The possibility of a Relief Road for Ambleside has been under debate for a very long time - it was in 1928 that the then Urban District Council voted in favour but had their application rejected by Westmorland County Council. Since then the traffic through the town has increased by a large factor, and renewed applications for the building of a Relief Road have been made; a full application in 1978, a partial Relief Road (the "Rothay Link") in 1990. In 1992 the Highways Department of Cumbria County Council commissioned a study from a firm of traffic consultants who put forward a number of alternatives for public discussion.
These proposals have in general had a mixed reception. The 1978 scheme was approved by the National Park Planning Authority but rejected by the Department of the Environment. The Rothay Link was not considered worth while except as part of a full bypass. The public reception of the 1992 proposals has been interpreted as lukewarm (60% of those who returned the questionnaire were in favour of a relief road on one or other of the routes). On the other hand, when in 1993 a group of ARRC volunteers went from door to door asking Ambleside residents whether they would sign a petition to Parliament in support of a relief road, a total of 1046 signatures - 79.6% of those approached - was obtained, indicating a level of local support considerably higher than 60%. In typical opinion surveys this level of support would be described as "overwhelming". In this petition, only one route, the "orange" route (see below) was specified.
There have been, and still are, groups which campaign vigorously against all road development proposals within the National Park, whenever they are made. Some of these groups are local, but so far as can be ascertained they have only a small active membership and the views so forcefully expressed are in reality only those of a few determined committee members. Some are national organisations, most of whose members are not Lake District residents at all (let alone Ambleside residents) and have little personal experience of local traffic problems. All of these groups campaign on the basis that a "bypass" must inevitably be highly destructive of the beautiful environment of the Rothay Valley. This belief is challenged in the sections which follow.
The Ambleside Relief Road Campaign (ARRC) has been instituted to promote equally vigorously the view supported by the 1046 signatories to the petition to Parliament - and, we believe, also supported by many who were not interviewed on that occasion. It single objective is defined as to urge the Highway Authority (Cumbria County Council) to initiate the construction of a Relief Road for Ambleside, following the route described as the "orange" route in that Council's consultative documents, for the benefit of the residents of Ambleside and of travellers through Central Lakeland. This objective is stated in the same wording as that on the Parliamentary petition, so that it is fair to consider the l046 signatories to be declared supporters of ARRC, and to claim that ARRC represents the great majority of Ambleside residents.
The use by ARRC of the words "Relief Road" in preference to "Bypass" is deliberate. It is our belief that much of the opposition to "bypass" proposals arises from the mental picture which the word "bypass" conjures up - that of a broad straight road (probably a dual carriageway), such as is found on the outskirts of most major cities and whose very nature encourages speeding traffic. This is definitely not the kind of road for which we are campaigning. This aspect will be discussed in more detail below.
During 1993, a Lake District Traffic Management Initiative was set up, bringing together four organisations (Cumbria County Council, the Lake District National Park Authority, the Cumbria Tourist Board and the Countryside Commission) to study in detail, over a three year period, all aspects of traffic management within the Lake District. The members of ARRC welcomed this initiative and responded positively to its consultative documents. However, most aspects of traffic management which are being studied are quite irrelevant to Ambleside's particular problems.
In this document, "Ambleside" will generally be taken to include Waterhead and Under Loughrigg.
The source of Ambleside's traffic problem maybe very simply stated. The A591 is the only through route between the north and south of the Lake District, and all vehicles using this route have to pass through Ambleside`s narrow streets. At peak times, this problem is exacerbated by the need to handle rnerging traffic seeking to enter the A591 traffic flow from the A593 (the Coniston/Langdale road). It is further aggravated by the attempts of residents and visitors (many unfamiliar with the town) to find car parks or on-streetparking places.
Attempts have been made to divert through traffic via the M6 and A66 and to ban HGVs north of Grasmere, but these have been only partially successful. Much of the through traffic does not come from or aim for the M6 but from more local centres of population. And the system by which HGV operators have to obtain permits to use the route has proved ineffective because these permits are simply issued on request. Consequently the volume of through traffic on the A59l remains high, especially in the holiday season. In earlier years the problem was only acute at weekends in summer. Nowadays the "holiday season" for the Lake District extends from March to October, and thousands of visitors arrive for day visits throughout the winter, if the weather is fine. It is no longer the case that the problem is purely seasonal.
The excessive traffic through Ambleside has three consequences, all harmful. The most obvious is that at peak times, long queues of traffic build up on the approaches to the town, both on the A591 and on the A593. These can extend as far as Grasmere to the north, as far as Troutbeck Bridge to the south and well beyond Clappersgate to the west, and the delays can be over an hour. This is more than a source of irritation to holiday makers - it causes inconvenience and loss of income to local residents and business people, makes it impossible for public transport services to maintain their schedules and jeopardises the efficiency of emergency services.
The second consequence, less obvious perhaps but in the opinion of ARRC more serious, is that people in Ambleside, both residents and visitors, are subjected to intolerable levels of noise and pollution from vehicle fumes. Moreover, because the number pedestrians is large and the pavements are narrow, the hazard from passing vehicles is significant and crossing the road is risky, and especially difficult for elderly people. We may not all be motorists (though most people make use of motor vehicles a sometime) but we are all pedestrians whenever we want to go shopping or take part in the community life of Ambleside.
The third consequence is that Ambleside`s economic base, which now relies solely on tourism, is being eroded as the town becomes a place to avoid for those regular visitors who have suffered once too often in traffic queues. This effect is compounded by the lack of sufficient car parking for the numbers of people who want to use the town`s facilities.
Many of the objections which have in the past been raised against relief road proposals are based on the idea that such a road will be "hostile to the environment" It is as well to look at exactly what the word "environment" means. It does not simply refer to the landscape, with its fields, lanes, rivers and mountains. Used properly, the word refers to all aspects of the surroundings in which we live - that is, it includes our homes, the streets through which we walk to the shops, the library and so on and our place of work, as well as the landscape which surrounds us. In fact we can distinguish between our "home" environment, which might be taken to include the streets, shops, churches etc., our "work' environment, which might include the means of transport available to us to get to and from work, and our "leisure" environment, which for most people in the Lake District includes the countryside as well as sports fields and open spaces within the town.
It would therefore be wrong to think in terms of this road scheme being "for" or "against" the environment. What is needed is consideration of the balance between the various aspects of the environment. This is impossible to quantify - we cannot simply say that because we spend more time at home than enjoying leisure outside the home, therefore the home environment is more important. Leisure activities such as walking in the open air may contribute so much to our "quality of life" that we will value them to a extent much greater than an assessment of the hours spent would suggest.
ARRC has attempted to view the Relief Road question in terms of this balance between the various aspects of the environment. It is our contention that the Relief Road, if built in the form outlined here, would enhance the "home" environment of Ambleside people (and to some extent the "work" environment as well) to a very large extent, and that the detriment to the "leisure" environment would be quite small. On balance therefore, such a road would enhance the total environment rather than harming it.
Some of the "environmental" arguments against relief road proposals which have been made public have been couched in very emotive language, and have in our view presented a distorted picture, exaggerating the harmful aspects of road building and belittling the benefits. In this presentation of the case in favour of a Relief Road, ARRC has endeavoured to be factual throughout.
Various ways of overcoming the Ambleside traffic problem have been put forward as alternatives to a Relief Road. In the opinion of ARRC, none of them can be sustained as viable solutions when subjected to careful scrutiny. The term "traffic management" has been used to cover a number of possibilities, which have not always been well defined. Essentially, traffic management is seen in terms of restricting traffic flow rather than facilitating it.
4.1. "Traffic Management" for the entire National Park
If a traffic management scheme could be devised for the National Park as a whole, which would have the effect of drastically reducing the traffic on the A591 and A593, this would indeed make a Relief Road unnecessary. No such scheme has ever been worked out, and it is difficult to see any real possibility of one. The idea, for instance, that everyone would be obliged to park their cars at Kendal and ride from there on buses, is laughable. In a study commissioned in 1972 by the Friends of the Lake District, the A591 was designated a Primary Distributor road, thus recognising its importance to the economy of the region. The Lake District Traffic Management Initiative has now designated the A591 from Windermere to Ambleside as part of the County Strategic network, which again indicates that there is no real prospect of significantly reducing the overall traffic flow.
4.2. 'Traffic Management" within Ambleside
We are left with "traffic management" options within the Ambleside/Waterhead area. The traffic lights installed at Waterhead in 1994 were one such option. These traffic lights have reduced the queues on the A593 southbound, but this benefit has only been obtained at the cost of far longer queues on the A591 approaches both north and southbound. This particular measure has done nothing to alleviate the traffic in the town centre, in fact at peak times it causes traffic to back up into the town centre an add to the existing pollution. Of course, the major traffic management scheme - the one-way traffic system - which was put into effect "for a trial period", has now been in place for over twenty years. This system does as much as can be expected of any scheme which does nothing positive to take the traffic out of the town centre. Other suggestions have been the reintroduction of two-way traffic in Compston Road (making Market Street a pedestrian area) or in Wansfell Road (to enable the Waterhead area to be pedestrianised). Both of these are backward steps reverting to earlier abandoned patterns of traffic flow. All of these options shift the burden of traffic from one street to another but do nothing at all to overcome the overall traffic problem.
4.3. "Traffic Calming"
The idea of "traffic calming" - i.e. measures to reduce traffic speed, usually by means other than speed restriction signs - is comparatively new and such measures have seldom been applied to through traffic in a town centre. The usual methods are either "rumble strips" or humps (sometimes known as "sleeping policemen") and "gateways" which involve constructing a bottleneck, effectively narrowing a short length of road to single lane with directional priority. Rumble strips are a very effective way of slowing down traffic approaching a dangerous junction, but the additional noise which they create makes them unsuitable for use in a town centre. Humps are often used effectively to inhibit drivers from speeding through housing estates, but they are increasingly unacceptable to bus operators. Attempts to introduce them elsewhere in the area have resulted in threats to withdraw services by one major operator.
However, the application of traffic calming to Ambleside, which is one of the suggestions being considered by the Traffic Management Initiative, is really irrelevant. Ambleside's problem is the volume of traffic, not its speed. When the problem is most severe, the traffic can only crawl anyway. The same criticism also applies to the idea of a 20 mph speed limit through the town. When traffic is heavy and congested, it is already moving at less than 20 mph. When it is not, there is no reason to suppose that drivers would take more notice of a 20 mph limit than of the present 30 mph limit, which is regularly ignored on roads such as Lake Road and Rydal Road. Traffic calming may well be appropriate in Ambleside when a Relief Road is in place. It will not do instead.
4.4 "Park and Ride"
"Park and ride" schemes have proved very effective in helping to overcome traffic problems in cities such as Chester and Oxford, where motorists know well that parking in the city centre is likely to be either non-existent or very expensive. In the Lake District they might well prove equally effective as a way of reducing the traffic into valleys such as Langdale or Borrowdale. Such schemes do not appear at all appropriate for Ambleside. Indeed, it seems likely that if "park and ride" is applied to Langdale, either Ambleside or Waterhead will be expected to find space for the extra parking needed.
4.5 Summary of Options
Essentially, there are only two ways of overcoming the problem of excessive traffic in Ambleside's streets. One is to reduce the overall traffic on the A591 and A593 - all current projections and the latest road designations by the Traffic Management Initiative make this unattainable. The other is to divert the traffic on to a Relief Road. The other options simply do not address the real problem. The most effective of them - the one-way system - has already had a "trial period" of more than twenty years.
As already noted ARRC do not advocate the kind of road normally associated with the word "bypass", of which we have local examples at Kendal, Staveley and Grasmere. These are sections of road which are wide and straight or nearly straight, and therefore encourage fast driving and overtaking. Fast driving generates more traffic noise and more hazard to pedestrians - nobody wants these. The comment made in a leaflet opposing the Relief Road proposal that "Under Loughrigg does not deserve to become racetrack is one with which ARRC fully agrees. The point is that equating "Relief Road" with "racetrack" does not have to be a valid comparison.
The existing sections of the A591 between Low Wood and Waterhead, and between Scandale Bridge and Rydal, have quite tight curves and changes in level which limit the driver's sight lines, and are mostly subject to double white lines to forbid overtaking. These constraints are far more effective in keeping vehicle speeds down than any legally applied speed limits. It therefore makes sense for the Relief Road, which would run from Waterhead to Scandale Bridge to have similar characteristics and to be designed for a 30 mph maximum speed. This design speed would mean that the road width could be kept to a minimum figure consistent with safety. This in turn would enable the road to be fitted carefully into the contours of the land and minimise its environmental impact. The road could have a footpath similar to that alongside the road between Scandale Bridge and Rydal.
It is part of the intentions of ARRC to act as watchdogs on behalf of the local environment and to ensure that the enthusiasm of traffic engineers does not lead them to design the kind of road which is inappropriate.
The study carried out in 1992 defined five possible routes for a Relief Road, and it is difficult to believe that any others exist. We will therefore assess each of these in turn. Note that all except the "blue" route incorporate the "Rothay Link" roads their southern section.
6.1. The "Blue" (Eastern) Route
This really needs very little consideration. It would be difficult to engineer, extremely expensive to build, and would create a very obvious scar across the hillside, since a road built across a slope needs embankments both below and above it. It would be highly destructive of the environment in the area of Stock Ghyll and in Rydal Park. It also does nothing to help with the problem of merging traffic from the A593 and A591.
6.2. The "Brown" (Central) Routes
There were two variants of the brown route affecting the northern exit but their main features were not made obvious. These routes run quite close to the west of the Parish Church and cut through several playing fields and recreational areas. Because they run fairly close to houses in Millans Park, Stoney Lane and Rydal Road, the benefits in terms of reduced traffic noise would be less than for other routes. These are the shortest, and therefore cheapest, options.
6.3. The "Yellow" (Tunnel) Route
This route follows a similar line to the "brown" routes, but its central section would be in a "cut and cover" tunnel, minimising its visual impact. This route has received a good deal of locals support, since it seems to give the best of both worlds. In this respect, the space taken up by the necessary graded entry and exit ramps, the disturbance caused by the actual construction, and disposal of excavated material may not have been given sufficient consideration. It also seems likely that there would be a real danger of flooding, since the roadway would be well below the level of water in Windermere. A tunnel would be very expensive to build. It has been said that in Norway or Germany, such a tunnel would be built as a matter of course. This may be so, but the fact is that the proposals have to be seen against British attitudes to public spending.
6.4. The "Black" and "Orange" (Western) Routes
These two routes are similar at their northern ends, where both pass to the west of Miller Bridge and run parallel to Scandale beck, rejoining the A591 near Scandale Bridge. The "Black" route runs past the Bowling Club, through the Rothay Holme industrial estate (where a stand of mature trees would need to be felled in crossing an awkward rocky knoll), and crosses the River Rothay twice, once to the south of Miller Bridge and once to the north of it. On this route the A591/A593 intersection (presumably roundabout) would be on the Red Bottom link road in front of Rothay Manor hotel. On the "Orange" route this intersection would lie to the west of the Rothay, and from this point to Miller Bridge the road would follow the line of the existing Underloughrigg Road. These routes are similar in cost and were considered by the consultants to provide good economic value. Both lie well away from the main housing areas so that traffic noise would not be a problem. The number of properties adversely affected would be small. However, the lane from Rothay Bridge to Miller Bridge, which at present makes a pleasant walk would become a main road with footpath. Some compensation for this might be the construction of a footpath on the east bank.
