Letter: Oxford: to bypass or not to bypass
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.Sir: I am amazed that Sir William Hayter should quote the North Oxford A40 bypass as an example of 'roads that no one in the areas affected wants'. It was Sir William himself who chaired the original public meeting on 6 June 1966 when the bypass was first mooted and given overwhelming support by the 500 residents present and the chairman (Oxford Mail, 7 June 1966). Since then only the traffic load has changed. A house-to-house poll in the affected area last week revealed 95 per cent support for the bypass.
At present the A40 London to Fishguard trunk road carries 30,000- 40,000 vehicles per day through suburban Oxford, creating accident black spots and totally disrupting local traffic. There have been seven fatalities in the past two years on the couple of miles of the A40 to be bypassed. It is universally agreed that 'something must be done', and in 27 years no viable alternative to the bypass has emerged.
It is worth noting that the route for the bypass was agreed in 1987 by the Department of Transport, the Oxford city and county councils, and practically everyone else. In March this year the department published the detailed plans.
It is perfectly reasonable to criticise the details. It is quite unreasonable to object to the bypass as such, or to seek to delay the construction of a road that those in the affected areas very much want.
Yours sincerely,
N. W. TANNER
Hertford College
Oxford
30 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments