'Old roadman critiques highway maintenance and planning' - Your Letters and a historic snapshot from 1965 of the rare craft of stone-setting

Hump saga on poor roads

I agree with your correspondent R Camp: "Why are our roads going wrong?”

Once a week I travel the road past Allscott Village. Some months ago I found the approaches to the rail bridge over the main line had been planned out ready for resurfacing. Whilst the "hump" section remained, in reasonable condition. On my next journey surfacing had been completed, in HRA (Hot Rolled Asphalt) ie trunk road specification. Some months later I was amazed to find the "hump" had been resurfaced, a small area compared with the approaches.

If there was a reason for this, it should have been sorted prior to the main resurfacing! Thus avoiding the cost of re-visiting, eg signing, transport, etc.

Lack of foresight, management, preventative maintenance, have not kept pace with the ever increasing pressures on Britain’s highways, resulting in our pot holed highways today.

I remain an "old roadman".

Stephen Bridgwater, Shrewsbury

M54 effectively goes to town

To David Joyce (letters, 9 Dec). The M54 already goes to Shrewsbury in everything but name.

The speed limit on A5 part is 70 mph and still two lanes each direction, if you miss the sign near Wellington most people do not even realise they have left the M54.

If money is to be spent it would be better to put money into a pot with Staffordshire to join the eastern end of M54 properly to M6 North with a decent junction, not the pigs ear of A roads people now have to use.

Shrewsbury wants to waste taxpayers’ money on a silly re-branding exercise, while ignoring the elephant in the room. Typical Shropshire Council behaviour.

Chris Smith, Horsehay

Problem with package bill

We are a couple of octogenarians staggering about the house on our walkers, reliant on our landline and broadband to access the Internet.

Some time ago, our supplier, EE, sent us some equipment that we did not need. After a discussion with them, they sent a big bag and a postal label. We packed up the equipment and sent it off. On the 8th November we received an acknowledgement from EE that the equipment had arrived.

Consequently we were rather concerned when EE emailed us recently to say they had not received the equipment and intended charging us £65 for its non-return.

I'm not sure what is the cause of this, but I am not keen on giving away £65. Has anyone else experienced similar problems?

Rockley Battye, Perton

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.