ONCE again, I am grateful to the Andover Advertiser for giving this the coverage I believe it deserves.
A quick tour of just a few of Andover’s roads near the town this week itself reveals the following astounding and totally inconsistent examples of similar schemes which is laughable if only council tax payers’ money wasn’t at stake! I have no doubt there are other confusing and ludicrous examples.
Western Avenue boasts a two-way cycle path measuring in total no more than two metres wide. I have never seen a cyclist use this.
Chantry Street contains a small stretch of cycleway which actually forms part of the road.
Salisbury Road at the rear of TVBC Offices (between Mead Hedges and Millway Road) there is a joint cycle/pedestrian facility but this is on the existing pavement.
Again on Salisbury Road (between Millway Road and Floral Way) the width of the pavement has been widened to allow for cyclists but none of the lampposts or telegraph posts have been re-sited.
No wonder I and others are confused about the totally unnecessary proposal for Weyhill Road. I expect Andover cyclists are as well!
Methinks the Weyhill Road proposal is a “done deal”. But my question remains: where is the evidence that this is needed and what is the cost? Why is it proceeding?
Because TVBC think they can, but they do not need to.
To add some fuel to the fire, over the last week or so, I have contacted all three councillors (one twice) who represent Millway ward and as I submit this further letter to the Andover Advertiser for publication, none of the councillors’ offices have even had the courtesy to acknowledge receipt. Silence is indeed deafening!
Alan Turner, Weyhill Road, Andover