WHEN I walked into the A14 Exhibition in Godmanchester s Queen Elizabeth Hall – before I was kindly offered any assistance from the Highways Agency or the engineers – I was ambushed by a chap from the Offords Action group and handed a letter. It consisted
WHEN I walked into the A14 Exhibition in Godmanchester's Queen Elizabeth Hall - before I was kindly offered any assistance from the Highways Agency or the engineers - I was ambushed by a chap from the Offords Action group and handed a letter. It consisted of three points explaining why people should push for the Brown Route. In the third point it reads: "It is true the brown route goes slightly closer to the new housing developments on the very eastern part of Godmanchester" (they were comparing it with orange route). Not only is this propaganda, it is completely false.
I have three points to make: since when does over half a mile equal "a slight bit closer" - because that is how much closer the brown route is to Godmanchester than the orange. Look carefully at the maps on the questionnaires. They are scaled drawings, so it's easy to check with a simple ruler.
The brown route, as with the others, goes south at the bottom of Godmanchester, where housing has existed from the 1970s up to the 1990s. This area would remain much closer to any routes than any "new housing developments on the very eastern parts on Godmanchester" would.
Speaking to the engineers, I queried the guides on noise pollution, ie why they show only the houses affected up to 300 metres. Their reply was that it is basically a type of standard that they use. Doesn't noise exist beyond 300 metres?
Again, if you measure the scaled drawings, you will see as soon as you hit 300 metres a huge number of Godmanchester homes would be affected. Therefore the table in the Highways Agency questionnaire doesn't fully reflect how much a dramatic impact on noise pollution the brown route would have.
Information is good when it's honest and accurate, otherwise what's the point?
UNFORTUNATELY ("Agency says village has missed point over the A14," December 13), it is the Highways Agency which is refusing to consider alternate views and comments in what they claim to be a consultation exercise.
Demolishing the A14 Brampton Road overbridge will remove traffic currently travelling on the direct north/south route of the existing A14 to the A1 and vice versa, and will force that traffic to join the proposed east/west six-lane routes, increasing traffic load on what could be an exclusively east/west relief road.
As a simple demonstration of the lack of joined-up thinking on the part of the Highways Agency, a decision not to consider the fate of the overbridge predicates the potential for considerable savings on the six-lane east/west routes.
Retaining the existing north/south A14 removes the need for an expensive graded junction with the A1 just to the north of Buckden for the "new" east/west routes, creating a junction less, which in itself is a means of improving safety on the new road given the relationship of accidents to changes in speed of vehicles entering or leaving at junctions.
The downgraded sections of the existing A14 at Brampton Hut and Spittals would still provide access to both sections of the A14 for local traffic.
By short-sightedly focusing the present flawed consultation on just one piece of the jigsaw, the Highways Agency precludes the opportunity even to consider this option, and confirms that it is the blinkered approach of the Highways Agency that "misses the point" and flaws the current consultation!
Great North Road