The Boston Transport Strategy 2016-2036 is a grand piece of
waffle and given that we will be long dead by the time it reaches its sell-by date
is of mere passing interest.
However, it must be said that history has shown that documents such as these are merely exercises
in “what if” – as the period that they cover is so long that ideas formulated
in 2016 may well be pointless, impracticable or unaffordable during its lengthy lifespan.
This, however, hasn’t stopped Lincolnshire County Council
and Boston Borough Council – both of them past masters at time and money
wasting – from churning out thousands of words and gung-ho phrases that
instinct tells them is the bread and butter of such documents.
We searched for the vital keywords bypass, by pass and by-pass to make sure that we didn’t miss the
chance of finding at least one mention, but without success.
And there was just one result for the so-called distributor road that it’s suggested can
take the place of a by-pass.
“The councils will continue to work with developers to deliver elements
of the Boston Distributor Road (BDR), which in the long term will provide a
western link road between the A16 in the south of the town and the A16 in the
north, and serve new developments to the west of Boston.
The councils will work together on the feasibility (including traffic
modelling, design and funding) of delivering elements of the BDR and associated
projects that cannot be brought forward by the private sector alone.
Modelling has indicated that a new East-West Relief Road (BEWRR) from
the A16 Spalding Road, across the River Witham to Skirbeck Road, could generate
traffic benefits.
Further investigations will be made into these benefits as well as the
potential impacts of the scheme to confirm whether proposals should be
developed further.”
If ever anything screamed of nothing at all, or at the very least a thin spreading of jam the day after tomorrow, then that was it.
A report that still regards the disastrous Market Place
“improvements” as a step forward and thinks that the answer to Boston’s road
problems is to force us to cycle everywhere instead of drive is simply not
worth taking seriously.
***
However, there are still areas where the powers that be can
wreak mischief.
The report talks of increasing pedestrian/cycle connectivity by building new bridges or upgrading existing ones
across South Forty Foot Drain, the Maud Foster Drain at Windsor Crescent, and
Old Maudie again at the Hospital Lane/Norfolk Street crossing.
This latter bridge is of particular historic interest.
It is one of three cast in 1811 to span the Maud Foster, which were probably designed by the famous Scottish
engineer John Rennie,
Although Vauxhall Bridge was replaced by a road bridge
in 1924, another at Cowbridge remains ... along with that at Hospital Lane which is still in its original condition except for the footway resurfacing.
They were constructed by the nationally important
Butterley Company, of Ripley in Derbyshire, and in the middle of both sides of
the supporting girder is stamped “CAST AT BUTTERLEY 1811”
Incidentally, the Butterley Company was famous for the
iconic cast iron arches of St Pancras Station but also for Vauxhall Bridge in London. We imagine that its namesake in
Boston was a much easier task!
***
The bridge across the Maud Foster Drain at Windsor Crescent
is a fairly modern eyesore as well as being in the wrong place – but the 200 year-old Grade
II listed Hospital Lane Bridge is a different kettle of fish.
It was listed in 1990 because of its historic value and
original condition – and to see it appear on another list – one which suggests
a possible “upgrading” is sheer heresy, and unworthy of any consideration
whatever.
Nor is any suggestion of building a new bridge nearby, as
this would blight the view of the existing one.
But as Boston’s heritage has been blighted before by
thoughtless council decisions, we hope
that someone, somewhere, will take a tough stance against any suggestions that might
impact adversely on this interesting
item of industrial history.
***
Incidentally, our researches into all of the above have
uncovered an important anniversary which it is still possible to plan to
recognise.
In 2018 it will be 450
years since the original Maud Foster drain was cut in 1568 … from Cowbridge
to the Haven.
In 1631 it was inadequate, as there was widespread flooding
in both fens, which resulted in a commission to enlarge the Maud Foster and
build a new outfall.
Given our hysteria about irrelevant anniversaries such as
the Mayflower landing at Plimoth in which no one from Boston was involved,
isn’t it now time to start celebrating some of our hugely important local historic events and achievements?
***
The political ninnies who comprise the Worst Street gaggle
known as the council have given their
cauldron yet another stir – we seem to have had one almost every week in recent
times.
Since none of this makes any difference, we cannot see why
they bother – although usually there’s a committee place (or better still a
chairmanship) in it for someone, somewhere.
According to the Boston
sub-Standard – and we write this with our fingers crossed, for reasons that will become clear later – the hitherto
‘unaligned’ Old Leake and Wrangle councillor Barrie Pierpoint has “thrown his
towel in with the authority’s two independent councillors.”
Mr Pierpoint is quoted as saying: “I felt they have good
organisation the two of them and it felt natural to join them.”
He added that joining the Independents also allowed him to
join committees.
‘Nuff said there
***
Perhaps we are losing track of this … but it seems that the
original so-called Independents did a
deal to back the Tories to keep them in power at Worst Street after the 2015
election – acquiring an important committee chairmanship along the way.
Similarly with the Labour group – which political rookies might wrongly assume to be ideologically opposed to the controlling
party.
Much of what has been done appears to have been with the
sole aim of blocking any attempt by UKIP to have a say in the running of the
council – despite the fact that voters in their droves elected UKIP councillors
to represent them.
