5 Consideration of Alternatives

5 Consideration of Alternatives 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This Chapter outlines the description of the main alternatives to the Proposed Scheme which have been considered by the Applicant and the principal reasons for proceeding with the current Proposed Scheme. 5.2 Requirement for the Consideration of Alternatives 5.2.1 Schedule 4, Part 1 of the EIA Regulations 2011 (Ref. 5.1) states that an ES should include; “an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects”. 5.2.2 To accord with the EIA Regulations 2011, the following alternatives have been considered: Ŷ Alternative Schemes; Ŷ Alternative Routes (Sites) for the Proposed Scheme Ŷ Proposed Scheme Design Iterations; and Ŷ The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario. 5.3 Alternative Schemes 5.3.1 The primary objective for the Proposed Scheme is to provide a long term solution to traffic problems associated with the A45. Considerations of alternative schemes interventions would be required to offer similar traffic easing measures, or achieve this same primary objective. 5.3.2 A WebTAG Environmental Options Appraisal report (Appendix. 5.1), commissioned by NCC and completed by MGWSP in March 2010 considered 22 potential interventions to determine which option best achieved the primary objective. The 22 alternative interventions are summarised in Table 5.1 below. Table 5.1 Alternative Interventions Intervention Description Number Develop a short bypass road from Dodford to just past the A45/A5 crossroads to ease traffic congestion at these 1 crossroads 2 Include bypass option using the A5 and B4036 as part of the bypass to reduce cost (includes upgrading existing roads) Develop a bypass parallel to the B4036 and joining the M1 at Long Buckby Wharf (this is nearer to Daventry and will also 3 serve Long Buckby) to stop HGVs using the A45 through Dodford/Flore 4 Northern bypass scheme (the stakeholder’s preferred bypass scheme) 5 Central bypass scheme 6 Southern bypass scheme 7 Utilise the old railway line above Dodford to provide a bypass option that links from the A45/B4038/A425 roundabout at Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-1 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives Intervention Description Number Daventry up to a proposed new M1 Junction 16A North of Flore Develop a longer bypass option that passes round Dodford (i.e. a 8 Dodford/Weedon/Flore/Upper Heyford bypass) 9 Develop a toll bypass road (design is the same as the bypass options but the road will be paid for by public contributions 10 Widen the M1 motorway to 4 lanes 11 Develop a bypass option ending with a junction on the motorway north of Flore 12 Convert the Watford gap services to a new M1 junction 13 Upgrade the current B4036/A5 junction to accommodate future growth traffic from the new developments 14 Upgrade Nobottle Road so it can cope with extra traffic and be a viable alternative road to the A45 15 Downgrade Nobottle Road to force traffic back onto the A45 and increase the justification of a bypass 16 Traffic calming in Dodford/Weedon/Flore/Upper Heyford to discourage traffic from using the A45 17 Street lighting from Weedon to Daventry for walking to encourage use by pedestrians Off road cycle track (extending the current cycle track so that there is a cycle track for the whole route between 18 Northampton and Daventry) 19 Implement a high quality bus service to Long Buckby railway station coordinating with the train timetable 20 Revive Weedon railway station 21 Impose a weight/height restriction on the A45 through the villages of Weedon and Flore Include a lorry park near the proposed industrial developments at M1 Junction 16 and place a restriction on current lay-bys 22 on the A45 (with the aim of solving the concerns regarding HGVs turning into the A45 from lay-bys in the morning peak time) 5.3.3 As detailed within the WebTAG Environmental Options Appraisal report (Appendix. 5.1) the 22 interventions were assessed against preliminary criteria derived from stakeholder meetings. It was concluded that of the 22 alternatives a bypass between Daventry and the M1 Junction 16 was deemed to both alleviate traffic sufficiently on the A45 and provided benefits to the greatest number of residents and road users. 5.3.4 In order to determine the most appropriate route, several options were considered as detailed below. 5.4 Alternative Routes for the Proposed Scheme 5.4.1 Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) considered in total four potential routes. The route options considered included a Northern Route (Option A), which is the basis of the current Proposed Scheme, a second Northern Route (Option B), a Central Route and a Southern Route. The alternative routes are provided in Appendix 5.1 and on Figure 5.1. 