Transport 2000 (National Office): Objection to Draft Orders, 4 September 2003

Stonehenge Project Team
Highways Agency
Zone 2-05/K
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
BRISTOL BS1 6HA

3 September 2003

Dear Sirs

A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Order 200 & related slip roads, side roads and detrunking orders

Transport 2000 Ltd is a national environmental campaign groups which works for sustainable transport policies and measures. Our affiliated group Salisbury Transport 2000 has made an objection to the Orders; I am writing on behalf of the national organisation to support this objection and to supplement it. Our grounds are as follows:

1. We believe that, were different national policies on transport to be implemented, the scheme would be unnecessary, since traffic could be reduced sufficiently to take away its major environmental impacts on the Stonehenge area and setting. In particular, past and present policies involving dualling adjacent sections of the A303 have significantly increased traffic levels on this section of the A303, and this process is set to continue, following the SWARMMS study. As the objection from Salisbury Transport 2000 points out, this study did not give proper consideration to improvements other than dual carriageways. The alternative policies that would reduce traffic levels at Stonehenge could include:
• investment in significant upgrades of public transport, notably the Salisbury-Exeter railway line, rail services to and in the West Country (including new Motorail and sleeper services) and significantly improved local bus services and new taxibus services
• a sustainable tourism strategy for the South West, including integrated accommodation/public transport arrangements, reduced fare offers, better non-car access to tourist attractions and National Parks
• real increases in the cost of motoring through fuel tax or road pricing
• reductions in speeds and in speed limits
• a greater emphasis on new communications technologies to reduce travel � for example video conferences
• travel plans by employers and leisure providers.
• A reversal of recent decisions to dual more sections of the A303
We have described and researched these policies in several publications, including most recently "Less Traffic Where People Live" and "Rural Transport Futures".
2. We believe that the current scheme would cause significant damage to the Stonehenge World Heritage site, and believe that even without these alternative policies alternatives should be explored. As noted in Salisbury Transport 2000�s objection, these should include:
1. a visitor travel plan, with appropriate measures, for Stonehenge and the area around it. Transport 2000 nationally has significant experience with such plans; we promoted pilot plans in the South Downs and at Harewood House in Leeds, and published a guide to "Tourism without Traffic" in 2002. We also have set up a "Car Free Leisure" network of local authorities.
2. improvements to the Salisbury-Exeter rail line and local public transport and cycling provision
3. closure of the A344, with traffic rerouted to other routes.
4. If road building is to go ahead, we want to see a longer bored tunnel to move traffic and the road building impacts away from the World Heritage Site. We believe that the current proposal is too short.

We believe that a public inquiry should be held into the Stonehenge scheme to allow objections to be discussed and alternatives to be explored in detail.

Yours faithfully
 
 
 
 

Stephen Joseph

Director