IT IS hardly surprising to see the reactions to a proposal to dual the A40 between Witney and Oxford. However the comments are all the same clichés. I list some with my comments following.

1. It will cause more traffic.

This is a bad perception based on new roads having more traffic than predicted. They could actually have been inaccurate predictions or they didn’t allow for the fact that a new road will divert traffic from rat-runs.

This would add to the existing traffic on the A40 of course, but remove it from other roads, improving life in surrounding areas. The idea of roads creating traffic has been suggested many times over the last few years and anti-road campaigners have often won partly because of this misconception.

Strange how traffic has increased anyway, despite few major road projects being carried out. This is not a new road anyway but an increase in capacity to an existing one.

2. It would be a health disaster.

If traffic is moving at a sensible rate rather than queuing then the engines are running more efficiently therefore reducing bad emissions. All emissions would be spread over a larger area and therefore diluted, instead of being concentrated at pinch points, which are nearly always near residential areas. Less fuel would be used as well.

3. Reopen the railway line (or a guided busway or a tram).

It is a fact that most people prefer to use their own transport, as it is door to door. The three public transport options would only run between Witney and Oxford, so anyone from even slightly further afield would need to get to the station, bus stop, tram stop or whatever. These would probably need car parking facilities.

With reference to the guided busway, the second most expensive option, one should look to Cambridge where it cost about three times as much as the estimate, and has only reduced traffic on the A14 by three per cent.

If it turned out to be a white elephant there would be an ugly concrete structure across the countryside, with no alternative use. At least with a railway or tram, the route could be converted to something else, like a cycle-path/footway if it failed. A rail line in addition to a dual carriageway sounds attractive, but costs would obviously be prohibitive.

TREVOR DARKE
Bridge Street
Bampton