Signatures 93 total
Page: 1, 2
-
1
Name: John Butler on May 9, 2007Comments: The 2007 "Gauderman" survey of risk to children's health and the Royal Commission Report 2007, "Urban Environment" make it quite clear that there is an unacceptable health risk attached to growth of road transport. At a time of heightened public awareness of the real cost to health and environment, everyone who lives in and loves this wonderful land must accept some responsibility for minimising our transport "foot-print". Transport Wales has an implicit "duty of care" to us all to now consider RAIL and public transport as the only accceptable "improvement" options. Our grandchildren will thank us.Flag
-
2
Name: Dawn Butler on May 9, 2007Comments: Who's looking after the kids Ewloe Green Primary School is where my two grandchildren will attend. That school (and several others in the area) are immediately adjacent to the proposed new hi-speed traffic lanes. Existing levels of air-borne traffic pollution on Deeside already exceed the declared safety standards from time to time. So, why has there not been a Health Impact Assesment (HIA) done on these proposals -and why does our local authority (FCC) refuse to install an air-quality monitor in the school grounds Thanks Helen for starting this petition. I hope every concerned parent/grandparent signs up!Flag
-
3
Name: Carl Sargeant on May 10, 2007Comments: As an elected member to serve the Constituency of Alyn & Deeside i have great concerns over the scale and proposals to build such a carriageway. I will continue to press my opposition to the relevant Transport Wales executive. Its time for a little common sense and a bit less concrete!!!Flag
- 4
-
5
Name: Dave Mackie on May 11, 2007Comments: This proposal goes back to 1995 and the world has moved on since then so the proposal is out of date. The increased number of vehicles and faster traffic speeds will create greater polution than if the proposal does not go ahead.Flag
- 6
-
7
Name: Frank & Meriel Underwood on May 12, 2007Comments: We believe there are logical alternatives to the present proposals which should be investigated thoroughly before any decisions are made.Flag
-
8
Name: Judith Hough on May 12, 2007Comments: The area around A494 is recognised as having the highest recorded pollution in all Wales. We don't need more roads or bigger roads. We need our fields & village greens. We want clean air not pollutants in our lungs.Flag
-
9
Name: David Hough on May 12, 2007Comments: If this American style freeway does go ahead,what about our children & grandchildren There are schools that'll be in the danger zone of this awful scheme. Our children are our future. The lings of these precious little people are V.I.P.Flag
-
10
Name: Terry Maloney on May 12, 2007Comments: This Motorway standard Expressway cuts through the centre two villages, Aston and Ewloe, with up to 13 carriageways ( including local roads). When the Plough Junction is closed local traffic from the Aston area will have to use the Queenferry Roundabout which is gridlocked at peak times.Flag
- 11
-
12
Name: Roger Eaton on May 12, 2007Comments: I would like the scheme as it stands to be scaled down. Traffic heading for Holyhead from M6/M56 could be signed to go around the Chester southerly bypass and aproach the A55 from that direction. Also a link to the A55 should be made from the Welsh side of the Flintshire Bridge, otherwise known as 'The Bridge to nowhere'. After all £26m has already been spent on what is a white elephant.Flag
-
13
Name: Roger Eaton on May 12, 2007Comments: I would like the scheme as it stands to be scaled down. Traffic heading for Holyhead from M6/M56 could be signed to go around the Chester southerly bypass and aproach the A55 from that direction. Also a link to the A55 should be made from the Welsh side of the Flintshire Bridge, otherwise known as 'The Bridge to nowhere'. After all £26m has already been spent on what is a white elephant.Flag
-
14
Name: David Norris on May 13, 2007Comments: It is totally unfair to expect small communities to bear the brunt of the inconvenience of this gigantic proposal. I cannot see why the Flintshire Bridge cannot be linked to the A55 direct. In addition it would be simple to focus traffic from Junction 15 on the M56 to join the A55. Planners say that only 22 percent of traffic going through Deeside gets to Northop on A55. We do NOT need a road wide enough to land a jumbo jet passing through our community. There is a great need to rethink this scheme and search out what is really needed to deliver freight to Ireland. At one time ships were used. Can we not use the underused ports around our coast to carry frieght Can there be an expansion of Eddie Stobart's initiative to carry more freight on the railways We cannot support MORE pollution threatening the health of our community, .We cannot support MORE noise further shattering our daily lives. Already local residents have to sleep in bedrooms furthest from the road. Already, the use of private gardens are an amenity which has become a no go area because of noise. Should we let our children habitually play in the safety of a back garden where the invisible enemy of increasing toxic pollution is already excessively high What is the purpose of a garden in the eyes of a planner We DO NOT NEED a motorway here. There MUST be an Environmental Health Survey.Flag
-
15
Name: David Hough on May 13, 2007Comments: We don't need more roads. We don't need more pollution. We don't need our lungs infected. We need quality air.Flag
-
16
Name: Judith Hough on May 13, 2007Comments: If money is available,it should be spent upgrading N Wales hospitals & schoolsFlag
-
17
Name: John Gray on May 13, 2007Comments: I should like to know why the Assembly proposes to construct this road extension AGAINST the clear will of the majority of the people in the region. Either the Assembly represents the people of Wales and their wishes or it acts despotically on its own. If the Assembly continues to act against the will of the people then there is only one answer: scrap the Assembly. I shall also provide a warning to the still dominant Labour WAG group. Your party received enough of a warning of our dissatisfaction at the recent elections. If you continue with your arrogance you will regret it further at the next set. "No" to the road and "no" to the tyranny of the Assembly!Flag
- 18
- 19
- 20
-
21
Name: Sharon Miller on May 13, 2007Comments: Money talks; Deeside has become an affluent area for business but the risks to peoples health are being ignored. Thousands of pounds has been spent on moving toads and newts for conservation but yet Transport Wales are willing to increase pollution with a road which is NOT NEEDED and thus affect many thousands of people with serious consequences to health.Flag
-
22
Name: Emma Jones on May 13, 2007Comments: If the road is widened at this point, there would surely have to be a bottle neck somewhere further along the A55.Flag
-
23
Name: Anonymous on May 13, 2007Comments: I agree with the petition 100%. Well Done Dave, more power to you and your. J E L.Flag
-
24
Name: Heather Hurt on May 13, 2007Comments: Don't let the big boys ride rough-shod over the local residents and businesses.Flag
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
-
32
Name: Mark Tami MP on May 14, 2007Comments: A more reasonable approach to this development must be adopted, one which reflects the concerns of local residents.Flag
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
-
39
Name: Paul Brighton on May 14, 2007Comments: This is a ludicrous scheme and should not see the light of day.There are other more practical proposals,such as The Flintshire Bridge, currently a bridge to nowhere!Flag
- 40
- 41
-
42
Name: Ratcliffe on May 15, 2007Comments: We wish that the proposed road doesnt go ahead, as the need for 11 lines is way off mark.Flag
-
43
Name: Ratcliffe on May 15, 2007Comments: We wish that the proposed road doesnt go ahead, as the need for 11 lines is way off mark. Kevin Sharon Caroline Dean Beth Robert Chalk Jean Chalk , 'Ascot', Old AstonHill, Ewloe, Deeside, Flintshire. CH5 3AHFlag
-
44
Name: Paul Davies on May 15, 2007Comments: The decision to channel all traffic into North Wales along the A494 via Aston Hill is the wrong strategy for traffic management at this important entrance to North Wales from the North West of England. A new link is needed from the Flintshire Bridge, Connahs Quay to the A55 at Northop to seperate through traffic from local traffic, relieve pressure on the Aston Hill and thereby balance traffic flows to manageable levels on each route.Flag
-
45
Name: Paul Davies on May 15, 2007Comments: The decision to channel all traffic into North Wales along the A494 via Aston Hill is the wrong strategy for traffic management at this important entrance to North Wales from the North West of England. A new link is needed from the Flintshire Bridge, Connahs Quay to the A55 at Northop to seperate through traffic from local traffic, relieve pressure on the Aston Hill and thereby balance traffic flows to manageable levels on each route.Flag
-
46
Name: Anonymous on May 17, 2007Comments: Please find an alternative route as we do not need all these extra lanes on the dual carriageway making it into a motor wayFlag
-
47
Name: Alison Birtle on May 19, 2007Comments: As stated by Sue Clamp and David Norris, it is unacceptable to let the plans proceed any further due to the effects of pollution of a noise and waste fuels nature. In a densely populated area with children and families within, I find it disturbing to think that any council member would evn consider this at all. Alison BirtleFlag
-
48
Name: Ian Birtle on May 19, 2007Comments: This is appalling! I am dead against it. Under no circumstances should the plans proceed further. Ian BirtleFlag
- 49
-
50
Name: Paul Creswell on May 23, 2007Comments: Main traffic pollutants will rise by 41% in our region with this scheme - as admitted in the Environmental Survey. This scheme has now been referred to as a motorway by the assembly in the document titled 'Responses by subject to A494 Drome Corner to Ewloe Improvement Scneme Objections' - May 2007, see pg 2, 2nd paragraph. We did not vote for a motorway in 1992.Flag
Page: 1, 2