WORK on a Lancaster bypass is unlikely to start before 2007 after county council chiefs recommended carrying out studies on both possible routes.
Environmental impact appraisals on both northern and western routes will last 18 months and are set to cost £700,000 if, as expected, a full county council meeting today (Thursday) backs the scheme.
Members of the cabinet, who met in Preston last Thursday, say the council should only opt for a northern bypass if the western route -- already rejected by two government inspectors -- proves 'impossible' to obtain.
The county has also pledged to 'continue to invest in such traffic management measures and additional public transport options as will help to improve the situation in the interim.'
Once the environmental appraisals are carried out they will form part of a planning application, to be followed by a public enquiry and side road orders, which may result in another public enquiry. Only then would the county be able to bid for funds from the government.
He added: "It is difficult to put a timescale on it, but the best estimate we have so far is that we will be able to start building in 2007."
The spokesman also said the council would 'consider all suggestions' on improving Lancaster's traffic situation, but senior councillors have ruled out a package of sustainable measures put forward by Prof John Whitelegg and backed by Lancaster MP Hilton Dawson as 'too expensive'.
Green Coun Cllr Jonathan Sear said: "On the face of it, a decision to continue pursuing the Western Bypass might appear to suit the Green Party, as it is probably the best way of ensuring that neither road gets built.
"But we cannot support a position which would lead to £500 000 of local tax-payer's money being wasted, and cause yet more uncertainty and delay.
"It will be years before a final decision on whether a Northern Bypass goes ahead will be taken, and that decision will be taken by Government.
"The Green Party alone will continue to argue for a longer term approach to reducing traffic than could be achieved by any Lancaster bypass, and to advocate more effective ways of regenerating Morecambe.
"It's simply not worth destroying countryside which people value so that difficult decisions can be put off for a few more years.
"The vast majority of traffic would not use a bypass. The top priority must be to provide realistic alternatives to the car for many more of these journeys. "Professor Whitelegg's paper is the best starting point for this debate. We should not waste any more time. Otherwise, even if we do end up with a bypass, the traffic taken out of town will quickly be replaced by people taking advantage of the reduction in congestion to make new journeys into the centre."
Lancaster MP Hilton Dawson has written to the county council leader, Hazel Harding, calling on her to include Prof Whitelegg's proposals in this debate.
He said: "I welcome the county's decision to put both routes out to independent environmental assessment.
"This means that those who favour one route over another can stop bickering and get on with some really important work to integrate measures to improve public transport, develop safe routes to schools and green commuter plans.
"This will make the most of any new road building and actually encourage Government to give us the funding for a scheme which could transform our traffic situation in Lancaster." The MP added that he hoped his suggestion (if taken up) would not prove too controversial.
The decision was welcomed by the M6 link committee, the organisation campaigning in favour of the bypass.
At a breakfast meeting in Lancaster on Monday, they voted unanimously to support the county council recommendations.
The bypass was first put forward as long ago as 1949 and is now the county's top transport priority. However, 12 months ago, the government refused funding for the western route until it won planning permission.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article