Synpunkter till Trafikverket 6 september 2016

Här kan ni läsa de synpunkter jag lämnade in till Trafikverket med uppmaningen att avbryta projekt Trosa förbifart/Infart västra Trosa.

125_trafikverket-trv-2015-6825-synpunkter-fran-a-bohlin

I have worked on a Save Trosa nature document to our Transportation authority that contains many good reasons for Trosa not to build a new big road through a landscape that could be nature reserve in the future. If you can read Swedish, you can click the documentlink if you want to see what I wrote.

Anna

We need our nature, not a new road.

We need our nature, not a new road.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Synpunkter till Trafikverket 6 september 2016

  1. Well done Anna – have just used google translate to enable me to read the document and I am impressed. For the benefit of other monolingual English readers of your blog:

    COMMENTS REGARDING THE ENTRANCE WEST STRING / STRING DIVERSION
    I have taken note of the consultation document, which was presented at the consultation 2016-08-23 and
    available from and including 2016-08-25 on Trafikverket’s website.
    Consultation documents presents adequate grounds to cancel the project.
    The documents also show that the project has too many big unanswered questions, making all
    second positions, but to cancel the project impossible.
    The development of these two statements;
    GROUNDS TO CANCEL THE PROJECT
    The stated objectives will not be achieved by a bypass road / driveway.
    As stated purposes
    Improving accessibility in Trosa:
    The streets will not be broader or more bridges just because a bypass being built. Furthermore
    traffic calculations that thong inner city traffic will increase significantly.
    Reduce travel time between the eastern and western parts of the thong:
    The documentation is not recognized some time savings and the short distances shown are time gain
    not even involve minutes.
    Improve road safety in terms of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries in central
    Trosa:
    Someone death and injury statistics are not presented in the consultation document. In the 2000s, are no
    commonly known deaths or serious injuries on the area around the smack Brogatan. How to reduce
    something that is already zero?
    Trosa locality should be able to expand and develop themselves so that the new areas west of the city reaches both
    Road 218, 782 and 785 with no negative impact on existing traffic in central Trosa:
    Thong inner city traffic will, according to the reported traffic flows will increase by 25-93%. It is a
    Negative impact on existing traffic.
    2 (6)
    The stated project goals will not be achieved by a bypass road / driveway.
    As stated project goals
    Accessibility in central Trosa connections should be designed so that the traffic has not been the target point
    Central Trosa will use the new road:
    It is not clear from the consultation material, presented at the consultation meeting 2016-08-23 how much
    Some of today’s traffic that does not have the destination point in the center thong that goes through the Trosa.
    Tureholm Peninsula traffic is already largely over Västerljung-Hunga-Vagnharad when the thong is not
    destination point, primarily due to accessibility on Västerljung road and Hunga road is better
    and that the route does not involve any loss of time.
    Traffic coming from the north are unlikely to first go to the thong and then take the bypass / entrance
    past the thong to come south. The natural route selection goes over Vagnharad. Again for
    accessibility is good and time is rather less than to go into the thong to just pass
    through the city. Västerljung and Vagnharad in addition it is also better access to roads leading to
    targets outside the municipality.
    The traffic today comes from the eastern side makes it largely to / pick up children at
    daycare / preschool / school at Björkbacken / Vitalis. They will hardly take the detour as a future
    bypass / entrance would mean.
    Bus services using smack Bridge can hardly use the bypass / line as options when
    actually stops located along smack Brogatan / Västerljung road. The traffic based on
    pass through the central thong precisely in order to more environmentally friendly ways to transport people to and
    the thong urban than by passenger transport.
    Which traffic could be diverted is therefore highly uncertain that even the extent of the
    the traffic is. Traffic flows reported in the consultation documents also show that the inner city
    traffic will increase by 25%. The increase on the east side is beyond 93%.
    Travel Time / accessibility, the road should be a good connection to vehicular traffic in 2040 between Eastern and
    western parts of the Trosa:
    If we in Sweden jointly cope with climate objectives, which we in Paris in 2015 committed to achieving
    today’s environmentally negative way to transport in cars probably barely be permitted.
    Building new roads is not the right solution to Trosa traffic.
    Traffic flow calculations show that årsdygnstrafiken estimated at only 1400 vehicles (3% heavy
    traffic). In comparison with the current values for Västerljung 1460 (6% of heavy traffic) proves
    bypass / relief infartens ability to be fairly marginal.
    Trosa traffic situation can be improved with much more modern and small-scale climate-smart
    solutions than a bypass road / driveway. Several of Sweden’s municipalities have come much further than briefs
    their preparations for vehicle traffic. Trosa should first study such municipalities
    3 (6)
    work before embarking on expensive large-scale solutions, which still will not achieve the specified
    purposes.
    Barrier effect, be minimized by safe passages:
    Consultation documents have no inquiries about the noise effect and motion effect. Animals are extremely
    easily stressed by both unknown movements and sounds. Safe passages is not enough to safeguard and
    maintaining animals living space in the area.
    A bypass road / driveway would generate noise, movement and unnatural light around the clock. The project will not
    to ensure that animals are shielded from this ongoing disorder.
    Bypass / entrance will affect an area of at least 60 hectares and then destroy large
    parts of animals now existing living space.
    The impact on the natural and cultural environments; natural and cultural environment with high values in the areas concerned
    retains its qualities and have the potential to be developed and made visible:
    With a bypass road / driveway is not natural and cultural environments maintained. An area of 60 ha
    will noice and pollution disturb around the clock.
    The design will be adapted so that road users should experience construction that consistently and
    harmonious with the adjacent environment:
    Asphalt, noise and emissions can never be consistent and harmonious in relation to an original
    natural landscapes. The documents indicate nor how animals and plants are expected to experience the new environment.
    where scenery; the design of the road should respect the conditions of the landscape so that infringe
    valuable landscape minimized:
    The writing shows that there is valuable administration to consider. That in itself should be a single
    reason not to carry out the construction. The intrusion in the landscape will be significant and
    forever.
    Costs of alternatives, rock cutting 130-150 m, 140-170 m tunnel, costs will be
    reported more closely in the decision data that will be available around mid-September:
    At the consultation 2016-08-23 visitors were invited to submit comments, especially regarding
    which option to Road routes which they considered most appropriate. Without full cost accounting is
    it is impossible to consider such a question.
    4 (6)
    Someone financing plan has not been presented at any consultation. Without this, it is not
    nor to consider the project itself. The project should be stopped because of inadequate
    basis for consultations public, namely, the people who most affected by the project.
    archaeological excavation
    The report reveals good reason to cancel the project bypasses / entrance worst.
    It indicates that the area covers about 60 hectares and is adjacent to two areas of national interest for
    cultural conservation. Tureholm country estate in the west, and the very ancient remains tight
    Trosaåns farmland along the river valley to the east. That in itself should provide adequate basis for
    continue to let Hungaskogen and Trosaåns valley intact. The area connects both
    national interest areas and it is important to maintain the position of Trosa cultural countryside.
    The study points out of one of the areas that “no remains visible on the site, which is fairly low lying
    and does not appear to have been suitable for habitation “. If it was not suitable for building formerly
    it probably will not now either. Another due to leave the area untouched.
    Two significant findings are reported in the investigation. An itinerary and a settlement. Both findings are in the area
    Road routes which are supposed to take place. It would be a destructive alternative disturbing of these
    registered finds.
    The report also stated “if the rest after the old road could be substantiated in the field would
    classified as archaeological “. It has thus already been tried, but failed to maintain a
    road in the area that is now supposed to vägbebygga. This should indicate that the conditions for road building
    not appropriate.
    Even today, the project studies found poor soil conditions as more expensive project.
    These conditions clearly signaling that the project should be stopped. Soil conditions will not
    only increase the cost of construction costs but also future maintenance costs.
    amphibians Inventory
    The report indicated good reason to cancel the project bypasses / entrance.
    The investigation indicates that the habitat values long tree continuity and old trees are as good as
    irreparable and very difficult to compensate within a reasonable period of time.
    It also states that the negative consequences that the interference with it should be compensated so far
    as possible. To this end, a compensation plan is developed.
    Any compensation accounting has not been presented to the inhabitants / consultations circuit. To decide
    the question of alternatives to Road routes is therefore impossible.
    5 (6)
    Natural value Inventory
    Even natural value inventory indicates a variety of reasons that the project bypasses / entrance should be discontinued.
    The survey was conducted September 29, 2015. The report indicates that a certain uncertainty
    exists in the inventory since the time of the inventory is not adapted to
    identify all species.
    It must be considered remarkable that one does not want to allow a natural value inventory at a more
    appropriate time when the project’s impact on existing nature will be highly noticeable.
    When there is uncertainty about the inventory, you can not take a position on the project’s suitability
    other than that it should be discontinued.
    Area census indicates that 60% of the area consists of forest land and around 40% of
    farmland.
    As an eco-municipality has Trosa a responsibility to not build on agricultural land.
    The inventory discloses throughout a constant area of protection nature, exhibiting a clear
    diversity and continuity, which should provide an adequate basis to not break the landscape with a
    road that is not needed, but that will leave deep traces irreparable in a large area.
    The survey also notes that the construction will increase the fragmentation of the landscape.
    Thong has already fragmented very large parts of urban nature, which was formerly one of
    the highest attractiveness values for the district. Fragmenting and utsläppsstöra further parts of
    recreation are would be devastating for the district’s attractiveness. People moving to thong to experience
    nature up close. People tourists in Trosa to experience the same close to nature.
    Climate-wise, it is not viable to continue the deforestation of Trosa nature.
    Trees perform many ekotjänster for us humans. Trees protect from strong winds, giving milder
    winter climate, trailing by powerful solar, cleans the air from pollution, traffic noise dampening, absorbing
    heat during hot summer days, each tree produces oxygen for a man, 25 trees will take care of a
    automobile emissions, trees prevents nutrient runoff into the sea from rivers and lakes.
    If we take away the forest to increase traffic in the thong, it means a huge negative climate effects, which
    will impair our collective health forever.
    KEY ISSUES TO MUNICIPALITY / TRAFFIC work has not yet supplied answers to
    In the consultation document, the traffic will be done with 129% of Utterviks road. I
    has both the municipality and the Swedish Transport Administration asked what causes such a sharp calculated
    traffic to and from Tureholm peninsula, but received no response.
    Possibly related calculations together with that under “Buildings and destinations” indicates that
    the road will allow for expansion at Lagnö bay / Tureholm Bay. The comprehensive plan, adopted
    2015, neither stating or permitting such strong expansion plans.
    6 (6)
    Traffic flow calculations suggest that such grand plans are, that seems to be more
    than a Tureholmshalvö to. In the consultation document it is not apparent which ones would benefit from a
    Such vigorous exploitation of the peninsula. The theoretical grand plans, however, would constitute
    explanation of how the municipality intended to finance road construction and why the way according to the politicians
    needed.
    Why Västerljung estimated Road traffic is only expected to increase by 23% while in
    Consultation documents indicating that the bypass / entrance should allow for expansion west of Trosa
    is not clear. The increase indicates no major future expansion westward, but seems to correspond to the
    Today plotted planned buildings.
    Consultation documents provide no answers to the key questions. As long as the municipality does not apply
    transparency of information for the project should be canceled.
    Questions that should be answered by the municipality / Transport Administration to give the residents a fair chance to assess
    if the project is worth doing or not:
    1. How can the municipality against the climate commitments we have since the Paris Agreement 2015 defending the
    municipality building new roads, which also will not meet the stated purpose?
    2. What will the road lead beyond the 60 hectares natural landscape you will consume?
    As the municipality announced that development charges to finance the road means
    that even large areas of unbroken green space will be consumed up forever.
    3. How can you honestly claim that traffic in urban areas will be unloaded when
    traffic projections indicate increases of between 25-93% in urban areas?
    4. Why resolves and relieves not Åda road already congested traffic in the first place? According to
    traffic accounting is the way by far the busiest in the municipality. The
    should be the subject of action in the first place.
    5. Where will you place the development, which will finance road. In the highest
    cost option dealing with over 1000 dwellings?
    Summary
    Cancel Bypass Project / entrance. The project will not benefit the people, nature and the climate.
    Our attraction values in the form of, right of access compatible walking areas will be lost both in the
    zone bypass / entrance is supposed to consume and in areas of subsequent expansion will
    to happen. Residents and visitors have nothing to gain from the project.
    Trosa September 6, 2016
    Anna Bohlin, Trosa

    Like

    • Thank you so much for the translation. I edited the “thong” parts. My town Trosa means Thong in Swedish too. We have a silly name on our town 😉

      Like

  2. Tack Anna! Mycket bra synpunkter till Trafikverket/kommunen. Vilket engagemang, önskar jag hade samma energi att fördjupa mig i denna komplexa fråga och förmåga att skriva om den som du. Jag gör dock mitt bästa för att sprida informationen och försöka få folk att skriva på namnlistan att stoppa Förbifarten, bl a på lämpliga forum på Facebook. Det är dock en komplex fråga, vilket visas genom att ett sånt enkelt projekt som att stoppa skarvarna på Snöholmen samlat 1090 namnunderskrifter, medan det mycket viktigare ställningstagandet att stoppa förbifarten endast samlat in något hundratal namnunderskrifter. Mera information behövs och den senaste tiden har det också kommit fram många kritiska röster, sannolikt en följd av samrådsmötet i augusti. Så länge vi kan hålla diskussionen igång och informera om vilka konsekvenser den planerade vägen kommer att få, finns det hopp att politikerna kommer att ändra sig.

    Like

    • Tack! Ja det gäller att aldrig ge upp. Naturen har svårt att göra sin röst hörd på egen hand annat än när det blåser och åskar ute 😉
      Mer information i denna fråga behövs verkligen! Tack för ditt viktiga engagemang.

      Like

What do you say? / Vad säger du om detta?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s