ARGUS COMMENT: Relief road should end M4 gridlock

First published in News

IT HAS been a long time coming but at last the Assembly Government has given the go ahead for a relief road around Newport.

The £1bn project will see the creation of a new road around the south of the city, starting at Junction 23 and rejoining the existing M4 at junction 29.

This so-called ‘black route’ will involve the construction of a bridge over the Usk.

It is not the cheapest option and as soon as the announcement was made it attracted waves of criticism because of the choice of the particular route and the decision to spend £1bn on on capital project but also because the decision was announced before an Assembly environment committee had issued its report.

For some the cost is just too high, when cheaper options were available.

For others the fear is that the cost of the scheme will mean capital projects elsewhere will be starved of funding.

For the people of Newport though this should mark the beginning of the end of a congestion nightmare.

Anyone who lives and works in this corner of Wales knows how the city grinds to a halt as soon as there is an accident on the existing M4.

It just cannot cope with the volume of traffic using what is a main artery into Wales.

That something has to be done has been obvious for many years and now at last there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:49am Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

SHOULD end gridlock? Should? You mean you're happy taxpayers are shelling out £1 billion for something that might not end it?

So let's compare. Would you rather have £1 billion put into a new hospital that SHOULD meet the needs of patients in Wales. . or £1 billion that might not relieve gridlock?

£1 billion is a lot to gamble on a "should."
SHOULD end gridlock? Should? You mean you're happy taxpayers are shelling out £1 billion for something that might not end it? So let's compare. Would you rather have £1 billion put into a new hospital that SHOULD meet the needs of patients in Wales. . or £1 billion that might not relieve gridlock? £1 billion is a lot to gamble on a "should." Paxman's Army
  • Score: -16

12:03pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

Let's see, let's see. £300 million for a new critical care hospital. . .£400 for a Blue Route option that SHOULD ease congestion. . . and Oh Look! That comes to just £700 million! Wow. Will you have a look at that. Something that relieves gridlock AND you get a new hospital in the bargain.

Oh I'm sorry. . you've already made your choice for a controversial £1 billion Relief Road? Ah ok I understand Ms Hart. That's fine. Now you're sure that it'll be just £1 billion. . because the first estimate was just £350 million and that turned out to be fa. . .ah. . I see I see. Ok.
Let's see, let's see. £300 million for a new critical care hospital. . .£400 for a Blue Route option that SHOULD ease congestion. . . and Oh Look! That comes to just £700 million! Wow. Will you have a look at that. Something that relieves gridlock AND you get a new hospital in the bargain. Oh I'm sorry. . you've already made your choice for a controversial £1 billion Relief Road? Ah ok I understand Ms Hart. That's fine. Now you're sure that it'll be just £1 billion. . because the first estimate was just £350 million and that turned out to be fa. . .ah. . I see I see. Ok. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -14

12:33pm Thu 17 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

There are no guarantees. If the Argus had put "will end congestion" you'd jump on them for claiming they know the future or somesuch nonesense.

The black route is the best option, it gives the most additional capacity to the transit and it puts the majority of the route in places where it can be easily expanded to take further traffic if it seems necessary.

It's a case of "speculate to accumulate" - it gives by far the best return on investment. Remember the point here is to spend money wisely, not spend money on something which then cripples your future expansion potential.
There are no guarantees. If the Argus had put "will end congestion" you'd jump on them for claiming they know the future or somesuch nonesense. The black route is the best option, it gives the most additional capacity to the transit and it puts the majority of the route in places where it can be easily expanded to take further traffic if it seems necessary. It's a case of "speculate to accumulate" - it gives by far the best return on investment. Remember the point here is to spend money wisely, not spend money on something which then cripples your future expansion potential. mkaibear1
  • Score: 17

12:46pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
There are no guarantees. If the Argus had put "will end congestion" you'd jump on them for claiming they know the future or somesuch nonesense.

The black route is the best option, it gives the most additional capacity to the transit and it puts the majority of the route in places where it can be easily expanded to take further traffic if it seems necessary.

It's a case of "speculate to accumulate" - it gives by far the best return on investment. Remember the point here is to spend money wisely, not spend money on something which then cripples your future expansion potential.
No guarantees? You're telling me that you are happy that £1 billion pounds will be poured into a controversial project that could irreparably harm the landscape and environment and it might not work? You're telling me that the black route is the best option even though experts say other less expensive, more practical options might do the trick just as well? No, I'm not satisfied with speculating. Not with this much at stake. And unless your are a gullible consumer, you shouldn't be either.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: There are no guarantees. If the Argus had put "will end congestion" you'd jump on them for claiming they know the future or somesuch nonesense. The black route is the best option, it gives the most additional capacity to the transit and it puts the majority of the route in places where it can be easily expanded to take further traffic if it seems necessary. It's a case of "speculate to accumulate" - it gives by far the best return on investment. Remember the point here is to spend money wisely, not spend money on something which then cripples your future expansion potential.[/p][/quote]No guarantees? You're telling me that you are happy that £1 billion pounds will be poured into a controversial project that could irreparably harm the landscape and environment and it might not work? You're telling me that the black route is the best option even though experts say other less expensive, more practical options might do the trick just as well? No, I'm not satisfied with speculating. Not with this much at stake. And unless your are a gullible consumer, you shouldn't be either. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -18

1:32pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Citywatcher says...

I presume that all the people who complain about this dicision live in a building which was once built on an open field. If society is to progress and we are to provide work for our children then we need 21st Centuary communications. After all we pay these people to make decisions for our future. It is a shame that an area of land has to be blighted but did they say that when they built Newport Castle or any of the Victorian houses in the City? If people want to see the countryside then they will be able to do this when using the new M4 to take them outside of the City. After all you may want to do this after a hard weeks working in one of the new employment oppotunities that this road will provide.
I presume that all the people who complain about this dicision live in a building which was once built on an open field. If society is to progress and we are to provide work for our children then we need 21st Centuary communications. After all we pay these people to make decisions for our future. It is a shame that an area of land has to be blighted but did they say that when they built Newport Castle or any of the Victorian houses in the City? If people want to see the countryside then they will be able to do this when using the new M4 to take them outside of the City. After all you may want to do this after a hard weeks working in one of the new employment oppotunities that this road will provide. Citywatcher
  • Score: 17

1:42pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Good Job No Kids says...

Sense has prevailed at last. Although this was a done deal some time ago as I had stated on more than one occasion.
Sense has prevailed at last. Although this was a done deal some time ago as I had stated on more than one occasion. Good Job No Kids
  • Score: 12

1:53pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

Citywatcher. Good point. Where green grass once flourished. . let's build for that family in need of a home. . . a £1bil Trump Tower. That should do the trick. I mean. . it's not as if other options are fit for purpose eh? And we have plenty of money to shell out. Right? It's not like the money could be used for. . oh. . hospitals.
Citywatcher. Good point. Where green grass once flourished. . let's build for that family in need of a home. . . a £1bil Trump Tower. That should do the trick. I mean. . it's not as if other options are fit for purpose eh? And we have plenty of money to shell out. Right? It's not like the money could be used for. . oh. . hospitals. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -12

2:00pm Thu 17 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
There are no guarantees. If the Argus had put "will end congestion" you'd jump on them for claiming they know the future or somesuch nonesense.

The black route is the best option, it gives the most additional capacity to the transit and it puts the majority of the route in places where it can be easily expanded to take further traffic if it seems necessary.

It's a case of "speculate to accumulate" - it gives by far the best return on investment. Remember the point here is to spend money wisely, not spend money on something which then cripples your future expansion potential.
No guarantees? You're telling me that you are happy that £1 billion pounds will be poured into a controversial project that could irreparably harm the landscape and environment and it might not work? You're telling me that the black route is the best option even though experts say other less expensive, more practical options might do the trick just as well? No, I'm not satisfied with speculating. Not with this much at stake. And unless your are a gullible consumer, you shouldn't be either.
Yes. I'm happy that a decision has made but annoyed that it wasn't made 5 years ago (or even 10, or even in 1991 like the first proposal)

I am happy that 1bn is being spent on a capital investment project (good for generating growth) which will aid the income generating abilities of the area by encouraging companies that they can locate here without worrying about the entire place coming to a halt and closing off South Wales to the rest of the UK.

I am also happy that the government has decided to go with the "big" option to start with rather than go for a smaller option and then find that it doesn't work and we have to build the bigger option anyway.

No guarantees. So you need to do what you can to maximise the chance of success, maximise the potential for growth., and maximise the benefits to the area.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: There are no guarantees. If the Argus had put "will end congestion" you'd jump on them for claiming they know the future or somesuch nonesense. The black route is the best option, it gives the most additional capacity to the transit and it puts the majority of the route in places where it can be easily expanded to take further traffic if it seems necessary. It's a case of "speculate to accumulate" - it gives by far the best return on investment. Remember the point here is to spend money wisely, not spend money on something which then cripples your future expansion potential.[/p][/quote]No guarantees? You're telling me that you are happy that £1 billion pounds will be poured into a controversial project that could irreparably harm the landscape and environment and it might not work? You're telling me that the black route is the best option even though experts say other less expensive, more practical options might do the trick just as well? No, I'm not satisfied with speculating. Not with this much at stake. And unless your are a gullible consumer, you shouldn't be either.[/p][/quote]Yes. I'm happy that a decision has made but annoyed that it wasn't made 5 years ago (or even 10, or even in 1991 like the first proposal) I am happy that 1bn is being spent on a capital investment project (good for generating growth) which will aid the income generating abilities of the area by encouraging companies that they can locate here without worrying about the entire place coming to a halt and closing off South Wales to the rest of the UK. I am also happy that the government has decided to go with the "big" option to start with rather than go for a smaller option and then find that it doesn't work and we have to build the bigger option anyway. No guarantees. So you need to do what you can to maximise the chance of success, maximise the potential for growth., and maximise the benefits to the area. mkaibear1
  • Score: 17

2:06pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

Right MKA. . .so let me get this straight. You'd rather they go for the more expensive option that might not work. . then a more balanced cheaper option that might not work. Ok. I understand. Is your name Edwina by any chance?
Right MKA. . .so let me get this straight. You'd rather they go for the more expensive option that might not work. . then a more balanced cheaper option that might not work. Ok. I understand. Is your name Edwina by any chance? Paxman's Army
  • Score: -14

2:26pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Citywatcher says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
Citywatcher. Good point. Where green grass once flourished. . let's build for that family in need of a home. . . a £1bil Trump Tower. That should do the trick. I mean. . it's not as if other options are fit for purpose eh? And we have plenty of money to shell out. Right? It's not like the money could be used for. . oh. . hospitals.
The decision to build new hospitals has already been taken and as I have argued in the past building the Specialist Critical Care Centre in Llanfrechfa will mean that the vast amjority of patients who have a life threatening illness (heart attack) will have to be transported there. This has been funded and the population of Newport will loose its major injury hospital. Unfortunately the transportation of those patients will have to be moved via another road built because of the volume of traffic that used Malpas Road. At least a new M4 relief road would take some of the traffic away from the link roads to Cwmbran and (if there were an ambulance available) eventually get to Llanfrechfa!
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: Citywatcher. Good point. Where green grass once flourished. . let's build for that family in need of a home. . . a £1bil Trump Tower. That should do the trick. I mean. . it's not as if other options are fit for purpose eh? And we have plenty of money to shell out. Right? It's not like the money could be used for. . oh. . hospitals.[/p][/quote]The decision to build new hospitals has already been taken and as I have argued in the past building the Specialist Critical Care Centre in Llanfrechfa will mean that the vast amjority of patients who have a life threatening illness (heart attack) will have to be transported there. This has been funded and the population of Newport will loose its major injury hospital. Unfortunately the transportation of those patients will have to be moved via another road built because of the volume of traffic that used Malpas Road. At least a new M4 relief road would take some of the traffic away from the link roads to Cwmbran and (if there were an ambulance available) eventually get to Llanfrechfa! Citywatcher
  • Score: 9

2:29pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Citywatcher says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
Citywatcher. Good point. Where green grass once flourished. . let's build for that family in need of a home. . . a £1bil Trump Tower. That should do the trick. I mean. . it's not as if other options are fit for purpose eh? And we have plenty of money to shell out. Right? It's not like the money could be used for. . oh. . hospitals.
The decision to build new hospitals has already been taken and as I have argued in the past building the Specialist Critical Care Centre in Llanfrechfa will mean that the vast amjority of patients who have a life threatening illness (heart attack) will have to be transported there. This has been funded and the population of Newport will loose its major injury hospital. Unfortunately the transportation of those patients will have to be moved via another road built because of the volume of traffic that used Malpas Road. At least a new M4 relief road would take some of the traffic away from the link roads to Cwmbran and (if there were an ambulance available) eventually get to Llanfrechfa!
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: Citywatcher. Good point. Where green grass once flourished. . let's build for that family in need of a home. . . a £1bil Trump Tower. That should do the trick. I mean. . it's not as if other options are fit for purpose eh? And we have plenty of money to shell out. Right? It's not like the money could be used for. . oh. . hospitals.[/p][/quote]The decision to build new hospitals has already been taken and as I have argued in the past building the Specialist Critical Care Centre in Llanfrechfa will mean that the vast amjority of patients who have a life threatening illness (heart attack) will have to be transported there. This has been funded and the population of Newport will loose its major injury hospital. Unfortunately the transportation of those patients will have to be moved via another road built because of the volume of traffic that used Malpas Road. At least a new M4 relief road would take some of the traffic away from the link roads to Cwmbran and (if there were an ambulance available) eventually get to Llanfrechfa! Citywatcher
  • Score: 5

2:39pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

Hey. . then let's build another bypass! You have the money, right Edwina? Volume of traffic is no problem for you. At what point do you stop blowing money, sit down, and think of a logical alternative? Or do you just rush through it and say, "well this has GOT to be the best option because. . it looks right and I believe what the politicans are saying."
Hey. . then let's build another bypass! You have the money, right Edwina? Volume of traffic is no problem for you. At what point do you stop blowing money, sit down, and think of a logical alternative? Or do you just rush through it and say, "well this has GOT to be the best option because. . it looks right and I believe what the politicans are saying." Paxman's Army
  • Score: -14

3:08pm Thu 17 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
Right MKA. . .so let me get this straight. You'd rather they go for the more expensive option that might not work. . then a more balanced cheaper option that might not work. Ok. I understand. Is your name Edwina by any chance?
Nah, stop being obtuse.

I'd rather go for the option which has the best chance of working and the best chance of providing future expansion than the option which has the least chance of working and has no provision for future expansion (because, honestly, widening the SDR? Not going to happen down there, you'd take out homes, businesses and the Transporter Bridge).
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: Right MKA. . .so let me get this straight. You'd rather they go for the more expensive option that might not work. . then a more balanced cheaper option that might not work. Ok. I understand. Is your name Edwina by any chance?[/p][/quote]Nah, stop being obtuse. I'd rather go for the option which has the best chance of working and the best chance of providing future expansion than the option which has the least chance of working and has no provision for future expansion (because, honestly, widening the SDR? Not going to happen down there, you'd take out homes, businesses and the Transporter Bridge). mkaibear1
  • Score: 10

3:10pm Thu 17 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
Hey. . then let's build another bypass! You have the money, right Edwina? Volume of traffic is no problem for you. At what point do you stop blowing money, sit down, and think of a logical alternative? Or do you just rush through it and say, "well this has GOT to be the best option because. . it looks right and I believe what the politicans are saying."
There is no logical alternative. The only alternatives are all significantly flawed.

I'd much rather the government spend the money on something with the highest chance of working than the one which is definitely not going to work.

I mean honestly, look at the Blue Route where it crosses the Usk? You might get a 2 lane motorway there but it will never be expandable and the congestion it will cause at the bottom end of Newport would be ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: Hey. . then let's build another bypass! You have the money, right Edwina? Volume of traffic is no problem for you. At what point do you stop blowing money, sit down, and think of a logical alternative? Or do you just rush through it and say, "well this has GOT to be the best option because. . it looks right and I believe what the politicans are saying."[/p][/quote]There is no logical alternative. The only alternatives are all significantly flawed. I'd much rather the government spend the money on something with the highest chance of working than the one which is definitely not going to work. I mean honestly, look at the Blue Route where it crosses the Usk? You might get a 2 lane motorway there but it will never be expandable and the congestion it will cause at the bottom end of Newport would be ridiculous. mkaibear1
  • Score: 8

3:54pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Nospin_1 says...

Taking the relief road through Newport would be plain stupid and those proposing it are as well, could only work it the whole thing was a three lane flyover, which can then never be expanded, would cost more and either method using the blue route would cause traffic chaos in Newport whilst construction was underway. If you think the blue route is best look at the problems in Port Talbot.

The traffic on the SDR is near gridlocked every rush hour without diverting the whole of the M4 onto it (when accident on current M4). The traffic at J28 coming out of Newport in the evening is dead stop to crawl, the amount of pollution due to idling vehicles would be horrendous.

Have any of the objectors been in Newport anywhere when the M4 is closed, it is all on the SDR and locals are trying every other route they can, resulting in total gridlock across Newport including getting ambulances to the Royal Gwent.

The black route is the only long term solution and can cope with even more expansion if need be.

AS for the tree huggers and newt watchers it hardly touches the fringes of the flatlands, is not going straight across the middle of it, wildlife will recover go and look at the Somerset levels (as long as they are not flooded due to lack of dredging). BTW motorway verges are some of the finest wildlife sanctuaries because people are BANNED.

