Please find attached my response to the Wiltshire Strategic Freight Strategy Consultation.  I am a former Town Councillor and was heavily involved with the Melksham Neighbourhood Plan, and I am also Chair of the Melksham Transport Users Group (MTUG), as well as having wider connections across the county and indeed the South West, so perhaps I have a better insight into the traffic (freight and private and public) transport flow, and how they may develop and the area changes, becomes more populous and at the same time more needing of efficient and environmentally better travel for goods and people.

I found the questions asked on your public survey to be very "light" for me.  Not a surprise, and that lightness probably makes sense because that'll be appropriate for most respondents who won't have studied the subject in detail. So please find attached my written comments - made in public on my blog - for your consideration.  The URL in includes within the .pdf, and a QR code will take you quickly there.

As a very quick summary, Melksham in on the only North-South trunk road artery, and the only north-south railway line, for many miles.  Tonnage wise at present, I guestimate that 35% goes by rail and 65% by rail, though looking at the consultation may, which leaves out the railway, you would think it was closed.  I find myself wondering why this is - perhaps it's because the passage of 1,000 lorries per day through Benacre, the narrow section of Melksham near McDonalds, and close to the homes at the edge of the Hazelwood Road estate is already intrusive and exercises councillors, whereas the railway quietly passes freight without causing the public outrage, noise and fumes of score of lorries.

Both current road and rail are perilously close to running at full capacity, and further traffic - both long distance and regional as the Wiltshire population rises - will push them over the tipping point to through congestion that is economy-damaging towards (and perhaps to) gridlock in coming years.  And both rail and road need significant capacity improvements. It is not a case of either/or.   Both are needed, and both sets of improvements need to consider and plan for both the freight and the people aspects of infrastructure improvements.

Please feel free to share the above, and the attachment, and to keep me informed of progress, and I am happy to make further comment and to explain to and via MTUG members some of the reasons behind what are likely to be some locally less than popular works that are needed.