Halton Greens position on proposed 2mx

Halton Green Party has always advocated that other alternatives to reduce congestion on the Silver Jubilee bridge ought to be looked at before spending over half a billion pounds of public money on a second crossing. The council have admitted that they have not allocated any serious resources to looking at alternatives.

Local Greens oppose the current application on the following
grounds:

Proponents of the project suggest that the proposed second crossing will bring economic benefits to residents in Halton. Research indicates that the economic advantages of road/bridge developments in relation to local areas is debatable (See Roads Jobs and the Economy Eco Logic Ltd 1994 Professor John Whitelegg). Also the Standing and Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on considering the economic advantages of a range of bridges and roads concluded that “The state of the art of this important field is poorly developed and the results do not offer convincing general evidence of the size, nature or direction of local economic impacts”. (para 11 p7 in ‘Transport and the Economy Standing Committee, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment’ DETR 1999).


Halton has some of the worst health and mortality rates in the country. Reports have identified a heavy pollution load and a heritage of contaminated land, air and water from many chemical industries which have grown up over the last 150 years. This project will disturb contaminated sediments in the river and this could risk aggravating the health problems of residents in Halton.

Proponents of the new bridge argue that air borne pollution in Halton will be reduced because of less peak time congestion. However the short term gains of a reduction in traffic at peak times will be outweighed by the estimated 40% increase in traffic in the area. This will have an impact on the state of health in Halton which currently has one of the highest rates of lung disease in the country

The argument that a second Mersey crossing will reduce congestion is questionable. There is evidence to support the fact that the building of more roads does not affect congestion. A good example of this is the M6 motorway where congestion is increasing when experts considered that the new toll road extension would reduce the problem. Experience shows that if you build more roads (bridges) traffic increases in the area in which you build them and congestion,relatively,does not decrease in the longer term. Research in the United States shows that for every 10% increase in ‘lane’ mile capacity there is a potential for a corresponding 9% increase in traffic. (see www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/induced.pdf). Also the idea that congestion will disappear if the proposed second crossing goes ahead is a myth. Any major incident on any of the Mersey crossings would affect traffic flow in the area.

A second crossing will generate more traffic which in turn will increase the volume of Co2 emissions and aggravate climate change problems. This is at a time when public policy is being directed towards reducing carbon emissions. If the government is seriously committed to meeting the targets set by the Kyoto agreement schemes like the second Mersey crossing need to be scrutinised in the light of this.

Conversely if future impacts of climate change require a reduction in road and air traffic, a scheme of this size and nature would effectively be reduced to the status of a very costly white elephant

Measures taken to reduce traffic over the Silver Jubilee Bridge have been few and half hearted and little imagination has been employed in considering options. Halton Borough Council has not looked at reducing traffic over the bridge except by means of public transport and has admitted the council could have done more in this respect. The council could have considered tolling the Silver Jubilee Bridge at peak times, remove signage on the M6 motorway which directs regional traffic over Silver Jubilee Bridge, implement school and business transport plans, improve public transport including light rail on Britannia Bridge, beef up car share schemes, encourage firms to provide ‘work at home days’ for employees using bridge etc

Costs of project - the estimated costs of the project has gone up recently from £390m to £561m. There are lessons to be learnt from Public Finance Initiatives in terms of escalating costs, responsibilities for maintenance expenditure and compensation/mitigation costs. If any aspect of funding present or future fails the resulting strain on local taxpayers and national Government will be incalculable.

The project will detrimentally affect residents living particularly in the Astmoor area of Runcorn where the elevated approach roads in places are to be sited within 100 yards of housing. The crossing itself will bring no immediate benefit to the local residents and the resulting extra pollution load (air quality, light, noise etc) will add to the social, health and environmental deprivation of the local area.

If you oppose the Mersey Gateway Planning application write to:


Environmental and Regulatory Services, Halton Borough Council, Rutland House Halton Lea Runcorn WA7 2GW