Those of us who have been here before may be forgiven for feeling just that bit sceptical about any plan that anyone puts forward.
There may be a lot of merit in this one. There may have been a lot of merit in previous ones.
It's just that they all seem to end up crashing on the rocks of sheer impracticality of operation in day-to-day circumstances, whether it be allowing people who need access to get in, or keeping people who don't need access out.
When you consider it is now nearly 40 years since the scheme was first mooted, it does seem an unconscionable amount of time and effort to have been spent – some would say wasted – on one issue.
Of course, the original idea was very simple and, if it had been implemented as first envisaged, could have been put in place very quickly.
It was to provide rear servicing for all premises in High Street and Queen Street, and then remove traffic altogether.
There was to have been a line of trees planted up the middle of the High Street which, if it had been done in the early 1970s, would by now be providing a beautiful area in which a Mediterranean-style market could be held.
As it is, we are still in the no-mans-land which started 20 years ago of pedestrian priority, but traffic access, where no one quite knows when the street is dangerous and when it isn't.
It's not an uncommon problem.
I have been in many towns where the same conflict exists and where you are walking along in the middle of the paved area, looking for a particular shop, and you suddenly become aware of a car right in front of you and that you are the obstacle preventing its further progress and irritating its driver who seems to think you are carelessly wandering about in the middle of the road.
The problem of rear access has never been properly grasped, either by St Edmundsbury or, since it took over responsibility for traffic management in the town, Suffolk County Council.
These things are always about compromise in the end, but councils often seem to forget that the interests that need to come first are those of businesses and their customers.
It is not just the interests of the businesses, much as they would naturally like it to be so, nor is it just of the customers (that's us), much as councils would like it to be because we are the voters and we tend to kick up if we don't like what they suggest.
And least of all is it the interests of the council.
Councils have a duty to make the most of their assets on behalf of the public who elect them, but not at the expense of the facilities provided to that same public.
There has always been an argument on this front about the location of the new Tesco store on previously council-owned land.
Many think its proximity to the town centre will be harmful and the traffic problems it may cause will be serious.
Having visited edge-of-centre superstores in many towns I cannot say I have noticed a particularly harmful effect on nearby trading – rather the reverse.
And I have also visited some where I have been astonished as to how they ever got planning permission in such busy and mainly residential areas, but it all seems to work reasonably well.
No doubt people there complained at the time.
Compromises were made and the end results are clear for all to see.
Haverhill is not a unique place, and its traffic management problems are not unique – just slightly different. Therefore common sense must, in the end, prevail, even after 40 years.
When it's done everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.