Thursday, August 06, 2009

Gilgal Roadworks - 3

Once again we make the third page in the Shuttle and once again our town's name doesn't feature in the headline "Traders' fears over months of roadworks" (no link as it's yet to appear on the site) applause for the correct use of an apostrophe by the way; but it's still a misleading headline 'Fears grow over months of Stourport roadworks' would have been just as accurate and alerted residents.

Anyway they make an error regarding Phase 1 which the Shuttle informs us where the road will be "closed between the Gilgal and Worcester Road" nope that'd be Worcester Street and yes I criticised the Council etc. for constantly referring to "The" Gilgal, at least here they didn't capitalise it.

Because I seem to be stamping on the "The" I thought I'd better confirm my actions, I knew that the roadsign is just "Gilgal" and I knew that old maps named it that way, but evidence is key and that's where the Worcestershire Hub takes a lead in provided historical Stourport maps I can't link directly but zoom in on the Gilgal area and turn off all the maps except "C18: Before the Canal" and look at what's next to "The Dickens" gosh is that "Gilgal" all on its lonesome? Check every map after that date and it still appears without a definite article.

A delightful quote from Worcestershire County Councillor David Prodger - "We have agreed that the best solution is to work together and in as short a timescale as possible" First off I'm curious as to who are "we" and secondly as I've already mentioned timescale is only a concern because you're closing down the road; if you weren't than hey I'll be generous take all the time you need.

Tying in with a comment on the previous link about the Relief Road, the existence of which would pretty much render this entire problem moot, we get an article on page 5 "Campaigners welcome relief road decision" which starts off -

The Campaign for Better Transport has welcomed the Government's decision to abandon the Stourport relief road scheme
Not just this scheme but 21 others too and why? Because they're "out-of-date" and would be "too expensive" Excellent. Now hey I've been saying there's problems with the original scheme for some time now and I'm all for revamping and updating, but "abandon"? Perhaps "replace" might be better, that is assuming that they are replacing it and not just tossing it onto the rubbish heap in which case grab your torches and pitchforks.