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
Annas Art - FärgaregårdsAnna 
I can’t read the Swedish, but I ‘liked’ for the intent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. The saving nature issue is important to all of us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can check out Thomas comment, he translated the Swedish text 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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 😉
LikeLike
Cool art!! But, you have to teach me Swedish! And, I can teach you Hindi!
LikeLike
Thanks. You can check out Thomas comment if you want to read in English what I wrote in Swedish. Sure I´ll teach you Swedish and I learn Hindi 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Deal!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Good thing to do Anna.
Leslie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. I had very little time to read all info on the subject and then write the comments, but it turned out as well as it could under the circumstances 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is well with the effort.
Leslie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person