ARGUS COMMENT: Concerns of docks owners over M4 relief road route need to be considered

First published in Gwent news

THE concerns expressed by the owners of Newport Docks over the potential impact to their business of the proposed route for the M4 relief road need to be taken seriously.

Associated British Ports fears the planned route of the new M4 could put many jobs at risk as it would take 1,000 square feet of quayside land and include a bridge that would stop 60 per cent of vessels entering the north dock.

The docks may not be the powerhouse they were in the last century but they still provide employment - directly and indirectly - for around 3,000 people and contribute £190 million a year to the South Wales economy.

ABP's concerns should not be taken lightly.

Whether they launch a legal challenge to the Welsh Government's approval of the so-called black route remains to be seen, but it is clear ministers expect to be challenged in the courts by groups opposed to the relief road.

This newspaper's support for the relief road has not wavered for more than 20 years. We believe it makes sense for Newport and for the wider South Wales economy.

But that does not mean we think opponents should be dismissed.

If ABP's fears can be allayed, even if it means tweaking the plans, then every effort should be made to do so.

Newport needs this relief road, but it also needs jobs and investment at its docks.

Compromises may have to be made to achieve both.

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:57am Sat 19 Jul 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Am I the only one who cannot understand how something as basic as this has not surfaced before? They've been 'consulting' on this M4 extension for fifteen years that I know of and now, just as a decision is taken, a major negative impact comes to light.
Am I the only one who cannot understand how something as basic as this has not surfaced before? They've been 'consulting' on this M4 extension for fifteen years that I know of and now, just as a decision is taken, a major negative impact comes to light. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 30

9:34am Sat 19 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Am I the only one who cannot understand how something as basic as this has not surfaced before? They've been 'consulting' on this M4 extension for fifteen years that I know of and now, just as a decision is taken, a major negative impact comes to light.
Exactly - isn't to take account of the docks stating the bl**** obvious. Incompetence upon incompetence.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Am I the only one who cannot understand how something as basic as this has not surfaced before? They've been 'consulting' on this M4 extension for fifteen years that I know of and now, just as a decision is taken, a major negative impact comes to light.[/p][/quote]Exactly - isn't to take account of the docks stating the bl**** obvious. Incompetence upon incompetence. Woodgnome
  • Score: 25

11:13am Sat 19 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

This will run and run.....and run and run....and......
This will run and run.....and run and run....and...... KarloMarko
  • Score: 11

11:23am Sat 19 Jul 14

landyman3030 says...

They were taking soil samples and the like 15 years ago. The new road was supposed to be raised over the dock to allow shipping, cargo operations and crane movements to be unhindered. Two one hundred foot high harbour mobile cranes regularly travel around the dock for cargo. Without the mobile facility of these cranes it would seriously reduce the ports cargo viability. If the ships can't get discharged it's not just the stevedores who lose work. It's the crane drivers, plant operators, fitters, electricians, signalmen, train operators, lorry drivers, warehouse operators and supporting administration staff in Engineering, Operation and Safety who all lose out. Then you've got the hundreds of companies who supply these people. Then you have the port tenants who occupy hundreds of acres of land for their own businesses. Many will have their quayside areas cut in half and workshop/storage facilities removed. Many local people work in this environment. This is bad news for Newport.
They were taking soil samples and the like 15 years ago. The new road was supposed to be raised over the dock to allow shipping, cargo operations and crane movements to be unhindered. Two one hundred foot high harbour mobile cranes regularly travel around the dock for cargo. Without the mobile facility of these cranes it would seriously reduce the ports cargo viability. If the ships can't get discharged it's not just the stevedores who lose work. It's the crane drivers, plant operators, fitters, electricians, signalmen, train operators, lorry drivers, warehouse operators and supporting administration staff in Engineering, Operation and Safety who all lose out. Then you've got the hundreds of companies who supply these people. Then you have the port tenants who occupy hundreds of acres of land for their own businesses. Many will have their quayside areas cut in half and workshop/storage facilities removed. Many local people work in this environment. This is bad news for Newport. landyman3030
  • Score: 24

11:37am Sat 19 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

Agree with all that. I worked on the docks around the mid 60s and it was only when I read the recent Argus piece I realised how active it still is. Shouldn't be beyond the "wit" of Edwina plc to rethink the proposed route strategically? Yes...Well. AND where are our AMs and MPs in all this? Silent as lambs.
.
Agree with all that. I worked on the docks around the mid 60s and it was only when I read the recent Argus piece I realised how active it still is. Shouldn't be beyond the "wit" of Edwina plc to rethink the proposed route strategically? Yes...Well. AND where are our AMs and MPs in all this? Silent as lambs. . KarloMarko
  • Score: 20

12:21pm Sat 19 Jul 14

exrisca says...

What compromise do you suggest? Send all the docks work to Cardiff? Everything else goes there.
What compromise do you suggest? Send all the docks work to Cardiff? Everything else goes there. exrisca
  • Score: 6

12:34pm Sat 19 Jul 14

altom23 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Am I the only one who cannot understand how something as basic as this has not surfaced before? They've been 'consulting' on this M4 extension for fifteen years that I know of and now, just as a decision is taken, a major negative impact comes to light.
There is a first time for everything and this is the first time I can say I totally agree with Llanmartinangel!!! Well this has made my day!
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Am I the only one who cannot understand how something as basic as this has not surfaced before? They've been 'consulting' on this M4 extension for fifteen years that I know of and now, just as a decision is taken, a major negative impact comes to light.[/p][/quote]There is a first time for everything and this is the first time I can say I totally agree with Llanmartinangel!!! Well this has made my day! altom23
  • Score: 8

2:05pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Stevenboy says...

altom23 wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Am I the only one who cannot understand how something as basic as this has not surfaced before? They've been 'consulting' on this M4 extension for fifteen years that I know of and now, just as a decision is taken, a major negative impact comes to light.
There is a first time for everything and this is the first time I can say I totally agree with Llanmartinangel!!! Well this has made my day!
Blessed are they who see the light lol. Shame WAG didn't.
[quote][p][bold]altom23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: Am I the only one who cannot understand how something as basic as this has not surfaced before? They've been 'consulting' on this M4 extension for fifteen years that I know of and now, just as a decision is taken, a major negative impact comes to light.[/p][/quote]There is a first time for everything and this is the first time I can say I totally agree with Llanmartinangel!!! Well this has made my day![/p][/quote]Blessed are they who see the light lol. Shame WAG didn't. Stevenboy
  • Score: 7

2:56pm Sat 19 Jul 14

hamiltonman85 says...

No matter which route they take it's going to cause similar problems. Money talks though so I expect they'll accept certain losses, a real shame for those in the way.
No matter which route they take it's going to cause similar problems. Money talks though so I expect they'll accept certain losses, a real shame for those in the way. hamiltonman85
  • Score: 5

3:12pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Stan Edwards says...

