Build a footbridge, not underpass

So ex-councillor Drake says there will be no delays on his underpass (Crow October 22). I must point out that there are already delays on a railway crossing for north Royston. Some of us would say 30 years since a footbridge was first promised. The presen

So ex-councillor Drake says there will be no delays on his underpass (Crow October 22).

I must point out that there are already delays on a railway crossing for north Royston. Some of us would say 30 years since a footbridge was first promised.

The present scheme is the latest in a long line of expensive, "must not have a footbridge" schemes, and was meant to be opened by Mr Drake during his time as county councillor, which ended some time ago.

Many people would ask the ex-councillor why, during his time on the council, did he never implement the conclusion of the public vote in 2005 to put up a footbridge at Coombes Hole. Had he done so with the same determination and single-mindedness he shows now we may have got one.


You may also want to watch:


It has never been explained why the council are so determined to have an underpass or nothing. Even if they were able to answer that we still haven't got to the part of the project that is causing the public inquiry.

Why does the project need a designated cycle track? The cycle track - not the underpass - is the reason for the extra land being added to the compulsory purchase order that has landed this project a public inquiry.

Most Read

This inquiry, like the underpass and cycle track, is costing us, the ratepayers, far more than it should and we must remember that this is all because a footbridge, which would have cost rate payers nothing, was never built 30 years ago.

If our new councillor wished to see a crossing of the railway north of Royston, she would be well advised to drop the compulsory purchase order, drop the designated cycle tracks, adopt Coombes Lane and, in line with the 2005 vote, put a footbridge across the railway.

If the case can be made for an underpass, perhaps it could go ahead with the cycle tracks or the extra land, hence no public inquiry.

So Cllr Hill, you are our councillor now, please explain why this project must be an underpass with cycle track or nothing.

If she cannot answer this to the Royston public I see no point in the council turning up to the public inquiry, especially as there is now an even bigger question to answer.

Why not incorporate a rail crossing into the new development on the fields between Burns Road and the bypass, to save �3 - �4million, a whole load of trouble, and at the same time put the cost and the obligation back where it belongs: Fairview Homes.

RP Ketteringham

Melbourn Road

Royston

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter