LETTER: Newbury alternatives ignored
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.FFrom Mr Stephen Plowden
Sir: Peter Agar's claim (letter, 11 January) that the Newbury bypass "has satisfied the due processes of law and consultation" needs some qualification.
The public inquiry was held in the late Eighties. It has now been officially acknowledged that the methods of traffic forecasting in use at the time were incorrect in a way which could seriously exaggerate the case for roadbuilding. The Highways Agency claims that it has reassessed the Newbury bypass - even though the committee set up to advise on new methods of forecasting has not yet reported - but refuses to publish its study.
The inquiry did not consider means of tackling the problems other than roadbuilding, but in recent months ministers have recognised the need for policies to make the best use of the roads we already have. In addition, the cost estimate submitted to the inquiry was too low. Last October, the Highways Agency sent Joan Walley MP a list of all the road schemes completed in the preceding five years for which out-turn costs were available. In every one of the 78 schemes, the original cost estimate had been exceeded.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Plowden
London, NW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments