DOCSLIB.ORG

A120 Braintree to A12 Feasibility Study Essex County Council

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A120 Braintree to A12 Feasibility Study Essex County Council A120 Braintree to A12 Feasibility Study Essex County Council Consultation Report B3553T41-JAC-VSS-00-REP-C-0003 | 3 27 September 2017 Consultati on Report Essex C ounty Council Consultation Report A120 Braintree to A12 Feasibility Study Project No: B3553T41 a120 braintree to a12 Document Title: Consultation Report Document No.: B3553T41-JAC-VSS-00-REP-C-0003 Revision: 2 Date: 27 September 2017 Client Name: Essex County Council Client No: Project Manager: Robert Davenport Author: Zara Yates-Vanhorne File Name: V:\SUSTAINABILITY\Projects\Comms and Engagement\Analysis team\A120 consultation\Reporting\B3553T41-JAC-VSS-00-REP-C-0003-Rev 03.docx Jacobs Consultancy Ltd. Simpson House 6 Cherry Orchard Road Croydon CR9 6BE United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 8686 8212 F +44 (0)20 8681 2499 www.jacobs.com © Copyright 2017 Jacobs Consultancy Ltd.. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party. Document history and status Revision Date Description By Review Approved 1 13/7/17 Full draft to CRAV ZYV DB 2 18/9/17 Revised following Board comments DB LP 3 27/9/17 Correction to statement on gender of respondents DB LP RD Consultation Report Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Consultation aims and objectives ................................................................................................................ 5 2. Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Sample ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Questionnaire .............................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Promotion of the consultation ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Information events ....................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Confidentiality and anonymity ..................................................................................................................... 8 3. Respondents: who provided their views ................................................................................................ 9 3.1 Age .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Gender ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Religion/Faith ............................................................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Ethnic Group .............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.5 Marital status ............................................................................................................................................. 12 3.6 Physical/sensory impairment, learning difficulty/disability, mental health needs ...................................... 13 3.7 Caring responsibilities ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.8 Locality ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 4. Responses: the types of responses received ...................................................................................... 17 4.1 Respondent Type ...................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Response Method ..................................................................................................................................... 18 5. Data Analysis and Interpretation of Data .............................................................................................. 19 5.1 Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 19 5.2 Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 Considerations ........................................................................................................................................... 19 5.4 Campaigns and Petitions .......................................................................................................................... 19 6. Quantitative Insight ................................................................................................................................. 21 6.1 Q5 – Which of the following statements best reflects your opinion? ......................................................... 21 6.2 Q6 – When thinking about your current experiences of the A120 between Braintree and the A12, to what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements? ....................................... 22 6.3 Q7 – Five route options, A, B, C, D and E have been presented as part of this consultation. Please tell us your preferences for the five options. ............................................................ 24 6.4 Comparison across route options .............................................................................................................. 25 6.5 Comparison within route options ............................................................................................................... 26 6.6 Respondents who did not provide a ranking ............................................................................................. 27 7. Qualitative Insight ................................................................................................................................... 28 7.1 Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 29 7.2 Option A ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 7.3 Option B ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 7.4 Option C .................................................................................................................................................... 49 Consultation Report 7.5 Option D .................................................................................................................................................... 58 7.6 Option E ..................................................................................................................................................... 67 7.7 Cross-cutting issues .................................................................................................................................. 75 8. Junctions and Connections ................................................................................................................... 80 8.1 Connections at Braintree ........................................................................................................................... 80 8.2 Connection with the A12............................................................................................................................ 80 8.3 Bradwell Quarry ......................................................................................................................................... 82 8.4 Safety......................................................................................................................................................... 83 8.5 Ensure free-flowing traffic .......................................................................................................................... 83 8.6 Minimising junctions .................................................................................................................................. 83 8.7 Non-motorised Road Users ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Standon Neighbourhood Plan [2MB]
    Barwick Standon Bromley Latchford Puckeridge Colliers End Old Hall Green LATEST NEWS Wellpond Green STANDON PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Pre-Submission Draft 2016 BARWICK I STANDON I BROMLEY I LATCHFORD I PUCKERIDGE COLLIERS END I OLD HALL GREEN I WELLPOND GREEN SSTTAANNDDOONN •• PPUUCCKKEERRIIDDGGEE •• BBRROOMMLLEEYY •• CCOOLLLLIIEERRSS EENNDD •• LLAATTCCHHFFOORRDD •• BBAARRWWIICCKK •• OOLLDD HHAALLLL GGRREEEENN •• WWEELLLLPPOONNDD GGRREEEENN CONTENTS PREFACE 1. Introduction 4 A NEIGHBOURLY PARISH 2. The Parish of Standon 6 Standon is a neighbourly Parish, and 3. How the Plan was Prepared: An Inclusive Process 12 its Parishioners believe that the obligation on neighbours to behave in Stage 1: Setting Up 12 a neighbourly manner, in their mutual Stage 2: Spring and Summer Consultations 2015 13 interests, also extends equally and Stage 3: Survey 13 Stage 4: Land Allocations 14 still mutually, to those who come Stage 5: Public Meetings 15 proposing development. Stage 6: Drafting of the Plan 16 The physical presence of those Stage 7: Pre-Submission 16 individuals and companies, as 4. Vision and Objectives 17 neighbours, may be transitory, but 5. The Policies 20 the changes they introduce in and around the neighbourhood area, and Context 20 the ramification of those changes, can Environment 22 have a lasting effect on the quality of Housing and Development 26 life of many local residents. Economy and Employment 32 Transport 33 The Parish therefore responds Facilities and Services 37 positively to developers who share 6. Implementation and Monitoring 43 this approach. Introduction 43 Development Management 43 Infrastructure Projects 43 Monitoring and Review 44 A10 Road Access Proposal 44 7. Appendix 45 Housing Development Proposal 2016-2031 45 Standon Conservation Map 46 Puckeridge Conservation Map 47 Colliers End Boundary Map 48 Areas of Beauty Map 49 2 STANDON PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN STANDON PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Braintree District Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan June 2021 BRAINTREE DISTRICT COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
    BDC/058 Braintree District Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan June 2021 BRAINTREE DISTRICT COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN PREPARED BY: Troy Planning + Design and Navigus Planning TROY PLANNING + DESIGN 41-42 Foley Street, Fitzrovia, London W1W 7TS www.troyplanning.com NAVIGUS PLANNING Truro, Lushington Road, Manningtree, Essex, CO11 1EF, UK www.navigusplanning.co.uk PREPARED ON BEHALF OF: Braintree District Council COPYRIGHT The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Troy Planning + Design (Troy Hayes Planning Limited). Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Troy Planning + Design constitutes an infringement of copyright. LIMITATION This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Troy Planning + Design’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Troy Planning + Design and its Client. Troy Planning + Design and Navigus Planning accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use or reliance upon this report by any third party. Revision Description Issued by: Date Checked 1 Final LI 21.06.21 CB, LI 2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1. Infrastructure Covered in this Plan ............................................................................................... 5 1.2. Purpose of the Report ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020-2025
    Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020–2025 March 2020 CORRECTION SLIP Title: Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020-25 Session: 2019-21 ISBN: 978-1-5286-1678-2 Date of laying: 11th March 2020 Correction: Removing duplicate text on the M62 Junctions 20-25 smart motorway Text currently reads: (Page 95) M62 Junctions 20-25 – upgrading the M62 to smart motorway between junction 20 (Rochdale) and junction 25 (Brighouse) across the Pennines. Together with other smart motorways in Lancashire and Yorkshire, this will provide a full smart motorway link between Manchester and Leeds, and between the M1 and the M6. This text should be removed, but the identical text on page 96 remains. Correction: Correcting a heading in the eastern region Heading currently reads: Under Construction Heading should read: Smart motorways subject to stocktake Date of correction: 11th March 2020 Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020 – 2025 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at https://forms.dft.gov.uk/contact-dft-and-agencies/ ISBN 978-1-5286-1678-2 CCS0919077812 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Tackling High Risk Regional Roads Safer Roads Fund Full
    Mobility • Safety • Economy • Environment Tackling High-Risk Regional Roads Safer Roads Fund 2017/2018 FO UND Dr Suzy Charman Road Safety Foundation October 2018 AT ION The Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring Ltd is a transport policy and research organisation which explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues relating to roads and their users. The Foundation publishes independent and authoritative research with which it promotes informed debate and advocates policy in the interest of the responsible motorist. RAC Foundation 89–91 Pall Mall London SW1Y 5HS Tel no: 020 7747 3445 www.racfoundation.org Registered Charity No. 1002705 October 2018 © Copyright Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring Ltd Mobility • Safety • Economy • Environment Tackling High-Risk Regional Roads Safer Roads Fund 2017/2018 FO UND Dr Suzy Charman Road Safety Foundation October 2018 AT ION About the Road Safety Foundation The Road Safety Foundation is a UK charity advocating road casualty reduction through simultaneous action on all three components of the safe road system: roads, vehicles and behaviour. The charity has enabled work across each of these components and has published several reports which have provided the basis of new legislation, government policy or practice. For the last decade, the charity has focused on developing the Safe Systems approach, and in particular leading the establishment of the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) in the UK and, through EuroRAP, the global UK-based charity International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). Since the inception of EuroRAP in 1999, the Foundation has been the UK member responsible for managing the programme in the UK (and, more recently, Ireland), ensuring that these countries provide a global model of what can be achieved.
    [Show full text]
  • Forward Plan Reference Number: FP/830/05/17 Report Title: A120 Braintree to A12: Report on Option Selection and Consultation
    Forward Plan reference number: FP/830/05/17 Report title: A120 Braintree to A12: report on option selection and consultation. Report to: Cabinet Report author: Andrew Cook - Director, Highways and Transportation Date: 23 November 2017 For: Decision Enquiries to: Chris Stevenson, Head of Commissioning, Connected Essex, Integrated Transport Telephone: 03330 136577| of: 07970 766769 Email: [email protected] County Divisions affected: All Essex 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. To present an update on the A120 route options following public consultation for a new dual carriageway road between Braintree and the A12, to outline and assess the choices open to Essex County Council (ECC) for their post- public consultation announcement and to recommend the way forward. 2. Recommendations 2.1. That Cabinet agrees : • that of the initial 68 route options assessed and the 5 options taken to consultation only 2 broad options, corresponding to the central (routes B and C) and southern corridors (routes D and E), will now be pursued in greater detail to determine the best overall performing route; • that Option A (northern corridor) is the worst performing option and would appear unlikely to emerge as a candidate for preferred route status through further study; • that work continues to present a full set of route option appraisals to Government in accordance with Highways England processes; • that a final decision on Essex County Council’s preferred route option be delegated to the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Economic Growth, Skills, Infrastructure and the Digital Economy in consultation with the Executive Director for Infrastructure and Environment. 3.