5.4.2 The WebTAG Environmental Options Appraisal report (Appendix 5.1), assessed three of the four routes and appraised each scheme against a number of environmental components. The second Northern Route (Option B) was not considered until after the report had been completed, thus unassessed in the appraisal report. However, the second Northern Route (Option B) follows a similar pathway to the Northern Route (Option A) and thus would not differ substantially from the assessed Northern Route. Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-2 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives 5.4.3 The three schemes considered within the Environmental Options Appraisal are outlined below. Ŷ Northern Bypass Scheme - starting from the M1 Junction 16, running parallel to the M1, and passes to the north of Upper Heyford and Flore to join the A5 to the north of Weedon. It then continues to the north of Weedon to join the A45; Ŷ Central Bypass Scheme – starts from the A45 just to the east of Upper Heyford and passes alongside the M1 to the North of Upper Heyford. From this point it passes south of Flore then extends north to join the A5 to the north of Weedon. The route then continues to the north of Weedon to join the A45 northwest of Weedon. Ŷ Southern Bypass Scheme – starts from the M1 junction 16 and crosses to the south of Upper Heyford and Flore to join the A5 to the south of Weedon. It then continues to the south of Weedon and extends north to join the A45 to the northwest of Weedon. 5.4.4 Using WebTAG guidance (TAG Unit 3.3.1) (Ref 5.1) each alternative route was appraised, via desk based assessment. Several assessment criteria are used within this process and are as follows: Ŷ Noise; Ŷ Local Air Quality; Ŷ Regional Air Quality; Ŷ Greenhouse Gases; Ŷ Landscape; Ŷ Heritage of Historic Resources; Ŷ Biodiversity; and Ŷ Water Environment. 5.4.5 In addition to the environmental components considered above a Preliminary Sources Study report and an Agricultural Route Options Appraisal (see Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of Appendix 5.1) were also completed. These additional reports relate to potential geotechnical issues and the quality of agricultural land that is encountered by each proposed route. 5.4.6 Table 5.2 outlines the environmental criteria and the summary of each assessment used to determine the preferential order of the three proposed schemes. Furthermore the Preliminary Sources Study and Agricultural Route Options Appraisal are covered within the table below. Table 5.2: Assessment Summary of listed Environmental Criteria for Alternative Routes Environmental Baseline Summary Preference Order Criteria Each scheme was tested for predicted noise levels during The current noise environment, the opening year and the following fifteen years of the for all proposed routes, is likely schemes. The resulting calculations indicate that the to be dominated by traffic noise, Northern and Central scheme had a net positive impact on with increased levels closer to noise annoyance (less annoyance with the project than major roads such as the M1, A5 without), whilst the southern scheme will result in an and A45. increased noise annoyance. The Northern Route falls within Northern: - 60 the current corridor of the M1 Northern > Central Noise for much of its length, whilst the Estimated Population (pop). Annoyed (without Scheme): 259 > Southern other two routes extended into Estimated Pop. Annoyed (with Scheme): 199 the more rural areas between the villages of Weedon Bec, Central: -46 Flore, Upper Heyford and Nether Heyford. The noise Estimated Pop. Annoyed (without Scheme): 258 levels at these locations may be Estimated Pop. Annoyed (with Scheme): 212 lower as the grade of road is Southern:+41 lower. Estimated Pop. Annoyed (without Scheme): 306 Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-3 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives Environmental Baseline Summary Preference Order Criteria Estimated Pop. Annoyed (with Scheme): 347 All routes currently pass through rural areas around the PM10 main villages of Weedon Bec, Flore. Upper Heyford and All three proposed schemes resulted in improved NO2 and Central > Northern Nether Heyford. PM10 concentrations, with no single scheme being the > Southern obvious choice, as some schemes offered greater reductions The air quality is mainly in PM , whilst others in NO concentrations. NO2 Local Air 10 2 influenced by emissions from Northern > Quality Northern: Net PM10 -289; Net NO2 -1628 road transport, due to the Southern > Central presence of the A45, A5 and Central: Net PM10 -276; Net NO2 -2101 M1. Overall Southern: Net PM10 -330; Net NO2 -1817 None of the proposed routes fall Northern > Central within an Air Quality > Southern Management Area. Only NOx concentrations were considered, due to its greater The air quality is mainly affinity to road transport.

Load more