To bypass or not to bypass?
|
Some would claim that Stamford got its by-pass in 1960 when the A1 was diverted to the West and hugely improved. Others would counter that that was primarily for the benefit of travellers on the A1, not for the good people of this area. They may well go on to say that they now want a by-pass/ link route/ relief road - the terms are used interchangeably for the purposes of this article although there are distinct differences between the three in reality - to avoid traffic having to pass through the town when going from or to almost anywhere other than straight up or down the A1. And the difficulty with traffic through the town, as we all know, is to a very large extent caused by the one and only town bridge with its light- controlled complex 5 way junction and the narrow winding streets of the central area.
In recent years, things have been done to lighten the traffic load in the town, not least the upgrading to the Spalding to Peterborough A1073 road and the signage on the through-routes to dissuade HGVs from coming this way. But, perversely enough, the more that is done to deter or re-route traffic the more remote becomes the case for a ‘big bold project’ to take the town centre out of the equation. |
Where would a “big bold” by-pass run if we could have one? In an ideal world, for maximum effect on both traffic reduction and local air quality, I think it would run around the East of the town from the A1 and back to the A1, but if we couldn’t have the full “nine yards”, I would plump for the southern segment, South of Burghley Park along the old boundary road towards Barnack, and then North across the river via a new bridge to join the A1175, thus providing an alternative river crossing. And one reason for favouring such a route is that major new roads have a habit of attracting large scale residential developments right up to the road edge ... witness Oakham and Bourne to name only those hereabouts... and, at the risk of exposing my prejudices, I think that Stamford doesn’t need any further major developments beyond those already in the local plan. But by choosing a route around Burghley a natural barrier to expanding the town would exist.
In the “old days”, I am told, the MP went to see the Minister and, perhaps after a good lunch or a promise on a forthcoming vote, the Minister said he would see what he could do ... and the by-pass was delivered. (There were, of course, “objective criteria” even in those days but somehow it seems ways could be found to make the case if the will existed!) Where some measure of “value for money” was needed in order to prioritise competing schemes, they initially only really put weight on the effects of a new or improved route on predicted accident rates and journey times. As time has gone on more and more complex models have been brought into play and each has introduced new criteria or new ways of weighing them. Thus, can be found factors such as the “effects of encroachment on historic and cultural areas” to “the effects of intimidation on cyclists caused by traffic”.
Today, with the exception of the Strategic Roads Network, for which a Stamford Bypass is most certainly not a candidate, most major road improvements are funded on a multi-agency basis with various national and County budgets contributing, and thus the funders determine the specific purpose of the scheme, and the factors by which alternative options are to be judged, and no two need have common criteria. But nearly all of them will have as a starting point the capacity of the existing routes, and here I have to report that on current criteria Stamford’s traffic problems are not nearly bad enough to command the funding necessary for a major scheme.
Where does that leave us? Don’t despair; even a cursory study of the changes to the criteria over time shows that they are far from set in concrete and, who knows, in a few years, perhaps Stamford’s historic charms may yet warrant a “big bold” by-pass. Until then, despite the government’s mid-summer announcement of more money for bypasses, we’ll probably have to make do with a relief road associated with, or part of, the planned northern developments.
Peter Stean
In the “old days”, I am told, the MP went to see the Minister and, perhaps after a good lunch or a promise on a forthcoming vote, the Minister said he would see what he could do ... and the by-pass was delivered. (There were, of course, “objective criteria” even in those days but somehow it seems ways could be found to make the case if the will existed!) Where some measure of “value for money” was needed in order to prioritise competing schemes, they initially only really put weight on the effects of a new or improved route on predicted accident rates and journey times. As time has gone on more and more complex models have been brought into play and each has introduced new criteria or new ways of weighing them. Thus, can be found factors such as the “effects of encroachment on historic and cultural areas” to “the effects of intimidation on cyclists caused by traffic”.
Today, with the exception of the Strategic Roads Network, for which a Stamford Bypass is most certainly not a candidate, most major road improvements are funded on a multi-agency basis with various national and County budgets contributing, and thus the funders determine the specific purpose of the scheme, and the factors by which alternative options are to be judged, and no two need have common criteria. But nearly all of them will have as a starting point the capacity of the existing routes, and here I have to report that on current criteria Stamford’s traffic problems are not nearly bad enough to command the funding necessary for a major scheme.
Where does that leave us? Don’t despair; even a cursory study of the changes to the criteria over time shows that they are far from set in concrete and, who knows, in a few years, perhaps Stamford’s historic charms may yet warrant a “big bold” by-pass. Until then, despite the government’s mid-summer announcement of more money for bypasses, we’ll probably have to make do with a relief road associated with, or part of, the planned northern developments.
Peter Stean
