Western section options comparison
The table below presents the pros and cons for Options 1, 2 and 3 that have been identified through the technical assessments completed to date.
Further information regarding the options is available in the following documents:
·
|
|
Option 1
|
Option 2
|
Option 3
|
|
Pros
|
· Meets objectives in relation to safety, journey time savings and sustainable travel
· Avoids impact on properties along Bozard Lane and Claydon Solar Farm
· Lower forecasted cost
|
· Meets all objectives
· Maximises potential traffic relief to existing A46
· Supports scope of future Garden Communities development
· Avoids impact on properties in Fiddington area
· Fewer crossings of high-pressure gas mains than Option 1 (same as Option 3)
· Better Value for Money than Option 1 (similar to Option 3)
|
· Meets all objectives
· Maximises potential traffic relief to existing A46
· Supports scope of future Garden Communities development
· Avoids impact on properties in Fiddington area
· Avoids impact on Claydon Solar Farm
· Fewer crossings of high-pressure gas mains than Option 1 (same as Option 2)
· Better Value for Money than Option 1 (similar to Option 2)
|
|
Cons
|
· Provides less traffic relief to existing A46 than other options
· Unlikely to support the level of traffic growth as part of future Garden Communities development as well as other options.
· Impacts residential, farming and equestrian properties north of Fiddington, and diversion of Fiddington to Tredington Road would be required
· More crossings of high-pressure gas pipelines than other options
· Poorer Value for Money than other options
|
· Land take required along southern boundary of Claydon Solar Farm
· May impact on residential and farming properties along Bozard Lane and diversion of Bozard Lane could be required
· Higher forecasted cost than Option 1 (slightly lower than Option 3)
|
· Diversion of Bozard Lane required and may impact on residential and farming properties along Gotherington Fields Lane
· Longest route overall with more land take than other options
· Higher forecasted cost than Options 1 and 2
|