The Department of Transport have announced early its intention to widen the M1 from Leicester to Leeds (junctions 21–42) to four lanes in both directions and opposition to the plans has started to emerge. There is also widening planned for junctions 6A–13 (M25 - Luton). The plans that have been published are fragmented and it is difficult to get the full overall picture of the road building plans, its timeline and key milestones, but what is clear so far is:
No M1 widening
Construction work is planned to start on the section from junction 6A–10 (M25 towards Luton) in January 2006. The public consultation for section 10–13 was completed in April 2005. The date for a public enquiry for this section, if needed will be in 2007, with work to start in 2008.
Sections 21–30 cover Leicester to Chesterfield. Public consultation is planned for 2006. Some work within the existing motorway boundary is due to commence 2006/7. Further work at a later date will require land acquistion, building extra lanes and a bypass around Kegworth.
The sections affecting the environs of Sheffield, junction 30–42, are at an earlier stage. There are plans to embark on a full public consultation for this section in spring 2006, with a public enquiry planned for 2008.
The plans so far seem to indicate that near Sheffield the M1 will have four narrow lanes within the existing motorway boundary, and three lanes on the Tinsley viaduct. Contractors have been commissioned to undertake development work and preliminary design. These include Arup (junctions 21–30, Leicester to Chesterfield) and Mouchel Parkman (junctions 30–42, around Sheffield). The cost of the M1 widening is estimated to be over £3.5 billion. Recent experience and research has shown that road programmes frequently exceed their estimates by a factor of three.
The M1 widening plans are part of a huge national road building programme, which continues to escalate. In spring this year the government announced that twelve more roads were to enter the roads programme. This is despite the Highways Agency being previously asked to look at 'traffic management' for these schemes.
There's a national conference against road building and airport expansion on 8th October in Nottingham (contact info@roadalert.org.uk. Groups opposing the M1 widening are emerging along the route.
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Taking into account -
23.09.2005 20:06
Congestion usually causes more pollution than free-flowing traffic, due to increased petrol consumption at low speeds, and drivers being unwilling to turn engines off when at a standstill.
Therefore, the argument that a new road, or widening scheme may reduce emissions has some validity.
However, is the widening going to accommodate current traffic levels and projected future ones, and if so, for how long?
Free-flowing traffic is likely to encourage more use of motorway by car, lorry, coach driver.
Even if road-building can keep up with growing car use, this seems a sticking-plaster remedy, rather than a real attempt to address our transport crisis.
Although I'm sure it will create jobs, even if they are minimum wage McJobs like at service stations where you pay a fiver for a sandwich.
Other damage roads cause include loss of hedgerows, farmland, woodland, etc. which provide habitats for animal, bird, insect and plant life. + noise pollution. + rise in road traffic massacre rate. + use of non-renewables to build the road. + use of dodgy construction contractors to build it. + need for increase in regular maintenance. + necessity for forced buy-outs where widening needs to encroach on land owned by private individuals.
Admit I don't know the issue too well off the top of my head, but my initial view - well, no sir, I don't like it.
Rene Thomas
e-mail:
weallpoo@yahoo.co.uk
M1 Widening
11.10.2005 11:48
Even the DfT admits that it's a sticking-plaster policy - the extra lanes if built will be full within 10 years. Motorways are fabulously expensive to build and usually run over-budget (Sheffield's NIRR, which by the way I cautiously support as it will improve accessibility for all users to North Sheffield whilst not actually providing any more road space for private cars than there currently is, is costing 60 million - double original estimates - and is running 1 million over budget due to problems with the Wicker viaduct) - whilst railways are relatively cheap to provide (the West Coast Main Line upgrade, of which much has been made of the horrendous cost over-runs, is still cheaper per mile than building new motorway) Meanwhile communities along the M1 will have to put up with further reduced air quality, and all the extra traffic that will be produced - vehicles have to get to and from the M1 somehow. Extra capacity on motorways also encourages people to use them for short journeys that they could easily do by bus, train, even bike (Especially when combined with other modes, e.g. bike + train)
There are number of rail schemes that the govenrment has refused to support - e.g. the Great Central - from the Channel Tunnel to Liverpool, via Sheffield & Manchester, which could take a massive number of lorries off the roads, East Coast Main Line upgrades
Ivanhoe Line from Loughborough to Burton-on-Trent, an additional line between Sheffield and Leeds for epxress services - all of which would be cheaper than expanding the motorway for short-term gain. Also a lot of light rail schemes are currently in jeopardy - Leeds, Manchester & extensions in Sheffield for example.
Alastair is pinning his hopes on having a workable road user charging scheme in place in ten year's time, which why he's allowed this short-term solution to go through - obviously with his eye on the motorist lobby at election rime as well.
The influential NGO's have been making these points for some years, without having any impact on govt. policy. So now is the time for direct action. Please support this campaign.
Simon Geller
Yorkshire and the Humber Transport Round-Table.
Simon Geller
We need transport!!!!!!!!
28.12.2005 14:47
I write all this in the context of a commuter from Sheffield to Leeds. If such items were done then Sheffielders could work in a place only 35 miles away without ageing fast or stressing over travel.
Richard