Created; <2009, Changed; 08/10/2017, 01/03/2020
Old this webpage; http://ww1.andrew-lohmann.me.uk/environment/a21-at-castle-hill/access-to-hastings/p00a21_2/
Letters, xx, xxxx Road,
The Courier, High Brooms,
Longfield Road, Tunbridge Wells,
Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN4 xxx .
Kent. Tel: 01892 xxxxx
01892 xxxx (work)
E-MAIL: AndrewHLohmann@compuserve.com
FILE: p00a21-2.doc September 5, 2000
For Publication
Dear Sir,
Mr Bullock who is a Conservative Borough and County Councillor does not consider that there may be no case for road building, but this could be the outcome of the Access to Hastings Multi-modal Study. It was his conservative party who stopped the grandiose road building. I remain in agreement with the then conservative borough Council’s objection to the Castle Hill section of trunk road (1993).
Slow traffic south of Tonbridge, and traffic lights to give fair turns at Longfield Road is all that is necessary. A private finance scheme, that considered building roads between Sevenoaks and Eastbourne via Hastings failed. Although this scheme the Weald and Downland DBFO figures were re-looked at by the multi modal study, very little rail has been looked at. I suggest that rail be seriously looked at even if this is inconvenient for Rail Track who have been criticised for prefer not to invest in anything. This is not the case though for train operators who indicate they would like the opportunity of running rail services from Lewes to Tunbridge Wells. Rail freight operators such as EWSR may also be interested. Those operators have not been asked about this. The strategy choice available only allows you to select improved rail service from Hastings or Wadhurst, but why not widen the Tunbridge Wells Central Station, South East tunnel for dual track working for example. You may then expect rail service improvements from Hastings and Wadhurst as well. Surely there is nothing controversial in studying these aspects?
Yours sincerely
Andrew Lohmann