Boston Bypass & Economic Growth Pressure Group
 
   •   home   •   
 

 

Press Release - 16 November 2006

Michael Borrill writes to the Editors of the Boston Standard and the Boston Target

Cllr Hill, in his haste to put pen to paper, lays criticism on Robert Fisher for getting the facts wrong (Boston Standard, 15th November 2006, see right). The facts and figures quoted by Robert are the very ones that have been passed around to the media by Cllr Hill and his team at County Hall. For example, on BBC Radio Lincolnshire’s Breakfast Show on 31st October at 7am, Paul Coathup, LCC stated: “The Leader has said he will put up ‘up to £6 million’ for short term remediation measures if indeed the Transport Study shows that they will be helpful.” This was supposed to be the ‘official’ stance to be adopted by the Council – until Cllr Hill then spoke an hour later – you can hear recordings of the exact words used on our website - click here to listen...

Was Paul Coathup talking ‘uninformed rubbish’ too? If a U-turn is now to be made and Lincolnshire County Council is to approach Central Government to make a special case for Boston re a bypass, then I will be the first to congratulate Cllr Hill for this decision.

However, we must look at the facts before we start to organise street parties in celebration. To put a case to Central Government a full Transport Study must have been followed through to give the impression that a bypass is required. From the figures already quoted, we are given to believe that only 19% approximately of traffic is classed as “through traffic”. All the bypass groups know that this figure is not a true figure as the Transport Study has already been shown to be flawed in several ways – “a catalogue of errors and delays”. So if this study is to be presented to the DfT, then adjustments will have to be made. It has also come to light that the model used for the study, namely “SATURN”, is not acceptable to the ministry and if a serious case for Boston is to be made, another study will have to be carried out. What a terrible waste of both tax payers’ money and valuable time.

We are well aware that the results of the Transport Study have yet to be revealed to the public, but if the figures show that a suitable case could be made, then I am sure Cllr Hill will let us have the appropriate evidence that he is indeed putting a case to Westminster.

Cllr Hill mentions that there is a consideration of linking developments on the edge of town to relieve the congestion. How this will ease congestion on John Adams Way/ Sleaford Road/Spilsby Road remains to be seen - no doubt Cllr Hill will explain.

If he is considering a rejuvenation of the Southern Link Road, perhaps he would be honest and tell us and indeed let us know his ideas on where this road would be situated.

No, Cllr Hill, the negative thoughts of a few people are not working towards bad publicity for Boston. We are giving support to our cause and working in our free time for the benefit of Boston and the surrounding area. I suggest you visit Boston and do a tour of the retailers to ask how the road situation is affecting their business. Ask people from either side of Boston why they now go to Spalding or Skegness etc. to shop.

Now that you appear to also be the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Cllr Hill, let us hope that things do happen for the good of Boston, the surrounding area and indeed, Skegness. As I said previously in this letter, if you can get a bypass, distributor road, call it what you like, for Boston, I will be more than happy to congratulate you.

However, I hope that you are not issuing idle words prior to May 3rd. Like Robert, and all others dedicated to this cause, I will continue to work towards getting a fair deal for Boston.

Boston deserves better.

Michael Borrill
Boston Bypass & Economic Growth Pressure Group (BBEG)
www.bbeg.org.uk
16 November 2006

 
Boston Standard 15 Nov 2006