    [Show full text]
  • STATEMENT of CASE Rule 7 – Compulsory Purchase (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2007 Rule 16- Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994
    THE HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (A120 BYPASS (LITTLE HADHAM)) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2017 and THE HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (A120 (LITTLE HADHAM) BYPASS CLASSIFIED ROAD) (SIDE ROADS) ORDER 2017 STATEMENT OF CASE Rule 7 – Compulsory Purchase (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2007 Rule 16- Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994 Department for Transport Reference: NATTRAN/E/LAO/136 1 HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981 THE HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (A120 BYPASS (LITTLE HADHAM)) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2017 and THE HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (A120 (LITTLE HADHAM) BYPASS CLASSIFIED ROAD) (SIDE ROADS) ORDER 2017 STATEMENT OF CASE OF HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Contents: Introduction 1. Section (i) a brief description of the order land and its location, topographical features and present use 2. Section (ii) an explanation of the use of the particular enabling power 3. Section (iii) an outline of the authority’s purpose in seeking to acquire the land 4. Section (iv): a statement of the authority’s justification for compulsory purchase, with regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 8 if appropriate 5. Section (v): a description of the proposals for the use or development of the land 6. Section (vi) a statement about the planning position of the order site. See also Section 1: advice on Section 226 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 for planning orders 7. Section (vii) information required in the light of government policy statements where orders are made in certain circumstances. 8. Section (viii) any special considerations affecting the order site, e.g. ancient monument, listed building, conservation area, special category land, consecrated land, renewal area, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Scheme Assessment Report, Part 1
    A120 BRAINTREE TO A12 Essex County Council Scheme Assessment Report B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 | P05 12/11/18 Essex C ounty Council A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report A120 Braintree to A12 Project No: B3553T41 Document Title: Scheme Assessment Report Document No.: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 Revision: P05 Date: 12 November 2018 Client Name: Essex County Council Project Manager: James Burke Author: Ransford Wiredu File Name: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 Jacobs U.K. Limited Simpson House, 6 Cherry Orchard Road, Croydon, CR9 6BE T +44 (0)20.8686.8212 www.jacobs.com © Copyright 2018 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party. Document history and status Revision Date Description By Review Approved P00 28/09/17 Draft issue for comment RW/MJ/CH JRW JB P01 21/05/18 Draft issue for comment RW JRW JB P02 18/07/18 Draft issue to HE environment team to address HE MW (update of MJ (review of JB comments on environment sections (Sections 2.8 and environment environment section 8) sections only) sections only) P03 25/08/2018 Issue for TPG review CJH (update of MJS (review of JB economics and economics and Decision Decision Framework) Framework) P04 20/10/2018 Final report including TGP comments CJH MJS JB P05 12/11/2018 Final report including appendices RW MS JB B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 ii A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report Contents Contents ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Outline Business Case
    A120 Braintree to A12 Essex County Council PCF Stage 2 Outline Business Case B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-GN-J-0003 | P00 23 October 2018 Document Ti tle Client Name A120 Braintree to A12 Stage 2 Outline Business Case Project Name Project no: B3553T41 Document title: PCF Stage 2 Outlined Business Case Document No.: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-GN-J-0003 Revision: P00 Date: 19 October 2018 Client name: Essex County Council Client no: - Project manager: James Burke Author: Cameron Harvey File name: A120 Braintree to A12 Stage 2 OBC Jacobs U.K. Limited Jacobs House Shrewsbury Business Park Shrewsbury Shropshire SY2 6LG United Kingdom T +44 (0)1743 284 800 F +44 (0)1743 245 558 www.jacobs.com © Copyright 2018 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party. Document history and status Revision Date Description By Review Approved P00 23/10/2018 PCF Stage 2 Outlined Business Case following ECC review C. Harvey M. Stubbs J. Burke B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-GN-J-0003 i A120 Braintree to A12 Stage 2 Outline Business Case Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Character Assessment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Front and Back Cover:Front and Back Cover 1/10/07 13:47 Page 1 Supplementary Planning Document Development Plans Team September 2007 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007 September 2007 CONTENTS PAGE Pages 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Purpose & Status 2-3 3.0 Background & Context 4-7 4.0 The Landscape of Hertfordshire 8-15 5.0 Methodology 16-23 6.0 Landscape Character Areas 24-26 Appendix A Bibliography 278 Appendix B Glossary 280 Appendix C Field Survey Sheet 282 Appendix D Landscape Character Area Map 284 (Separate A1 sheet) East Herts District Landscape Character Assessment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Landscape Partnership produced this technical study on behalf of East Herts District Council in partnership with Hertfordshire County Council (HCC). The Landscape Partnership Ltd is a prac- tice registered with the Landscape Institute and the Royal Town Planning Institute and is a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. This document could not have been achieved without the com- bined efforts of the staff of Hertfordshire County Council, East Hertfordshire District Council, North Hertfordshire District Council, their consultants Babtie, The Living Landscapes Project and The Landscape Partnership Limited. The project was financially spon- sored by the following: Countryside Management Services (work- ing in Hertfordshire and Barnet), East Hertfordshire District Council, Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre (HBRC), and Hertfordshire County Council. The Landscape Partnership would like to thank all those who par- ticipated and in particular: * Members of HCC staff, especially Simon Odell, Head of Landscape, who supplied unfailing encouragement, quotations and many photographs; Frances Hassett, HBRC, who enabled Trevor James, (formerly HBRC) to make further contributions from his intimate knowledge of the ecology of the county; Alison Tinniswood for her assistance on the county's history and Lynn Dyson-Bruce, on secondment from English Heritage, for her valiant work on the historic landscape data.
    [Show full text]
  • A120 Braintree to A12
    A120 BRAINTREE TO A12 Essex County Council TECHNICAL APPRAISAL REPORT B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0002 | P01 11/1/17 TECHNIC AL A PPR AISAL R EPORT Ess ex C ounty Council A120 Braintree to A12 Technical Appraisal Report Contents Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Document purpose and structure ................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 Scheme Description .................................................................................................................................... 9 2. PLANNING BRIEF .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Justification for the scheme ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Scheme Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Previous Work and Studies ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • River Basin Management Plan Anglian River Basin District
    River Basin Management Plan Anglian River Basin District Annex D: Protected area objectives Contents D.1 Introduction 2 D.2 Types and location of protected areas 3 D.3 Monitoring network 12 D.4 Objectives 19 D.5 Compliance (results of monitoring) including 22 actions (measures) for Surface Water Drinking Water Protected Areas and Natura 2000 Protected Areas D.6 Other information 118 D.1 Introduction The Water Framework Directive specifies that areas requiring special protection under other EC Directives and waters used for the abstraction of drinking water are identified as protected areas. These areas have their own objectives and standards. Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive requires Member States to achieve compliance with the standards and objectives set for each protected area by 22 December 2015, unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the protected area was established. Some areas may require special protection under more than one EC Directive or may have additional (surface water and/or groundwater) objectives. In these cases, all the objectives and standards must be met. Article 6 requires Member States to establish a register of protected areas. The types of protected areas that must be included in the register are: • areas designated for the abstraction of water for human consumption (Drinking Water Protected Areas); • areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species (Freshwater Fish and Shellfish); • bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as Bathing Waters; • nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas identified as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones under the Nitrates Directive or areas designated as sensitive under Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD); • areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection including 1 relevant Natura 2000 sites.
    [Show full text]
  • A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening
    If you need help accessing this or any other Highways England information, please call 0300 123 5000 and we will help you. A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening junctions 23 to 25 Preferred route announcement Our proposed improvements to the A12 will help transform journeys between Suffolk, Essex and London by reducing congestion. This will allow traffic to flow more freely and help to support the local and national economy. Contents 4 Investing in your roads 5 Why widen the A12? 5 Benefits of the A12 widening 7 Background 8 The preferred route 12 Public consultation and engagement to date 13 Response to the public consultation 14` Rejected routes 21 What happens next? 22 Application for a Development Consent Order 23 Further information We are improving journey times for thousands of drivers that face long queues on the A12. 2 3 Investing in your roads Why widen the A12? At Highways England, we believe in a connected country and our The A12 is an important economic link in Essex and across the east of strategic road network makes these connections happen. We strive England. It provides the main south west/north east route through Essex to improve our major roads and motorways, engineering the future and Suffolk, connecting Ipswich to London and to the M25. to keep people moving today and moving better tomorrow. We want to make sure all our major roads are more dependable, durable The section between Chelmsford and Colchester (junction 19 Boreham and, most importantly, safe. That’s why we’re making a multi-billion- interchange to junction 25 Marks Tey interchange) carries high volumes pound investment in our road network – the largest in a generation.
    [Show full text]