I have watched with interest as the debate over the proposed Foulridge village bypass has gathered momentum and looked with interest at the proposed route for the bypass.
Like many people, I think we need to reduce the congestion on North Valley but am cautious that new roads attract new traffic and can also, if not carefully considered, just shift traffic from one bottle neck to another.
After studying the proposed route, I cannot see anything other than a shift of traffic from one place to another being achieved.
If you live in Castle Road, Venables Avenue and perhaps all the way round to Lidgett, Langroyd or Foulridge don’t worry about getting on the M65 at Colne, you can just nip down Red Lane – no worries that is a single carriageway road, it is now a major link to the bypass and M65.
Equally, if you live further into Foulridge or the top part of Barnoldswick, don’t worry you will be able to use Slipper Hill as your access road to the bypass and onto the M65.
If we examine the council’s “deliverables” from their transport plan we see a number of objectives. I ask you to consider if the bypass delivers against these?
Sustainable Transport? No, it moves traffic from one place to another and will create new rat runs.
Walking and cycling safe? A bypass right next to the canal and the walking and cycling routes it supports. A road has never been cycling or walking friendly, let alone a road next to cycle paths and popular walking routes.
Improve public spaces and make the area attractive for visitors? The bypass would most certainly not make the area more attractive for visitors.
So, after careful consideration, the proposed plan of the village bypass does not get my support. It will simply create new bottle necks shifting traffic from one place to another it fails in the council’s wish to develop sustainable travel, improve our open spaces and make the area more attractive to tourism.
Red Lane, Colne