M4 relief road faces legal challenge

BOTTLENECK: An example of congestion on the M4 eastbound through Newport between Junction 24 at the Coldra and Junction 23A for Magor

BOTTLENECK: An example of congestion on the M4 eastbound through Newport between Junction 24 at the Coldra and Junction 23A for Magor

First published in News
Last updated

AN ENVIRONMENTAL group which has been vocal in its opposition of Welsh Government's chosen M4 relief road route is to write to politicians in Cardiff Bay, asking them to reconsider their plans.

If Friends of the Earth Cymru cannot persuade Welsh ministers to change their mind in the next two weeks, they plan to take the matter to judicial review, confirmed director Gareth Clubb.

The Argus reported earlier this month that Newport would get a new M4 road by 2022, with the chosen "black" route taking the motorway from the existing junctions 23 at Magor to 29 at Castleton, going through Newport docks at a cost of £1 billion.

Mr Clubb told the Argus: "We are expecting to send a letter to Welsh Government in the next few hours. The letter sets out why we believe Welsh Government has not acted lawfully, they have not consulted on a substantive range of options and gives them two weeks to respond. In two weeks we will look at that and decide whether we want to proceed to judicial review.

"Welsh Government appears to be totally single minded about this," he said.

The group's letter, due to be published shortly, states that the alternative "blue" route - utilising the existing A48 corridor - was not properly considered and that traffic projections on which the whole relief road scheme is based are "wildly inaccurate".

Last month transport minister Edwina Hart said the black route was chosen following consultation and would involve reclassifying the existing M4 between Magor and Castleton; an M4/M48/B4245 connection; and cycle- and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.

The owner of Newport docks, Associated British Ports has already claimed that trade could be "severely affected" by the route and throughout the consultation process had argued for a more northerly route.

Discussion of a road to relieve the traffic bottleneck at Newport has been going on since 1991, when Welsh secretary David Hunt announced a new motorway would be built.

In June this year shadow economy minister Rhun ap Iorwerth AM led an Assembly debate calling for the Welsh Government to rule out the black route on environmental and value-for-money grounds, and to instead upgrade the existing A48 corridor, known as the blue route.

A spokesman for Welsh Government said: “We have received the letter and will respond in due course. We are committed to this ambitious infrastructure project, which is of vital importance to the economic prosperity of the country as a whole.

“The plan we have adopted will improve accessibility for people, Welsh goods and services to international markets by addressing capacity and resilience issues on one of the main gateways into Wales.”

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:38pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Magor says...

Just get on with it, the money will only get wasted on something else.
Just get on with it, the money will only get wasted on something else. Magor
  • Score: 28

1:08pm Fri 1 Aug 14

jimmytheone2 says...

Magor wrote:
Just get on with it, the money will only get wasted on something else.
Yeah, wasted on something like health or education!
The eye watering amounts of money to be spent on this vanity project will mean far less money for schools, education and other far greater priorities.
Yes, something needs to be done, but this is the most expensive by a huge distance, will take far longer to deliver any benefit (2022 at earliest - but as this article shows, there are likely to be many legal challenges which will delay the project), and will give Wales huge debts for many years to come. There are cheaper options, which deliver benefits far earlier and likely to be more politically, economically, environmentally and socially acceptable. Edwina Hart's handling of this is like a bull in a china shop - she seems determined to alienate every group and seems to be ignoring proper process.
[quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Just get on with it, the money will only get wasted on something else.[/p][/quote]Yeah, wasted on something like health or education! The eye watering amounts of money to be spent on this vanity project will mean far less money for schools, education and other far greater priorities. Yes, something needs to be done, but this is the most expensive by a huge distance, will take far longer to deliver any benefit (2022 at earliest - but as this article shows, there are likely to be many legal challenges which will delay the project), and will give Wales huge debts for many years to come. There are cheaper options, which deliver benefits far earlier and likely to be more politically, economically, environmentally and socially acceptable. Edwina Hart's handling of this is like a bull in a china shop - she seems determined to alienate every group and seems to be ignoring proper process. jimmytheone2
  • Score: -46

2:19pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Evil Flanker says...

I agree with jimmytheone2 - Funds could be better spent, if you don't want to get caught in jams, use public transport.

Watch the negative votes pile up, you know what I don't care, the same as car owners don't apparently care about the environment we pass on to ou children, I'd rather my kids be left a legacy of a cleaner environment than a lump of concrete.
I agree with jimmytheone2 - Funds could be better spent, if you don't want to get caught in jams, use public transport. Watch the negative votes pile up, you know what I don't care, the same as car owners don't apparently care about the environment we pass on to ou children, I'd rather my kids be left a legacy of a cleaner environment than a lump of concrete. Evil Flanker
  • Score: -46

2:33pm Fri 1 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

And with all of the issues mentioned by jimmy, the fact still remains - this is the only plan which will work.

Yes, it's the most expensive. Yes, it's got the biggest impact to the SSSI. Yes, it's the one which will take the longest - but no other suggested plan will fix the problem.

Blue route will involve five years of total disruption to the people of Newport, crippling the SDR and all the businesses on the route (if you think there'll be no legal challenges there you're sadly mistaken) - plus will not deal with any increase in traffic only the current levels which are predicted to keep increasing.

Other two routes share the issues of the Blue route plus the issues of the Black route. Slightly better in some areas, slightly worse in others.

Upgrading public transport will benefit the people of Newport but crucially doesn't fix the problem of the M4 - accidents / events etc will still impact the city and the Welsh economy. It may help for a short time but it won't fix the problem.

The proposed route is the only option that;

- Deals with the current problem.
- Deals with the future predicted traffic.
- Has expansion potential in case future predictions are too low.
- Minimises disruption to the maximum number of people.

I'd rather they spend a billion on the best solution than spend 300/400 million on a cheaper one and then find it doesn't work and they need to do it again.

Do it once. Do it right. Do the black route.
And with all of the issues mentioned by jimmy, the fact still remains - this is the only plan which will work. Yes, it's the most expensive. Yes, it's got the biggest impact to the SSSI. Yes, it's the one which will take the longest - but no other suggested plan will fix the problem. Blue route will involve five years of total disruption to the people of Newport, crippling the SDR and all the businesses on the route (if you think there'll be no legal challenges there you're sadly mistaken) - plus will not deal with any increase in traffic only the current levels which are predicted to keep increasing. Other two routes share the issues of the Blue route plus the issues of the Black route. Slightly better in some areas, slightly worse in others. Upgrading public transport will benefit the people of Newport but crucially doesn't fix the problem of the M4 - accidents / events etc will still impact the city and the Welsh economy. It may help for a short time but it won't fix the problem. The proposed route is the only option that; - Deals with the current problem. - Deals with the future predicted traffic. - Has expansion potential in case future predictions are too low. - Minimises disruption to the maximum number of people. I'd rather they spend a billion on the best solution than spend 300/400 million on a cheaper one and then find it doesn't work and they need to do it again. Do it once. Do it right. Do the black route. mkaibear1
  • Score: 52

2:35pm Fri 1 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

(oh, and addressing the environmental issue - I'd much rather have cars directed away from the city centre, not pumping out exhaust gases idling in traffic jams right. Free-flowing traffic is *much* more environmentally efficient than traffic running in urban areas.)
(oh, and addressing the environmental issue - I'd much rather have cars directed away from the city centre, not pumping out exhaust gases idling in traffic jams right. Free-flowing traffic is *much* more environmentally efficient than traffic running in urban areas.) mkaibear1
  • Score: 43

2:37pm Fri 1 Aug 14

keithbob says...

Evil Flanker wrote:
I agree with jimmytheone2 - Funds could be better spent, if you don't want to get caught in jams, use public transport.

Watch the negative votes pile up, you know what I don't care, the same as car owners don't apparently care about the environment we pass on to ou children, I'd rather my kids be left a legacy of a cleaner environment than a lump of concrete.
so when a worker at magor as i was,use public transport?.a non existent service,.also would find it very difficult to take my heavy toolbox on a bus.dont really think you thought this one out did you both?
[quote][p][bold]Evil Flanker[/bold] wrote: I agree with jimmytheone2 - Funds could be better spent, if you don't want to get caught in jams, use public transport. Watch the negative votes pile up, you know what I don't care, the same as car owners don't apparently care about the environment we pass on to ou children, I'd rather my kids be left a legacy of a cleaner environment than a lump of concrete.[/p][/quote]so when a worker at magor as i was,use public transport?.a non existent service,.also would find it very difficult to take my heavy toolbox on a bus.dont really think you thought this one out did you both? keithbob
  • Score: 36

3:06pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Evil Flanker says...

keithbob wrote:
Evil Flanker wrote:
I agree with jimmytheone2 - Funds could be better spent, if you don't want to get caught in jams, use public transport.