We have said many times that at this meagre level of
government, party ideology is immaterial and that what is most important is
that councillors work together for the good of Boston and its residents.
Quite clearly, the Conservative leadership has failed in
this respect, as have the closet Tories who claim to be independent.
Labour has sold out as well, whilst helping tie the hands of
a party that is far more popular with the voters.
Worst Street seems now to be in the hands of councillors who
by and large are members of the Selfservative
Party and care little for the people
who elected them.
And isn’t it more than a little sad when we read that Labour with just two councillors names them as leader and
deputy whilst the “Independents” with three
members declare one of them a leader and the rump as deputies.
But we guess that it makes them all feel important.
***
From time to time, Worst Street publishes statistics about
its performance in relation to its dealings with the public.
Thanks to these, we know how quickly it takes the council
reception to answer a ‘phone call and how many of the much resented Freedom of
Information requests they receive.
But one sector that seems to have escaped evaluation is what
happens when taxpayers contact the council via its “info” e-mail link.
In recent weeks, we have sent the council three e-mails.
The first two – written with our voter’s hat on –
concerned car sales taking place at the
roadside, and damage to a piece of street furniture which we considered a
potential danger to passers-by.
In the first case, we received a reply telling us that
on-street car sales were nothing to do with Boston Borough Council and passing
on the address and e-mail of Lincolnshire County Council so that we could write
to them instead.
In the second case we receive no response – but the damaged
litter bin in question was removed within days.
So, what’s wrong with that?
Public image is the cornerstone of any good council’s
communication policy – or if not, it should be.
In the case of the first e-mail, the reply ought to have
explained that the problem could not be dealt with by the council, explained
whose responsibility it was, and ended “I have forwarded your e-mail to the
appropriate department at County Hall and asked them to deal with the matter
you have raised. Thank you for drawing it to our attention”
Polite, efficient, helpful – going the extra mile for a
concerned citizen.
It cannot help but improve the council’s image in the eyes
of a taxpayer.
The second e-mail should have been responded to. It would
not have taken hours to thank the sender and to say that the issue would be
dealt with as soon as possible.
Again, it’s good public relations – something that’s sadly
lacking in Worst Street.
***
Then third e-mail was sent from our Boston Eye address about
our long time ban from accessing Boston Borough Council's Twitter account.
We wrote: “The usual reason for this is to bar annoying
people who send bothersome tweets.
“At no time when it followed Boston Borough Council on Twitter did Boston Eye post any critical or derogatory comments – and we feel
that it is high time someone recognised this and removed what is an unfair and
unreasonable censorship.
“I look forward to hearing that Boston Eye is once again free to access your Twitter feed.”
We actually received a reply this time – even though it was
tagged as “potential spam.”
It read: “Thank you for your recent email. Please accept
this response as confirmation that it has been received.
“Our email messages are picked up on a daily basis during
the normal working week. If appropriate, we will forward your email to the
relevant department to deal with.”
There was no doubt about the appropriateness of the message but so far – after a two week silence – no-one has had the courtesy to reply.
We will continue to pursue this staggering piece of childish ignorance ...
***
Ouch! Our last blog included an item based on a report from
the Boston sub-Standard giving the
response to a question said to have been asked of council leader Peter Bedford, and which prompted some adverse comment from us.
Subsequently, Councillor Bedford e-mailed to say: “Your
piece taken from the Boston Standard about Councillor Richard Austin asking me
a question in Full Council was totally incorrect; he asked it of Councillor
Paul Skinner. Had he asked me he would have been given a direct answer straight
away.”
He added: “I will not waste my time on the Standard but thought you ought to be
aware of the mistake.
“Fair criticism I take every day without concern, but
incorrect things I do object to.”
Sorry about that – but we stand by our comments about the nature
of the response, as there is far too much political clever-dicking around from
some senior councillors who should know better.
And we also have some qualms with the line that says: "Fair criticism I take every day without concern, ...
***
Finally, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s national Dog Poo
Week in Boston – the start of yet another enforcement campaign that promises
to fine dog owners £100 for the heinous crime of walking their pet pooches without
a bag in their pocket to clear up after it.
And just one day after the new law came into force, the
Worst Street website babbled excitedly: “Dog walkers appear to be getting the
poo bag message. The first batch of pet owners approached by Boston Borough
Council's enforcement officers were all able to show that they were equipped to
clean up after their dogs and fully aware of their responsibilities.
“A simple flourish of a plastic bag saved them from
receiving a £100 fixed penalty notice.”
If ever something sounded stage managed, that was it – and as
always with its doomed-to-failure campaigns, the poogooders overlook a couple of crucial facts.
The first is that whilst someone may be carrying a bag to
save themselves a fine, there is nothing to say that they will use it.
And the second is that the sort of people who leave such mess
in the streets and on grassed areas are not the ones who will suddenly develop a
sense of civic pride and do the decent thing.
The only concrete result to date is a negative item in the Sun on Sunday which is bought by 1,500,000
readers each week and so probably read by more than five million people …
Despite the pleas by our local politicians to talk Boston
up and not down, it appears that Worst Street hasn’t lost the ability to shoot
itself in the foot.
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com
E-mails will
be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former
blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com
We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston
No comments:
Post a Comment