Road woes misleading

The most misleading statement, often uttered by our MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, Daniel Kawczynski, is that the NWRR would solve traffic congestion in Shrewsbury town centre. This is illogical because for the traffic that blights Wyle Cop, High Street, Castle Hill etc, a NWRR is irrelevant.

Thinking about the roads that might actually benefit it is clear Smithfield Road would find some relief – but this is likely to be short-lived. Some people would initially choose to go on the NWRR because of existing congestion on the present route, but for many this would be longer by the time they have gone out of their way to go around the town. It has been well understood for decades that if relief is provided for a congested road the traffic is initially reduced but this makes the original route more attractive so people return to it and in a relatively short time it becomes congested again. This is precisely the situation that would exist in Shrewsbury.

What real benefits would there be? Clearly anyone coming down the A5 from Wales could get to the Battlefield area more easily. Going around the town to the north instead of on the bypass might look appealing but the bypass is dual carriageway and the whole route to the north would be single carriageway. Also, the existing section at Sundorne is notorious for congestion.

Much is made of the relief that villages would get because goods vehicles ‘rat run’ from the A5 to Battlefield. The extent of this practice does need to be carefully researched because as was found at Wem the goods vehicles may well have essential reasons to be there.

What is beyond argument is the fact the NWRR would be an environmental disaster. A massive high bridge out beyond the Showground would spoil the river valley and then to the north the road would destroy high value landscape. The prevailing wind would carry noise to the people on that side of town who at present enjoy a life without such intrusion. The business case for the NWRR is being prepared this year. We can only hope that it is drawn up with scrupulous impartiality because much of the talk assumes it is a ‘done deal’. It would be reassuring if there was even a nodding acknowledgement that a business case might show that the road is not good value. Obviously all sorts of assumptions have to be made and it is here that bias can be introduced. The business case for HS2 was prepared to get the answer the Government wanted and by the time impartial examination proved that the benefits were not there we were on the way to spending £50 billion or more!!.

Shrewsbury could solve its traffic problems, such as they are, by other means. A scheme to restrict town centre traffic is obvious but the determination to do it is lacking. Good schemes to provide cycle routes were implemented in the past but, again, with a will to do more to make safe continuous routes cycling could be made much more attractive.

Experience elsewhere shows this works and motor traffic is reduced with reduced air pollution and better health from the change to active travel. Clearly these measures would cost much less than the NWRR at £120 million so they should be considered as part of the business case for the NWRR - they may turn out to be the best option.

Frank Oldaker, Shrewsbury Friends of the Earth