Stop-start traffic for 7 miles on M4 approaching Newport

DELAYS: Queuing traffic on the M4 approaching Newport

DELAYS: Queuing traffic on the M4 approaching Newport

First published in News

STOP-START traffic is reported for seven miles on the M4 approaching the Brynglas Tunnels.

The delays are on the westbound side between J23A at Magor and J25A at Grove Park roundabout.

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:42pm Fri 8 Aug 14

mr david says...

And they say we do not need a new road.
And they say we do not need a new road. mr david
  • Score: 25

9:46pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Bobevans says...

mr david wrote:
And they say we do not need a new road.
They don't even say what is causing it. It does not take much to bring the Newport section of the M4 to a snail pace. Slightly unusual at this time of year though with the schools on holiday and lot of people on holiday
[quote][p][bold]mr david[/bold] wrote: And they say we do not need a new road.[/p][/quote]They don't even say what is causing it. It does not take much to bring the Newport section of the M4 to a snail pace. Slightly unusual at this time of year though with the schools on holiday and lot of people on holiday Bobevans
  • Score: 5

11:23am Sat 9 Aug 14

displayed says...

Gearing up for the summit..........
Gearing up for the summit.......... displayed
  • Score: 2

4:55pm Sat 9 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs
?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate. varteg1
  • Score: -10

5:25pm Sat 9 Aug 14

richie55 says...

Why is this news....it is the same every Friday evening!
Why is this news....it is the same every Friday evening! richie55
  • Score: 8

6:12pm Sat 9 Aug 14

Bobevans says...

varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs

?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place Bobevans
  • Score: -18

6:55pm Sat 9 Aug 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs


?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ! Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 1

8:10pm Sat 9 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs



?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays.

The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made.

Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ![/p][/quote]Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays. The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made. Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure. varteg1
  • Score: -19

9:43pm Sat 9 Aug 14

Riley2012 says...

If the traffic builds up why don't people use the old LLanwern site. It would take you either Magor/SDR road or SDR/Magor problem solved.
If the traffic builds up why don't people use the old LLanwern site. It would take you either Magor/SDR road or SDR/Magor problem solved. Riley2012
  • Score: 9

6:23am Sun 10 Aug 14

anigel says...

varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs




?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays.

The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made.

Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.
ooooo look Mr Know It All who has worked on a project once or twice, knows better than the experts
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ![/p][/quote]Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays. The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made. Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.[/p][/quote]ooooo look Mr Know It All who has worked on a project once or twice, knows better than the experts anigel
  • Score: -16

6:24am Sun 10 Aug 14

anigel says...

Riley2012 wrote:
If the traffic builds up why don't people use the old LLanwern site. It would take you either Magor/SDR road or SDR/Magor problem solved.
Because the second there are problems on the M4 there are problems on the SDR as everyone does exactly that.
[quote][p][bold]Riley2012[/bold] wrote: If the traffic builds up why don't people use the old LLanwern site. It would take you either Magor/SDR road or SDR/Magor problem solved.[/p][/quote]Because the second there are problems on the M4 there are problems on the SDR as everyone does exactly that. anigel
  • Score: 18

9:10am Sun 10 Aug 14

Woodgnome says...

There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives. Woodgnome
  • Score: -24

9:19am Sun 10 Aug 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs




?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays.

The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made.

Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.
With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ![/p][/quote]Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays. The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made. Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.[/p][/quote]With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 20

9:39am Sun 10 Aug 14

anigel says...

Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution. anigel
  • Score: 13

11:19am Sun 10 Aug 14

Woodgnome says...

anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.
Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.
[quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.[/p][/quote]Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built. Woodgnome
  • Score: -9

12:20pm Sun 10 Aug 14

DavidMclean says...

varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs




?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays.

The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made.

Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.
Well that's easily sorted. Just set up and use a blog, or alternatively upload your sketch to any image hosting site and post a link here.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ![/p][/quote]Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays. The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made. Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.[/p][/quote]Well that's easily sorted. Just set up and use a blog, or alternatively upload your sketch to any image hosting site and post a link here. DavidMclean
  • Score: 2

1:25pm Sun 10 Aug 14

anigel says...

Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.
Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.
You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.[/p][/quote]Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.[/p][/quote]You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion. anigel
  • Score: 17

6:56pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Woodgnome says...

anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.
Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.
You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.
I think you have just proved my point. It's never enough so why wreck the countryside?
[quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.[/p][/quote]Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.[/p][/quote]You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.[/p][/quote]I think you have just proved my point. It's never enough so why wreck the countryside? Woodgnome
  • Score: 9

9:24pm Sun 10 Aug 14

anigel says...

Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.
Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.
You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.
I think you have just proved my point. It's never enough so why wreck the countryside?
In which case you need to turn off your computer and go back to the dark ages as there is never any point doing anything is there.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.[/p][/quote]Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.[/p][/quote]You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.[/p][/quote]I think you have just proved my point. It's never enough so why wreck the countryside?[/p][/quote]In which case you need to turn off your computer and go back to the dark ages as there is never any point doing anything is there. anigel
  • Score: -14

10:21pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Woodgnome says...

anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.
Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.
You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.
I think you have just proved my point. It's never enough so why wreck the countryside?
In which case you need to turn off your computer and go back to the dark ages as there is never any point doing anything is there.
Abuse never won the day. Just accept not everyone agrees with your blinkered vision.
Incidentally most historians now accept the "dark ages" is a total misnomer.
[quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.[/p][/quote]Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.[/p][/quote]You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.[/p][/quote]I think you have just proved my point. It's never enough so why wreck the countryside?[/p][/quote]In which case you need to turn off your computer and go back to the dark ages as there is never any point doing anything is there.[/p][/quote]Abuse never won the day. Just accept not everyone agrees with your blinkered vision. Incidentally most historians now accept the "dark ages" is a total misnomer. Woodgnome
  • Score: 13

10:09am Mon 11 Aug 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

The debate and consultation has happened. Even Plaid and FOTE accept the existing chaos can't continue, more capacity is needed and changing the existing tunnels/m4 is not a viable solution. The only objection by Plaid/FOTE is that the blue route wasn't given the same time for consultation as the other options. WAG says it had sufficient time. Decision made - get it built.
The debate and consultation has happened. Even Plaid and FOTE accept the existing chaos can't continue, more capacity is needed and changing the existing tunnels/m4 is not a viable solution. The only objection by Plaid/FOTE is that the blue route wasn't given the same time for consultation as the other options. WAG says it had sufficient time. Decision made - get it built. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -17

2:03pm Mon 11 Aug 14

anigel says...

Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
anigel wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.
Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.
You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.
I think you have just proved my point. It's never enough so why wreck the countryside?
In which case you need to turn off your computer and go back to the dark ages as there is never any point doing anything is there.
Abuse never won the day. Just accept not everyone agrees with your blinkered vision.
Incidentally most historians now accept the "dark ages" is a total misnomer.
It wasn't abuse, it was just showing you where you end up if you always take your view that there is no point in doing anything as it is never enough.

I'm really happy for you if your life has been so constantly full of joy and happiness that you could actually consider a comment like that as abuse.

I am also sorry you can't see the difference between abuse and a suggestion that never making any effort to change or improve things which everyone agrees are bad, would have prevented all kinds of progress.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]Conversely I would say that there are a lot of people here who feel that roads which cannot even cope with current traffic levels can somehow miraculously be made to support loads far greater without spending significant sums of money and then we will all have the honour of suffering all the same problems we have now but be hundreds of millions out of pocket and have no money left to actually build the best solution.[/p][/quote]Similar things said about the M25 until after it was built.[/p][/quote]You mean the motorway that is being upgraded through adding extra lanes to deal with the traffic as it is already being used by double the amount of traffic they expected 20 years ago. Something that none of the other solutions proposed are capable of, and 20 years is about how long we have already been waiting for them to get on and build an alternative route which totally avoids all the problems with the existing one AND allows for future expansion.[/p][/quote]I think you have just proved my point. It's never enough so why wreck the countryside?[/p][/quote]In which case you need to turn off your computer and go back to the dark ages as there is never any point doing anything is there.[/p][/quote]Abuse never won the day. Just accept not everyone agrees with your blinkered vision. Incidentally most historians now accept the "dark ages" is a total misnomer.[/p][/quote]It wasn't abuse, it was just showing you where you end up if you always take your view that there is no point in doing anything as it is never enough. I'm really happy for you if your life has been so constantly full of joy and happiness that you could actually consider a comment like that as abuse. I am also sorry you can't see the difference between abuse and a suggestion that never making any effort to change or improve things which everyone agrees are bad, would have prevented all kinds of progress. anigel
  • Score: -4

5:38pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 11

6:56pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Woodgnome says...

"I'm really happy for you if your life has been so constantly full of joy and happiness that you could actually consider a comment like that as abuse"

Don't kid yourself anigel. Just sarcasm and subtle abuse.
"I'm really happy for you if your life has been so constantly full of joy and happiness that you could actually consider a comment like that as abuse" Don't kid yourself anigel. Just sarcasm and subtle abuse. Woodgnome
  • Score: 6

6:57pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Woodgnome says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.
unlike the black route
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.[/p][/quote]unlike the black route Woodgnome
  • Score: 7

7:49pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.
unlike the black route
Really ? even Plaid and FOTE agree the black route would solve the problem. Their objections are cost and ecology respectively. Bearing in mind the other options have been rejected after years of debate and consultation as not viable (including the do nothing option) what solution are you proposing ?
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.[/p][/quote]unlike the black route[/p][/quote]Really ? even Plaid and FOTE agree the black route would solve the problem. Their objections are cost and ecology respectively. Bearing in mind the other options have been rejected after years of debate and consultation as not viable (including the do nothing option) what solution are you proposing ? Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -1

8:15am Tue 12 Aug 14

Woodgnome says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.
unlike the black route
Really ? even Plaid and FOTE agree the black route would solve the problem. Their objections are cost and ecology respectively. Bearing in mind the other options have been rejected after years of debate and consultation as not viable (including the do nothing option) what solution are you proposing ?
I think we have your point Thomas - you want the black route.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.[/p][/quote]unlike the black route[/p][/quote]Really ? even Plaid and FOTE agree the black route would solve the problem. Their objections are cost and ecology respectively. Bearing in mind the other options have been rejected after years of debate and consultation as not viable (including the do nothing option) what solution are you proposing ?[/p][/quote]I think we have your point Thomas - you want the black route. Woodgnome
  • Score: 6

8:50am Tue 12 Aug 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.
The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.
unlike the black route
Really ? even Plaid and FOTE agree the black route would solve the problem. Their objections are cost and ecology respectively. Bearing in mind the other options have been rejected after years of debate and consultation as not viable (including the do nothing option) what solution are you proposing ?
I think we have your point Thomas - you want the black route.
What option do you want ?
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: There's a lot of deluded black routers on here. A camel is an animal designed by a Committee - the black route is ditto. Try opening your minds and contemplate alternatives.[/p][/quote]The saying is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". Camels are exceptionally well suited for what they do.[/p][/quote]unlike the black route[/p][/quote]Really ? even Plaid and FOTE agree the black route would solve the problem. Their objections are cost and ecology respectively. Bearing in mind the other options have been rejected after years of debate and consultation as not viable (including the do nothing option) what solution are you proposing ?[/p][/quote]I think we have your point Thomas - you want the black route.[/p][/quote]What option do you want ? Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 2

6:04pm Tue 12 Aug 14

anigel says...

Woodgnome wrote:
"I'm really happy for you if your life has been so constantly full of joy and happiness that you could actually consider a comment like that as abuse"

Don't kid yourself anigel. Just sarcasm and subtle abuse.
Really Woodgnome? More ad-hominem instead of actually answering the point I raised about never doing anything.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: "I'm really happy for you if your life has been so constantly full of joy and happiness that you could actually consider a comment like that as abuse" Don't kid yourself anigel. Just sarcasm and subtle abuse.[/p][/quote]Really Woodgnome? More ad-hominem instead of actually answering the point I raised about never doing anything. anigel
  • Score: 2

7:35pm Tue 12 Aug 14

varteg1 says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs





?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays.

The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made.

Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.
With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.
Please use the single brain cell that seems to be encouraged by the many thumbs up you've garnered.

The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels.

If something is getting in the way, you do one of two things, you either go around it, which is to all intents in this situation, impossible, or you remove it.

Are you so think you actually need a sketch to visualise it.

My remark re graphics was rhetoric not a trigger for idiotic comeback.
But one cell brains are always determined to run on a single track.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ![/p][/quote]Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays. The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made. Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.[/p][/quote]With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.[/p][/quote]Please use the single brain cell that seems to be encouraged by the many thumbs up you've garnered. The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels. If something is getting in the way, you do one of two things, you either go around it, which is to all intents in this situation, impossible, or you remove it. Are you so think you actually need a sketch to visualise it. My remark re graphics was rhetoric not a trigger for idiotic comeback. But one cell brains are always determined to run on a single track. varteg1
  • Score: -1

8:14pm Tue 12 Aug 14

anigel says...

varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs






?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays.

The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made.

Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.
With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.
Please use the single brain cell that seems to be encouraged by the many thumbs up you've garnered.

The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels.

If something is getting in the way, you do one of two things, you either go around it, which is to all intents in this situation, impossible, or you remove it.

Are you so think you actually need a sketch to visualise it.

My remark re graphics was rhetoric not a trigger for idiotic comeback.
But one cell brains are always determined to run on a single track.
"The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels."

No this is not the sole reason for the issues around Newport and that is fortunately recognised by many people with significantly more than one brain cell.

I would offer to draw you a picture to illustrate this but the level of contempt you have shown for someone who offered you an alternative solution in direct response to an issue you raised, would lead me to believe that you would not welcome that and are instead just trolling.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ![/p][/quote]Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays. The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made. Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.[/p][/quote]With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.[/p][/quote]Please use the single brain cell that seems to be encouraged by the many thumbs up you've garnered. The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels. If something is getting in the way, you do one of two things, you either go around it, which is to all intents in this situation, impossible, or you remove it. Are you so think you actually need a sketch to visualise it. My remark re graphics was rhetoric not a trigger for idiotic comeback. But one cell brains are always determined to run on a single track.[/p][/quote]"The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels." No this is not the sole reason for the issues around Newport and that is fortunately recognised by many people with significantly more than one brain cell. I would offer to draw you a picture to illustrate this but the level of contempt you have shown for someone who offered you an alternative solution in direct response to an issue you raised, would lead me to believe that you would not welcome that and are instead just trolling. anigel
  • Score: 3

12:41pm Wed 13 Aug 14

throwy1 says...

varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs






?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays.

The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made.

Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.
With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.
Please use the single brain cell that seems to be encouraged by the many thumbs up you've garnered.

The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels.

If something is getting in the way, you do one of two things, you either go around it, which is to all intents in this situation, impossible, or you remove it.

Are you so think you actually need a sketch to visualise it.

My remark re graphics was rhetoric not a trigger for idiotic comeback.
But one cell brains are always determined to run on a single track.
In other words he hasn't a clue or he would have posted it
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ![/p][/quote]Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays. The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made. Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.[/p][/quote]With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.[/p][/quote]Please use the single brain cell that seems to be encouraged by the many thumbs up you've garnered. The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels. If something is getting in the way, you do one of two things, you either go around it, which is to all intents in this situation, impossible, or you remove it. Are you so think you actually need a sketch to visualise it. My remark re graphics was rhetoric not a trigger for idiotic comeback. But one cell brains are always determined to run on a single track.[/p][/quote]In other words he hasn't a clue or he would have posted it throwy1
  • Score: 3

3:11pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs






?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.
With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place
The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction !
Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays.

The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made.

Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.
With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.
Please use the single brain cell that seems to be encouraged by the many thumbs up you've garnered.

The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels.

If something is getting in the way, you do one of two things, you either go around it, which is to all intents in this situation, impossible, or you remove it.

Are you so think you actually need a sketch to visualise it.

My remark re graphics was rhetoric not a trigger for idiotic comeback.
But one cell brains are always determined to run on a single track.
Why the insults ? I didn't ask for a sketch. You are right though - the answer is to go around it ie the Relief road.

'Upgrading' the existing M4 has been dismissed as not viable but if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: Remove the outcrop of high ground that is bored by the twin tunnels at Brynglas...widen the existing M4 to remove the bottleneck.....costs ?..... maybe a few millions, with land owners and residents well compensated, far cheaper and quicker a project than building a completely new road costing a estimated ONE THOUSAND MILLION Pounds, and we all know how soon that estimate falls well short of the end costs, ....usually double the original estimate.[/p][/quote]With modern tunnelling TBM's and techniques adding another two new tunnels is quite simple and would take about 4 weeks to bore each tunnel once the TBM was in place[/p][/quote]The option of widening or adding tunnels and widening all the approach roads has been debated and fully evaluated by engineering experts during the consultation phase and discounted because it doesn't solve the problem eg it does not provide a viable alternative route when there is an incident on the m4. Not forgetting the objections/delays that would arise from compulsory purchase of land/property and where on earth would the traffic go during construction ![/p][/quote]Well, as someone who has worked on some massive construction projects on three continents, I can assure you it is feasible. and the whole process of a speeded up compulsory purchase , sometimes as in this case necessary, can override any objections, so no long delays. The tunnels are the problem, with the mound above them removed road widening would be no problem. as for what will the traffic do during construction etc, as I said, adequate provision can be made. Unfortunately, we have no facility on here for graphics otherwise I could demonstrate a procedure.[/p][/quote]With respect, if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services.[/p][/quote]Please use the single brain cell that seems to be encouraged by the many thumbs up you've garnered. The blockages along the Newport section of the M4/ are caused by the narrowing of three lanes into two, or if you like, those dratted tunnels. If something is getting in the way, you do one of two things, you either go around it, which is to all intents in this situation, impossible, or you remove it. Are you so think you actually need a sketch to visualise it. My remark re graphics was rhetoric not a trigger for idiotic comeback. But one cell brains are always determined to run on a single track.[/p][/quote]Why the insults ? I didn't ask for a sketch. You are right though - the answer is to go around it ie the Relief road. 'Upgrading' the existing M4 has been dismissed as not viable but if you think you have a solution that the transport engineering companies have not considered over the decades of design and consultation you should write to the WAG and offer your services. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 2

10:35pm Wed 13 Aug 14

endthelies says...

Have better, cheaper public transport links.
Have better, cheaper public transport links. endthelies
  • Score: -1

10:45pm Wed 13 Aug 14

anigel says...

endthelies wrote:
Have better, cheaper public transport links.
Which still will not solve the problem
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: Have better, cheaper public transport links.[/p][/quote]Which still will not solve the problem anigel
  • Score: 1

2:38pm Thu 14 Aug 14

endthelies says...

anigel wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Have better, cheaper public transport links.
Which still will not solve the problem
why not? It may not solve it, but it may help if they could decrease private vehicle use. Makes sense doesn't it?
[quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: Have better, cheaper public transport links.[/p][/quote]Which still will not solve the problem[/p][/quote]why not? It may not solve it, but it may help if they could decrease private vehicle use. Makes sense doesn't it? endthelies
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree