Talk:A494 road

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia NOT a soap box

In recent days (June 2008) a person (or persons) is trying to add old text that is full of POV about the NO campaign to stop the expansion of the A494 at Aston Hill.

It appears that this text has been inserted before and has been deleted before back in 2006. But someone has decided to put it back in again!! It's full of original research, POV, unsourced material The text also implies that there was some sort of conspiracy theory was taking place

TO THE PERSON WHO KEEPS VANDALISING THIS PAGE: The text you keep adding has been deleted before. Why? Because it is not acceptable in a encyclopedia. A encyclopedia is about verifiable facts that are referenced with sources. Personal viewpoints are not POV.

AS another compromise, why not start a new page describing the road campaign and it's successful use of 'people power'? Instead of ruining an article with a personal agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.194.84 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Text

I moved this text here as it is full of POV. This needs a rewrite to go back into the article IMHO, but I do not know the details to do so effectively. Can someone help?

During April 2006 residents around the streets of "Old Aston Hill" -a critical area of this phase (and the old-time highway which the A494 in its present form was designed to bypass) discovered detailed plans, backed by the Welsh Assembly Government, which would greatly prejudice the safety and amenity of "their" road. The plans, part of a new scheme entitled, "A494 Drome Corner to Ewloe Improvement" were drawn up by "design & build" contractors McAlpine. They revealed a clear intent to recommission Old Aston Hill as a full-blown feeder route for hi-volume shopper traffic bound for the newly expanded Queensferry superstores.

Persistent enquiries by residents for comprehensive information -including critical traffic counts- met with reluctant cooperation from official sources until the intervention of local Assembly Member, CARL SARGEANT. Subsequent research revealed that the proposals would result in a 40 fold increase in vehicles using Old Aston Hill -peaking at some 6500 vehicles per day!

Residents, who up to this time had acted in low-key isolation, quickly formed a coherent community action group, "Old Aston Hill Says NO!". A vigorous campaign to broadcast their findings and concerns for safety, pollution and unjustified capital expenditure swung into action.

Throughout the next weeks meetings and forums were arranged to seek opinion and formulate and concert further group action. These were attended by leading politicians -and hundreds of concerned residents. Vital and commendable footwork by a small army of resident volunteers was, possibly for the first time in N Wales community circles, augmented by the enthusiastic adoption of, "new-media" resources. A dedicated website was set up [1] which, within days, became a focus of attention by news-hungry local and National Press.

Teams of residents set to making banners, car-stickers and tee shirts. The windows and gardens of virtually every home on "the Hill" displayed colourful billboards stating clear opposition to any plans to incorporate this cherished road system into any new scheme.

With the school holiday season imminent, residents succeeded in leveraging a timescale for a full-disclosure of latest proposals by way of a public exhibition. A date was fixed for 4 days commencing 19 July 2006 at Deeside Leisure Centre. The first day was reserved for VIP councillors and senior politicians. As they arrived they were greeted by a concerted and good-natured resident's demonstration. At the close of the meeting the demonstrators were handed information dossiers. Significantly, they contained a hastily-printed addenda in the form of a plan for an alternative option that would NOT require the intensive use of the present "Old Aston Hill" roads.

The effectiveness so far, of the resident's campaign, has given a new dimension to "People-power" and fresh optimism to those who feared that, despite their best hopes for the new devolved Government, what was about to be thrust upon them was just another variant of the old ways of detachment from reality and the real needs of ordinary taxpayers.

Much is still to be decided. As the exhibition closed, a common thread of general concern to emerge was to question the actual need to relinquish the present 50mph speed constraint which nowadays is considered a perfectly acceptable compromise when sections of trunk roads run close to mature, semi-rural communities.

Whatever the outcome for the current phase, the events of April/July 2006 have shown that, henceforth the views and concerns of the ordinary people of N Wales from now on must be the keystone of future road network policies.

{At the time of writing (July 2006) nothing has been settled and a Public Enquiry will almost certainly follow. One thing is clear. With the Assembly Government's authority and resolve weakening daily, it could be that a newly assertive "people-power" could scupper the whole "Improvement" project. Unless the concerns of the newly-formed community groups along the A494/A55 corridor, in respect of pollution, safety and need are properly addressed by planners and their political masters, there is now a real prospect that similar grandiose "motorway" road projects in N Wales will grind to a halt.}

Regan123 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV edit

Two years later and there is a similar POV problem. This author is making unsourced comments as well.

The proposals would make the resultant highway eleven lanes wide in parts -and be in all but name a full-blown "motorway".

During April 2006 residents of "Old Aston Hill" -a residential street which was the original highway for which the A494 in its present (dual-carriageway) format was designed to bypass- became aware of imminent proposals, by Transport Wales, which they considered might prejudice the safety and amenity of "their" road. The proposals, "A494 Drome Corner to Ewloe Improvement" were drawn up by highway contractors McAlpine. They revealed an intent to re-commission Old Aston Hill as a full-blown feeder route for volume shopper traffic bound for the expanded superstore complex at nearbye Queensferry.

Persistent enquiries by residents for comprehensive information -including critical traffic counts- met with indifference from official sources until the intervention of local Assembly Member, CARL SARGEANT. After considerable delay prime documents and data that had been used by the proposers of the scheme was accessible for, albeit restricted, public viewing. Most revealing was that, should the proposals be implemented, there would likely be a 40 fold increase in vehicles using Old Aston Hill -peaking at some 6500 vehicles per day!

Residents, who up to this time had acted in low-key isolation, quickly formed a coherent community action group, "Old Aston Hill Says NO!". A vigorous campaign to broadcast their findings and concerns for safety, pollution and unjustified capital expenditure went into action.

Throughout the next weeks meetings and forums were arranged to consult with elected representatives and concert further group strategy and action. These were attended by leading politicians -and hundreds of concerned residents. Vital and commendable footwork by a small army of resident volunteers was, possibly for the first time in N Wales community circles, augmented by the enthusiastic adoption of, "new-media" resources. A dedicated website was set up [www.tinyurl.com/26j8ar] which, within days, became a focus of attention by news-hungry local and National Press.

Teams of protesters set-to making banners, car-stickers and tee shirts. The windows and gardens of virtually every home around the proposed route displayed colourful billboards stating clear opposition to any plans to incorporate this cherished road system into any new scheme.

With the school holiday season imminent, residents succeeded in leveraging a timescale for a full-disclosure of latest proposals by way of a public exhibition. A date was fixed for 4 days commencing 19 July 2006 at Deeside Leisure Centre. The first day was reserved for VIP councillors and senior politicians. As they arrived they were greeted by a concerted but good-natured demonstration of unity in opposition to the proposals. At the close of the meeting the demonstrators were handed information dossiers. Significantly, they contained a hastily-printed addenda in the form of a plan for an alternative option that would NOT require the intensive use of the present "Old Aston Hill" roads.

The effectiveness of the resident's extended campaign, gave a new dimension to "People-power" and fresh optimism to those who feared that, despite their best hopes for the new devolved Assembly Government, what was about to be thrust upon them was just another variant of the old ways of detachment from reality and the real needs of the electorate.

As the exhibition closed, several threads of public concern emerged:

Why were the proposals referred to a "Improvement" when in fact they would drive a highway of "Motorway" proportions through a semi-rural community? Why was it considered necessary to remove the existing 50mph speed contraint? Why, in the year of the publication of the Royal Commission Report "Urban Environment" and its recommendation that all such projects should embody an implicit "Health Impact Assessment" report, were officials at Transport Wales refusing to consider effecting one for these proposals? Why, to address any possible considerations for future congestion has Transport Wales not considered an alternate route using the New Dee Bridge Crossing. Some 2300 individual letters of objection, together petition signatories running into tens of thousands, resulted in an extensive public inquiry, held at Holiday Inn, Northop during September-October 2007. For public record by way of future deposition at National Library Of Wales, the whole of inquiry proceedings including the most controversial and highly contested evidences, were documented in audio-video format by the objectors.

In March 2008 the proposals (in entirety) were ordered to be scrapped by the Ieuan Wyn Jones, Deputy First Minister, responsible for Transport at the Welsh Assembly.

"In reaching my decision I have taken account of the concerns raised by the inspector that the overall size of the scheme would have a significant impact on the landscape and would affect walking and cycling routes. I have also noted [the planning inspector's] remarks that while he considers that this section of the A494 will need some form of improvement in the foreseeable future, he considers that the scale of the scheme as originally proposed is greater than required." Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones [3]

This part of the A494 will remain two-lane and the speed limit will be 50mph.

The decision has left a question mark over the future of the remaining upgrade at Ewloe Interchange.

A few days after the Minister announced his decision it was disclosed in UK national press that a serious anomaly had come to light in data provided to highway planners by National Statistics office for computation of projections of future UK road-traffic growth. Traffic growth projections that had been extensively quoted by Transport Wales officials to justify their plans to augment the vehicle carrying capacity of the A494 highway were based on world oil prices reaching $100 per barrel by design year 2025. During Spring 2008 oil prices were already exceeding $130 p/b...

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A494 road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205002712/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/5018.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/5018.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A494 road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009151144/http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/junction/a5117.shtml to http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/junction/a5117.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)