WHY no red route?

Our most recent campaign is based upon considered and reasoned objections to the proposals. These are summarised in the two documents below (click as appropriate)

The presentation speech made by our spokesman Dean Seymour

A copy of our paper presented to the Dudley, Brierley Hill & Stourbridge Area Committees

I am a member of the Action Group against the proposal for a red route on the A461/A491/A4037.  I wish to present a document which sets out our case and responds to the official report. Copies of this document have been circulated by email or post to the Councillors on this committee.

Our campaign has identified overwhelming opposition to the red route proposal with individual communities holding protest meetings and attending their local Area Committees. The Action Group have coordinated these responses and publicised our views through the press, email and the constant updating of our extensive website. More than 2000 people have signed the petition against the proposal. We are happy to acknowledge the support of MP Ian Pearson and many of the Dudley MBC councillors.

I have called on several hundred people in their homes and businesses to discuss our case. My experience is of massive support for our cause, a little apathy but definitely no enthusiasm for a red route. If you walk from Holly Hall to Harts Hill you will see the majority of houses displaying our posters -our latest survey is 75% of occupied private homes on the Stourbridge Road have a NO in their window.

We have already identified that the restrictions imposed by a red route would have a negative impact upon our lives. They would also badly affect the livelihoods of those who visit our premises from Doctor to plumber and funeral director to building contractor. This part of our case has already been well publicised and is detailed on our noredroute.co.uk website. Our latest document  sets out a logical case against the proposals and responds to the official report first received at the Brierley Hill Area Committee.

Those who have contributed to this report have a very detailed knowledge of the area, they live and work here, they travel the road, their children cross this road to go to school, they shop at the local corner shop. They know that this road is an inappropriate choice and that the proposal cannot possibly achieve its objectives.

We do understand the motives of local officials who welcome the funding needed to improve roads… but we say that the restrictive and inflexible controls are just too big a price to pay. We should not give in to Whitehall blackmail.

We have listed six specific factors in our arguments against the red route, detailed here.

In summary we do not believe a balanced and fully representative case for red routes has been put forward at national level – and indeed why have the objections of Wandsworth Borough Council been swept aside by a quango?

Secondly, Dudley is not even a city, let alone the capital city. Our population density is much smaller with far fewer commuters and tourists. We submit that the scale of our traffic problems is small and manageable by comparison – or as one of the Brierley Hill Councillors put it, a red route here is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Our third point is that the official process of consultation has been inadequate. Plans on display were subsequently changed considerably and there was no opportunity at these exhibitions for a full and frank debate. Our own consultation process has engaged and informed many more residents – thousands rather than the 169 who completed the questionnaire. OUR collective response is a NO.

Our fourth issue is the questionnaire produced by Faber Maunsell.  At an early stage we had identified that this was a cynical and devious device designed to elicit a response favourable to a red route, It provides no real opportunity for opposition. The Action Group advised non-completion and those of us who simply wrote across the empty box ‘no red route’ seem to have been ignored – we are spoilt papers. However our 2000 plus signature petition more than restores the balance!

In point five we use our common sense and local expertise to demonstrate that these proposals are simply not necessary, as one Councillor puts it ‘DAFT’! We list the evidence to show that the A461 through Amblecote, Brierley Hill and to Holly Hall is not a major through road. Parking does not cause congestion, indeed the main congestion we get is at peak times in Brierley Hill  mainly caused by traffic signals. We presume that the exciting development plans for this area will address this problem and indeed entirely avoid the need for a red route.

To a lesser extent there is peak-time queuing at the Holly Hall traffic signals.

It is noted that the red route proposals increase the number of traffic signals by NINE – surely these will cause far more stop/start motoring and further congestion?

Our sixth and final point is that the objectives identified by Faber Maunsell  are unlikely to be achieved. Again our arguments are detailed point by point and at some length in our document. In summary we cannot see that the traffic can flow more smoothly however many lines you paint on the road and whatever their colour. There is no mention of the fact that the major cause of slow traffic, especially buses and lorries, between Stourbridge and Dudley is simply a big… long… steep hill. –from the Stourbridge canal at 100 metres above sea level to ‘Top church’ at 211 metres above sea level.

If the powers that be wish to reduce accidents and improve traffic flow we would recommend…

·     the installation of speed cameras,

·      the repositioning of signs so that they point from Holly Hall along the A4036 to Merry Hill

·     and the development of an imaginative and people friendly scheme for urban renewal in Brierley Hill.

In conclusion I would ask this meeting to accept and endorse our report and commend it to the Executive as a basis for rejecting the red route proposal at their meeting on 18^th December. .

A response to the proposals for a red route on the A461/A491/A4037 - Friday, 24 October 2003

Introduction

In response to the proposals for a red route on the A461/A491/A4037 a number of protest meetings were held and arising from this an Action Group was formed. This is made up of representatives from Tipton through to Stourbridge and includes both householders and business proprietors.

The separate communities along the road have held further public meetings, liaised with their local Councillors and attended Council Area Committees. The Action Group has coordinated extensive and proactive consultation - direct contact, knocking on peoples’ doors to discuss the proposal and convening meetings to further consider reactions[1]. We have also promoted our campaign through a professional website[2] which to date has received thousands of hits. 

We have obtained extensive press coverage for our cause including local radio reports.

We have maintained contact with our elected representatives both directly and via email and the website. We are delighted with the support that we have received from our elected representatives, both the MP and a significant number of local councillors.

We hope that in the final analysis the Dudley MBC Executive will acknowledge this groundswell of public hostility and take account of what we believe are reasoned arguments against the proposals and their likely consequences. We trust that this will provide them with a firm basis for the rejection of the proposal for a red route on the A461/A491/A4037

The proposal for red routes

This proposal arises from Central Government. The reality is that civil servants in Whitehall have pushed through Red Routes in the Capital despite continuing opposition. The London Borough of Wandsworth made the following comment  “Whilst the Council generally supports the principles behind the red routes it opposed the designation of two routes in the borough, where it believes the red route would be unnecessary and inappropriate. Despite its opposition, the Council has been Directed to proceed with the implementation of both sections.”[3]  

The ‘control freaks‘ in Whitehall are now seeking to proliferate their ideas by  offering funding (new money) to regional/ local authorities with the strings attached requiring them to develop Red Routes.

Local quangos like Centro are enthusiastic, companies like Faber Maunsell have a vested commercial interest and local authority employees are keen to get their hands on the new money. Our Action Group believes that the actions of the bureaucrats at National and Regional level combine the desire to control the populace with a tendency towards convergent thinking – the trend towards ‘too much government’. We believe that Faber Maunsell has behaved in a discreditable way in producing a questionnaire designed to distort the public responses.

We are more sympathetic towards the officers of the Dudley MBC, understanding their frustration in seeing the opportunity for improving facilities (new money for roads and pavements)  in the Borough but perhaps privately understanding the animosity of the residents at large to such proposals.

The case against the proposals

This is based upon six factors;……

1. That suggestions that Red Routes have worked in London is based largely upon assertion rather than detailed evidence. There are certainly no balanced views showing pros and cons emerging and we understand that there is still considerable public hostility. An examination of the ‘pro red route’ website maintained by the West Midlands ltp [4]very clearly illustrates this principle of assertion rather than evidence, spin rather than evaluation.

2. Even if the advocates of such proposals could show that the London Red Routes offered more advantages than disadvantages, this would only relate to the capital city with a much larger density of population and traffic[5]. How can they possibly demonstrate that such a device would operate effectively in an area such as Dudley, made up largely of ‘urban villages’ with their strong sense of community. We agree with the comment of a local councillor that this proposal is ‘a sledgehammer to crack a nut’. We enthusiastically applaud the wisdom of another Councillor who describes the scheme as ‘daft’.

3. Both the process and the outcome of the consultation described in the official report is inadequate. A number of residents and business proprietors were not informed of these proposals. The ‘exhibitions’ provided information about the benefits as seen by Faber Maunsell and presented plans of the route as if these were a ‘fait accompli’[6]. The attendance was very poor (200 in total) in comparison with the numbers attending subsequent protest meetings and signing the petitions of protest. More than 2,000 people have signed a petition of objection and this was presented by councillor Pat Martin to the Stourbridge Area Committee on 15th September.  It should also be noted that the plans which formed the basis for the exhibitions had been extensively modified by the time of the first protest meeting at St Augustine’s Church. In this context we object to the patronising comment in the official report that many of those who “objected… had not…attended the exhibitions and so may not be fully aware or understand…”.

4. The questionnaire[7] used as a part of this process of ‘consultation’ is seriously flawed. We believe that it is deviously contrived to infer support and we advised all those who attended the protest meetings not to complete the questionnaire other than writing across it ‘no red route’. Questions 1 to 5 seek to categorise respondents and their use of the road. These questions are most unlikely to generate any relevant and accurate statistical information, indeed the ultimate analysis is simplistic “respondents mainly travelled …by car, with the second main mode being on foot. Not many …used motorcycles or pedal cycles”. This part of the questionnaire was either naive or deviously designed to disarm. Question 6 and 7 presupposed that certain objectives were both desirable and achievable with Question 6 targeting the individual social conscience and question 7 inviting answers that could be no more than uninformed opinions. Question 8 was a blank comment space used by most of the objectors to simply write ‘no red route’. It does seem that these protests were treated as ‘spoilt papers’ because there is no count of them and the reference to them is oblique and patronising…suggesting that the response rate would have been better “had those people who sent formal objections and the petition completed questionnaires”.