This could have been cheaper if done earlier, but certainly from 2007-2011 no chance as all plaid were interested in was more money to the north in general and more on the A55 which has been completely "dualled" I believe and it will have to be good enough for now, the M4 is a far more important artery for the economy of Wales. Oh and when I hear PC on about a north south motorway would be better for Wales not east west, it makes me wonder what planet they live on.
Taking the relief road through Newport would be plain stupid and those proposing it are as well, could only work it the whole thing was a three lane flyover, which can then never be expanded, would cost more and either method using the blue route would cause traffic chaos in Newport whilst construction was underway. If you think the blue route is best look at the problems in Port Talbot. The traffic on the SDR is near gridlocked every rush hour without diverting the whole of the M4 onto it (when accident on current M4). The traffic at J28 coming out of Newport in the evening is dead stop to crawl, the amount of pollution due to idling vehicles would be horrendous. Have any of the objectors been in Newport anywhere when the M4 is closed, it is all on the SDR and locals are trying every other route they can, resulting in total gridlock across Newport including getting ambulances to the Royal Gwent. The black route is the only long term solution and can cope with even more expansion if need be. AS for the tree huggers and newt watchers it hardly touches the fringes of the flatlands, is not going straight across the middle of it, wildlife will recover go and look at the Somerset levels (as long as they are not flooded due to lack of dredging). BTW motorway verges are some of the finest wildlife sanctuaries because people are BANNED. This could have been cheaper if done earlier, but certainly from 2007-2011 no chance as all plaid were interested in was more money to the north in general and more on the A55 which has been completely "dualled" I believe and it will have to be good enough for now, the M4 is a far more important artery for the economy of Wales. Oh and when I hear PC on about a north south motorway would be better for Wales not east west, it makes me wonder what planet they live on. Nospin_1
  • Score: 9

3:55pm Thu 17 Jul 14

-trigg- says...

Spending £400m on the 'Blue Route' - an option that will do nothing to reduce congestion on the M4 whilst also increasing congestion elsewhere doesn't represent a saving, despite the overly-simplistic maths some have presented.

Any money spent on the Blue Route would simply be wasted and would still leave Wales needing to find a fresh budget to construct the Black route at a later date after enduring many more years of traffic chaos and disruption.
Spending £400m on the 'Blue Route' - an option that will do nothing to reduce congestion on the M4 whilst also increasing congestion elsewhere doesn't represent a saving, despite the overly-simplistic maths some have presented. Any money spent on the Blue Route would simply be wasted and would still leave Wales needing to find a fresh budget to construct the Black route at a later date after enduring many more years of traffic chaos and disruption. -trigg-
  • Score: 14

5:20pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

Ok Trigg. You're right. You shouldn't take my opinion about the more affordable Blue Option. But I take it you aren't going to take the opinion of many experts . . including Professor Stuart Cole who wrote a report for the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport. He's just one of many experts and he said: "The Blue Route would solve the congestion issue on the M4 as it arises. Moreover, since it could be built sooner than the motorway it could ease congestion earlier."

Sooner congestion clearing? A less controversial alternative? You aren't having any of it are you because you are more knowledgable and you like to spend money, right?

And now let's go onto Nospin who writes: motorway verges are some of the finest wildlife sanctuaries because people are BANNED.

Nice. I can think of a ton of places people are banned from around Newport. Scary sites. . .one's not even surrounded with traffic. I'm sure we can find homes for the wildlife there. Shove'm on little reservations just like American Indians. . . that'll do the trick. I'm sure they'll flourish.

How come I haven't ever heard that the "finest" wildlife sanctuaries are motorway verges? So the wildlife prefer that, do they?
Ok Trigg. You're right. You shouldn't take my opinion about the more affordable Blue Option. But I take it you aren't going to take the opinion of many experts . . including Professor Stuart Cole who wrote a report for the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport. He's just one of many experts and he said: "The Blue Route would solve the congestion issue on the M4 as it arises. Moreover, since it could be built sooner than the motorway it could ease congestion earlier." Sooner congestion clearing? A less controversial alternative? You aren't having any of it are you because you are more knowledgable and you like to spend money, right? And now let's go onto Nospin who writes: motorway verges are some of the finest wildlife sanctuaries because people are BANNED. Nice. I can think of a ton of places people are banned from around Newport. Scary sites. . .one's not even surrounded with traffic. I'm sure we can find homes for the wildlife there. Shove'm on little reservations just like American Indians. . . that'll do the trick. I'm sure they'll flourish. How come I haven't ever heard that the "finest" wildlife sanctuaries are motorway verges? So the wildlife prefer that, do they? Paxman's Army
  • Score: -10

5:24pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

And did you notice? Professor Cole. . you remember. .the expert. . said it WOULD solve the congestion problem. . not SHOULD.
And did you notice? Professor Cole. . you remember. .the expert. . said it WOULD solve the congestion problem. . not SHOULD. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -8

5:27pm Thu 17 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

An expert. Not *the* expert.

One person's opinion, it does not mean he's correct.

The blue route quite possibly would ease congestion - for a short time - but it is not a sustainable solution.

It is unexpandable, it is impractical and it is illogical to spaff this money on a route which is not future proof - you just end up having to build the black route anyway!
An expert. Not *the* expert. One person's opinion, it does not mean he's correct. The blue route quite possibly would ease congestion - for a short time - but it is not a sustainable solution. It is unexpandable, it is impractical and it is illogical to spaff this money on a route which is not future proof - you just end up having to build the black route anyway! mkaibear1
  • Score: 6

5:38pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA. . . you're right! I've had another look. An expert. He is just AN expert. Just one.

One of many.

Many of these experts, who you say aren't thinking logically, work for the transport industry. Some are business owners. But they just don't have a clue. . .do they? Silly expert people. Saving money like that. . . with their silly alternatives that simply aren't practical.
MKA. . . you're right! I've had another look. An expert. He is just AN expert. Just one. One of many. Many of these experts, who you say aren't thinking logically, work for the transport industry. Some are business owners. But they just don't have a clue. . .do they? Silly expert people. Saving money like that. . . with their silly alternatives that simply aren't practical. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -7

9:22pm Thu 17 Jul 14

anigel says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. . . you're right! I've had another look. An expert. He is just AN expert. Just one.

One of many.

Many of these experts, who you say aren't thinking logically, work for the transport industry. Some are business owners. But they just don't have a clue. . .do they? Silly expert people. Saving money like that. . . with their silly alternatives that simply aren't practical.
You don't half talk some drivel PA. You are obviously of the belief it is better to repeatedly waste large chunks of money poking around the edges of a problem rather than make one substantial investment in something that is going to solve a problem for generations. If the world followed your logic we would still be going from A to B in horses and cart but we would have always taken the cheapest option to upgrading capacity, IE build bigger carts instead of railways.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. . . you're right! I've had another look. An expert. He is just AN expert. Just one. One of many. Many of these experts, who you say aren't thinking logically, work for the transport industry. Some are business owners. But they just don't have a clue. . .do they? Silly expert people. Saving money like that. . . with their silly alternatives that simply aren't practical.[/p][/quote]You don't half talk some drivel PA. You are obviously of the belief it is better to repeatedly waste large chunks of money poking around the edges of a problem rather than make one substantial investment in something that is going to solve a problem for generations. If the world followed your logic we would still be going from A to B in horses and cart but we would have always taken the cheapest option to upgrading capacity, IE build bigger carts instead of railways. anigel
  • Score: 6

9:59pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

anigel wrote:
Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. . . you're right! I've had another look. An expert. He is just AN expert. Just one.

One of many.

Many of these experts, who you say aren't thinking logically, work for the transport industry. Some are business owners. But they just don't have a clue. . .do they? Silly expert people. Saving money like that. . . with their silly alternatives that simply aren't practical.
You don't half talk some drivel PA. You are obviously of the belief it is better to repeatedly waste large chunks of money poking around the edges of a problem rather than make one substantial investment in something that is going to solve a problem for generations. If the world followed your logic we would still be going from A to B in horses and cart but we would have always taken the cheapest option to upgrading capacity, IE build bigger carts instead of railways.
Ah anigel. . .so you like the "You Get What You Pay For" approach. Which is fine if you have to choose between a Vax and a Tesco Upright. But this is a government project we're talking about. Waste money? Aren't you talking about yourself?
[quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. . . you're right! I've had another look. An expert. He is just AN expert. Just one. One of many. Many of these experts, who you say aren't thinking logically, work for the transport industry. Some are business owners. But they just don't have a clue. . .do they? Silly expert people. Saving money like that. . . with their silly alternatives that simply aren't practical.[/p][/quote]You don't half talk some drivel PA. You are obviously of the belief it is better to repeatedly waste large chunks of money poking around the edges of a problem rather than make one substantial investment in something that is going to solve a problem for generations. If the world followed your logic we would still be going from A to B in horses and cart but we would have always taken the cheapest option to upgrading capacity, IE build bigger carts instead of railways.[/p][/quote]Ah anigel. . .so you like the "You Get What You Pay For" approach. Which is fine if you have to choose between a Vax and a Tesco Upright. But this is a government project we're talking about. Waste money? Aren't you talking about yourself? Paxman's Army
  • Score: -6

10:07pm Thu 17 Jul 14

anigel says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
anigel wrote:
Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. . . you're right! I've had another look. An expert. He is just AN expert. Just one.

One of many.

Many of these experts, who you say aren't thinking logically, work for the transport industry. Some are business owners. But they just don't have a clue. . .do they? Silly expert people. Saving money like that. . . with their silly alternatives that simply aren't practical.
You don't half talk some drivel PA. You are obviously of the belief it is better to repeatedly waste large chunks of money poking around the edges of a problem rather than make one substantial investment in something that is going to solve a problem for generations. If the world followed your logic we would still be going from A to B in horses and cart but we would have always taken the cheapest option to upgrading capacity, IE build bigger carts instead of railways.
Ah anigel. . .so you like the "You Get What You Pay For" approach. Which is fine if you have to choose between a Vax and a Tesco Upright. But this is a government project we're talking about. Waste money? Aren't you talking about yourself?
NO I don't prefer the we get what we pay for approach I just don't go out of my way to buy a brush that may only just possibly solve my problem for a year at 40% of the price of something that is going to solve my problem for 20 years
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. . . you're right! I've had another look. An expert. He is just AN expert. Just one. One of many. Many of these experts, who you say aren't thinking logically, work for the transport industry. Some are business owners. But they just don't have a clue. . .do they? Silly expert people. Saving money like that. . . with their silly alternatives that simply aren't practical.[/p][/quote]You don't half talk some drivel PA. You are obviously of the belief it is better to repeatedly waste large chunks of money poking around the edges of a problem rather than make one substantial investment in something that is going to solve a problem for generations. If the world followed your logic we would still be going from A to B in horses and cart but we would have always taken the cheapest option to upgrading capacity, IE build bigger carts instead of railways.[/p][/quote]Ah anigel. . .so you like the "You Get What You Pay For" approach. Which is fine if you have to choose between a Vax and a Tesco Upright. But this is a government project we're talking about. Waste money? Aren't you talking about yourself?[/p][/quote]NO I don't prefer the we get what we pay for approach I just don't go out of my way to buy a brush that may only just possibly solve my problem for a year at 40% of the price of something that is going to solve my problem for 20 years anigel
  • Score: 4

10:25pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

So transport experts don't interest you? You'd rather just take the more expensive approach? Business leaders don't stir you? You'd rather use a more drastic option? You'd rather tow Edwina Hart's line? Sorry for showing that there are other options. . logical smart thought of options. .sorry because you don't like to listen.
So transport experts don't interest you? You'd rather just take the more expensive approach? Business leaders don't stir you? You'd rather use a more drastic option? You'd rather tow Edwina Hart's line? Sorry for showing that there are other options. . logical smart thought of options. .sorry because you don't like to listen. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -9

10:32pm Thu 17 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Sadly not all experts agree with your views PA. I'd rather it take a long time and cost a lot but be done right than it be done cheaply and quickly but shoddy and having to do it again later.

The other options are not logical. They are badly thought through and whilst they would work for a short time we'd be in exactly the same situation in a few years time.

Do it once. Do it right.
Sadly not all experts agree with your views PA. I'd rather it take a long time and cost a lot but be done right than it be done cheaply and quickly but shoddy and having to do it again later. The other options are not logical. They are badly thought through and whilst they would work for a short time we'd be in exactly the same situation in a few years time. Do it once. Do it right. mkaibear1
  • Score: 3

10:32pm Thu 17 Jul 14

anigel says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
So transport experts don't interest you? You'd rather just take the more expensive approach? Business leaders don't stir you? You'd rather use a more drastic option? You'd rather tow Edwina Hart's line? Sorry for showing that there are other options. . logical smart thought of options. .sorry because you don't like to listen.
Your one particular transport "expert" who happens to agree with your own personal pet project? No many other "experts" can see that solution offers zero long term hope of solving the problem and would just be a waste of money as you would have spent £400k and still not solved the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: So transport experts don't interest you? You'd rather just take the more expensive approach? Business leaders don't stir you? You'd rather use a more drastic option? You'd rather tow Edwina Hart's line? Sorry for showing that there are other options. . logical smart thought of options. .sorry because you don't like to listen.[/p][/quote]Your one particular transport "expert" who happens to agree with your own personal pet project? No many other "experts" can see that solution offers zero long term hope of solving the problem and would just be a waste of money as you would have spent £400k and still not solved the problem. anigel
  • Score: 3

10:37pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

Something has to be done about the gridlock all are agreed - the question is how and where. As for Edwina, if you look like a buffoon, sound like a buffoon and make decisions like a buffoon - the chances are you are a buffoon. Legal challenges at every turn.
Something has to be done about the gridlock all are agreed - the question is how and where. As for Edwina, if you look like a buffoon, sound like a buffoon and make decisions like a buffoon - the chances are you are a buffoon. Legal challenges at every turn. Woodgnome
  • Score: -1

9:21am Fri 18 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Woodgnome wrote:
Something has to be done about the gridlock all are agreed - the question is how and where. As for Edwina, if you look like a buffoon, sound like a buffoon and make decisions like a buffoon - the chances are you are a buffoon. Legal challenges at every turn.
Legal challenges at every turn no matter which route you pick. In actuality the black route impacts the least number of people so once the environmental impact study comes back there will be little to no legal challenge available.

The blue route would have involved significant disruption to businesses, schools and houses, so would have been leaving things open to a huge number of legal challenges from people who are unhappy with a new motorway going right by their business/school/hous
e.

If you're going to pick something to complain about in the decision how about picking something which isn't minimised in the decision which has been made?
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: Something has to be done about the gridlock all are agreed - the question is how and where. As for Edwina, if you look like a buffoon, sound like a buffoon and make decisions like a buffoon - the chances are you are a buffoon. Legal challenges at every turn.[/p][/quote]Legal challenges at every turn no matter which route you pick. In actuality the black route impacts the least number of people so once the environmental impact study comes back there will be little to no legal challenge available. The blue route would have involved significant disruption to businesses, schools and houses, so would have been leaving things open to a huge number of legal challenges from people who are unhappy with a new motorway going right by their business/school/hous e. If you're going to pick something to complain about in the decision how about picking something which isn't minimised in the decision which has been made? mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

11:02am Fri 18 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA. . . the black route affects the least amount of people? But just this morning comes the report that the docks will be adversely affected by the road. I suppose what you said is an "untruth." Whoopsee.
MKA. . . the black route affects the least amount of people? But just this morning comes the report that the docks will be adversely affected by the road. I suppose what you said is an "untruth." Whoopsee. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -1

11:09am Fri 18 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Something has to be done about the gridlock all are agreed - the question is how and where. As for Edwina, if you look like a buffoon, sound like a buffoon and make decisions like a buffoon - the chances are you are a buffoon. Legal challenges at every turn.
Legal challenges at every turn no matter which route you pick. In actuality the black route impacts the least number of people so once the environmental impact study comes back there will be little to no legal challenge available.

The blue route would have involved significant disruption to businesses, schools and houses, so would have been leaving things open to a huge number of legal challenges from people who are unhappy with a new motorway going right by their business/school/hous

e.

If you're going to pick something to complain about in the decision how about picking something which isn't minimised in the decision which has been made?
I don't actually understand what you mean by your last sentence, it does not make sense.. Anyway I can comment on what I like without permission - or cant I?

Newport docks say they will be hammered by this route.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: Something has to be done about the gridlock all are agreed - the question is how and where. As for Edwina, if you look like a buffoon, sound like a buffoon and make decisions like a buffoon - the chances are you are a buffoon. Legal challenges at every turn.[/p][/quote]Legal challenges at every turn no matter which route you pick. In actuality the black route impacts the least number of people so once the environmental impact study comes back there will be little to no legal challenge available. The blue route would have involved significant disruption to businesses, schools and houses, so would have been leaving things open to a huge number of legal challenges from people who are unhappy with a new motorway going right by their business/school/hous e. If you're going to pick something to complain about in the decision how about picking something which isn't minimised in the decision which has been made?[/p][/quote]I don't actually understand what you mean by your last sentence, it does not make sense.. Anyway I can comment on what I like without permission - or cant I? Newport docks say they will be hammered by this route. Woodgnome
  • Score: -2

12:05pm Fri 18 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Woodgnome wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Something has to be done about the gridlock all are agreed - the question is how and where. As for Edwina, if you look like a buffoon, sound like a buffoon and make decisions like a buffoon - the chances are you are a buffoon. Legal challenges at every turn.
Legal challenges at every turn no matter which route you pick. In actuality the black route impacts the least number of people so once the environmental impact study comes back there will be little to no legal challenge available.

The blue route would have involved significant disruption to businesses, schools and houses, so would have been leaving things open to a huge number of legal challenges from people who are unhappy with a new motorway going right by their business/school/hous


e.

If you're going to pick something to complain about in the decision how about picking something which isn't minimised in the decision which has been made?
I don't actually understand what you mean by your last sentence, it does not make sense.. Anyway I can comment on what I like without permission - or cant I?

