Misinformation

THE PROPOSED WEYMOUTH RELIEF ROAD AND THE 2012 OLYMPIC GAMES

I am writing to you on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Cyclists Touring Club, Friends of the Earth, the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers? Association, Transport 2000 and the Woodland Trust on the matter of the proposed Weymouth Relief Road (WRR) and the 2012 Olympic Games (OG). We have been prompted to do this because of comments that were attributed to you in an article in the Dorset Echo on 5 October 2005. We fully accept that these comments were made in good faith but we have to point out that they are in fact erroneous.

In the article you were reported as saying that the WRR was included in the London 2012 bid for the OG. Scrutiny of London?s Candidate File does not reveal any reference whatsoever to increasing road capacity in the Weymouth area. You will know that the Candidate File, submitted to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on 15 November 2004, is the only document that was considered by the IOC in its deliberations to determine which bid would be successful. Thus it can be reasonably concluded that the IOC was persuaded that the arrangements set out in the File would satisfactorily cater for the transport needs of spectators and the Olympic Family travelling to Weymouth for the sailing events.

The File lists three transport measures that would need to be implemented for a successful OG at Weymouth:


1. Expenditure of \$US 496 million for improvements to rail services between London Waterloo and Weymouth (to be spent between 2003 and 2006).



2. Expenditure of \$US 1 million for a temporary Park & Ride with spaces for 1,000 cars (location not specified).


A reduction from the current provision of 7,000 car parking spaces in Weymouth and Portland to 500 for the duration of the Games.


All these measures are consistent with London 2012?s objective that all spectators to the Games will arrive by public transport, by cycle or on foot.

You also commented that the bid stated that the journey time between London and Weymouth would be reduced by the time the Games took place and that you always took this to mean an acknowledgement of the WRR being built. Since the WRR is not mentioned in the bid this cannot be the case. Again, scrutiny of the Candidate File reveals that the source of reduced journey times between various locations in London and Weymouth can be attributed to the implementation of measures in the London area. For example, the 15 minute reduction in the average journey time between Weymouth and Heathrow is due to improvements to the M25 (Junctions 12-15 and the Heathrow Spur).

If you have already seen a copy of the Countryside Agency (CA) response to the WRR Planning Application (PA) you will know that it registers an objection to the proposal and requires Dorset County Council (DCC) to review its choice of a single carriageway standard for the bypass because it considers it would not be adequate to cope with projected traffic flows. One solution to this problem would be for DCC to raise the standard from single to dual carriageway. Further, the CA concludes that the A354 link from the northern terminus of the bypass to the A35 Trunk Road would be stressed to an even higher level. Thus the current single carriageway standard of this link would also need to be raised. It can be mentioned here that the Highways Agency is currently considering a Holding Direction to the WRR PA in respect of the junction at the intersection of the A354 with the A35. It is only in the last few months that DCC has admitted that this junction would require a major upgrade, at an estimated cost of up to ?2 million, because it is now predicted that the existing roundabout would be overloaded if the WRR were to be built.

There are several important implications arising from the CA objection:

One is that if DCC decided to propose a dual carriageway standard A354 from its junction with the A35 to the southern terminus of the bypass at Manor Roundabout the cost would be prohibitive.

A second is that even if it were affordable, the gap in the densely populated Littlemoor area through which the currently proposed single carriageway bypass must pass is not wide enough for a dual carriageway version.

A third is that if DCC decided to carry on with its single carriageway proposal it would be doing so in the knowledge that the viability of the proposal has been brought into question. From the day of opening it is estimated that the bypass would not operate under free flow conditions and neither would the link to the north of it.

The fact of the Countryside Agency?s formal objection to the WRR PA, together with over 1,000 others, must be worrying enough for DCC but not nearly as worrying as the outcome of last Friday?s meeting at Exeter, chaired by GOSW?s Transport Director Richard Bayly, that de facto the WRR is not a regional priority and therefore is not to be funded during the Regional Funding Allocation period 2006-2016. Now that DCC can blame another body for the demise of the WRR perhaps it will take the opportunity to stop wasting Council Tax payers? money on attempting to progress the scheme further. When one considers the difficulties encountered by the three versions of the WRR that have been promoted by DCC since July 1999 it suggests that there must have been a considerable amount of incompetence involved.

You can be assured that if the WRR is withdrawn we will fully support the already identified sustainable measures that will solve the acknowledged transport and traffic problems of the Weymouth ? Dorchester corridor.

Yours faithfully,

David Peacock

BSc(Eng) DIC PhD

for Campaign to Protect Rural England, Cyclists Touring Club,

Friends of the Earth, Open Spaces Society,

Ramblers? Association, Transport 2000 and Woodland Trust

cc Karen Buck MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport

Richard Bayly, Director, Transport, Government Office for the South West

Dr John Patterson, Clerk, Commons Transport Select Committee

Wilben Short, Transport Advisor, London 2012