5. The selection of this particular route is entirely inappropriate.

The ‘core’ of the route of the A461 is not normally regarded as a ‘primary route’. Most modern road maps differentiate between normal ‘A’ roads and ‘Primary routes’ and those we have examined only show the Southern bypass part of the A461 as a ‘primary route’.[8]

This is further confirmed if one uses any of the main electronic/ web based route planners. The suggested route from the south of the Dudley Borough to the northernmost point recommends the A4036 as the most convenient route[9]

It is certainly not seen as a major road through the conurbation and recommended routes all bypass Dudley.[10]

It should be obvious that the Southern Bypass (an urban clearway) and the Stourbridge Ring Road do not allow parking and there are no problems and no need for any further traffic control devices.

A consideration of the rest of the route shows two main areas of likely congestion, Brierley Hill Town Centre[11] and the traffic lights at Holly Hall. Even in these places the delays are mostly during short rush hour periods.[12] Brierley Hill is the main bottleneck with two major traffic light controlled intersections together with the two sets of pedestrian controlled traffic lights causing most of the traffic congestion. However it would seem that there are exciting and far sighted plans for the area as described on the Dudley MBC website “alternative routes for through traffic in Brierley Hill, which would allow improvements to the High Street in terms of better traffic management and improved facilities for buses …a network of streets and public spaces to connect the main areas of activity…Metro access to Brierley Hill, Merry Hill and Waterfront …a new connection between Brierley Hill High Street and A4036 Pedmore Road via waterfront Way, which would absorb through traffic currently using Level Street” [13]. Thus avoiding any need for a red route.

At Holly Hall there are three phases to the lights which can cause moderate traffic queues at rush hours. However much worse problems arise as a by-product of any roadworks on the Southern bypass. Parked vehicles do not cause any significant problems. The website shows photographs of light traffic moving satisfactorily on the Stourbridge Road late in the afternoon on a ‘working’ Monday.[14]

In view of the new traffic management system for the Merry Hill Centre at the intersection of the A4036 with Level Street, we would ask that the signs at Holly Hall directing traffic to the Merry Hill Centre[15] should be adjusted to point down Highgate Road into Pedmore Road.

6. The desired objectives [16]are unlikely to be achieved
   • Traffic journey reliability – the reality is that at 0830 it is going to take a fair amount of time to traverse any urban area in the UK, at 1100 or 1500 the amount of traffic will be light. It is not parking that causes the problem, it is the density of traffic and the delays caused by traffic signals and road junctions.
   • Faster journey times – likewise and we simply do not believe a red route will make a scrap of difference
   • Increasing reliability of buses – the biggest problem that buses encounter is from Stourbridge to Dudley – they face a continuous steep incline. If anything buses delay the rest of the traffic[17].
   • Improved pedestrian facilities – where and how are these inadequate other than pavements where a succession of contractors (cable, electric, gas and water) have caused surface irregularity.
   • Cyclist facilities – the reality is that on a route with a steep incline from a low in Stourbridge to the heights of Dudley the popularity of the bicycle is unlikely to be a popular means of travel.
   • Reducing accidents – something that every right minded citizen would support especially those involving personal injury or death. However we would suggest that the main cause of serious accidents on this route is excessive speed – witness the flowers tied to lampposts. We cannot see how a red route would help and believe speed cameras would be a much better investment.
   • Improving the environment (air quality) – we presume this relates to pollution arising from queuing traffic but cannot see that a red route will reduce peak-time queuing at the two areas affected – Brierley Hill High Street and Holly Hall traffic lights. A red route would bring its own form of pollution – the graffiti of a plethora of road markings and a proliferation of street furniture.
   • Improved equal access for everyone – since red routes by their essential nature impose additional restrictions on vehicles, householders and business premises, then it follows that not everyone will benefit. Indeed it would be the case that some areas (and the individuals in those areas) will have more stringent restrictions than others, therefore it can hardly be seen as equal.    

Conclusion

We believe we have mounted a vigorous and responsible campaign against the red route proposed for the A461/A491/A4037. We have endeavoured to involve all areas and interests along the route and have engaged with our elected representatives. We have ensured that everyone has been informed by delivering regular newsletters to residents and businesses, through contacts with the press and through our regularly updated website. We have received the support of a majority of those who live and work in this area and while there is as always a small amount of apathy we have encountered no real enthusiasm from any quarter for the red route proposal.

We believe that the rejection of this proposal by the Dudley MBC Executive would demonstrate local democracy acting most effectively.