Watch the negative votes pile up, you know what I don't care, the same as car owners don't apparently care about the environment we pass on to ou children, I'd rather my kids be left a legacy of a cleaner environment than a lump of concrete.
so when a worker at magor as i was,use public transport?.a non existent service,.also would find it very difficult to take my heavy toolbox on a bus.dont really think you thought this one out did you both?
1 Billion would provide a hell of a public transport system, BTW, Buses are not the only form of public transport. But thats the problem today, even if we had a good PT system people don't want to abandon their precious cars, I use PT why should my taxes go to something I will never use and disagree with ?
[quote][p][bold]keithbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Evil Flanker[/bold] wrote: I agree with jimmytheone2 - Funds could be better spent, if you don't want to get caught in jams, use public transport. Watch the negative votes pile up, you know what I don't care, the same as car owners don't apparently care about the environment we pass on to ou children, I'd rather my kids be left a legacy of a cleaner environment than a lump of concrete.[/p][/quote]so when a worker at magor as i was,use public transport?.a non existent service,.also would find it very difficult to take my heavy toolbox on a bus.dont really think you thought this one out did you both?[/p][/quote]1 Billion would provide a hell of a public transport system, BTW, Buses are not the only form of public transport. But thats the problem today, even if we had a good PT system people don't want to abandon their precious cars, I use PT why should my taxes go to something I will never use and disagree with ? Evil Flanker
  • Score: -42

3:10pm Fri 1 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

For the same reason the taxes of childless couples pay for schools, the taxes of people who aren't ill pay for the NHS, the taxes of people who aren't in social housing pay for social housing - because we have a representative democracy not a direct democracy. We don't get to choose what our tax income is spent on, we get to choose the people who make that decision - just as with every other governance decision.
For the same reason the taxes of childless couples pay for schools, the taxes of people who aren't ill pay for the NHS, the taxes of people who aren't in social housing pay for social housing - because we have a representative democracy not a direct democracy. We don't get to choose what our tax income is spent on, we get to choose the people who make that decision - just as with every other governance decision. mkaibear1
  • Score: 40

3:19pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Evil Flanker says...

Then maybe introduce a 'Carbon Tax' for the bloved car owners - 15 tonnes per year per car is not exactly insignificant.

If it's wrong to make children breath cigarette smoke, then surely it's wrong to make non car owners breath the junk that is pumped out, or maybe we have double standards.
Then maybe introduce a 'Carbon Tax' for the bloved car owners - 15 tonnes per year per car is not exactly insignificant. If it's wrong to make children breath cigarette smoke, then surely it's wrong to make non car owners breath the junk that is pumped out, or maybe we have double standards. Evil Flanker
  • Score: -38

3:26pm Fri 1 Aug 14

cjwales1 says...

Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!!
Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!!
I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!!

Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!!
Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!! Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!! I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!! Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!! cjwales1
  • Score: 28

3:29pm Fri 1 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

You mean other than the fuel duty and road fund licence - which in 2011 (the last figures I can find) cost motorists £31.5bn of which £13.4bn was spent on the roads and transport infrastructure? (meaning that drivers are putting £18bn a year into government's coffers).

I think that a little over 5% of the yearly "take" from car drivers is a small price to pay for this road improvement.
You mean other than the fuel duty and road fund licence - which in 2011 (the last figures I can find) cost motorists £31.5bn of which £13.4bn was spent on the roads and transport infrastructure? (meaning that drivers are putting £18bn a year into government's coffers). I think that a little over 5% of the yearly "take" from car drivers is a small price to pay for this road improvement. mkaibear1
  • Score: 28

3:32pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Evil Flanker says...

cjwales1 wrote:
Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!!
Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!!
I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!!

Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!!
A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ?

The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.
[quote][p][bold]cjwales1[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!! Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!! I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!! Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!![/p][/quote]A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ? The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue. Evil Flanker
  • Score: -29

3:45pm Fri 1 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Evil Flanker wrote:
cjwales1 wrote:
Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!!
Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!!
I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!!

Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!!
A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ?

The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.
There's always a balance to be struck.

I choose to reduce emissions in the city by moving car traffic from a congested central location to a free-flowing extra-urban location. The cost to the SSSI is an issue but it has to be a balance.

A grand total of 4.1% of Wales is built on (let alone urbanised) - this is a tiny proportion of the land and it's reasonable to build facilities to improve the quality of life of those of us who live here.
[quote][p][bold]Evil Flanker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cjwales1[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!! Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!! I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!! Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!![/p][/quote]A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ? The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.[/p][/quote]There's always a balance to be struck. I choose to reduce emissions in the city by moving car traffic from a congested central location to a free-flowing extra-urban location. The cost to the SSSI is an issue but it has to be a balance. A grand total of 4.1% of Wales is built on (let alone urbanised) - this is a tiny proportion of the land and it's reasonable to build facilities to improve the quality of life of those of us who live here. mkaibear1
  • Score: 21

4:14pm Fri 1 Aug 14

The Destroyer says...

Evil Flanker wrote:
cjwales1 wrote:
Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!!
Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!!
I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!!

Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!!
A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ?

The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.
Those people who want to save the environment seem to ignore the fact that nature has a wonderful way of regenerating itself - both wildlife and flora and fauna. Whilst I accept that there will be some damage during construction, nature will soon recover - and for that matter, probably thrive.
Has anyone noticed how many birds of prey can now be seen when driving along any U K motorway (especially Red Kites along the M4 between Swindon and Reading). They're not starving, they are feeding on the abundant wildlife!
Get on with it - get it built - stimulate the economy with some major civil engineering project.
And make sure the contracts are awarded to British companies!
[quote][p][bold]Evil Flanker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cjwales1[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!! Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!! I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!! Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!![/p][/quote]A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ? The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.[/p][/quote]Those people who want to save the environment seem to ignore the fact that nature has a wonderful way of regenerating itself - both wildlife and flora and fauna. Whilst I accept that there will be some damage during construction, nature will soon recover - and for that matter, probably thrive. Has anyone noticed how many birds of prey can now be seen when driving along any U K motorway (especially Red Kites along the M4 between Swindon and Reading). They're not starving, they are feeding on the abundant wildlife! Get on with it - get it built - stimulate the economy with some major civil engineering project. And make sure the contracts are awarded to British companies! The Destroyer
  • Score: 23

4:26pm Fri 1 Aug 14

jimmytheone2 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Evil Flanker wrote:
cjwales1 wrote:
Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!!
Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!!
I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!!

Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!!
A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ?

The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.
There's always a balance to be struck.

I choose to reduce emissions in the city by moving car traffic from a congested central location to a free-flowing extra-urban location. The cost to the SSSI is an issue but it has to be a balance.

A grand total of 4.1% of Wales is built on (let alone urbanised) - this is a tiny proportion of the land and it's reasonable to build facilities to improve the quality of life of those of us who live here.
We might have different views on this, but I respect your views and you have put forward balanced and coherent points. That is far better than some of the brainless responses we've seen (eh cjwales?).
Totally agree with you there's always a balance to be struck with whatever option you go for. But I think it's fair to say that even politicians, transport expert and academics are largely split on this one. It isn't just about the environment (though for many that is the key issue). It's also (at least for me) about a colossal debt that we will be committing future generations to, and the tough spending choices that I fear will need to be made over many years to come. It might be a more informed debate if it were presented to the public as "This will cost £1 billion and the that will mean we'll need to close x hospitals, treat x 000 less cancer patients, stop free prescriptions, employ x 000 fewer teachers, etc).
You can't just print £1 billion - this isn't a grant - it has to be paid back or funded - and that will be done directly or indirectly (both I suspect)by the people of Wales. Okay, that is true of all the routes under consideration, but at least we'd start to have a honest conversation about the implications of those investment decisions.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Evil Flanker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cjwales1[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!! Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!! I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!! Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!![/p][/quote]A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ? The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.[/p][/quote]There's always a balance to be struck. I choose to reduce emissions in the city by moving car traffic from a congested central location to a free-flowing extra-urban location. The cost to the SSSI is an issue but it has to be a balance. A grand total of 4.1% of Wales is built on (let alone urbanised) - this is a tiny proportion of the land and it's reasonable to build facilities to improve the quality of life of those of us who live here.[/p][/quote]We might have different views on this, but I respect your views and you have put forward balanced and coherent points. That is far better than some of the brainless responses we've seen (eh cjwales?). Totally agree with you there's always a balance to be struck with whatever option you go for. But I think it's fair to say that even politicians, transport expert and academics are largely split on this one. It isn't just about the environment (though for many that is the key issue). It's also (at least for me) about a colossal debt that we will be committing future generations to, and the tough spending choices that I fear will need to be made over many years to come. It might be a more informed debate if it were presented to the public as "This will cost £1 billion and the that will mean we'll need to close x hospitals, treat x 000 less cancer patients, stop free prescriptions, employ x 000 fewer teachers, etc). You can't just print £1 billion - this isn't a grant - it has to be paid back or funded - and that will be done directly or indirectly (both I suspect)by the people of Wales. Okay, that is true of all the routes under consideration, but at least we'd start to have a honest conversation about the implications of those investment decisions. jimmytheone2
  • Score: -5

6:11pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Stevenboy says...

jimmytheone2 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
Evil Flanker wrote:
cjwales1 wrote:
Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!!
Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!!
I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!!

Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!!
A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ?

The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.
There's always a balance to be struck.

I choose to reduce emissions in the city by moving car traffic from a congested central location to a free-flowing extra-urban location. The cost to the SSSI is an issue but it has to be a balance.

A grand total of 4.1% of Wales is built on (let alone urbanised) - this is a tiny proportion of the land and it's reasonable to build facilities to improve the quality of life of those of us who live here.
We might have different views on this, but I respect your views and you have put forward balanced and coherent points. That is far better than some of the brainless responses we've seen (eh cjwales?).
Totally agree with you there's always a balance to be struck with whatever option you go for. But I think it's fair to say that even politicians, transport expert and academics are largely split on this one. It isn't just about the environment (though for many that is the key issue). It's also (at least for me) about a colossal debt that we will be committing future generations to, and the tough spending choices that I fear will need to be made over many years to come. It might be a more informed debate if it were presented to the public as "This will cost £1 billion and the that will mean we'll need to close x hospitals, treat x 000 less cancer patients, stop free prescriptions, employ x 000 fewer teachers, etc).
You can't just print £1 billion - this isn't a grant - it has to be paid back or funded - and that will be done directly or indirectly (both I suspect)by the people of Wales. Okay, that is true of all the routes under consideration, but at least we'd start to have a honest conversation about the implications of those investment decisions.
The economic argument you put is a real worry. Pretending that only Wales benefits from this road, however it's built, is stupid. The cost of road infrastructure is covered several times over by motoring taxes so should be fully funded by central government. Otherwise we get insane solutions like a toll road to relieve the M6 with tumbleweed on it because people would rather not pay. All tolls should cease and all areas of the UK should have viable road links. And this one should be built. The pollution from idling traffic is the counter environmental argument to the SSI issue.
[quote][p][bold]jimmytheone2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Evil Flanker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cjwales1[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!! Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!! I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!! Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!![/p][/quote]A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ? The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.[/p][/quote]There's always a balance to be struck. I choose to reduce emissions in the city by moving car traffic from a congested central location to a free-flowing extra-urban location. The cost to the SSSI is an issue but it has to be a balance. A grand total of 4.1% of Wales is built on (let alone urbanised) - this is a tiny proportion of the land and it's reasonable to build facilities to improve the quality of life of those of us who live here.[/p][/quote]We might have different views on this, but I respect your views and you have put forward balanced and coherent points. That is far better than some of the brainless responses we've seen (eh cjwales?). Totally agree with you there's always a balance to be struck with whatever option you go for. But I think it's fair to say that even politicians, transport expert and academics are largely split on this one. It isn't just about the environment (though for many that is the key issue). It's also (at least for me) about a colossal debt that we will be committing future generations to, and the tough spending choices that I fear will need to be made over many years to come. It might be a more informed debate if it were presented to the public as "This will cost £1 billion and the that will mean we'll need to close x hospitals, treat x 000 less cancer patients, stop free prescriptions, employ x 000 fewer teachers, etc). You can't just print £1 billion - this isn't a grant - it has to be paid back or funded - and that will be done directly or indirectly (both I suspect)by the people of Wales. Okay, that is true of all the routes under consideration, but at least we'd start to have a honest conversation about the implications of those investment decisions.[/p][/quote]The economic argument you put is a real worry. Pretending that only Wales benefits from this road, however it's built, is stupid. The cost of road infrastructure is covered several times over by motoring taxes so should be fully funded by central government. Otherwise we get insane solutions like a toll road to relieve the M6 with tumbleweed on it because people would rather not pay. All tolls should cease and all areas of the UK should have viable road links. And this one should be built. The pollution from idling traffic is the counter environmental argument to the SSI issue. Stevenboy
  • Score: 15

6:48pm Fri 1 Aug 14

peterdimery says...

The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.
The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway. peterdimery
  • Score: 1

6:52pm Fri 1 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

peterdimery wrote:
The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.
Where? There's not enough room for more tunnels without substantial compulsory purchasing around junctions 25-26, it would be a massive undertaking, would involve road works on the m4 (so *increasing* congestion for a significant amount of time) and again it would add only a small amount of capacity with absolutely no room for further improvements.
[quote][p][bold]peterdimery[/bold] wrote: The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.[/p][/quote]Where? There's not enough room for more tunnels without substantial compulsory purchasing around junctions 25-26, it would be a massive undertaking, would involve road works on the m4 (so *increasing* congestion for a significant amount of time) and again it would add only a small amount of capacity with absolutely no room for further improvements. mkaibear1
  • Score: 7

8:00pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Magor says...

peterdimery wrote:
The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.
Its not just the tunnels its the gradients,bends and junctions.
[quote][p][bold]peterdimery[/bold] wrote: The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.[/p][/quote]Its not just the tunnels its the gradients,bends and junctions. Magor
  • Score: 11

8:11pm Fri 1 Aug 14

landyman3030 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
peterdimery wrote:
The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.
Where? There's not enough room for more tunnels without substantial compulsory purchasing around junctions 25-26, it would be a massive undertaking, would involve road works on the m4 (so *increasing* congestion for a significant amount of time) and again it would add only a small amount of capacity with absolutely no room for further improvements.
I must be missing something with this substantial compulsory purchase. We are talking about widening each existing tunnel by one lane. Is there really no tunnel technology in existence that can do this in Newport when they could drill and support the Channel Tunnel over a decade ago with millimetre precision?
Reduce the hard shoulder around junction 25. There is only the old Molynx on the east side and the top part of Aston Crescent. You could cantilever the extra lane over Pant Road gardens. Where is the mass compulsory purchase the scaremongers are screaming about? Once you get to junction 26 it's then 3 lanes on. Yes there will be congestion with the tunnelling but you ultimately get a 3 lane motorway at the Tunnels. What further improvements do you want then 3 lanes? Unless you want to make the M4 wider again. They reinforced the Coldra overpass a few years ago. Still 2 lane there. Still 2 lane at Magor. Still 2 lane from Margam to the sea. There is more traffic jams caused because of dangerous driving methods with people undertaking and ramming back into traffic westbound on St Julian's pitch and eastbound leaving it to the last minute to come off at Kimberley Park.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterdimery[/bold] wrote: The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.[/p][/quote]Where? There's not enough room for more tunnels without substantial compulsory purchasing around junctions 25-26, it would be a massive undertaking, would involve road works on the m4 (so *increasing* congestion for a significant amount of time) and again it would add only a small amount of capacity with absolutely no room for further improvements.[/p][/quote]I must be missing something with this substantial compulsory purchase. We are talking about widening each existing tunnel by one lane. Is there really no tunnel technology in existence that can do this in Newport when they could drill and support the Channel Tunnel over a decade ago with millimetre precision? Reduce the hard shoulder around junction 25. There is only the old Molynx on the east side and the top part of Aston Crescent. You could cantilever the extra lane over Pant Road gardens. Where is the mass compulsory purchase the scaremongers are screaming about? Once you get to junction 26 it's then 3 lanes on. Yes there will be congestion with the tunnelling but you ultimately get a 3 lane motorway at the Tunnels. What further improvements do you want then 3 lanes? Unless you want to make the M4 wider again. They reinforced the Coldra overpass a few years ago. Still 2 lane there. Still 2 lane at Magor. Still 2 lane from Margam to the sea. There is more traffic jams caused because of dangerous driving methods with people undertaking and ramming back into traffic westbound on St Julian's pitch and eastbound leaving it to the last minute to come off at Kimberley Park. landyman3030
  • Score: 2

8:11pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Mervyn James says...

The Destroyer wrote:
Evil Flanker wrote:
cjwales1 wrote:
Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!!
Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!!
I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!!

Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!!
A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ?

The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.
Those people who want to save the environment seem to ignore the fact that nature has a wonderful way of regenerating itself - both wildlife and flora and fauna. Whilst I accept that there will be some damage during construction, nature will soon recover - and for that matter, probably thrive.
Has anyone noticed how many birds of prey can now be seen when driving along any U K motorway (especially Red Kites along the M4 between Swindon and Reading). They're not starving, they are feeding on the abundant wildlife!
Get on with it - get it built - stimulate the economy with some major civil engineering project.
And make sure the contracts are awarded to British companies!
Yep nature can overcome pollution, but, it takes a close down of what causes it ! e.g. when the pits all closed down the air was cleaner, the trees started growing again etc... maybe if we close down wasteful car use, and stop building concrete runways all over wales for these things, we can get an improvement in all our health. This proposed new road will take all traffic to...... Cardiff not here, so no gain for us. Newport will be a run-down Island stuck between the roads.... much like e.g. Newport Castle in fact.
[quote][p][bold]The Destroyer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Evil Flanker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cjwales1[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, treehuggers flouting what little power they have to make a project that HAS to go forward cost more and take more time !!! Get on your ethnic peace bikes and go live somewhere that appeals to your ethics and not the entire economy of South Wales !!!! I would suggest Antarctica but dont think the temps would allow composting of your BS in an ethical way !!!!! Look at ways to embrace this project as creates a lot more non people areas, so that has got to be good for shrews !!!!!![/p][/quote]A typical response from someone who has no idea or concern about the environment. The fact that Wales has such natural beauty and is one of our major assets is irrelivant in your eyes right ? The fact the the propsed route intersects SSI and very close to rare woodland, yeah never mind that, to hell with breathing clean air and having an environment to be proud of, just dump some concrete, then the insults, Antarctica? - Please get a clue.[/p][/quote]Those people who want to save the environment seem to ignore the fact that nature has a wonderful way of regenerating itself - both wildlife and flora and fauna. Whilst I accept that there will be some damage during construction, nature will soon recover - and for that matter, probably thrive. Has anyone noticed how many birds of prey can now be seen when driving along any U K motorway (especially Red Kites along the M4 between Swindon and Reading). They're not starving, they are feeding on the abundant wildlife! Get on with it - get it built - stimulate the economy with some major civil engineering project. And make sure the contracts are awarded to British companies![/p][/quote]Yep nature can overcome pollution, but, it takes a close down of what causes it ! e.g. when the pits all closed down the air was cleaner, the trees started growing again etc... maybe if we close down wasteful car use, and stop building concrete runways all over wales for these things, we can get an improvement in all our health. This proposed new road will take all traffic to...... Cardiff not here, so no gain for us. Newport will be a run-down Island stuck between the roads.... much like e.g. Newport Castle in fact. Mervyn James
  • Score: -6

8:12pm Fri 1 Aug 14

thomas35 says...

After the dreadful chaos that has reigned this last week could we have a relief road around CAERLEON......now
After the dreadful chaos that has reigned this last week could we have a relief road around CAERLEON......now thomas35
  • Score: -2

8:25pm Fri 1 Aug 14

venga says...

I must be thick or something.....but it occurs to me that the bleeding heart Luddites who oppose the byepass because it will put more pollution into the air are missing the point.
Scenario 1. Current status= traffic jams +++ made even worse whenever there are accidents on the Ancient M4, hours of delay thousands of tons of pollution generated.
Scenario 2. A new byepass road= faster moving traffic, fewer hold ups and traffic jams therefore less pollution generated.
This will inevitably mean a cleaner atmosphere which is healthier for the children old folk, and yes, the birds, bees frogs etc. which the bearded hippy type dinosaurs seem to be overlooking. I would prefer that we still had horses and carts, old fashioned postal services and coppers on the beat, but, times change and we must make the best of it. Like I said..I must be thick or something.
I must be thick or something.....but it occurs to me that the bleeding heart Luddites who oppose the byepass because it will put more pollution into the air are missing the point. Scenario 1. Current status= traffic jams +++ made even worse whenever there are accidents on the Ancient M4, hours of delay thousands of tons of pollution generated. Scenario 2. A new byepass road= faster moving traffic, fewer hold ups and traffic jams therefore less pollution generated. This will inevitably mean a cleaner atmosphere which is healthier for the children old folk, and yes, the birds, bees frogs etc. which the bearded hippy type dinosaurs seem to be overlooking. I would prefer that we still had horses and carts, old fashioned postal services and coppers on the beat, but, times change and we must make the best of it. Like I said..I must be thick or something. venga
  • Score: 13

9:16pm Fri 1 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

landyman3030 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
peterdimery wrote:
The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.
Where? There's not enough room for more tunnels without substantial compulsory purchasing around junctions 25-26, it would be a massive undertaking, would involve road works on the m4 (so *increasing* congestion for a significant amount of time) and again it would add only a small amount of capacity with absolutely no room for further improvements.
I must be missing something with this substantial compulsory purchase. We are talking about widening each existing tunnel by one lane. Is there really no tunnel technology in existence that can do this in Newport when they could drill and support the Channel Tunnel over a decade ago with millimetre precision?
Reduce the hard shoulder around junction 25. There is only the old Molynx on the east side and the top part of Aston Crescent. You could cantilever the extra lane over Pant Road gardens. Where is the mass compulsory purchase the scaremongers are screaming about? Once you get to junction 26 it's then 3 lanes on. Yes there will be congestion with the tunnelling but you ultimately get a 3 lane motorway at the Tunnels. What further improvements do you want then 3 lanes? Unless you want to make the M4 wider again. They reinforced the Coldra overpass a few years ago. Still 2 lane there. Still 2 lane at Magor. Still 2 lane from Margam to the sea. There is more traffic jams caused because of dangerous driving methods with people undertaking and ramming back into traffic westbound on St Julian's pitch and eastbound leaving it to the last minute to come off at Kimberley Park.
At J25 you'll be building new road over the water on both side and shifting the link to the A4042 in both directions substantially. You'll require a complete rejig of the road past the new Sainsburys and will encroach on their land.

The other side of the tunnels you'll impact the fire station and the buildings around there (and will need to knock down the hotel and the big church. You'll have to build over the allotments because of the widening of the carriageway. The entire roundabout at the bottom of Malpas road will have to be changed to accommodate the widening.

And once you've done all that, just as you suggest, there will be still no real extra capacity round Newport because it drops to 2 lanes at the Coldra.

Compare and contrast: funnel non-Newport traffic down a 2 lane motorway round the city. Doubles the traffic capacity round Newport, means that all the traffic coming over the bridge to Cardiff doesn't hit the tunnels at all, so you only get local commuter traffic. Simple.

Upgrading the tunnels will not work. Building the relief road will.
[quote][p][bold]landyman3030[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterdimery[/bold] wrote: The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.[/p][/quote]Where? There's not enough room for more tunnels without substantial compulsory purchasing around junctions 25-26, it would be a massive undertaking, would involve road works on the m4 (so *increasing* congestion for a significant amount of time) and again it would add only a small amount of capacity with absolutely no room for further improvements.[/p][/quote]I must be missing something with this substantial compulsory purchase. We are talking about widening each existing tunnel by one lane. Is there really no tunnel technology in existence that can do this in Newport when they could drill and support the Channel Tunnel over a decade ago with millimetre precision? Reduce the hard shoulder around junction 25. There is only the old Molynx on the east side and the top part of Aston Crescent. You could cantilever the extra lane over Pant Road gardens. Where is the mass compulsory purchase the scaremongers are screaming about? Once you get to junction 26 it's then 3 lanes on. Yes there will be congestion with the tunnelling but you ultimately get a 3 lane motorway at the Tunnels. What further improvements do you want then 3 lanes? Unless you want to make the M4 wider again. They reinforced the Coldra overpass a few years ago. Still 2 lane there. Still 2 lane at Magor. Still 2 lane from Margam to the sea. There is more traffic jams caused because of dangerous driving methods with people undertaking and ramming back into traffic westbound on St Julian's pitch and eastbound leaving it to the last minute to come off at Kimberley Park.[/p][/quote]At J25 you'll be building new road over the water on both side and shifting the link to the A4042 in both directions substantially. You'll require a complete rejig of the road past the new Sainsburys and will encroach on their land. The other side of the tunnels you'll impact the fire station and the buildings around there (and will need to knock down the hotel and the big church. You'll have to build over the allotments because of the widening of the carriageway. The entire roundabout at the bottom of Malpas road will have to be changed to accommodate the widening. And once you've done all that, just as you suggest, there will be still no real extra capacity round Newport because it drops to 2 lanes at the Coldra. Compare and contrast: funnel non-Newport traffic down a 2 lane motorway round the city. Doubles the traffic capacity round Newport, means that all the traffic coming over the bridge to Cardiff doesn't hit the tunnels at all, so you only get local commuter traffic. Simple. Upgrading the tunnels will not work. Building the relief road will. mkaibear1
  • Score: 10

10:43pm Fri 1 Aug 14

landyman3030 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
landyman3030 wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
peterdimery wrote:
The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.
Where? There's not enough room for more tunnels without substantial compulsory purchasing around junctions 25-26, it would be a massive undertaking, would involve road works on the m4 (so *increasing* congestion for a significant amount of time) and again it would add only a small amount of capacity with absolutely no room for further improvements.
I must be missing something with this substantial compulsory purchase. We are talking about widening each existing tunnel by one lane. Is there really no tunnel technology in existence that can do this in Newport when they could drill and support the Channel Tunnel over a decade ago with millimetre precision?
Reduce the hard shoulder around junction 25. There is only the old Molynx on the east side and the top part of Aston Crescent. You could cantilever the extra lane over Pant Road gardens. Where is the mass compulsory purchase the scaremongers are screaming about? Once you get to junction 26 it's then 3 lanes on. Yes there will be congestion with the tunnelling but you ultimately get a 3 lane motorway at the Tunnels. What further improvements do you want then 3 lanes? Unless you want to make the M4 wider again. They reinforced the Coldra overpass a few years ago. Still 2 lane there. Still 2 lane at Magor. Still 2 lane from Margam to the sea. There is more traffic jams caused because of dangerous driving methods with people undertaking and ramming back into traffic westbound on St Julian's pitch and eastbound leaving it to the last minute to come off at Kimberley Park.
At J25 you'll be building new road over the water on both side and shifting the link to the A4042 in both directions substantially. You'll require a complete rejig of the road past the new Sainsburys and will encroach on their land.

The other side of the tunnels you'll impact the fire station and the buildings around there (and will need to knock down the hotel and the big church. You'll have to build over the allotments because of the widening of the carriageway. The entire roundabout at the bottom of Malpas road will have to be changed to accommodate the widening.

And once you've done all that, just as you suggest, there will be still no real extra capacity round Newport because it drops to 2 lanes at the Coldra.

Compare and contrast: funnel non-Newport traffic down a 2 lane motorway round the city. Doubles the traffic capacity round Newport, means that all the traffic coming over the bridge to Cardiff doesn't hit the tunnels at all, so you only get local commuter traffic. Simple.

Upgrading the tunnels will not work. Building the relief road will.
You seem to be confusing an extra 7 metres of Tarmac for the runway at Cardiff Airport. An extra 3.5 metres either side of the existing. It will go nowhere near the fire station or the church. So the A4042 link gets altered. So Network Rail lose their facility. There is Glassworks Cottages and approximately 150 metres before you get to Sainsburys land. The allotments are at least 30 metres away from existing motorway at the nearest point the other side of the canal. So they have to pile and extend over the water. Nobody said it would be painless. But it also won't cost the £1,000,000,000,000 that the black route will. And by the time the bill gets paid it will be half as much again. I'm not against the best possible route as long as it is thought through by road traffic experts and not politicians who know nothing about real world issues. What I am adamant about is that a large part of the congestion around the tunnels is caused by the way traffic exits at Caerleon and Malpas Junctions. Dangerous driving and late breaking. Trial a permanent 40 mph from High Cross to Coldra both ways with speed cameras everywhere. Prosecute those divers who undertake or change lanes dangerously. It works on the M25. Bloody cheaper to.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]landyman3030[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterdimery[/bold] wrote: The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.[/p][/quote]Where? There's not enough room for more tunnels without substantial compulsory purchasing around junctions 25-26, it would be a massive undertaking, would involve road works on the m4 (so *increasing* congestion for a significant amount of time) and again it would add only a small amount of capacity with absolutely no room for further improvements.[/p][/quote]I must be missing something with this substantial compulsory purchase. We are talking about widening each existing tunnel by one lane. Is there really no tunnel technology in existence that can do this in Newport when they could drill and support the Channel Tunnel over a decade ago with millimetre precision? Reduce the hard shoulder around junction 25. There is only the old Molynx on the east side and the top part of Aston Crescent. You could cantilever the extra lane over Pant Road gardens. Where is the mass compulsory purchase the scaremongers are screaming about? Once you get to junction 26 it's then 3 lanes on. Yes there will be congestion with the tunnelling but you ultimately get a 3 lane motorway at the Tunnels. What further improvements do you want then 3 lanes? Unless you want to make the M4 wider again. They reinforced the Coldra overpass a few years ago. Still 2 lane there. Still 2 lane at Magor. Still 2 lane from Margam to the sea. There is more traffic jams caused because of dangerous driving methods with people undertaking and ramming back into traffic westbound on St Julian's pitch and eastbound leaving it to the last minute to come off at Kimberley Park.[/p][/quote]At J25 you'll be building new road over the water on both side and shifting the link to the A4042 in both directions substantially. You'll require a complete rejig of the road past the new Sainsburys and will encroach on their land. The other side of the tunnels you'll impact the fire station and the buildings around there (and will need to knock down the hotel and the big church. You'll have to build over the allotments because of the widening of the carriageway. The entire roundabout at the bottom of Malpas road will have to be changed to accommodate the widening. And once you've done all that, just as you suggest, there will be still no real extra capacity round Newport because it drops to 2 lanes at the Coldra. Compare and contrast: funnel non-Newport traffic down a 2 lane motorway round the city. Doubles the traffic capacity round Newport, means that all the traffic coming over the bridge to Cardiff doesn't hit the tunnels at all, so you only get local commuter traffic. Simple. Upgrading the tunnels will not work. Building the relief road will.[/p][/quote]You seem to be confusing an extra 7 metres of Tarmac for the runway at Cardiff Airport. An extra 3.5 metres either side of the existing. It will go nowhere near the fire station or the church. So the A4042 link gets altered. So Network Rail lose their facility. There is Glassworks Cottages and approximately 150 metres before you get to Sainsburys land. The allotments are at least 30 metres away from existing motorway at the nearest point the other side of the canal. So they have to pile and extend over the water. Nobody said it would be painless. But it also won't cost the £1,000,000,000,000 that the black route will. And by the time the bill gets paid it will be half as much again. I'm not against the best possible route as long as it is thought through by road traffic experts and not politicians who know nothing about real world issues. What I am adamant about is that a large part of the congestion around the tunnels is caused by the way traffic exits at Caerleon and Malpas Junctions. Dangerous driving and late breaking. Trial a permanent 40 mph from High Cross to Coldra both ways with speed cameras everywhere. Prosecute those divers who undertake or change lanes dangerously. It works on the M25. Bloody cheaper to. landyman3030
  • Score: -11

10:45pm Fri 1 Aug 14

stjulians says...

As much as I try to champion Newport and embrace improvements I don't see this as one. A few years ago (although, and still today) there would have been comments about affecting businesses in Newport (the Docks) by reducing the business that it can handle. Haven't the Docks turned into a recycling centre? Building a huge road around Newport doesn't fix (in my opinion) the problem especially when it affects the businesses and (didn't I read) areas such as The Wetlands? Just because Newport is the first City into Wales we shouldn't damage what we already have (businesses and areas) to benefit all of South Wales; if Cardiff was the problem I'm sure that the opposition would be as huge as the opposition for this road from some groups.
As much as I try to champion Newport and embrace improvements I don't see this as one. A few years ago (although, and still today) there would have been comments about affecting businesses in Newport (the Docks) by reducing the business that it can handle. Haven't the Docks turned into a recycling centre? Building a huge road around Newport doesn't fix (in my opinion) the problem especially when it affects the businesses and (didn't I read) areas such as The Wetlands? Just because Newport is the first City into Wales we shouldn't damage what we already have (businesses and areas) to benefit all of South Wales; if Cardiff was the problem I'm sure that the opposition would be as huge as the opposition for this road from some groups. stjulians
  • Score: -3

7:02am Sat 2 Aug 14

ninebalehigh says...

There seem to be a lot of over-optimistic expectations based on the proposed building of the new Newport By-pass; just like the barrage which was going to solve all our problems, and probably, just like the barrage the only ones who would benefit are the contractors and engineering companies who are chosen to build it... and probably a few high-ups with seats on certain boards who'd get a nice back-hander for supporting it.

Building more roads doesn't solve the problem, it moves the congestion elsewhere. The new road would be as congested as the present motorway in no time at all.

All this nonsense about how better road links would encourage more investment in the area. It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans, or slowed down development in Cardiff.

Too many vehicles is the problem, the only problem, and the only solution anyone can suggest is to build yet more roads? Talk about putting your head in the sand.

2022? by then we'll all be using electric-powered, driver-less cars won't we, and life will be wonderful and everyone will be happy?
There seem to be a lot of over-optimistic expectations based on the proposed building of the new Newport By-pass; just like the barrage which was going to solve all our problems, and probably, just like the barrage the only ones who would benefit are the contractors and engineering companies who are chosen to build it... and probably a few high-ups with seats on certain boards who'd get a nice back-hander for supporting it. Building more roads doesn't solve the problem, it moves the congestion elsewhere. The new road would be as congested as the present motorway in no time at all. All this nonsense about how better road links would encourage more investment in the area. It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans, or slowed down development in Cardiff. Too many vehicles is the problem, the only problem, and the only solution anyone can suggest is to build yet more roads? Talk about putting your head in the sand. 2022? by then we'll all be using electric-powered, driver-less cars won't we, and life will be wonderful and everyone will be happy? ninebalehigh
  • Score: 0

9:02am Sat 2 Aug 14

Stevenboy says...

ninebalehigh wrote:
There seem to be a lot of over-optimistic expectations based on the proposed building of the new Newport By-pass; just like the barrage which was going to solve all our problems, and probably, just like the barrage the only ones who would benefit are the contractors and engineering companies who are chosen to build it... and probably a few high-ups with seats on certain boards who'd get a nice back-hander for supporting it.

Building more roads doesn't solve the problem, it moves the congestion elsewhere. The new road would be as congested as the present motorway in no time at all.

All this nonsense about how better road links would encourage more investment in the area. It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans, or slowed down development in Cardiff.

Too many vehicles is the problem, the only problem, and the only solution anyone can suggest is to build yet more roads? Talk about putting your head in the sand.

2022? by then we'll all be using electric-powered, driver-less cars won't we, and life will be wonderful and everyone will be happy?
' It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans.'

Errr, the Celtic Manor isn't the wrong side of the tunnels. As for your contention that building more roads just moves traffic elsewhere, why is it then that European countries like France and Spain aren't gridlocked like we are? They constantly improve their road capacity. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion would mean we'd never have built motorways at all.
[quote][p][bold]ninebalehigh[/bold] wrote: There seem to be a lot of over-optimistic expectations based on the proposed building of the new Newport By-pass; just like the barrage which was going to solve all our problems, and probably, just like the barrage the only ones who would benefit are the contractors and engineering companies who are chosen to build it... and probably a few high-ups with seats on certain boards who'd get a nice back-hander for supporting it. Building more roads doesn't solve the problem, it moves the congestion elsewhere. The new road would be as congested as the present motorway in no time at all. All this nonsense about how better road links would encourage more investment in the area. It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans, or slowed down development in Cardiff. Too many vehicles is the problem, the only problem, and the only solution anyone can suggest is to build yet more roads? Talk about putting your head in the sand. 2022? by then we'll all be using electric-powered, driver-less cars won't we, and life will be wonderful and everyone will be happy?[/p][/quote]' It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans.' Errr, the Celtic Manor isn't the wrong side of the tunnels. As for your contention that building more roads just moves traffic elsewhere, why is it then that European countries like France and Spain aren't gridlocked like we are? They constantly improve their road capacity. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion would mean we'd never have built motorways at all. Stevenboy
  • Score: 7

9:56am Sat 2 Aug 14

Mervyn James says...

venga wrote:
I must be thick or something.....but it occurs to me that the bleeding heart Luddites who oppose the byepass because it will put more pollution into the air are missing the point.
Scenario 1. Current status= traffic jams +++ made even worse whenever there are accidents on the Ancient M4, hours of delay thousands of tons of pollution generated.
Scenario 2. A new byepass road= faster moving traffic, fewer hold ups and traffic jams therefore less pollution generated.
This will inevitably mean a cleaner atmosphere which is healthier for the children old folk, and yes, the birds, bees frogs etc. which the bearded hippy type dinosaurs seem to be overlooking. I would prefer that we still had horses and carts, old fashioned postal services and coppers on the beat, but, times change and we must make the best of it. Like I said..I must be thick or something.
Alternatively it can force car drives to consider if their journey is really necessary, and for them to pressure for an effective public transport system, sorry guys, you may even end up walking, since new roads and by passes are always obsolete long before they are finished. These will be the same people demanding yet more roads again after. Why not use half the motorways for a monorail system, and leave the other half for essential goods traffic ?
[quote][p][bold]venga[/bold] wrote: I must be thick or something.....but it occurs to me that the bleeding heart Luddites who oppose the byepass because it will put more pollution into the air are missing the point. Scenario 1. Current status= traffic jams +++ made even worse whenever there are accidents on the Ancient M4, hours of delay thousands of tons of pollution generated. Scenario 2. A new byepass road= faster moving traffic, fewer hold ups and traffic jams therefore less pollution generated. This will inevitably mean a cleaner atmosphere which is healthier for the children old folk, and yes, the birds, bees frogs etc. which the bearded hippy type dinosaurs seem to be overlooking. I would prefer that we still had horses and carts, old fashioned postal services and coppers on the beat, but, times change and we must make the best of it. Like I said..I must be thick or something.[/p][/quote]Alternatively it can force car drives to consider if their journey is really necessary, and for them to pressure for an effective public transport system, sorry guys, you may even end up walking, since new roads and by passes are always obsolete long before they are finished. These will be the same people demanding yet more roads again after. Why not use half the motorways for a monorail system, and leave the other half for essential goods traffic ? Mervyn James
  • Score: -5

10:36am Sat 2 Aug 14

Jonnytrouble says...

Some of the GAS from peoples A*** on hear talking C*** are doing the most pollution, bet most don't live nr this out dated over crowded polluting M4.. just come and see what dirt we have to put up with and noise !
I for one and many others are hoping the WG get on with this new relief M4 and the old one becomes like the M48 to Chepstow !
As for the Newport Docks being worried about tall ships getting to port under the bridge then go to France and see how the French do it, maybe best to get French engineers in to get it right too !
Some of the GAS from peoples A*** on hear talking C*** are doing the most pollution, bet most don't live nr this out dated over crowded polluting M4.. just come and see what dirt we have to put up with and noise ! I for one and many others are hoping the WG get on with this new relief M4 and the old one becomes like the M48 to Chepstow ! As for the Newport Docks being worried about tall ships getting to port under the bridge then go to France and see how the French do it, maybe best to get French engineers in to get it right too ! Jonnytrouble
  • Score: 4

10:46am Sat 2 Aug 14

Jonnytrouble says...

Stevenboy wrote:
ninebalehigh wrote:
There seem to be a lot of over-optimistic expectations based on the proposed building of the new Newport By-pass; just like the barrage which was going to solve all our problems, and probably, just like the barrage the only ones who would benefit are the contractors and engineering companies who are chosen to build it... and probably a few high-ups with seats on certain boards who'd get a nice back-hander for supporting it.

Building more roads doesn't solve the problem, it moves the congestion elsewhere. The new road would be as congested as the present motorway in no time at all.

All this nonsense about how better road links would encourage more investment in the area. It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans, or slowed down development in Cardiff.

Too many vehicles is the problem, the only problem, and the only solution anyone can suggest is to build yet more roads? Talk about putting your head in the sand.

2022? by then we'll all be using electric-powered, driver-less cars won't we, and life will be wonderful and everyone will be happy?
' It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans.'

Errr, the Celtic Manor isn't the wrong side of the tunnels. As for your contention that building more roads just moves traffic elsewhere, why is it then that European countries like France and Spain aren't gridlocked like we are? They constantly improve their road capacity. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion would mean we'd never have built motorways at all.
Umm France and Spain are a little bigger than us im afraid try driving around the BIG Cities of Lyon,Bordeaux,Nantes
,Rennes ect,,ect same problems ! more people more vehicles more pollution and sometimes depending of time of travel same gridlock !
[quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninebalehigh[/bold] wrote: There seem to be a lot of over-optimistic expectations based on the proposed building of the new Newport By-pass; just like the barrage which was going to solve all our problems, and probably, just like the barrage the only ones who would benefit are the contractors and engineering companies who are chosen to build it... and probably a few high-ups with seats on certain boards who'd get a nice back-hander for supporting it. Building more roads doesn't solve the problem, it moves the congestion elsewhere. The new road would be as congested as the present motorway in no time at all. All this nonsense about how better road links would encourage more investment in the area. It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans, or slowed down development in Cardiff. Too many vehicles is the problem, the only problem, and the only solution anyone can suggest is to build yet more roads? Talk about putting your head in the sand. 2022? by then we'll all be using electric-powered, driver-less cars won't we, and life will be wonderful and everyone will be happy?[/p][/quote]' It doesn't seem to have discouraged the Celtic Manors expansion plans.' Errr, the Celtic Manor isn't the wrong side of the tunnels. As for your contention that building more roads just moves traffic elsewhere, why is it then that European countries like France and Spain aren't gridlocked like we are? They constantly improve their road capacity. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion would mean we'd never have built motorways at all.[/p][/quote]Umm France and Spain are a little bigger than us im afraid try driving around the BIG Cities of Lyon,Bordeaux,Nantes ,Rennes ect,,ect same problems ! more people more vehicles more pollution and sometimes depending of time of travel same gridlock ! Jonnytrouble
  • Score: 3

1:21pm Sat 2 Aug 14

thepeoplesay says...

The Welsh Office and those elected to do the job are doing just that!
Questions related to Alienating Groups. These groups are not elected, and DON'T represent me or 100's of thousands of people this decision affects. IF you feel they have, or should have, that is your opinion not others? They have NO collective right to ask or demand a Judicial Review They only serve to satisfy their own agenda and DO NOT represent anyone but themselves as individuals as the "people" did not put them their to debate on our behalf. these Groups are best regarded as self-perpetuating oligarchies.
The Welsh Office and those elected to do the job are doing just that! Questions related to Alienating Groups. These groups are not elected, and DON'T represent me or 100's of thousands of people this decision affects. IF you feel they have, or should have, that is your opinion not others? They have NO collective right to ask or demand a Judicial Review They only serve to satisfy their own agenda and DO NOT represent anyone but themselves as individuals as the "people" did not put them their to debate on our behalf. these Groups are best regarded as self-perpetuating oligarchies. thepeoplesay
  • Score: 2

3:05pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

So um. . . why can't the traffic just slow down around Newport? It would mean less accidents and save a whopping £1 billion. Oh no. . i've just come up with a simple solution. But as Mka sez. . . do it once, do it right. Like an A-bomb!
So um. . . why can't the traffic just slow down around Newport? It would mean less accidents and save a whopping £1 billion. Oh no. . i've just come up with a simple solution. But as Mka sez. . . do it once, do it right. Like an A-bomb! Paxman's Army
  • Score: -9

3:46pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Port0214 says...

Once again the middle class and the retired with too much spare time, and the laughable public transport loonies (when did you last see 24 tonnes of steel coil on a bus, or all the food for Tesco on a coach).

The environmental impact once finished will be minimal it will improve the air quality through N****** considerably and make the area a viable option to do business in.

My only concern is the WAG factor, this is far to big a project for them it should come under the control of central government.
Once again the middle class and the retired with too much spare time, and the laughable public transport loonies (when did you last see 24 tonnes of steel coil on a bus, or all the food for Tesco on a coach). The environmental impact once finished will be minimal it will improve the air quality through N****** considerably and make the area a viable option to do business in. My only concern is the WAG factor, this is far to big a project for them it should come under the control of central government. Port0214
  • Score: 6

6:58pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

The environmental impact once finished will be minimal? According to. . .uh. . . .who? Any environmental impact statements back that up? Public transport loonies? Oh you mean those people who say that petrol pollutes, right?

Ya gotta love people who not only offer opinions based on zippo facts. . .but are all too willing to spend the public's hard-earned money on super expensive projects that might not even work.
The environmental impact once finished will be minimal? According to. . .uh. . . .who? Any environmental impact statements back that up? Public transport loonies? Oh you mean those people who say that petrol pollutes, right? Ya gotta love people who not only offer opinions based on zippo facts. . .but are all too willing to spend the public's hard-earned money on super expensive projects that might not even work. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -3

10:24pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

Hey hey kids. It's time for Questions and Answers. Tonight's subject is the goofy world of the M4 Bypass. Today's question is:

How come all these people who want to have you shell out £1 billion for a bypass of just a few miles, favour a decision made by Welsh Government who's documents regarding that decision aren't being made public? Why don't they believe in government transparency?

No answer? Ok then. . . well thanks for watching. We'll be back next week with new questions. Night!
Hey hey kids. It's time for Questions and Answers. Tonight's subject is the goofy world of the M4 Bypass. Today's question is: How come all these people who want to have you shell out £1 billion for a bypass of just a few miles, favour a decision made by Welsh Government who's documents regarding that decision aren't being made public? Why don't they believe in government transparency? No answer? Ok then. . . well thanks for watching. We'll be back next week with new questions. Night! Paxman's Army
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
And with all of the issues mentioned by jimmy, the fact still remains - this is the only plan which will work.

Yes, it's the most expensive. Yes, it's got the biggest impact to the SSSI. Yes, it's the one which will take the longest - but no other suggested plan will fix the problem.

Blue route will involve five years of total disruption to the people of Newport, crippling the SDR and all the businesses on the route (if you think there'll be no legal challenges there you're sadly mistaken) - plus will not deal with any increase in traffic only the current levels which are predicted to keep increasing.

Other two routes share the issues of the Blue route plus the issues of the Black route. Slightly better in some areas, slightly worse in others.

Upgrading public transport will benefit the people of Newport but crucially doesn't fix the problem of the M4 - accidents / events etc will still impact the city and the Welsh economy. It may help for a short time but it won't fix the problem.

The proposed route is the only option that;

- Deals with the current problem.
- Deals with the future predicted traffic.
- Has expansion potential in case future predictions are too low.
- Minimises disruption to the maximum number of people.

I'd rather they spend a billion on the best solution than spend 300/400 million on a cheaper one and then find it doesn't work and they need to do it again.

Do it once. Do it right. Do the black route.
Perfectly summed up. Also the existing m4 will be an alternative route when there's an incident on the new m4. All the years of disruption and millions wasted 'upgrading' the existing m4 has left us with the current motorway limited by cameras to 50mph but still almost daily delays due to collisions and other incidents - not forgetting the deaths and injuries plus the pollution caused by slow/standing traffic. Get the relief road built.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: And with all of the issues mentioned by jimmy, the fact still remains - this is the only plan which will work. Yes, it's the most expensive. Yes, it's got the biggest impact to the SSSI. Yes, it's the one which will take the longest - but no other suggested plan will fix the problem. Blue route will involve five years of total disruption to the people of Newport, crippling the SDR and all the businesses on the route (if you think there'll be no legal challenges there you're sadly mistaken) - plus will not deal with any increase in traffic only the current levels which are predicted to keep increasing. Other two routes share the issues of the Blue route plus the issues of the Black route. Slightly better in some areas, slightly worse in others. Upgrading public transport will benefit the people of Newport but crucially doesn't fix the problem of the M4 - accidents / events etc will still impact the city and the Welsh economy. It may help for a short time but it won't fix the problem. The proposed route is the only option that; - Deals with the current problem. - Deals with the future predicted traffic. - Has expansion potential in case future predictions are too low. - Minimises disruption to the maximum number of people. I'd rather they spend a billion on the best solution than spend 300/400 million on a cheaper one and then find it doesn't work and they need to do it again. Do it once. Do it right. Do the black route.[/p][/quote]Perfectly summed up. Also the existing m4 will be an alternative route when there's an incident on the new m4. All the years of disruption and millions wasted 'upgrading' the existing m4 has left us with the current motorway limited by cameras to 50mph but still almost daily delays due to collisions and other incidents - not forgetting the deaths and injuries plus the pollution caused by slow/standing traffic. Get the relief road built. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 4

9:32am Mon 4 Aug 14

Mervyn James says...

Port0214 wrote:
Once again the middle class and the retired with too much spare time, and the laughable public transport loonies (when did you last see 24 tonnes of steel coil on a bus, or all the food for Tesco on a coach).

The environmental impact once finished will be minimal it will improve the air quality through N****** considerably and make the area a viable option to do business in.

My only concern is the WAG factor, this is far to big a project for them it should come under the control of central government.
Showing your lack of awareness I'm afraid (Read Below), highways/roads are devolved to the WAG. There was a recent row where it was argued, railways were not, because Westminster refused to fund the electrification of the London to Swansea lines.

agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development
ancient monuments and historic buildings
culture
economic development
education and training
environment
fire and rescue services and promotion of fire safety
food
health and health services
highways and transport
housing
local government
National Assembly for Wales
public administration
social welfare
sport and recreation
tourism
town and country planning
water and flood defence
Welsh language

The 'central government' angle is one often used when environmentalists raise concern ! London would concrete every part of Wales given the chance (Which it won't be). I'm not a NIMBY I Live within a mile or so from the M4. Car drivers wouldn't want a road driven through their local parks or the wetlands, it is a matter of car drivers being NIMBY's when it goes near them, otherwise they don't care who has to make way for them. We need environmentalists to prevent total destruction of our environment. Someone has to care. We have kids who think milk comes from shops not cows as it is... and never play outdoors because of cars.
[quote][p][bold]Port0214[/bold] wrote: Once again the middle class and the retired with too much spare time, and the laughable public transport loonies (when did you last see 24 tonnes of steel coil on a bus, or all the food for Tesco on a coach). The environmental impact once finished will be minimal it will improve the air quality through N****** considerably and make the area a viable option to do business in. My only concern is the WAG factor, this is far to big a project for them it should come under the control of central government.[/p][/quote]Showing your lack of awareness I'm afraid (Read Below), highways/roads are devolved to the WAG. There was a recent row where it was argued, railways were not, because Westminster refused to fund the electrification of the London to Swansea lines. agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development ancient monuments and historic buildings culture economic development education and training environment fire and rescue services and promotion of fire safety food health and health services highways and transport housing local government National Assembly for Wales public administration social welfare sport and recreation tourism town and country planning water and flood defence Welsh language The 'central government' angle is one often used when environmentalists raise concern ! London would concrete every part of Wales given the chance (Which it won't be). I'm not a NIMBY I Live within a mile or so from the M4. Car drivers wouldn't want a road driven through their local parks or the wetlands, it is a matter of car drivers being NIMBY's when it goes near them, otherwise they don't care who has to make way for them. We need environmentalists to prevent total destruction of our environment. Someone has to care. We have kids who think milk comes from shops not cows as it is... and never play outdoors because of cars. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

10:48am Mon 4 Aug 14

Good Job No Kids says...

peterdimery wrote:
The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.
And where do you propose the traffic diversion will run during the works?
[quote][p][bold]peterdimery[/bold] wrote: The problem is the Brynglas tunnels. Address the problem build another tunnel not another motorway.[/p][/quote]And where do you propose the traffic diversion will run during the works? Good Job No Kids
  • Score: 4

10:50am Mon 4 Aug 14

Good Job No Kids says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Port0214 wrote:
Once again the middle class and the retired with too much spare time, and the laughable public transport loonies (when did you last see 24 tonnes of steel coil on a bus, or all the food for Tesco on a coach).

The environmental impact once finished will be minimal it will improve the air quality through N****** considerably and make the area a viable option to do business in.

My only concern is the WAG factor, this is far to big a project for them it should come under the control of central government.
Showing your lack of awareness I'm afraid (Read Below), highways/roads are devolved to the WAG. There was a recent row where it was argued, railways were not, because Westminster refused to fund the electrification of the London to Swansea lines.

agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development
ancient monuments and historic buildings
culture
economic development
education and training
environment
fire and rescue services and promotion of fire safety
food
health and health services
highways and transport
housing
local government
National Assembly for Wales
public administration
social welfare
sport and recreation
tourism
town and country planning
water and flood defence
Welsh language

The 'central government' angle is one often used when environmentalists raise concern ! London would concrete every part of Wales given the chance (Which it won't be). I'm not a NIMBY I Live within a mile or so from the M4. Car drivers wouldn't want a road driven through their local parks or the wetlands, it is a matter of car drivers being NIMBY's when it goes near them, otherwise they don't care who has to make way for them. We need environmentalists to prevent total destruction of our environment. Someone has to care. We have kids who think milk comes from shops not cows as it is... and never play outdoors because of cars.
"Because of cars"?

Nothing to do with the poor state of education, useless parents and an abundance of entertaining technology?
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Port0214[/bold] wrote: Once again the middle class and the retired with too much spare time, and the laughable public transport loonies (when did you last see 24 tonnes of steel coil on a bus, or all the food for Tesco on a coach). The environmental impact once finished will be minimal it will improve the air quality through N****** considerably and make the area a viable option to do business in. My only concern is the WAG factor, this is far to big a project for them it should come under the control of central government.[/p][/quote]Showing your lack of awareness I'm afraid (Read Below), highways/roads are devolved to the WAG. There was a recent row where it was argued, railways were not, because Westminster refused to fund the electrification of the London to Swansea lines. agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development ancient monuments and historic buildings culture economic development education and training environment fire and rescue services and promotion of fire safety food health and health services highways and transport housing local government National Assembly for Wales public administration social welfare sport and recreation tourism town and country planning water and flood defence Welsh language The 'central government' angle is one often used when environmentalists raise concern ! London would concrete every part of Wales given the chance (Which it won't be). I'm not a NIMBY I Live within a mile or so from the M4. Car drivers wouldn't want a road driven through their local parks or the wetlands, it is a matter of car drivers being NIMBY's when it goes near them, otherwise they don't care who has to make way for them. We need environmentalists to prevent total destruction of our environment. Someone has to care. We have kids who think milk comes from shops not cows as it is... and never play outdoors because of cars.[/p][/quote]"Because of cars"? Nothing to do with the poor state of education, useless parents and an abundance of entertaining technology? Good Job No Kids
  • Score: 2

7:51pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Mervyn James says...

Useless parents drive cars too....
Useless parents drive cars too.... Mervyn James
  • Score: 3

7:51pm Mon 4 Aug 14

welshmen says...

jimmytheone2 wrote:
Magor wrote:
Just get on with it, the money will only get wasted on something else.
Yeah, wasted on something like health or education!
The eye watering amounts of money to be spent on this vanity project will mean far less money for schools, education and other far greater priorities.
Yes, something needs to be done, but this is the most expensive by a huge distance, will take far longer to deliver any benefit (2022 at earliest - but as this article shows, there are likely to be many legal challenges which will delay the project), and will give Wales huge debts for many years to come. There are cheaper options, which deliver benefits far earlier and likely to be more politically, economically, environmentally and socially acceptable. Edwina Hart's handling of this is like a bull in a china shop - she seems determined to alienate every group and seems to be ignoring proper process.
I know Jim, how about a £1Billion from the foreign aid give away to anyone budget , I am sure some of the dictators wont mind waiting to build their Mansions or for next years car model, or would it be better to let our people go short of Hospitals, Schools for your foreign friends to enjoy all for free, NO, best get on with the New M4, the quicker the better, we need to try and steer Wales away from it's third World stigma road it's now on ASAP....
[quote][p][bold]jimmytheone2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Just get on with it, the money will only get wasted on something else.[/p][/quote]Yeah, wasted on something like health or education! The eye watering amounts of money to be spent on this vanity project will mean far less money for schools, education and other far greater priorities. Yes, something needs to be done, but this is the most expensive by a huge distance, will take far longer to deliver any benefit (2022 at earliest - but as this article shows, there are likely to be many legal challenges which will delay the project), and will give Wales huge debts for many years to come. There are cheaper options, which deliver benefits far earlier and likely to be more politically, economically, environmentally and socially acceptable. Edwina Hart's handling of this is like a bull in a china shop - she seems determined to alienate every group and seems to be ignoring proper process.[/p][/quote]I know Jim, how about a £1Billion from the foreign aid give away to anyone budget , I am sure some of the dictators wont mind waiting to build their Mansions or for next years car model, or would it be better to let our people go short of Hospitals, Schools for your foreign friends to enjoy all for free, NO, best get on with the New M4, the quicker the better, we need to try and steer Wales away from it's third World stigma road it's now on ASAP.... welshmen
  • Score: 3

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