6.6. Public Opinion on the Options
When the County Council's study was published in 1992, an illustrated leaflet and a questionnaire were circulated to all households in Ambleside, and an exhibition was staged for two days at a central venue. The response to the questionnaire was disappointing. Only 856 were returned by Ambleside residents, out of 3000 distributed. It is possible that the short duration of the exhibition, and the cramped location in which it was presented, were contributory factors in this poor response. Of those who responded, 60% were in favour of a bypass. Of these, about 33% preferred one of the "brown" routes, 25% (each) were in favour of "black" and "orange". and 17% preferred "yellow". It was probably inevitable that when five alternatives were offered, no obvious consensus resulted. However, since the "black" and "orange" routes are basically similar, the result can be seen as an overall preference for one of the western routes rather than one of the central routes.
6.7. Assessment of the Options by ARRC
The only basis of choice is to minimise the number of negative features. The assessment made by ARRC is that the "blue" route is ruled out on grounds of environmental impact and cost, and the "yellow" route on grounds of cost and possible technical problems. The choice therefore lies between the "brown" routes, which demolish several playing fields and public open spaces and which lie close to houses, and the "black" or "orange" routes, which change part of the Underloughrigg road from a quiet lane into a major road.
The ARRC view is that of these, the "orange" route has fewest drawbacks, and this is the one which we support. This is the route which was approved by the National Park Planning Authority in 1973, and which was supported by the signatories to the Petition to Parliament. However, we would also consider the "black" route to be acceptable.
The route described is that at present envisaged by ARRC, and is identical to the "orange" route except for a minor deviation at the northern end. Minor variations might be made later if considered appropriate. For each section, comments are added, relating to criticisms that have been made of Relief Road proposals (for example, statements that the road would be highly visible from the surrounding fells). Every effort has been made to be factual in the comments offered.
7.1. Southern Section (The "Rothay Link" Road)
It is envisaged that if the Relief Road is built, the Waterhead area will be pedestrianised in accordance with the recommendations of the Management Plan for Windermere (1981). This would be a major improvement, giving for the first time freedom from traffic to the lake`s most popular access point.)
The route leaves Lake Road just north of the house called Waterhead Range and drops down in the space between that property and Hayes Garden Centre. In the dip, next to the electricity substation, a roundabout would be built. One branch would run alongside the substation to link up with an existing lane, which would be widened. This would be the road access for the hotels and car parks at Waterhead and for the properties along Borrans Road. A branch on the north-east would provide access to the Garden Centre. The main route would swing north and then west, through fields lying between the Garden Centre and Broadlands, to cross Borrans Road between Rothay Manor hotel and the Rugby Club. Borrans Road would be closed to vehicular traffic to the south of the entrances to Broadlands and the Rugby Club pavilion. The route would continue westwards, crossing the Rothay by a new bridge lying just to the south of the Bronwen Nixon footbridge. To the west of the Clappersgate road (A593) is a level field which would be the site of a roundabout forming the A591/A593 interchange. Traffic experts might consider traffic lights more appropriate at this point in which case there would be a saving of space.
There are few viewpoints on the east side of the valley from which this section of the route could be seen, and from these, it is the Garden Centre which dominates the scene; most of this part of the route lies in a hollow in the ground. As it approaches Borrans Road, the route runs alongside an existing footpath, which would be made less attractive but not blocked. It would probably be necessary to encroach slightly on the land now occupied by the Rugby Club. The new bridge over the Rothay would be far enough (60 metres approx.) from the existing Rothay Bridge (a listed building) to avoid any visual clash.
From the west, this section would be visible from Todd Crag (the south-eastern top of Loughrigg Fell), but here again the Garden Centre tends to dominate the scene and it is not considered that the Relief Road would be any more prominent in the landscape than Borrans Road. The adverse impact of this section on the outlook from existing properties would be minimal.
7.2. Centre Section - Rothay Bridge to Miller Bridge
The southernmost part of this section would follow closely the line of the existing road, which would require to be widened by about 50% of its present width. No doubt the river bank would need to be strengthened. Where the route passes in front of the Riverside Hotel, the west bank of the Rothay would need to be realigned slightly to provide extra space; the river here is wider than elsewhere, so this would not introduce a danger of flooding. The hotel would lose the parking space between the road and river, but could probably obtain land on the other side of the road for this purpose. The route would encroach slightly on the gardens of houses (Miller Bridge) on the west of the road.
To the north of the grounds of these houses, the route would swing slightly to the west across a level field, to allow space for pedestrians using Miller Bridge. Space here which at present is often used for parking might continue to be available for that purpose. Traffic islands would be provided for the safety of pedestrians using Miller Bridge and wishing to climb Loughrigg.
This section is largely screened by trees and is not overlooked from any point on the fells. Although at present it forms a pleasant, level walk, the scenery has already been spoiled by the erection of industrial buildings on the east bank of the river There would be an adverse impact on the Riverside Hotel and on a group of houses, but these are set well back and largely screened by bushes. Access to the CHA holiday centre at Loughrigg Brow would be improved.
It is envisaged that there would be no access for vehicles from the Relief Road to that part of the Under Loughrigg road from Miller Bridge to Pelter Bridge. This section has already been subjected to "Access Only" status by the Traffic Management Initiative The new peace and quiet of this popular walking route would therefore not be threatened.
7.3. Northern Section - Miller Bridge to Scandale Bridge
Here the route crosses the Rothay and runs across level fields, crossing Scandale Beck at some point in the middle and avoiding the various rocky knolls. It would be necessary for the road level here to be raised by two or three feet to avoid the risk of flooding. It does not come near any properties. The junction with the existing A591 near Scandale Bridge needs further study. The existing bridge is not entirely satisfactory because of the angle at which it is set, leading to occasional collisions between speeding vehicles and the parapet. It might be better to build a new bridge just to the west of the old one, and to use the old bridge purely for pedestrian access to Rydal Park. This access would thereby be much improved.
This section is barely visible from one or two points on the lane up to Brow Head Farm and again from some points on Todd Crag. It can also be seen from points at the extreme north-western tip of Loughrigg, but this is an area where few walkers go. There are no viewpoints on the east side of the valley from which it would be obvious. In summer it would be partly screened by the trees growing alongside Scandale Beck.
A summary of the conclusions drawn by ARRC from its study of the Ambleside traffic problem is as follows:
8.1 The traffic problem arises from the fact that the A591 is a major through route for the Lake District, passes through the narrow streets of Ambleside, and is required, within the town, to accept merging traffic from the A593 and to stop for pedestrian crossings (without which many local people would be unable to cross), and often to allow vehicles to exit from parking places. This results in long traffic queues and in degradation of the environment for the people who live, work and pass their holidays in Ambleside.
8.2 There is no foreseeable prospect of a reduction in the through traffic On the contrary according to all forecasts it is likely to increase.
8.3 Proposals for traffic management by re-routing traffic within the town would be ineffective, and traffic calming measures would be inappropriate for the situation.
8.4 A Relief Road is therefore the only viable solution. Considered overall, such a road would enhance the living environment for the great majority of local people.
8.5 Of all the alternatives, the "orange" route, running under Loughrigg, which was the route approved by the Planning Authority in 1978, is the most suitable and cost effective, and does least to harm the countryside.
8.6 It is neither necessary or desirable to defer a decision until other alternatives have been considered. The need exists now, and the County Council should initiate a Planning Application at once in order that the Relief Road can be built as soon as any financial constraints permit.
M. Start. 10/03/94 - Revised PR 24/11/96
To download this file as an MSWord document click here (includes detailed map) (total 262Kb)
To download this file as a text file click here (12Kb)
BACK to the top of this page
BACK to ARRC Introduction
BACK to Ambleside Online Front Page
BACK to Ambleside Clubs and Groups