In the Bristol Evening Post on the 22 June, Councillor Sheila Cook, South Gloucestershire Council's Executive Member for Children and Young People and former Chair of the Parish Council, replied to the Campaign, see Soapbox: "Closer source of plane fuel may help". Did she miss the point, what do you think?, see the Campaign's response below, published 27 June, see Soapbox: "Fuel tankers in city suburbs".
"Further to South Gloucestershire Councillor Shelia Cook’s letter Evening Post 22 June, I am pleased to be able to expand on my own letter of the 5 May. Councillor Cook is South Gloucestershire’s Executive Member for Children and Young People.
The records show that South Gloucestershire’s lack of decision and lack of funding, delayed the replacement by Network Rail of a weak bridge. But that is not the whole story. A contribution of £200,000 pounds to the bridge replacement was approved by the Council in 2008, based on a technical report to Councillor Brian Allinson, Executive Member for Planning, Transportation and Strategic Environment, in 2007. This option did not allow for any changes to the highway alignment.
The report offered three options; Item 11, Allow Network Rail to strengthen the bridge to 24T at no cost to the Council and rescind the existing weight limit in Hallen; Item 12, Increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T, but do not include any changes to the highway alignment. The Council’s contribution would be £200,000; Item 13, Increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T and realign the highway, removing the pinch point at the bridge. The Council’s contribution would be £300,000.
Perhaps Councillor Cook could explain, why South Gloucestershire Council opted for Item 12, instead of Item 13? This appears to be a financial decision, with road safety taking second place.
The old bridge had a varying width sloping roadway with a narrow pinch point to only 5.2m, with only a 1.0m wide footpath on one side. The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. The photograph with Councillor Cook’s letter shows a fuel tanker travelling over the old bridge and down the hill towards the storage depot. The necessity to straddle the white line at the pinch point will be the same when the new bridge is finished.
Our campaign objective is simple, why should aviation fuel tankers travel from South Gloucestershire, into North West Bristol’s built-up suburban areas, when a route along Severn Road, is a level, wide and direct route to the motorway network? Aviation fuel tankers, particularly slow moving full tankers in first gear up Ison Hill, have a detrimental effect on roads and properties, they pollute the environment, add to wear and tear on vehicle tyres, brakes, etc, add to traffic congestion on already busy roads, and they are an unnecessary road safety hazard.
The rapidly growing population of North West Bristol, particularly children, is being put at risk. There are no schools in Hallen, but there are four schools in Henbury alone, accommodating 1500+ children at the last count.
South Gloucestershire Council’s selfish policy of sending all fuel tankers from Hallen PSD and all skip transporters from the Hallen land fill site into North West Bristol’s suburban roads is plain for all to see. This policy is contrary to the Council’s membership of the West of England Road Safety Partnership, which aims to reduce the numbers of casualties from road traffic accidents in the Partner’s districts.
Certainly I support Councillor Cook. Bristol Airport should source its aviation fuel in a more environmentally friendly manner. I sent a copy of my initial ban fuel tankers submission to Bristol City Council, to South Gloucestershire Council, to Amanda Deeks, Chief Executive, and Peter Jackson, Director of Planning Transportation and Strategic Environment, on the 20 November 2008.
In this document I pointed out that Bristol Airport was not connected to the GPSS underground pipeline network, and that there were three network facilities south of the River Avon and closer to Bristol Airport than Hallen PSD. These were Flax Bourton PSD, Redcliffe Bay PSD and Bristol Aviation Fuel Terminal at Royal Portbury Dock. I did not receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement from South Gloucestershire Council".
Come on South Gloucestershire Council it's time to admit, that protecting Hallen at the expense of North West Bristol is no longer a "justifiable case". There are very few residential properties with direct vehicular and pedestrian access on to Severn Road.
A level, wide and direct route to the motorway network has no counter argument, when the alternative is traffic congestion and an unnecessary road safety hazard on already busy roads. The rapidly growing population of North West Bristol, particularly children, is being put at risk.
Let common sense prevail.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment