LAAs: ry again'
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IV ACTION areas are no substitute for a reduction in the no of lorry traffic, Transport 2000 has told the Department of sport.
its response to the DTp's ultation document on LAAs, environmental pressure p says that action areas are a palliative for some of the Jams Igrries create in urban s. It says they are worthy of oration, but will only prorelief to people indoors. )se attempting to sit in their lens or walk down the street Id gain little benefit."
lays that action areas should be considered for lorries 18 tonnes gross, as those below that weight which is problems can be dealt by such solutions as an Irn Hate 80c181A) noise limit. ' :cording to Transport 2000, ould be wrong if a higher or lower threshold was set for lorry traffic before creating an action area, compared with a by-pass. It suggests that 400 16-tonneand-over lorries per day would be a practical figure. It accepts that this would create a "reasonably large number" of potential schemes, but that in Itself would reflect the extent of the problem.
It says that In Lewes a by-pass was built to relieve a road which carried 402 heavy lorries per day, and that some Leicestershire lorry relief schemes have been Jutified by a threshold of 25 heavy lorries per 18 hour day. It also recommends that 10 heavy lorries per night might be added to the 24-hour figures.
Transport 2000 is disappointed that there is no noise threshold In the DTp proposals, and also is disturbed by the value-for-money criteria being considered. "We do not feel that the position should ever be reached that a street suffering from a heavy lorry problem should be barred from becoming a lorry action area merely because the cost of relieving the problem is too great," it says.
It welcomes the DTp's proposal not to limit the size of an LA,4, saying a scheme limited to one house would be extremely effective, but says the creation of an LAA for an entire village would be an impracticably expensive substitute for a by-pass.
On funding, Trans/ion 2000 is disturbed that LAAs would be paid for from Transport Supplementary Grant, as this would mean a cut in funds for road maintenance and public transport unless TSG Is increased. It would prefer a special LAA fund.
It says the Government should pay the full cost of noise inaulation, as there is no question of residents paying part of the cost of a by-pass, and it proposes that a crash programme should be operated to run along with a similar bridge strengthening programme so that there is a real reduction in heavy lorry traf-' flc.