CHESHIRE FEDERATION OF GREEN PARTIES RESPONSE TO WARRINGTON DRAFT LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN INTRODUCTION Over the last decade that road use is a major problem has become widely accepted. What is perhaps not fully understood is the variety and nature of the problems. The problems go far beyond the more obvious ones of congestion and pollution, obvious because they have a direct causal link to road use and are short-term in manifesting themselves. There are many other problems that are either indirect or long term or both, and they incur what economists might call external costs, for instance:  Social effects. As more and more of the population assume car- using habits, and expect to be able to use cars when they wish, so those without a car (30% of families) are differentiated against. More than that, the more that irresponsible types of young people aspire to car use, the more danger there is for the elderly, etc.  Indirect health effects. The car use habit removes a lot of exercise from people. So high road use damages the nation's (and Warrington's) health.  Long-term effects of the example we set. What we do today sets aspirations for those in developing countries. If we, 20% of the world's population, have caused such pollution that we are affecting the very climate of the planet, what will happen when the other 80% of the world achieve even half of our level of road use?  Indirect effects on the natural world. The more traffic, the more trunk roads are built. These form very effective barriers to wildlife movements, and the ability of wildlife populations to replenish themselves. A study of the M56 in Cheshire showed that while Meadow Brown butterflies moved freely along its borders, only 7% managed to cross the carriageway. Recently it has been shown that traffic noise can disrupt bird breeding and territories. These are only some that could be mentioned. There is a plethora of indirect and long term effects that are only now starting to come to light. The Real Costs of Road Use But there is also a huge financial penalty of road use, that has been grossly underestimated, because many external costs have been left out of the equation. A recent study (Bowers, 1996 "The Real Costs of Motoring", published by the Environmental Transport Association, compiled from a number of official sources) showed the external costs of road use in the U.K. to be (in billions of £): Air pollution 19.7 Congestion 17.5 (The CBI: "up to 20bn") Accidents 9.4 Noise 2.6 Road damage 1.5 Climate change 0.1 (NOTE: Road building costs not included) Total 50.8 £ Bn. This means £1000 per year per person in the U.K. - which means road use costs Warrington's population £200 million per year in external costs. Saving just a fraction of this would outweigh the whole LTP budget. Therefore the LTP should have as its major aim and vision the reduction in road use. The figures represent external costs - that is, costs not borne by the road user, but which the rest of society must pay. Such costs therefore represent an indirect subsidy to road use. The costs of road construction are not included, the figure giveing the costs incurred by road users in using the road system as it is. Even these figures may be an underestimate because they do not include indirect costs: those incurred by the NHS of treating ailments due to insufficient exercise due to excessive car use is one important omission. This contrasts with the revenues obtained by the exchequer from motorists via fuel taxes and duty (Fuel tax: 12.5, Excise duty: 3.6; Total: 16.1 £Bn). Whilst motorists and truckers might feel they are paying too much, they are in fact being subsidized by an amount three times larger than that which they pay via taxes and duty. Such a subsidy, of over £30 Bn p.a., has come out of other budgets like housing and education and health. Warrington shares in this loss. Road Use Does Not Help The Economy It used to be thought that provision of good roads would help the local economy and locally sited businesses. It has now been demonstrated conclusively that this is not the case. There is no correlation between provision of good roads and economic health. (If there had been then Warrington should have been the most prosperous town in the U.K., with all the motorways that surround it!) Therefore roads and road use should be seen purely as a cost, and not an asset. The Need to Reduce Road Use It is imperative, therefore, even in strictly financial terms, that road use must be reduced. It is not sufficient to contain road use, nor even to stop its increase; it must be reduced, if we are not to suffer many other problems now and in the future. This is why Parliament passed the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, that empowers, encourages and requires Local Authorities to make targets and plans for road use reduction. It is also why recent Government Planning Policy Guidelines stipulate that developments should be sited near railways, that cycleways should be planned, etc. We note that the allocation for road maintenance (£870k) is only 25% of that requested. Therefore the gap between actual maintenance and road damage must be narrowed. An extremely cost-effective way of doing this is to take major steps to reduce road use, especially by freight, and to remove from the Plan measures that would make road damage worse by increasing road use. We return to this topic below. There are many ways of reducing road use, including shifts to other forms of transport, reducing number and length of journeys, and reducing the amount of road journeys done. The Need to Take Action in Warrington While the LTP must have objectives consistent with the Government's Integrated Transport Plan, awareness of these problems and the need to reduce road use can provide the particular flavour to the Local Plan. The Local Plan should take bold steps to actually reduce road use. However, deficiencies in the operation of the planning system mean that such aims are often thwarted, as far as traffic growth is concerned. Prof. Richard Southwood, chairman of the U.K. Round Table on Sustainable Development, spoke of the "time bomb" of traffic problems we are setting up for future citizens of the U.K. by unwise planning decisions. The Round Table's report makes many points, the major one being that, while Government policy and guidance may have changed with regard to road use, "mechanisms are not in place on the ground" to reverse the damaging direction which planning has taken over the last few decades. An important example of such an on-the-ground mechanism cited by the Report is that local authorities often compete with each other to attract inward investment. For instance, a large developer will play one authority off against another to obtain what they consider 'the best deal', which is often an out-of-town green-field site. Thus this on-the-ground mechanism effectively subverts the Government's intentions in planning. Therefore the Local Transport Plan must be the spearhead of the effort to reduce road use. The policies should unmistakeably aim for this as its prime objective. (We note with alarm that Objective 1 is related to the Economy; we address this below.) In what follows we make general suggestions as to how some reduction in road use can be achieved most cost- effectively. (It is also important that the Local Transport Plan must be integrated with the Local Plan for land use.) We are very pleased to make comments on the Warrington Local Transport Plan. We aim to make our comments relevant to Warrington as far as possible. However, since the problem of transport is general, we must address some of these. Being general, however, does not make them irrelevant to Warrington. In three ways general problems are relevant to Warrington: (a) Warrington has a share in the wider problem, and must take at least its share of responsibility. (b) There are particular opportunities and threats within Warrington. (c) Warrington can take imaginative action that leads the way among other Authorities. Therefore, our comments are in two parts. First, we discuss general principles and suggestons, under the headings set out in the Draft Plan. Then in Part 2 we respond to particular parts of the Draft Plan. PART 1 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH 1.1 ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS 1.1.1 Root of the Problem - Habits, Expectations, Attitudes During the 1990s Cheshire County Council kept bus services going and provided central information. But in Cheshire, commuting by bus has declined and commuting by car has increased since 1990. The morale of the story is clear: mere provision of environmentally friendly alternatives in transport is not enough. The root of the problem of high road use is our habits, expectations and attitudes. We have all got just so used to the car - and dependent on it- but we need not be. If our habits, expectations and attitudes do not change, then road use will continue to soar, and so will all the problems that attend it. Our habits, expectations and attitudes affect both private life and business. Car and truck are so convenient that many of us not only choose this option, but even forget that other options exist. We jump in our cars without thinking. In private life, for example:  Many is the person who uses the car to go half a mile - even quarter of a mile - to buy a newspaper.  Mothers drive their children to school, robbing both themselves and their children of interest and exercise. In business life, it can be even worse because of the tax concessions on company cars, and the road-using habits are 'justified' by excuses like the frantic need to grab as many sales as possible during recession. So we find:  Road courier services are plentiful and all vying with each other for our custom, and so easy to obtain that business people use them without thinking.  Sales people run around all over the country, and it is few who plan their visits so as to minimize road use.  Many people drive to meetings without a thought of the problems of road use. Meetings are arranged on the slightest pretext because it is expected that all can easily attend. People pack too many meetings into a day - simply because they can - and so feel they cannot afford the time they think public transport takes.  The amount that employees can claim back from their organisations for work use of their own cars, are too high (often over 35p per mile).  Large organisations (e.g. Sainsbury's) have centralised their depots and warehousing, by the motorway system, forcing them to assume road use. Because road use has been made too easy and cheap, people tend to plan their lives around it, and come to depend on it. But it need not be so. Both private individuals and business people can change their habits and expectations. There might be a period of more or less painful adjustment as we do so, as we move away from road use, but that adjustment can be done. adjustments have been made before. While there are other problems beside that of our habits, expectations and attitudes, it is the root problem, and it has not been sufficiently recognised. It represents a major problem, and also a major opportunity to do something about reducing road use, as we shall discuss below. It is not the final or sole solution, but tackling it would be immensely cost-effective - if it is tackled aright. Therefore, whilst provision of public transport, cleaner cars, integrted transport, better infrastructure and planning are important, the time has come to consider how people's habits, expectations and attitudes can be changed, and what Warrington Unitary Council can do about it. Otherwise, we will find that all our other measures become ineffective and discredited. 1.1.2 Road Use Reduction and Government Objectives It might be asked how road use reduction links with Government objectives when it is not explicitly mentioned therein.  Built and natural environment. Road use has been one of the greatest threats to the built and natural environment. Reducing it will reduce the damage caused.  Safety. Reducing road use will reduce the number of accidents. Not only to 'travellers' as in the statement of Government objectives, but also for innocent bystanders. Both types of accident are a drain on national health resources.  Economy. Reducing road use will reduce congestion costs to the economy. Reducing road use will reduce the £50 Bn tax burden that the nation has currently to shoulder and in which Warrington must share.  Accessibility. Rising car use has led to decrease in accessibility for those without a car. Partly because of danger, partly because of reductions in public transport, and partly because it the pollution and noise is simply unpleasant.  Integration of transport types and land use. At the transport picture is grossly unbalanced by high and unnecessary road use. Reducing road use will restore some balance, and allow true integration. Other forms of transport will then be on a more level playing field against the car and truck. 1.2 ANALYSIS OF OPPORTUNITIES There are many parts to a solution of road use problems, but the more important ones have yet to be tried. It is important, of course, to ensure availability of public transport and to plan cycleways - but that is merely the first and basic step. We must go further, and take other steps. 1.2.1 Action to Change Habits, Expectations and Attitudes What is needed is serious, committed and long-term action to make some changes in people's habits, expectations and attitudes. We cannot expect full or immediate changes, but we can at least aim to effect some changes. Once people change attitudes and expectations, they will change habits. Once people change habits, their expectations and attitudes will also be changed. It is a kind of virtuous cycle, each change preparing for and supporting another. To start this virtuous cycle, what is needed is to 'prime' the engine of change, to commit resources and effort to start the change. And then to commit resources and effort to monitor and guide the changes. This will require a budget. But such a budget should not be seen as a cost, a loss; rather, in view of the fact that every mile of road use is already a net loss to the Borough (see the figures above), the budget should be seen as an investment that will repay itself via lowered externalised costs of road use. Moreover, it can come as a portion from each part of the allocated funds. What (part of) this budget should cover in the first year is discussed below. Of course, there can be no question of dictatorial measures to change people's habits, expectations and attitudes. What is needed, however, is awareness, understanding, argument, education, gentle persuasion and example. One very important part of the process of changing people's habits, expectations and attitudes is that there should be a good, continuous campaign of awareness and marketing. There should be a well-planned effort to coordinate those who are instrumental in servicing the change which happens. In particular, as discussed below, we ask for an effort to coordinate the activities of cycle retailers. Though Warrington must act, it should work with others to achieve these ends. It should work with other local authorities (both nationwide, and also with neighbouring authorities). It should also, we suggest, work with Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000 and the Environmental Transport Association. Research is likely to be needed; such research can be carried out as part of the first year. 1.3 FOCUS Though we do not believe that 'ensuring best value' should be an objective (see Part 2), we do believe that it is an important parameter. To ensure best value from effort it must be focused carefully, because resources are limited. We suggest the following parts to an effective focus: 1.3.1 Focus on unnecessary road use Some road use is necessary, or at least likely to be so for some time. But some is totally unnecessary, and much is of low necessity, somewhere in between. For instance, an oft-quoted example is still valid: two lorries pass each other on the M6, one taking biscuits made in Glasgow down to London, the other taking biscuits made in London to Glasgow. The result: several hundred miles of unnecessary road use, because local biscuits could be sold and eaten locally. Another example (from actual experience): two salespeople, one of whom arranges all his visits in Scotland for one week, all his visits in the Bristol area for another week, while the other just places visits in his diary at random, and so finds himself driving long distances between Scotland and Bristol several times a week. Not only is this more stressful, but it is another example of unnecessary road use. A third example: a family is deciding where to go for a day out, to go on a local walk from home, to visit an attraction which can be reached by rail, to visit one 10 miles away by car, or to visit one 100 miles away by car. They choose the latter - and immediately commit themselves to 200 miles of unnecessary road use; unnecessary because it is likely that they would enjoy the local options just as much. Whilst such examples can be argued over (e.g. it might be different types of biscuits), there is a clear picture: much road use is unnecessary, and a small change in habits and expectations could effect a considerable reduction. In many, many cases, it would require nothing more than a good discussion with the parties concerned to make them aware of the situation and our collective responsibility to reduce road use - and they themselves would take the necessary action. Therefore focusing on trying to reduce unnecessary and less necessary road use is likely to prove highly cost-effective and 'best value' in our attempt to reduce road use overall. It would certainly be more cost- effective than trying to reduce road use across the board. But data on unnecessary road use is not easily obtained. It seems this question has not been researched; the Research Department of Friends of the Earth was unable to produce an answer. Therefore, we suggest below that the Programme for the first year should include commissioning a study of unnecessary road use to inform lenger term strategy. 1.3.2 Focus on car users Focus on car users, rather than on those who already use public transport. Whilst in financial terms it might seem more effective to focus of those already using buses, to make them use bus more, that does not produce many worthwhile results. It is more important to target awareness and marketing at those who currently use car or truck without thinking, to get them to think. Furthermore, focus, if possible, on those car users who are more likely to be open to suggestions of thinking and changing habits. Perhaps there is a difference in this regard between different social classes. If so, then take that into account. What is needed is that opinion formers and opinion leaders should make the first moves in changing their habits. Then others will follow suit. 1.3.3 Focus on higher status modes Unfortunately, bus has low status amongst car users. So attempts to move people from car to bus are likely to be less effective than moving them to train or cycling. So, more effort should be directed to get people to move from car to either train or bicycle. (Or to simply not travel, since much road use is unnecessary.) 1.3.4 Focus on cycle organisations, retailers, etc. To get people to use cycling as a form of transport rather than car a number of things must be set in place. One is a good, safe and convenient system of cycleways, and another is provision of lockable cycle racks at many and convenient places - these are subject of Local Plans. But other measures are also important. If those who tenatively venture out of the cars towards cycling find they do not get proper and helpful information, or get poor service, or whatever, they are likely to retreat back to their cars. Opportunity lost. Therefore it is important to ensure that all cycle retailers and similar bodies are ready and prepared for the first venturers. We suggest that the Council should get the cycle retailers together, into a partnership to plan together such things as joint awareness campaigns. But first, it might be necessary just to gain the trust of the retailers and to work with them to assess the situation and the level of preparedness. 1.3.5 Focus on creating Warrington Cycle Town To foster cycling as a means of transport, we suggest focused effort on creation of a distinct and attractive concept: Warrington Cycle Town. Focus effort on creating a cycling culture over a period of perhaps a decade. This will bring Warrington in line with many European cities (e.g. in Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark), in which car use is much lower (even though car ownership is high) than in the U.K. and cycling is part of the culture. Warrington Cycle Town is a project. Appoint a skilful and committed champion of the project. Work with cycle retailers and organizations as above, but also involve the general public in ideas, events, surveys, fun, promotions, outings, prizes, logos, and much more. This will be more effective than a general promotion of cycling, since cycling is by nature a local activity and subject to local 'critical masses', as people encourage and help one another in changing to cycling. They also start to enjoy it together. Warrington is an excellent place to become a Cycle Town. It is generally flat. There is a good core of people of the social classes that would value cycling, people who are aware of health and environmental issues. And the Local Plan has already earmarked cycle routes (though more will be needed). Warrington is an excellent candidate. Establish Warrington Cycle Town, as an example to other towns round about. Work with Cheshire County Council on this, to whom we have cited Warrington as a good example. 1.4 PROGRAMME 1.4.1 Long term - Plan to reduce Unnecessary Road Use Because targeting unnecessary (or less necessary) types of road use is likely to prove highly cost-effective, we suggest that plans are laid to tackle it in the longer term. However, since data is not readily available, we suggest that in Year 1 a study is commissioned to make a study of types and amount and degree of necessity in road use. 1.4.2 Year 1 - Study of Unnecessary Road Use Recognising the possibility of unnecessary road use leads to asking a number of questions:  Amount: How much unnecessary road use is there? To answer this question, we probably have to differentiate different types of unnecessary road use, and different degrees of necessity. So other questions arise ...  Types: What types of unnecessary road use are there? (By mode of transport, distance travelled, type of business or private use, journey purpose, etc.)  Degree: What degrees of necessity are there? Some road use will become less necessary once infrastructure for alternatives improve.  Conditions: What conditions or situations make road use necessary or not necessary?  Opportunities: What opportunities are there among local business people to reduce unnecessary road use? Talk to them and find out what they would suggest. What opportunities among local residents? Talk with them too.  Strategy: Should we hope to reduce all unnecessary road use in one fell swoop, or should we plan for phases? (Obviously the latter.) Which types of unnecessary road use should we target first? Second? Later? This will depend on degrees of necessity; If such information can be obtained, then it should be possible to construct a strategy for targetting certain types of unnecessary road use as a first phase, and others in a second phase. Such questions have not been researched, it seems. So we suggest that Warrington Unitary Council should, in the first year of this Road Use Reduction effort, commission a study to seek answers to these and other questions, to provide information to guide the selection of actions to be taken during the subsequent stages. (It might be that information of this kind is available, so the first part of the study should seek such information directly.) 1.4.3 Long term - Warrington Cycle Town Project As mentioned above, Warrington is an excellent candidate as a community in which to establish a cycling culture as an alternative to the car. We ask that serious consideration be given to a long-term project to effect this. It may be that European money can be obtained to help finance the project. However, plans should be laid in the first year. To be the host of such a project will give Warrington an excellent reputation internationally as a go-ahead town. The significance of the project might not lie in the level of cycling carried out, but rather in the process of establishing a culture - that is, changing habits, expectations and attitudes of people in a democratic manner. 1.4.4 Year 1 - Prepare for Warrington Cycle Town Project To prepare for the Warrington Cycle Town project a number of things will be needed that are standard to project preparations:  Initial feasibility study: in what form is the project feasible?  Seek (partial) funding  Prepare objectives, methods, etc.  Prepare profile of required project champion, and advertise  etc. However, there are also preparations that are specific to this project that will be required. One is to gain the cooperation and trust of cycling organizations and cycle retail and servicing outfits, and to ensure they are prepared to support the project and to support increased demand for cycling. This should involve:  Bringing all relevant bodies and people together to explain the project, and seek their support  Surveying what part these bodies and people can play in the project, and their state of readiness to play those parts  Surveying what they need in order to come to full readiness.  Gaining their views on the structure, nature, phases of the main project, such as what they believe is needed if a cycling culture is to be established.  etc. 1.4.5 Long term and Year 1 - Changing Habits, Expectations, Attitudes To change habits, expecations and attitudes will require not just the provision of facilities, but a concerted effort that will include information and awareness campaigns, discussions with many interested bodies. People - public and business people alike - should be actively stimulated to rethink their habits and expectations, if not their attitudes. This will require a budget, for campaigns, publicity, hosting of conferences, inviting of good consultants, and many meetings. The plans for all this, and a start should be made, in Year 1. It would be useful to commission research on which habits and expectations can be most easily changed, and how. PART 2 - SPECIFIC RESPONSES In Part 2 we make specific responses to a number of points in the Local Transport Plan. 2.1 THE VISION 1. In view of the problems of high road use, and the urgent need to reduce it, the Vision and its Objectives should make that a priority in the Transport Plan. If access for all can be included in the Vision, then so should reduction in road use. Reduction in road use should be the Number 1 Objective, and it should explicitly mention a focus on reducing less necessary road use. (As we have explained in Part 1, we do not advocate dictatorial measures; rather, we mean a well-planned effort to reduce the less necessary road use and to alter people's expectations and habits.) A suitable wording for the vision might be: "To enhance the built and natural environment, the economy, community, safety and qualify of life in the Borough by reducing road use in the Borough, and especially the less necessary forms thereof." Objective 1 should be to reduce road use. That is the major comment on this section; the remaining comments, though still important, are less so. 2. Whilst the vision is "to enhance the environment, economy, community, safety and quality of life", in which 'environment' comes first, Objective 1 is "Improve the ECONOMY" and "Enhance and protect the ENVIRONMENT" is relegated to third place. We ask that the Objectives be rearranged. Especially as the environment is the subject of the Government's first objective. 3. Whilst Government's environment objective is "to protect and enhance the built AND NATURAL environment" [our emphasis], Objective 3 does not explicitly mention the natural environment. It should do so. Traffic plans, and especially road building and road noise and road use, cause considerable damage to the natural environment. It is the natural environment that is the guarantee of our future health (physical and mental and social) and ability to live. Moreover the natural environment is the one thing that makes free good quality leisure accessible to all classes of people - until it is destroyed or made inaccessible by poor planning decisions and high road use. 4. Objective 5, integration, is weak. The reference to walking, cycling, bus and rail reads as an afterthought, rather than a central issue in integration. 5. Objective 7, 'Ensure best value', should not be an objective. 'Best value' is a parameter which should affect all other objectives, not an objective in its own right. The problem with allowing it as an objective is that many schemes and efforts that would otherwise accomplish other objectives might be ruled out of court by accountants elevating the importance of this one. For instance, 'best value' as an objective could lead to wrongly targetted awareness campaigns for public transport. They should be targeted at those who currently use their cars because part of the campaign's aim is to change ways of thinking (see above, 1.3.2). But this will not result immediately in a financial return in public transport; the uptake is exponential in manner, which means a slow start but faster growth several years down the line. More immediate (short term) financial return might be obtained by targetting awareness campaigns at those who already use public transport and seen short-sightedly as 'best value'. 2.2 LTP PROGRAMME 2000-2001 1. Funds should be obtained from those available for the studies and preparatory work identified at the end of Part 1, namely:  Study of unnecessary road use  Preparation for Warrington Cycle Town project  Research, preparation and initial effort to change people's awareness, habits, expecations, attitudes. 2. We note that the allocation for structural maintenance of roads is only 25% of the original bid. Even if the original bid was inflated, the actual maintenance needs are likely to be in excess of £870k - there will be a gap that must be filled - or reduced. We ask that serious consideration be given to reducing that gap, rather than trying to fill all of it from other sources. Since heavy freight vehicles do 10,000 times the damage of one car, reducing the number and weight of freight vehicles would make a major contribution to reducing the gap. It is disappointing - even stupid - therefore to find proposals for spending money on strengthen bridges to 40 tonne from their current 30 or 35 tonnes. The effect of this will be merely to attract heavier and greater numbers of heavy freight onto the roads around those bridges, and increase the funding gap in the future. We will return to this below; the bridge policy is inconsistent with everything else the LTP is trying to achieve. 