Newport docks say they will be hammered by this route.
It makes perfect sense but is rather clunky English so I'll try again;

Complaining that the black route will cause legal challenges is an odd tack because the other routes would have caused significantly more challenges by virtue of the number of people and businesses they affect.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: Something has to be done about the gridlock all are agreed - the question is how and where. As for Edwina, if you look like a buffoon, sound like a buffoon and make decisions like a buffoon - the chances are you are a buffoon. Legal challenges at every turn.[/p][/quote]Legal challenges at every turn no matter which route you pick. In actuality the black route impacts the least number of people so once the environmental impact study comes back there will be little to no legal challenge available. The blue route would have involved significant disruption to businesses, schools and houses, so would have been leaving things open to a huge number of legal challenges from people who are unhappy with a new motorway going right by their business/school/hous e. If you're going to pick something to complain about in the decision how about picking something which isn't minimised in the decision which has been made?[/p][/quote]I don't actually understand what you mean by your last sentence, it does not make sense.. Anyway I can comment on what I like without permission - or cant I? Newport docks say they will be hammered by this route.[/p][/quote]It makes perfect sense but is rather clunky English so I'll try again; Complaining that the black route will cause legal challenges is an odd tack because the other routes would have caused significantly more challenges by virtue of the number of people and businesses they affect. mkaibear1
  • Score: 2

12:10pm Fri 18 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. . . the black route affects the least amount of people? But just this morning comes the report that the docks will be adversely affected by the road. I suppose what you said is an "untruth." Whoopsee.
Au contraire, PA, I said "affects the least" not "affects none". Compare and contrast with everyone who'd be affected by the blue route and you'll find my statement is factually correct.

Oh, and the report wasn't that the docks *will* be adversely affected, it's that they *could* be adversely affected - so please be careful about throwing round accusations of untruthfulness.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. . . the black route affects the least amount of people? But just this morning comes the report that the docks will be adversely affected by the road. I suppose what you said is an "untruth." Whoopsee.[/p][/quote]Au contraire, PA, I said "affects the least" not "affects none". Compare and contrast with everyone who'd be affected by the blue route and you'll find my statement is factually correct. Oh, and the report wasn't that the docks *will* be adversely affected, it's that they *could* be adversely affected - so please be careful about throwing round accusations of untruthfulness. mkaibear1
  • Score: 1

5:44pm Fri 18 Jul 14

anigel says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. . . the black route affects the least amount of people? But just this morning comes the report that the docks will be adversely affected by the road. I suppose what you said is an "untruth." Whoopsee.
Au contraire, PA, I said "affects the least" not "affects none". Compare and contrast with everyone who'd be affected by the blue route and you'll find my statement is factually correct.

Oh, and the report wasn't that the docks *will* be adversely affected, it's that they *could* be adversely affected - so please be careful about throwing round accusations of untruthfulness.
MKA, please don't mistake PA as someone who is prepared to tell the truth about other options, they have an agenda and are going to stick with it no matter what.

It really wouldn't surprise me if PA was going to make money out of the blue route and that is why they continue to support an option that everyone else has long ruled out as being a complete and utter waste of money and not at all suitable as a solution to the actual problem
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. . . the black route affects the least amount of people? But just this morning comes the report that the docks will be adversely affected by the road. I suppose what you said is an "untruth." Whoopsee.[/p][/quote]Au contraire, PA, I said "affects the least" not "affects none". Compare and contrast with everyone who'd be affected by the blue route and you'll find my statement is factually correct. Oh, and the report wasn't that the docks *will* be adversely affected, it's that they *could* be adversely affected - so please be careful about throwing round accusations of untruthfulness.[/p][/quote]MKA, please don't mistake PA as someone who is prepared to tell the truth about other options, they have an agenda and are going to stick with it no matter what. It really wouldn't surprise me if PA was going to make money out of the blue route and that is why they continue to support an option that everyone else has long ruled out as being a complete and utter waste of money and not at all suitable as a solution to the actual problem anigel
  • Score: 2

11:17am Mon 21 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
SHOULD end gridlock? Should? You mean you're happy taxpayers are shelling out £1 billion for something that might not end it?

So let's compare. Would you rather have £1 billion put into a new hospital that SHOULD meet the needs of patients in Wales. . or £1 billion that might not relieve gridlock?

£1 billion is a lot to gamble on a "should."
By the time it is finished it will be choc a bloc again, moer roads equal more cars equal more traffic, the whole thing ash built in obsolescence, the key is to limit CARS, not build more roads, we need a viable alternative to endless cars with one driver in. There used to be a campaign "IS your journey really necessary ?" for 57% of car drivers, the answer is already NO. So we build more roads for them ? Only lorries and transport of vital goods should on the M4, but there are still too many who could ue a train or public transport instead. I reiterate the request to make public transport FREE this would get cars off the road.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: SHOULD end gridlock? Should? You mean you're happy taxpayers are shelling out £1 billion for something that might not end it? So let's compare. Would you rather have £1 billion put into a new hospital that SHOULD meet the needs of patients in Wales. . or £1 billion that might not relieve gridlock? £1 billion is a lot to gamble on a "should."[/p][/quote]By the time it is finished it will be choc a bloc again, moer roads equal more cars equal more traffic, the whole thing ash built in obsolescence, the key is to limit CARS, not build more roads, we need a viable alternative to endless cars with one driver in. There used to be a campaign "IS your journey really necessary ?" for 57% of car drivers, the answer is already NO. So we build more roads for them ? Only lorries and transport of vital goods should on the M4, but there are still too many who could ue a train or public transport instead. I reiterate the request to make public transport FREE this would get cars off the road. Mervyn James
  • Score: -1

6:55pm Mon 21 Jul 14

anigel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Paxman's Army wrote:
SHOULD end gridlock? Should? You mean you're happy taxpayers are shelling out £1 billion for something that might not end it?

So let's compare. Would you rather have £1 billion put into a new hospital that SHOULD meet the needs of patients in Wales. . or £1 billion that might not relieve gridlock?

