Skip to content or view screen version

Will City Council Cut Cars by 40%?

Terry Clarke | 19.02.2005 20:07 | Liverpool

Comments on proposals to meet European Directives to cut Nitrogen Dioxide emissions by 40%.

Will the City Council cut City Centre traffic by 40%? We think not!

The community we represent, Marybone, can be considered as an 'Island' and is one of the oldest existing communities in Liverpool City Centre. We can trace our ‘Liverpool Heritage’ back to over 200 years. It covers an area of roughly 500 yards square and is surrounded by four major roads, Byrom Street, Leeds Street, Vauxhall Road and Great Crosshall Street. These four roads take all the traffic to and from both Mersey tunnels. These roads also provide access from the North, East and West to the City Centre, the Dock Road and act as a ‘bypass’, through the city centre for all other traffic.

It is within one of two areas designated as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) along with the M62 Rocket junction. This should give you some idea of the volume of traffic already flowing through our estate.

Contrary to the popular conception of 'Inner City Communities' ours is a quiet, peaceful and thriving community, much sort after by big developers of luxury apartment blocks and student accommodation.

We have a thriving and growing Infant school, nursery, a youth centre, sheltered accommodation, old people’s bungalows, family housing with front and back gardens, a medical centre, local shops, student accommodation and luxury apartment blocks.

The articles in the Daily Post and the Echo, 19th February 2005, mention plans to reduce poisonous emissions by 40% in order to comply with European Regulations. While the proposals made by the City Council to reduce pollution seem admirable, what it doesn’t mention is that plans to add extra lanes to divert traffic from Dale Street to Leeds Street, Vauxhall Road and Great Crosshall Street by 2008 are still going ahead. After two years of fighting, Marybone Inner City Residents Association (MICRA) has received no assurances that Nitrogen Dioxide emissions will be reduced.

On the contrary, at a meeting attended by Marybone residents on the 3rd of February, Mervin Thornhill (Manager of the City Centre Movement Strategy) presented his report :- ‘CCMS Impact Upon Marybone’. In this report he admitted that ‘initially no information was available for residents’ during the consultation stage. He concluded his report by stating that CCMS ‘does have impacts’, which by the way were not itemised, ‘upon the Marybone Estate and that, in total, it’s impact on the estate is possibly negative’. This was followed by vague promises that some measures would be taken to offset negative impacts.

In an earlier report it was stated that: ’Clearly the movement of traffic from more core areas of the city centre to the periphery, although advantageous for the centre as a whole, must have an adverse impact on those areas adjacent to the increased traffic flows and it is accepted that Marybone falls into this category.’

The Impact Upon Marybone Report was a rambling, disjointed collection of uncorroborated and out of date statistics cobbled together with the intention of bemusing residents. This report now seems to have been devised as a smoke screen to hide the real implications of CCMS, reported by the Daily Post, from residents of the City Centre as a whole and Marybone in particular. We would like to thank the Daily Post for reporting the truth of the matter.

We demand our right, as long standing members of the Community of Liverpool, to breathe clean air and watch our community thrive and be supported by the City Council, not poisoned out of existence by them!

Terry Clarke
- e-mail: terryclarke@merseymail.com

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

liverpool transport

19.02.2005 22:16

liverpool's transport policy seems to be about making it easier for +more+ cars to get into and around the city centre:

 http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/ccms/

improving public transport, on the other hand, is the obvious solution to the environmental and safety problems of too much road traffic. the council have the following policy:


Public transport investment

One of the key elements of the Local Transport Plan is a programme to create a single integrated public transport network for Merseyside, which is accessible to everyone and puts the passenger first.

The key elements of the public transport strategy are:

- A relaunch of the local rail network with new rolling stock and a high quality accessible system which makes the best use of the existing network.
- Improving the existing bus strategy using SMART buses with agreed quality standards of operation
- An integrated information system
- A high quality tram network
- A comprehensive ticketing system
- Further investment in Mersey Ferries.


the tram system sounds good but, from other reports, may not happen and would be limited to a few routes if it did. as for the rest, well, it sounds like no more trains and no more buses, just upgrading existing stock. no mention of other issues like cycling or pedestrianisation. if there are no trams and the same number of buses and trains then you can say the council has no public transport policy. the policy is then effectively a car policy. no number of photo op litter picks or walk to school days are going to hide that failure.

- -


Deriliction of Duty by Defying European Directives

22.02.2005 00:58

Whether it be window dressing or half hearted the fact remains that the Council, unbelievably, still plan to go ahead with widening roads and increasing traffic into the City Centre by 2008, worsening the current unacceptable level of Nitrogen Dioxide emissions and blatantly defying the European Directives on Air Quality.

Who in their right minds, now that the truth is out there, would want to spend even a day in what will become one of the most polluted places in Europe let alone live and grow up in it.

The Council’s plans are wholly inadequate and do not deal with the problem pointed out to them by Europe. They are based on speculation and geared towards popularity amongst the polluters, the car drivers, giving no consideration to the people. I shouldn’t have to remind the Council that the people of Liverpool are the greatest cultural asset in this City of Culture but maybe they need to be!

Surely the refusal of the City Council is in breach of the Council’s ‘Duty of Care’ to the children, residents of the City Centre (whose numbers are increasing every day) and those who visit it for leisure, work or shopping. Could someone please comment on the legality of this issue?

Rather than making Liverpool City Center a ‘Cleaner, Greener, Safer’ place to be in, the Council’s plans will ultimately have the opposite effect. They will create a ‘no go area’ full of noxious gasses and particulates, ultimately discouraging people from using its facilities and dealing a blow to its economy.

Come on City Council, for the sake of Liverpool, Capital of Culture. Think about it, think about the long term effects on the people and the economy, swallow your pride, don’t be afraid of losing face, do the right thing. Stop existing plans to build new roads and consider tried and tested alternatives such as London's and the Green Party's.

Terry Clarke
mail e-mail: terryclarke@merseymail.com


cleaner, greener and no 'esential car user posts' please.

24.02.2005 16:35

I'd like to extend this article wider to include a wider dialogue that compares the councils attitude to employing non-car users (or not) for most of their (council)jobs.

I have tried for a year to find employment in this Liverpool city council, trying to put to use my professional experience to good use for the communities of Liverpool, however, soon as people start mentioning that the post is an 'essential car user post' this more less renders any opportunities useless for those wanting to contribute to employment as well as a contributing to a cleaner, greener environment.

Can the council square this circle? Or employers for that matter.

No, not as long as the companies continue to offer massively dis-proportionate rates of mileage for the car usage, compared to public transport workers, cyclists or those who use no transport at all.

This fundamental attitude has to change.
Council staff are paid for by the public local tax take, so we are 'paying' for council staff to drive around with the incentive that (within reason) the more they drive, the more they receive. The more they drive, the more they pollute.
Can we not demand the council to re-address the balance?

As long as council staff (who employ a fair percentage of people), or any other person is employed under an 'esential car user' post for no real reason, we will never achieve this symbolic desire.
And before people start asking, I would exclude emergency services, etc from the argument.

clarence carlos