Public Inquiry in Relation to Aberdeen City Council Access from the North Proposal (3rd Don Crossing) Compulsory Purchase Order 2010
Precognition
Frank Paterson
14 Don Terrace
My name is Frank Paterson and I live in Tillydrone. My property is not subject to purchase order but I must campaign against the proposal requiring the issue of orders because of the consequences the orders will have on the lives of my friends and neighbours, and the effect the proposed development will have on my local community and upon the City of Aberdeen.
Many people living to the north of the City and Aberdeenshire have long looked on an additional crossing to the river as being a major improvement in access to the City. This they believe will benefit not only themselves but the whole area because of improved travel times and associated economic growth
Aberdeen City Council have accepted this point of view and are convinced that the benefits of the development provided to all far outweigh the consequences of noise, pollution, loss of green space and health problems associated with increased traffic upon the communities the new road is to pass through.
This decision, according to Aberdeen City Council, is the end result of numerous strategic plans, traffic surveys and consultations which have followed national planning policies and guidelines. The documentation for these studies supporting the need for the proposal is now presented as evidence to this inquiry which I am currently reading through.
As a Geography graduate my understanding of current planning developments leads me to wonder how these studies result in a conclusion which appears to conflict with planning logic.
The academic consensus is that growth in car transport and road haulage mileage should be discouraged as it is not sustainable socially, environmentally and economically and that there should be a ‘modal shift’ to other sustainable forms. i.e. there should be a decoupling of road transport from economic growth.
I am not alone in interpreting that the root of the problem of congestion is the over dependence of the North East on car transport and this is evident by the fact that congestion in and around Aberdeen is not only confined to the Haudagain and Bridge Don ‘pinch points’. I consider that the development will perpetuate this condition by encouraging car usage resulting in more congestion and continuing the progressive marginalisation of sustainable transport alternatives.
Reading through the documentation so far is leading me to the conclusion that there is a bias in the interpretation of the studies leaning towards the conclusion for the need of a road traffic bridge. There appears to be over emphasis on the benefits, understatement of the consequences and the ignoring of alternatives.
In the course of my objection I intend to present my observations that the evidence supporting this proposal has too many contradictions, omissions and flawed logic to retain credibility.
Because of limited time and the volume of documentation to be examined this statement is a ‘work in progress’, however I am presenting several issues which I have encountered during my investigation to illustrate the nature of my investigation.
I wish also to present to the Inquiry evidence to demonstrate that the impact of the development on the health of residents in the communities affected will be more severe than what is implied within the Council’s assessment and that there are alternatives that have not been given due consideration.
Here is a presentation of what I have gathered to date. (Note that when citing documents I refer to their assigned number in the document list appended to my Statement of Case. The number is enclosed within square brackets i.e.[ ] )
Reading the Local Transport Strategy 2008 [5] it appears that the proposed development has been slotted into the report as an after thought, which tends to turn the ‘high level aims’ of the strategy on their head.
In the foreword Kate Dean states:-
It is anticipated that the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) will be completed during 2012 and this strategy must address the critical issue relating to the ‘locking in’ of the AWPR benefits. In other words, we need to ensure that the new road does not generate further demand for journeys by car and a weakening of demand for public transport.
The Executive Summary then goes on to say:
However, without further intervention, it is highly likely that these benefits would be quickly eroded due to ongoing traffic growth. What are needed are measures that preserve, or “lock-in” the congestion, pollution and journey time benefits of the new road. This can be achieved by using available road capacity to provide additional priority to sustainable modes of transport.
Logically, how can a 3rd Don Crossing contribute to ‘Locking In’ the AWPR benefits? It will in effect open a gateway for road traffic into the city centre encouraging even more car journeys.
It is difficult to understand how the 3rd Don Crossing supports the report’s ‘Visions and Aims’ as stated:
To develop “A sustainable transport system that is fit for the 21st Century, accessible to all, supports a vibrant economy and minimises the impact on our environment”.
It becomes apparent that the 3rd Don Crossing proposal is consistent with other evidence of Aberdeen City’s very low commitment to encouraging the sustainable and socially inclusive public transport alternative. This is well illustrated by the poor Council support and public use of the multi million pound Park and Ride scheme, as described in figure 2.3 of the Nestrans Park and Ride Operations Study Final Report May [14], which shows patronage to have declined since the 2002 implementation.
The City Council displays a ‘fig leaf’ commitment to national, regional and local policy objectives for ‘modal shift’ by packaging this major car centric development alongside piece meal minor works that include cycle road markings, pedestrian crossings and dropped kerbs that in no significant way encourage walking let alone cycling. See Access from the North Consultation 2009 Integrated Transport Solution [8].
Note that the CPO’s have already been issued before work has begun on the short to medium term measures which “are considered for implementation prior to the introduction of major infrastructure improvements such as” the “3rd River Don Crossing”
The only true effective way of encouraging walking and cycling is to reduce the volume and speed of road vehicles, see Utility Cycling (Wikipedia) [17], and endorsed locally by the Aberdeen Cycle Forum Response to Third Don Crossing Proposal October 2004 [30]
It should be considered that Aberdeen is the most stratified city in Scotland and, taken that it will encourage transport by car, the proposed development will accelerate this trend.
When evaluating the economic benefits of the project, due account should be taken of inclusiveness.
The Aberdeen City Council Local Transport Strategy for 2006 Economic Impact [2] paragraph 2.8 draws attention to “’the haves and the have nots’. The gaps between these two groups of society are widening.”
Paragraph 3.4 of the same document states:
Economic impact assessments of transport schemes, historically, tend to propose that construction of road projects will lead to, for example, creation of new jobs, development opportunities or reduced journey times. There is evidence to show that in fact, the reverse can be the case.
Section 5.2 of the report explains the reasoning behind this statement.
However the SACTRA report is clear that there are scenarios under which the economy, through cost reductions, (under a competent Cost Benefit Analysis) can identify demonstrable benefits from traffic reduction.
Table 4 of the document further raises the issue of inclusion.
Local economy may benefit if there is a net increase in the number of people parking within the City but there is a significant negative effect on the viability of public transport services, which will have negative economic impacts as people without access to a car (33% of households) travel less and have less disposable income.
The final clause of the Local Transport Strategy 2006 Health and Social Impact Assessment [3] states:
The final conclusion was therefore that in terms of Social and Health issues that a Managing Demand approach be taken forward in the Local Transport Strategy.
The third Don Crossing certainly is not such an approach. One asks the question to why the Council does not act fully on the conclusions of its reports.
There is a lot of pressure on Aberdeen City Council from the business community and a pro business interest media to appear to take action. (See [31] Group Calls for Roundabout Change (BBC News)) where the Institute of Directors claim the “Haudagain roundabout costs the local economy between £15m and £30m every year.”
The way these wide estimates are raised and their validity are rarely questioned and not balanced against the cost of motor transport dependency upon an economy. The cost to the local economy of car dependency and ill health can easily be demonstrated to counterbalance this argument.
In the report to Full Council 23rd February 2011 the major economic argument for the development is given with £55M quoted. This is based on an appraisal report, but the single dimension nature of the study is revealed by the clause:
“The appraisal is based on a Department for Transport methodology and considers traffic related benefits to private and business users, such as time spent in congestion and the fuel and vehicle cost savings.”
To base major planning decisions on limited and unbalanced evaluations will result in greater real costs in the longer term, hence the Scottish Government’s emphasis on sustainability in its guidelines.
The article Alternatives to the G.D.P. Catherine Rampell. The New York Times October 30 2008 [22] illustrates how cost evaluations should have a wider scope and be take account of the longer term to be meaningful.
This leads to the issue of the effect of traffic pollution on health. For example asthma is considered to cost the nation £2.2 billion per annum on treatment costs, lost productivity and social security costs. Taken in proportion, the cost to Aberdeen is £8 million and £17million to Grampian. It is likely to be actually greater for Aberdeen if you take into consideration that Aberdeen is within the 5th percentile (‘Worst’ area) for patients hospitalised with asthma. See Aberdeen City CHP at a glance (Scottish Public Health Observatory) [28].
There is current research, although not proving that traffic fumes cause asthma, that does “extend evidence linking traffic pollution to children’s asthma risk”
(See Road Traffic Tied to Poverty-Stricken Kids’ Asthma (Reuters UK edition) [24]
The Aberdeen City CHP Health Summary flags Aberdeen to be statistically significantly worse than the Scottish average for road traffic accident casualties.
Currently time prevents me including more evidence to support my case, such as the dropping of the least expensive and most sustainable ‘bus only crossing’ option without robust reasoning, but hopefully I will have sufficient time to present this during the Inquiry.
I therefore conclude that the Scottish government should enact its stated ‘purpose’ (See National Outcomes [28] and instruct Aberdeen City Council to withdraw these compulsory purchase orders on the basis that they are the result of an ill judged planning decision arising from failure to follow the true spirit of the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidelines by displaying a bias towards a favoured outcome.
This is a decision which will, I will argue, have a detrimental impact on the welfare of local communities and the flourishing of the North East economically and socially.