£1 billion is a lot to gamble on a "should."
By the time it is finished it will be choc a bloc again, moer roads equal more cars equal more traffic, the whole thing ash built in obsolescence, the key is to limit CARS, not build more roads, we need a viable alternative to endless cars with one driver in. There used to be a campaign "IS your journey really necessary ?" for 57% of car drivers, the answer is already NO. So we build more roads for them ? Only lorries and transport of vital goods should on the M4, but there are still too many who could ue a train or public transport instead. I reiterate the request to make public transport FREE this would get cars off the road.
And how far do you take it?

Is your holiday really necessary

Is your leaving the house really necessary

is getting out of bed except on signing on day really necessary?

By your logic people wouldn't ever do anything.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: SHOULD end gridlock? Should? You mean you're happy taxpayers are shelling out £1 billion for something that might not end it? So let's compare. Would you rather have £1 billion put into a new hospital that SHOULD meet the needs of patients in Wales. . or £1 billion that might not relieve gridlock? £1 billion is a lot to gamble on a "should."[/p][/quote]By the time it is finished it will be choc a bloc again, moer roads equal more cars equal more traffic, the whole thing ash built in obsolescence, the key is to limit CARS, not build more roads, we need a viable alternative to endless cars with one driver in. There used to be a campaign "IS your journey really necessary ?" for 57% of car drivers, the answer is already NO. So we build more roads for them ? Only lorries and transport of vital goods should on the M4, but there are still too many who could ue a train or public transport instead. I reiterate the request to make public transport FREE this would get cars off the road.[/p][/quote]And how far do you take it? Is your holiday really necessary Is your leaving the house really necessary is getting out of bed except on signing on day really necessary? By your logic people wouldn't ever do anything. anigel
  • Score: 1

8:48am Tue 22 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

I lived opposite a family who drove every day to a shop 100 yards away for a bottle of milk, (mostly in their pyjamas), which entailed because of a one-way system, a mile detour, they could have walked it easily, then there are the school runs, which are less than 2 miles from their homes, those journeys are done for convenience not necessity, of course no-one is saying long journeys aren't or the work commute, albeit car-sharing would make more sense with a proper public transport system, that is hell bent on destroying itself. God help them when the oil runs out, they will have to learn to walk again.
I lived opposite a family who drove every day to a shop 100 yards away for a bottle of milk, (mostly in their pyjamas), which entailed because of a one-way system, a mile detour, they could have walked it easily, then there are the school runs, which are less than 2 miles from their homes, those journeys are done for convenience not necessity, of course no-one is saying long journeys aren't or the work commute, albeit car-sharing would make more sense with a proper public transport system, that is hell bent on destroying itself. God help them when the oil runs out, they will have to learn to walk again. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Tue 22 Jul 14

anigel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
I lived opposite a family who drove every day to a shop 100 yards away for a bottle of milk, (mostly in their pyjamas), which entailed because of a one-way system, a mile detour, they could have walked it easily, then there are the school runs, which are less than 2 miles from their homes, those journeys are done for convenience not necessity, of course no-one is saying long journeys aren't or the work commute, albeit car-sharing would make more sense with a proper public transport system, that is hell bent on destroying itself. God help them when the oil runs out, they will have to learn to walk again.
You are saying they are done for convenience, how do you know that. Are you now the judge and arbiter of the fact that it is a convenience thing and know so much about their lives that you can definitively say they have absolutely no possible reason to do anything except spend hours walking kids from A to B.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: I lived opposite a family who drove every day to a shop 100 yards away for a bottle of milk, (mostly in their pyjamas), which entailed because of a one-way system, a mile detour, they could have walked it easily, then there are the school runs, which are less than 2 miles from their homes, those journeys are done for convenience not necessity, of course no-one is saying long journeys aren't or the work commute, albeit car-sharing would make more sense with a proper public transport system, that is hell bent on destroying itself. God help them when the oil runs out, they will have to learn to walk again.[/p][/quote]You are saying they are done for convenience, how do you know that. Are you now the judge and arbiter of the fact that it is a convenience thing and know so much about their lives that you can definitively say they have absolutely no possible reason to do anything except spend hours walking kids from A to B. anigel
  • Score: 1

11:38am Thu 24 Jul 14

Japan1 says...

I would love the government to invest in a properly integrated public transport service, but as I don't see that happening any time soon I will accept the next best thing which is a gridlock free Newport and if that happens to be the most expensive solution so be it. Looking at the different routes it appears to be the most sensible solution on offer.
I would love the government to invest in a properly integrated public transport service, but as I don't see that happening any time soon I will accept the next best thing which is a gridlock free Newport and if that happens to be the most expensive solution so be it. Looking at the different routes it appears to be the most sensible solution on offer. Japan1
  • Score: 1

12:49pm Thu 24 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Mervyn James wrote:
I lived opposite a family who drove every day to a shop 100 yards away for a bottle of milk, (mostly in their pyjamas), which entailed because of a one-way system, a mile detour, they could have walked it easily, then there are the school runs, which are less than 2 miles from their homes, those journeys are done for convenience not necessity, of course no-one is saying long journeys aren't or the work commute, albeit car-sharing would make more sense with a proper public transport system, that is hell bent on destroying itself. God help them when the oil runs out, they will have to learn to walk again.
My Dad would have had to do that. He had a severe lung disorder and whilst he was fine when sat still walking 10m would wipe him out for 10 minutes.

Just because you don't understand someone's actions doesn't make them lazy or evil.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: I lived opposite a family who drove every day to a shop 100 yards away for a bottle of milk, (mostly in their pyjamas), which entailed because of a one-way system, a mile detour, they could have walked it easily, then there are the school runs, which are less than 2 miles from their homes, those journeys are done for convenience not necessity, of course no-one is saying long journeys aren't or the work commute, albeit car-sharing would make more sense with a proper public transport system, that is hell bent on destroying itself. God help them when the oil runs out, they will have to learn to walk again.[/p][/quote]My Dad would have had to do that. He had a severe lung disorder and whilst he was fine when sat still walking 10m would wipe him out for 10 minutes. Just because you don't understand someone's actions doesn't make them lazy or evil. mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree