Mottram - and recognise that the problems described are a valuable asset to halting the Bypass proposals, but it seems that we deserve no recognition as a completely justified objector because the problems have been ignored by some of those opposing the Bypass, whereas it could have been a tremendously useful tool in the armoury of the objectors.

At the Public Inquiry, my evidence will prove conclusively all my past statements, and it's because of the deliberate sacrifice of many thousands in this area by local and national Politicians that my intense contempt for these cowardly bastards exists. Hence my intention to prove conclusively what absolute shysters these beings are.

You may not have an interest in the major problems of others, but to fight effectively all battle fronts should be respected and utilised.

(posted on behalf of John Hall)

Climate Change and the Decisions that Matter

The Acid Test - Government Policy Decisions on Climate Change

Before proceeding with this article it is best to state at the outset that the issues are qualified to some extent by prevailing uncertainty regarding Climate Change being man made/anthropocentric. Dripping glaciers and collapsing ice floes make the national and indeed global headlines with alarming - perhaps to some tedious - regularity. Two very recent examples were headline news recently, where the increased rate of melting glaciers was “bettered” by a gloomy prognosis on the decrease of even stable ice continents, that are not supposed to be so susceptible to fluctuations in temperature.

Seemingly, there is also little doubt that the consequences of climate change could be considerable in political, economic and ultimately human terms, hence the urgent need felt by many to “do something” to avert this crisis – i.e. promote the Nuclear Industry. Hence also the globe trotting Al Gore - hopefully not contributing too significantly to aviation emissions - and the Stern report, which being economic in its consequences tends to be treated seriously.

Climate Change a Natural Cycle or Man Made?

However one impediment to “doing anything” is the argument that the crisis is not of our making, and the author feels this viewpoint needs to be acknowledged. It is a minority viewpoint, apparently the scientific majority of around 80% see a significant correlation between human activity and the crisis, but it is a view that is held in some parts. Indeed nature columnists in certain local newspapers, who rub shoulders with such luminaries as David Attenborough and might be considered as having some influence, have quite recently expressed the view that climate change is simply part of a natural cycle. A natural cycle unfortunate perhaps in its consequences, but for which the blame should not be laid at our door, and seemingly one we can do nothing about.

Until such time as columnists adduce some evidence to support such views however, this article will follow the scientific consensus, in assuming that the scientific majority are right, though we append a useful link on the topic below. Overall also we will make the assumption that not all such scientists blaming mankind are likely to have been hired by vested interests to play a particular tune. It is possible of course, but the opposite influence of traditional vested interests, such as the aviation and automobile industries seems more likely, and the wish to continue enjoying such transport will drive such views.

Key Government Policy Decisions on Climate Change

Moving on to the central topic we wish to briefly examine the substance of government actions with regard to climate change and local and influential decision making.

The concerning fact is that whilst we have a large national budget being targeted towards the area, and we seek to promote the UK global trailblazers in the diminishing emissions, the actual behaviour on the ground is different. Two recent decisions by the government, both made by theSecretary of State for Communities & Local Government, Hazel Blears, alert us to this worrying discrepancy.

The Thames Gateway Bridge Public Inquiry took Global Warming very seriously. On this occasion the Inspector even recommended that the Gateway proposal should, on this very count of adverse climactic impact, be refused. However, despite the Thames areas being particularly susceptible to heavy flood damage, the Secretary of State thought otherwise, and ordered a review of the decision.

At Lancaster, the Heysham M6 Link Road Bypass scored very badly on Global Warming, and again the Inspector Mr Tipping (Cantab) had little choice but to record this fact. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from the scheme, including an increase in CO2 emissions, would be a significant adverse impact of the road scheme IR8.3.37” (Para 31 of Inspectors Report). However, significantly she claimed that there were no alternatives, something that opponents of the scheme hotly dispute as they assiduously compiled a package of alternatives. The Inspector did not allow the CO2 consideration to get in the way of rubber stamping another “business as usual” road scheme. Would it have mattered if he had? Perhaps not greatly, we might at best have expected another review of the decision, but in fact the relevant Secretary of State was only too pleased to endorse his decision.

What does this tell us?

Whilstl it is tempting to allow the reader to draw their own conclusion, without spelling it out, what seems clear is that the UK policy on global warming and climate change is one thing, but practice is another. Where policy can be hidden behind small print budget mechanisms it allows for giving the “impression of doing something”. In fact it may only be serving to add to government coffers, a fact which is often seized on by the cynical road lobby. The real decisions, that is to say those which are not simply obscure pricing mechanisms, but exist in the tangible world of results and action, tell another story.

When it comes to stark decisions, that will have to be taken if the challenge is going to be even remotely met , the record so far begins to look a little indefensible. The story so far seems to be “business as usual” and no change.

As long as climactic human calamity is far off, as with Bangladesh awash in melting the Himalayan glaciers, this will probably remain the likely course of events, perhaps until it is too late. Despite the many warnings, sadly it may require things to come home to roost even more clearly than the recent floods in the Midlands, to usher in the cold, if necessary, wind of change.