2.3 MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE CYCLING 1. We are generally pleased with the measures to encourage cycling, as far as they go. 2. But the main omission, and it is an important one, is funds devoted to promotion of cycling, and to liaison with cycle organizations, retailers, repairers, etc. Whilst concrete infrastructure is necessary, it will not make people cycle just like that. The social and human infrastructure must also be built up, in the shape of preparing cycle retailers and other organizations for increased cycling. Many smaller shops - and some larger ones - do not have an ethos of serving the non-specialist customer. If the cycle retailers are not geared up to supply the types of cycling that people will want, many people will give up, or not take to it at all. Cycle retailers should be brought together so that they do not engage in the more destructive types of competition, but rather in collaboration (with a little competition) so that, together, cycling can be promoted, to the good of all. Further, funds must be devoted to active promotion of cycling. 3. If the concept and slogan of Warrington Cycle Town is considered useful, then it should be incorporated into this section as a project with vision. 4. There should be liaison with schools so that schools will encourage cycling to school. Funds should be devoted to a person (or part of a person) whose role will be to oversee and activate this. Further, it is likely that teething troubles will be found when more people cycle to school, so it should be that person's responsibility to get those affected together to resolve problems together. 5. A small matter: it is currently very difficult (dangerous) to cycle between Warrington Bank Quay and Central stations. Since increasing numbers of people are integrating cycling and train travel, establishing a good cycle way between the two stations should be a priority. (We notice that there are plans for a walking route, which we support.) 6. Some of the funds devoted to bridge strenthening should be diverted to attaching cycle paths to the outside of bridges to separate cycles from powered road traffic. 2.4 FACILITIES TO ENCOURAGE WALKING 1. We are generally happy with the proposals. 2. It is particularly good that the intimidation imposed by the inner circulatory road has been recognised. 3. One problem with footpaths is litter and broken glass. The Council should set up (or encourage the setting up of) local task groups to keep walkways in good order. Involve the local community. 2.5 ACCIDENT PREVENTION 1. Figure 4.1 shows that you have two years to reduce accidents from 1000 to less than 600 (the 2000 target). How on earth are you going to achieve it, if you do not actively seek to reduce road use? Or is the target a meaningless piece of political deceit? We trust that it is not the latter, and accept that the target might not actually be met in time. However we urge that urgent and costly effective action be taken to reduce the accidents. We can only emphasise even more strongly the importance of active steps to reduce road use. Even temporary measures that make it inconvenient for people to use cars would help. An immediate start should be made on awareness to promote cycling; treat it as a pilot project for the main effort to encourage cycling, especially on safer routes. 2. The strengthening of bridges that will encourage more heavy vehicles to use Warrington's roads should be stopped, in the interests of meeting accident targets if for no other reason. See below. 3. Every effort should be made to ensure that roads currently safe for cyclists and walking are kept safe. They should not be 'upgraded' to take more traffic - which really means 'downgrading' them as far as safety is concerned. 4. Thought should be given to whether any of the road maintenance schemes can be delayed; are there any roads along which people are disinclined to drive because of poor surface, and if so, could these roads be treated as 'safer' roads for cyclists, pedestrians etc. rather than repairing them for car use? 2.6 ROAD MAINTENANCE 1. See above re. accidents. 2. We note that street lighting energy is the highest cost in the provisional revenue expenditure table. The level of street lighting, and maintaining it at that level through the night, is wasteful and counterproductive. High street lighting causes many problems, many of them being indirect in nature. High levels of light cause many to lose sleep, and thus experience stress at work and reduced effectiveness at work. High levels of light upset the patterns of local wildlife, threatening their life functions. Astronomers complain of the waste light reflected off the sky; their complaint is of wider interest since people should be allowed to see the stars at night; it is a basic human right for poor and rich alike. And, when combined with street lighting all over the country, this amounts to a considerable energy wastage that contributes in a major way to global warming. Do not think that high levels of street lighting reduces crime; statistics show an increase, not a decrease. Therefore street lighting should be at least halved. Half the street lights should be switched off after e.g. midnight (or some other agreed suitable time). This would reduce the energy expenditure by 25%, £170,000. If this is not technically feasible, then some of the budget should be switched to making it feasible. 2.7 BRIDGES 1. We note that this section contains far more detail than the other sections. It is thus unbalanced in the draft plan. Much of the detail should be relegated to an Appendix, if not removed altogether. 2. We have argued above that bridges should not be strengthened to accommodate the heaviest HGVs, because doing so will result in yet greater road damage around those bridges and greater accidents. 3. We object to the wording and tone of the overall objectives, and elsewhere in this section and ask that the wording be changed:  "Ensure that bridges on routes intended to carry ... particularly HGVs, are of appropriate strength." This smacks of the discredited predict-and-provide approach to planning. If bridges are not strong enough for the heaviest HGVs then those HGVs should be banned, rather than bridges strengthened to accommodate them. After all, they do 10,000 times the damage of the ordinary car.  "Preserve the economic value of bridges" This is like the tail wagging the dog! From a desire to "preserve the economic value of bridges" we are to spend money strengthening them, which will result in greater road damage around, and more accidents, and general deterioration of the environment. Why should "the economic value of bridges", which is a tiny fraction of the whole economic and environmental equation in Warrington, dictate so much of the Local Transport Plan. This objective should be completely removed.  "... and ensure their full and safe use" No! Given the importance of road traffic REDUCTION it should NOT be an objective to INCREASE traffic across bridges to "ensure their full .. use".  We do, of course, support bridge alterations that will "ensure their .. safe use", making their use safer for cyclists and walkers, such as attaching separate walk and cycle ways outside the main bridge structures.  ".. diversion routes from motorways." Diversions should be the exception, not the norm. Again, this is the tail wagging the dog - devoting huge financial and other resources to schemes designed to cater for the occasional diversion. Warrington's money should not be wasted on exceptional circumstances. The money should be diverted instead to safer routes to schools, and employing good quality people to champion road use reduction measures, etc.  It is said on page 50, "it may be necessary to impose weight restrictions etc. on substandard bridges, which will inevitably cause disruption to road users." From that wording, this is seen as an unquestioned disaster; however we suggest that it is a Very Good Thing if road use is reduced, and restrictions on road use will help to do just that. Imposition of weight restrictions should be seen as a positive LTP tool in the fight against road use, not a negative thing. 4. Instead of simply capitulating to the desires of the HGVs operators, special orders should be taken to ban them from most roads in Warrington and, as mentioned above, impose weight restrictions. Local people should be far more important to Warrington Unitary Authority than national road haulage firms. We call for a rewrite of the section on weight restrictions, to reflect their use as a positive tool. 5. If the larger supermarket chains complain, then they can use smaller vehicles. Note that allowing the large retail chains to use the largest vehicles gives them an unfair advantage over local shops. So banning them will serve only to protect Warrington's local shops. (If this matter is thought to be irrelevant to a Local Transport Plan, the reader is referred to Objective 5 on integration: "this objective is to ensure that the LTP is integrated with other central and local government policy ...".) 6. The only bridges that should be strenthened are those that carry railway lines - to allow greater rail traffic in the future. 7. We ask that serious consideration be given to reducing the number of strengthenings up to 40 tonnes. A strategic plan should be redesigned so that the number of strengthenings up to 40 tonnes in Tables 4.14-17 is reduced. It should be positive policy to impede and discourage 40 tonne trucks from driving on Warrington roads, not to encourage them. 8. (We are well aware of the lawless actions of a minority of HGV drivers, who ignore weight restrictions. This should not be seen as a reason to allow them, any more than the high level of thefts means we should make stealing easier.) 2.8 TRANSPORT STUDY 1. We have suggested three further studies that need to be made, and which should be added to the Transport Study:  Study of degrees, amounts, types of unnecessary road use  Study of the shape and feasibility of the Warrington Cycle Town project, and of how to involve cycle organizations and retailers.  Study of people's habits, expectations and attitudes, and how they might be changed. The first is the most important, as it will inform all other policy. We suggest that it be carried out in conjunction with studies already planned, rather than as a separate study - perhaps by modifying the existing studies. We have suggested outline objectives for such a study in 1.4.2. We would be willing to meet appropriate people to discuss how such a study may be carried out and what it should look for, and could involve the Civil Engineering and Surveying Departments at the University of Salford, and elsehwere. Compiled by Dr. Andrew Basden, Federation of Cheshire Green Parties, Andrew@basden.demon.co.uk May 1999.