'Anger over traffic scheme at Shrewsbury railway station' - Your Letters plus a 1964 throwback picture following an epic 250-mile canoe trip

Traffic changes are mindless

Together with numerous Shropshire residents, I am angered about the mindless reconfiguration of what was a perfectly satisfactory traffic pattern past the Railway Station. Further, the half-hearted current response from the council's task and finish group is completely inadequate.

Setting aside the short futile "cycle lane", and the now dangerous bus stop, a schoolboy could have predicted that, if you reduce the traffic lanes from two to one, the volume of vehicles using this route will be halved, causing lengthy queues. Historically, there were three, including a dedicated bus lane.

Access to the station itself has been compromised by reversing the flow, except for coaches!, and by causing outgoing traffic to merge with the already congested single lane under the railway bridge. I wonder what was perceived to be the problem with the original layout, and whether a comprehensive traffic survey was conducted, with accurate modelling.

Looking back through the planning publications I note that the reduction of traffic lanes was illustrated in an artist's aerial view in February 2024, inviting comments, and perhaps we ought to have resisted this vigorously then? Many, like myself, did not engage and believed, naively, that the planners were working in our best interests.

The questionable rationale behind the whole disruptive scheme seems to be centred around cyclists. In all my transits of this area, over many years, I cannot recall seeing one cyclist.

We expect our elected members to have a degree of expertise, in their field of responsibility, and in the expenditure of public money, whatever the source.

The stated aim of this scheme, supported by Levelling Up Funding, was to "ease movement through the area for visitors and users". The opposite has been achieved, and the funding better unspent.

This ill-conceived scheme was not properly modelled, trialled, or adequately monitored throughout its costly implementation, and that is a disgraceful waste of money.

This council does not have an unblemished record in relation to road maintenance. Many will recall the entirely laudable scheme to resurface the town centre loop with cobbles.

However, faults were discovered with some sections, which were ripped up and replaced in tarmac - not at the contractor's expense, but at a cost to local tax payers.

I believe we are justified in expecting a more thorough, and professional, service from our elected members, and not this amateur dabbling.

Christopher Mackley, North Shropshire

Observations on life story letter

Colin Hubbard's letter (6 December) caught my attention because his story of his life in the 1960s mirrors that of my late parents a few years earlier. However, I feel obliged to respond to three problems with his letter: a factual error, a misunderstanding, and a mystery.

The factual error is Mr Hubbard's assertion that in the late 1960s "there were no benefits to fall back on". This is simply untrue. Benefits had existed for many years by that point.

The misunderstanding is a complete failure to acknowledge that many recipients of benefits are in work. About 40 per cent of working-age recipients of benefits are working. In their case, the benefits are subsidising bad employers who want to cosplay "businessmen" while not paying adequate wages to their employees. Furthermore, I write as a member of the largest group of benefit recipients - to which I presume Mr Hubbard also belong: pensioners.​

The mystery is Mr Hubbard's devotion to what I might call masochistic nostalgia. I am completely unable to understand why anyone should wish others to undergo an unpleasant experience because I underwent it years ago. Having had my head split open by hooligan at a football match in 1975, I would not lecture my nephews about the character-forming benefits of having their heads split open. There is no merit to dragging yourself to work when ill, because of an absence of sick pay, and infecting colleagues or customers with your illness or even injuring them because of illness-related distraction.​

Alan Harrison, Midlands

Have an opinion? Want to be heard? We want to hear your voice!

Write to Readers' letters at [email protected]

Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name and address and will only be published anonymously in exceptional circumstances. The editor reserves the right to condense or amend letters.

Do you have any pictures from the past you would like to share with us? 

Do need help recognising an old street, old faces? If so, send them to [email protected] including your name, where you are from, and as much information as you can about the photo(s) and we will publish as many as we can online and in print.