Representation by Lawrence David Simmons
- Date submitted
- 27 July 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The project for the upgrading of Junction 10 of the M25 and the A3 is based on highly flawed premises. First, the principle of road expansion with a view to traffic capacity increase has been proven to be self- defeating over the decades. As new highways have been built, they have attracted and encouraged growth in traffic and car ownership. The M25 itself is carrying volumes far in excess of its initially projected levels. To attempt to cater for traffic is tail chasing that will inevitably result in even larger congestion events. People will generally tend to opt to use new and improved roads in the belief that these will facilitate journeys and reduce travel times. The net effect is that as the public pursue these options en-masse, they create the very problem the projects were intended to reconcile in the first instance. The aim should be to encourage people to choose sustainable means of movement such as rail, local bus and cycling. Secondly, the new scheme will destroy even more as yet undeveloped green belt land with all the ecological, environmental and scenic disbenefits that will result. More vehicle sourced pollution will be generated and this in turn will exacerbate current low-level air quality problems. Noise levels will also be increased to the detriment of those in earshot and wildlife. To pursue a scheme leading to the worsening of pollution on this scale is in direct conflict with Government aims on air quality improvement. Thirdly, the traffic levels on the M25 have been levelling off over the past decade and only the recent artificially created jams caused by the unjustified frequently imposed lower speed limits between junctions 9 and 16 and in particular between junctions 10 and 11 have given the impression that levels have risen. The smart motorway system has been abused to somehow justify the proposed scheme therefore on the basis of falsely created congestion. Fourthly, the expense of this scheme cannot be justified when budgets are tight and road safety initiative spending must surely take priority. In addition, pothole infilling, surface quality improvement, drainage improvement, safe streets, charging point proliferation and sponsorship of electric vehicle take-up would surely represent tax payers’ money far better spent. I thereby call upon the inspector to reject this ill-conceived scheme. Yours sincerely L D Simmons BA(Hons) MRTPI [redacted]