Welcome to the United States of Myopia and the wierd and wonderful world of distracting spurious argument.
ABP will put forward their argument but have been known to manage their ports in their best interest at will. Additionally what makes people think that argument has not been considered. After all ABP had the means of putting their comments along with antone else. Possibly this is just the first marker of ABP to make sure that they get full compensation for property taken at the appropriate time - and so they should and will.
Take a step back for a moment and remember why the 'black route' is the optimum. All other routes reinforce the status quo of congestion and constraints to/from, through, in/out of Newport. The micro economic (and temporary) negative impact on the docks has to be weighed against the massive macro economic benefits of the 'black route' not only on Wales but on the operation of the docks itself in terms of general accessibilty and convenience.
Make no bones about it ABP will be the first to grizzle and alter its operations (even out of Newport) should Newport, in the coming years become so congested and constrained without the 'black route' so as to make Newport Docks become operationall unviable anyway.
The loss of the quayside is a matter of compensation.
The bridge is a matter of design, operational changes and compensation, perhaps a combination of all.
No, it should be easily be demonstrated that there is an overriding and compelling case in the public interest for the 'black route' to proceed as soon as possible.
Better a reduced and more economically effective and viable docks than no docks at all.
Good decision.
Bring it on!
Welcome to the United States of Myopia and the wierd and wonderful world of distracting spurious argument. ABP will put forward their argument but have been known to manage their ports in their best interest at will. Additionally what makes people think that argument has not been considered. After all ABP had the means of putting their comments along with antone else. Possibly this is just the first marker of ABP to make sure that they get full compensation for property taken at the appropriate time - and so they should and will. Take a step back for a moment and remember why the 'black route' is the optimum. All other routes reinforce the status quo of congestion and constraints to/from, through, in/out of Newport. The micro economic (and temporary) negative impact on the docks has to be weighed against the massive macro economic benefits of the 'black route' not only on Wales but on the operation of the docks itself in terms of general accessibilty and convenience. Make no bones about it ABP will be the first to grizzle and alter its operations (even out of Newport) should Newport, in the coming years become so congested and constrained without the 'black route' so as to make Newport Docks become operationall unviable anyway. The loss of the quayside is a matter of compensation. The bridge is a matter of design, operational changes and compensation, perhaps a combination of all. No, it should be easily be demonstrated that there is an overriding and compelling case in the public interest for the 'black route' to proceed as soon as possible. Better a reduced and more economically effective and viable docks than no docks at all. Good decision. Bring it on! Stan Edwards
  • Score: -7

4:16pm Sat 19 Jul 14

landyman3030 says...

Cardiff Dock has no coal facility and much has been taken over by the barrage beautification process.
I wholeheartedly agree that an efficient port is better than no port but without cargo facilities and tenants there is no docks.
People say bridges and tunnels will overcome issues but also put the costs up astronomically. This route is priced at 1 BILLION POUNDS. You can put another 40% on that in 8 years.
Much of the ports cargo is run by rail freight. Access to the docks concerning the M4 is minute.
As to this wonderful road system that is going to open up amazing business opportunities for Wales bringing in shovelfulls of cash for all, remember one thing.
The Brynglas tunnels bottleneck is annoying to many M4 users and does slow up business delivery times. But the real blockage to Wales is the bridge tolls. That and the fact that drivers taco graph rules all deliveries. All the major distribution centres are on the M5 for a reason. They can service the entire country from there without paying the bridge. They have no reason to come to Wales. It will get the traffic past Newport marginally quicker but that works both ways. What can come into Wales can also leave quicker. Much thought and planning needs to go into this scheme. Neither of which the WAG is known for.
Cardiff Dock has no coal facility and much has been taken over by the barrage beautification process. I wholeheartedly agree that an efficient port is better than no port but without cargo facilities and tenants there is no docks. People say bridges and tunnels will overcome issues but also put the costs up astronomically. This route is priced at 1 BILLION POUNDS. You can put another 40% on that in 8 years. Much of the ports cargo is run by rail freight. Access to the docks concerning the M4 is minute. As to this wonderful road system that is going to open up amazing business opportunities for Wales bringing in shovelfulls of cash for all, remember one thing. The Brynglas tunnels bottleneck is annoying to many M4 users and does slow up business delivery times. But the real blockage to Wales is the bridge tolls. That and the fact that drivers taco graph rules all deliveries. All the major distribution centres are on the M5 for a reason. They can service the entire country from there without paying the bridge. They have no reason to come to Wales. It will get the traffic past Newport marginally quicker but that works both ways. What can come into Wales can also leave quicker. Much thought and planning needs to go into this scheme. Neither of which the WAG is known for. landyman3030
  • Score: 13

5:20pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

What a tic. I thought this road was going to be a panacea for business. And now there's a threat that our local docks will go the way of our local coalmine? Just because of a road?

Didn't so many posters on here just the other day say "hurry up and build it?" And now some are talking of shelling out even more money for a route or bridge that won't affect the docks?

I don't understand why they aren't posting anymore. Maybe they don't want to make any comment. . . much like Edwina Hart and the rest of the Welsh Government when faced with these kind of questions. Now because of this. . what will happen is that the issue of the road will go back into committee meeting after committee meeting. . .and more studies will be done. . and because the whole thing was rushed through now, any alternatives and options won't be decided for more than half a decade.

And all because people just drive way too fast on the M4. Shame.
What a tic. I thought this road was going to be a panacea for business. And now there's a threat that our local docks will go the way of our local coalmine? Just because of a road? Didn't so many posters on here just the other day say "hurry up and build it?" And now some are talking of shelling out even more money for a route or bridge that won't affect the docks? I don't understand why they aren't posting anymore. Maybe they don't want to make any comment. . . much like Edwina Hart and the rest of the Welsh Government when faced with these kind of questions. Now because of this. . what will happen is that the issue of the road will go back into committee meeting after committee meeting. . .and more studies will be done. . and because the whole thing was rushed through now, any alternatives and options won't be decided for more than half a decade. And all because people just drive way too fast on the M4. Shame. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -4

5:48pm Sat 19 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

It doesn't matter which route they chose they would face all these comments from those who are negatively affected by the route.

There are a lot more people whose homes, businesses and schools would be affected by the blue route, or even the other two options, which is why the black route is much better for the people of Newport.

I don't think anything more needs to be said - PA you keep ranting about this but never introduce anything new to the equation. How about answering three simple questions;

1) is it sensible to pick the route with the most expansion potential or the least?

2) is it sensible to pick the route with the most disruption to the people of Newport or the least?

3) is it sensible to pick the route with the most people affected or the least?
It doesn't matter which route they chose they would face all these comments from those who are negatively affected by the route. There are a lot more people whose homes, businesses and schools would be affected by the blue route, or even the other two options, which is why the black route is much better for the people of Newport. I don't think anything more needs to be said - PA you keep ranting about this but never introduce anything new to the equation. How about answering three simple questions; 1) is it sensible to pick the route with the most expansion potential or the least? 2) is it sensible to pick the route with the most disruption to the people of Newport or the least? 3) is it sensible to pick the route with the most people affected or the least? mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sat 19 Jul 14

On the inside says...

Stan Edwards wrote:
Welcome to the United States of Myopia and the wierd and wonderful world of distracting spurious argument.
ABP will put forward their argument but have been known to manage their ports in their best interest at will. Additionally what makes people think that argument has not been considered. After all ABP had the means of putting their comments along with antone else. Possibly this is just the first marker of ABP to make sure that they get full compensation for property taken at the appropriate time - and so they should and will.
Take a step back for a moment and remember why the 'black route' is the optimum. All other routes reinforce the status quo of congestion and constraints to/from, through, in/out of Newport. The micro economic (and temporary) negative impact on the docks has to be weighed against the massive macro economic benefits of the 'black route' not only on Wales but on the operation of the docks itself in terms of general accessibilty and convenience.
Make no bones about it ABP will be the first to grizzle and alter its operations (even out of Newport) should Newport, in the coming years become so congested and constrained without the 'black route' so as to make Newport Docks become operationall unviable anyway.
The loss of the quayside is a matter of compensation.
The bridge is a matter of design, operational changes and compensation, perhaps a combination of all.
No, it should be easily be demonstrated that there is an overriding and compelling case in the public interest for the 'black route' to proceed as soon as possible.
Better a reduced and more economically effective and viable docks than no docks at all.
Good decision.
Bring it on!
100% correct.

ABP have history all around the country. If there is any significant planning issue within 10 miles of 'their' port they against it. Unless they thought of it of course when they want it agreed without debate. They objected to a new IKEA store in Southampton as it might increase traffic flow around the ABP dock gate (94% of everything IKEA sells in the UK comes through that gate!).

This is just their first salvo in an attempt to get millions of pounds of your money in inflated and spurious compensation claims.

As for the port closing, that port will close when ABP **** well says it will. Not before and not after. They decide what happens to their profit center not scum like us.
[quote][p][bold]Stan Edwards[/bold] wrote: Welcome to the United States of Myopia and the wierd and wonderful world of distracting spurious argument. ABP will put forward their argument but have been known to manage their ports in their best interest at will. Additionally what makes people think that argument has not been considered. After all ABP had the means of putting their comments along with antone else. Possibly this is just the first marker of ABP to make sure that they get full compensation for property taken at the appropriate time - and so they should and will. Take a step back for a moment and remember why the 'black route' is the optimum. All other routes reinforce the status quo of congestion and constraints to/from, through, in/out of Newport. The micro economic (and temporary) negative impact on the docks has to be weighed against the massive macro economic benefits of the 'black route' not only on Wales but on the operation of the docks itself in terms of general accessibilty and convenience. Make no bones about it ABP will be the first to grizzle and alter its operations (even out of Newport) should Newport, in the coming years become so congested and constrained without the 'black route' so as to make Newport Docks become operationall unviable anyway. The loss of the quayside is a matter of compensation. The bridge is a matter of design, operational changes and compensation, perhaps a combination of all. No, it should be easily be demonstrated that there is an overriding and compelling case in the public interest for the 'black route' to proceed as soon as possible. Better a reduced and more economically effective and viable docks than no docks at all. Good decision. Bring it on![/p][/quote]100% correct. ABP have history all around the country. If there is any significant planning issue within 10 miles of 'their' port they against it. Unless they thought of it of course when they want it agreed without debate. They objected to a new IKEA store in Southampton as it might increase traffic flow around the ABP dock gate (94% of everything IKEA sells in the UK comes through that gate!). This is just their first salvo in an attempt to get millions of pounds of your money in inflated and spurious compensation claims. As for the port closing, that port will close when ABP **** well says it will. Not before and not after. They decide what happens to their profit center not scum like us. On the inside
  • Score: 2

5:55pm Sat 19 Jul 14

On the inside says...

Forgot to say. Well done Argus for printing every word from ABP's press release as fact. Was it delivered in a brown envelope by any chance?
Forgot to say. Well done Argus for printing every word from ABP's press release as fact. Was it delivered in a brown envelope by any chance? On the inside
  • Score: 4

6:17pm Sat 19 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

Everyone is banging on pro/anti as if this road is actually going to happen? Just depands which way Terry Mathews jerks Edwinas chain.
Everyone is banging on pro/anti as if this road is actually going to happen? Just depands which way Terry Mathews jerks Edwinas chain. KarloMarko
  • Score: 6

6:38pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
It doesn't matter which route they chose they would face all these comments from those who are negatively affected by the route.

There are a lot more people whose homes, businesses and schools would be affected by the blue route, or even the other two options, which is why the black route is much better for the people of Newport.

I don't think anything more needs to be said - PA you keep ranting about this but never introduce anything new to the equation. How about answering three simple questions;

1) is it sensible to pick the route with the most expansion potential or the least?

2) is it sensible to pick the route with the most disruption to the people of Newport or the least?

3) is it sensible to pick the route with the most people affected or the least?
MKA. . you've responded like fish to a hook. And because I'm not one to avoid questions, I'll be happy to answer yours.

1) Is it sensible to pick the route with most expansion potential? First off the Black Route doesn't necessarily offer that. In fact, I would say it offers the least, since it does nothing to answer the issue of increased railway and other public transportation demands all too important in the next quarter century. All it does is build a new bypass and you have to pray that it's the right thing.

But I ain't done. It's not sensible because it will be way too much money, won't be delivered soon, harm local businesses, and that's to say nothing about what it will do to the local environment. Newport should be a 21st century city. We should consider 21st century options.

2) All options will cause disruption. I would argue we should choose the option with least controversy. Cutting an enormous highway bypass will cause enormous disruption and will last for years. The money it will take causes enormous disruption and takes away from other public infrastructure projects that would benefit the region.

3) That's the same question as two, innit? But again. . .that money saved could go toward improving infrastructure in a less evasive way. To build a bypass just because some people want to drive like maniacs along the M4 is not a reason to spend £1 billion.

Besides kiddo. . . it ain't gonna happen. I mean just look at the backlash just after two days. The "tree huggers" that you hate haven't even started yet. Wait until the environmental reports start coming in. . and then the lawsuits. You really think it'll be £1 billion? You really think it'll get finished by 2022? When transportation experts suggest a quicker, more practical alternative. . . I know what option I'll back!
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: It doesn't matter which route they chose they would face all these comments from those who are negatively affected by the route. There are a lot more people whose homes, businesses and schools would be affected by the blue route, or even the other two options, which is why the black route is much better for the people of Newport. I don't think anything more needs to be said - PA you keep ranting about this but never introduce anything new to the equation. How about answering three simple questions; 1) is it sensible to pick the route with the most expansion potential or the least? 2) is it sensible to pick the route with the most disruption to the people of Newport or the least? 3) is it sensible to pick the route with the most people affected or the least?[/p][/quote]MKA. . you've responded like fish to a hook. And because I'm not one to avoid questions, I'll be happy to answer yours. 1) Is it sensible to pick the route with most expansion potential? First off the Black Route doesn't necessarily offer that. In fact, I would say it offers the least, since it does nothing to answer the issue of increased railway and other public transportation demands all too important in the next quarter century. All it does is build a new bypass and you have to pray that it's the right thing. But I ain't done. It's not sensible because it will be way too much money, won't be delivered soon, harm local businesses, and that's to say nothing about what it will do to the local environment. Newport should be a 21st century city. We should consider 21st century options. 2) All options will cause disruption. I would argue we should choose the option with least controversy. Cutting an enormous highway bypass will cause enormous disruption and will last for years. The money it will take causes enormous disruption and takes away from other public infrastructure projects that would benefit the region. 3) That's the same question as two, innit? But again. . .that money saved could go toward improving infrastructure in a less evasive way. To build a bypass just because some people want to drive like maniacs along the M4 is not a reason to spend £1 billion. Besides kiddo. . . it ain't gonna happen. I mean just look at the backlash just after two days. The "tree huggers" that you hate haven't even started yet. Wait until the environmental reports start coming in. . and then the lawsuits. You really think it'll be £1 billion? You really think it'll get finished by 2022? When transportation experts suggest a quicker, more practical alternative. . . I know what option I'll back! Paxman's Army
  • Score: 2

6:55pm Sat 19 Jul 14

b3talover says...

M5 Avonmouth?
M5 Avonmouth? b3talover
  • Score: 1

6:55pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Magor says...

Will the docks be there in 2022? I see very few ships there these days.I don't think any coal is imported as it comes into Avonmouth and Uskmouth Power Stn has closed.There may not be any steel by then as Llanwern may have gone
Will the docks be there in 2022? I see very few ships there these days.I don't think any coal is imported as it comes into Avonmouth and Uskmouth Power Stn has closed.There may not be any steel by then as Llanwern may have gone Magor
  • Score: -4

7:24pm Sat 19 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
It doesn't matter which route they chose they would face all these comments from those who are negatively affected by the route.

There are a lot more people whose homes, businesses and schools would be affected by the blue route, or even the other two options, which is why the black route is much better for the people of Newport.

I don't think anything more needs to be said - PA you keep ranting about this but never introduce anything new to the equation. How about answering three simple questions;

1) is it sensible to pick the route with the most expansion potential or the least?

2) is it sensible to pick the route with the most disruption to the people of Newport or the least?

3) is it sensible to pick the route with the most people affected or the least?
MKA. . you've responded like fish to a hook. And because I'm not one to avoid questions, I'll be happy to answer yours.

1) Is it sensible to pick the route with most expansion potential? First off the Black Route doesn't necessarily offer that. In fact, I would say it offers the least, since it does nothing to answer the issue of increased railway and other public transportation demands all too important in the next quarter century. All it does is build a new bypass and you have to pray that it's the right thing.

But I ain't done. It's not sensible because it will be way too much money, won't be delivered soon, harm local businesses, and that's to say nothing about what it will do to the local environment. Newport should be a 21st century city. We should consider 21st century options.

2) All options will cause disruption. I would argue we should choose the option with least controversy. Cutting an enormous highway bypass will cause enormous disruption and will last for years. The money it will take causes enormous disruption and takes away from other public infrastructure projects that would benefit the region.

3) That's the same question as two, innit? But again. . .that money saved could go toward improving infrastructure in a less evasive way. To build a bypass just because some people want to drive like maniacs along the M4 is not a reason to spend £1 billion.

Besides kiddo. . . it ain't gonna happen. I mean just look at the backlash just after two days. The "tree huggers" that you hate haven't even started yet. Wait until the environmental reports start coming in. . and then the lawsuits. You really think it'll be £1 billion? You really think it'll get finished by 2022? When transportation experts suggest a quicker, more practical alternative. . . I know what option I'll back!
So basically you've admitted to trolling, PA? Fair enough. Also you clearly know nothing about fishing - the fish responds to the bait, not the hook...

1) The black route offers by far the most expansion potential for the stated purpose which is to increase road traffic. You may as well claim it doesn't increase air passenger capacity - of course it doesn't, it's a *road*.

2) you really think that upgrading the SDR and basically cutting off the entire bottom end of Newport for *five years* is less disruptive than building a new road? There's no logic in there at all.

3) I'm assuming you mean "less invasive" rather than "less evasive"? The Black route is the least invasive upgrade for the people of Newport. It minimises disruption to the maximum number of people.

So: most expansion potential, biggest chance of working, least invasive, least disruption. Most expensive, takes the longest - that's the price you pay for the best option.

Oh, and you keep implying there would be less legal ramifications if they'd chosen the blue route which would have cut across the link between at least one major school and half of its catchment areas, would disrupt business at Spytty, would require serious engineering works around the Transporter Bridge - the legal ramifications are much worse round there than the Black Route (something you're very careful not to bring up).

1bn and done by 2022? Maybe not. But better than 400m but never built because of legal challenges from schools, residents and businesses of Newport.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: It doesn't matter which route they chose they would face all these comments from those who are negatively affected by the route. There are a lot more people whose homes, businesses and schools would be affected by the blue route, or even the other two options, which is why the black route is much better for the people of Newport. I don't think anything more needs to be said - PA you keep ranting about this but never introduce anything new to the equation. How about answering three simple questions; 1) is it sensible to pick the route with the most expansion potential or the least? 2) is it sensible to pick the route with the most disruption to the people of Newport or the least? 3) is it sensible to pick the route with the most people affected or the least?[/p][/quote]MKA. . you've responded like fish to a hook. And because I'm not one to avoid questions, I'll be happy to answer yours. 1) Is it sensible to pick the route with most expansion potential? First off the Black Route doesn't necessarily offer that. In fact, I would say it offers the least, since it does nothing to answer the issue of increased railway and other public transportation demands all too important in the next quarter century. All it does is build a new bypass and you have to pray that it's the right thing. But I ain't done. It's not sensible because it will be way too much money, won't be delivered soon, harm local businesses, and that's to say nothing about what it will do to the local environment. Newport should be a 21st century city. We should consider 21st century options. 2) All options will cause disruption. I would argue we should choose the option with least controversy. Cutting an enormous highway bypass will cause enormous disruption and will last for years. The money it will take causes enormous disruption and takes away from other public infrastructure projects that would benefit the region. 3) That's the same question as two, innit? But again. . .that money saved could go toward improving infrastructure in a less evasive way. To build a bypass just because some people want to drive like maniacs along the M4 is not a reason to spend £1 billion. Besides kiddo. . . it ain't gonna happen. I mean just look at the backlash just after two days. The "tree huggers" that you hate haven't even started yet. Wait until the environmental reports start coming in. . and then the lawsuits. You really think it'll be £1 billion? You really think it'll get finished by 2022? When transportation experts suggest a quicker, more practical alternative. . . I know what option I'll back![/p][/quote]So basically you've admitted to trolling, PA? Fair enough. Also you clearly know nothing about fishing - the fish responds to the bait, not the hook... 1) The black route offers by far the most expansion potential for the stated purpose which is to increase road traffic. You may as well claim it doesn't increase air passenger capacity - of course it doesn't, it's a *road*. 2) you really think that upgrading the SDR and basically cutting off the entire bottom end of Newport for *five years* is less disruptive than building a new road? There's no logic in there at all. 3) I'm assuming you mean "less invasive" rather than "less evasive"? The Black route is the least invasive upgrade for the people of Newport. It minimises disruption to the maximum number of people. So: most expansion potential, biggest chance of working, least invasive, least disruption. Most expensive, takes the longest - that's the price you pay for the best option. Oh, and you keep implying there would be less legal ramifications if they'd chosen the blue route which would have cut across the link between at least one major school and half of its catchment areas, would disrupt business at Spytty, would require serious engineering works around the Transporter Bridge - the legal ramifications are much worse round there than the Black Route (something you're very careful not to bring up). 1bn and done by 2022? Maybe not. But better than 400m but never built because of legal challenges from schools, residents and businesses of Newport. mkaibear1
  • Score: 5

7:57pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA. Gotcha. You keep coming back too. Must be because I've caught more walleyes than you kiddo.

1) You're right. . it IS a road. A £1 billion road that goes only a couple miles.

2) I think improving infrastructure logically, practically and taking in the economic and environmental concerns with equal seriousness before rushing into any decisions saves time and money in the end.

3) I believe upgrading Newport rather that creating a bypass around it is a good idea yes.

And you are telling me it WILL be more than £1 billion after all? Holy Waste Of Cash, Batman! Do you have any concept of how MUCH money you're talking about???

Trolling for more walleye,
The Army
MKA. Gotcha. You keep coming back too. Must be because I've caught more walleyes than you kiddo. 1) You're right. . it IS a road. A £1 billion road that goes only a couple miles. 2) I think improving infrastructure logically, practically and taking in the economic and environmental concerns with equal seriousness before rushing into any decisions saves time and money in the end. 3) I believe upgrading Newport rather that creating a bypass around it is a good idea yes. And you are telling me it WILL be more than £1 billion after all? Holy Waste Of Cash, Batman! Do you have any concept of how MUCH money you're talking about??? Trolling for more walleye, The Army Paxman's Army
  • Score: -4

8:04pm Sat 19 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

What can I say? You provide me with endless entertainment, it's like reading failblog.

1) which just happens to be the best option for the m4 relief road - as you appear to have conceded. No more comments about the blue route? Thought not...

2) except you don't. You push for a "relief road" which will not fulfil the project aims and then when called on it you claim you meant that any road would be a bad idea. Why didn't you start by claiming that?

3) "upgrading". Really? Upgrading. 5 years of misery for residents to put a road in the wrong place which won't work and can't be expanded to work. Not what I would consider upgrading.

Oh, and you *still* can't understand the difference between an absolute and a possibility. I do suggest you go and brush up on your grammar old chap.
What can I say? You provide me with endless entertainment, it's like reading failblog. 1) which just happens to be the best option for the m4 relief road - as you appear to have conceded. No more comments about the blue route? Thought not... 2) except you don't. You push for a "relief road" which will not fulfil the project aims and then when called on it you claim you meant that any road would be a bad idea. Why didn't you start by claiming that? 3) "upgrading". Really? Upgrading. 5 years of misery for residents to put a road in the wrong place which won't work and can't be expanded to work. Not what I would consider upgrading. Oh, and you *still* can't understand the difference between an absolute and a possibility. I do suggest you go and brush up on your grammar old chap. mkaibear1
  • Score: 10

8:15pm Sat 19 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

Just spoken to Edwina and she's already working on Plan B...a deep eight lane tunnel right under Newport instead of a relief road. No environmental objections AND loads of mining jobs plus the chance of finding top grade Welsh coal under the new Debenhams It's a win win win.
Just spoken to Edwina and she's already working on Plan B...a deep eight lane tunnel right under Newport instead of a relief road. No environmental objections AND loads of mining jobs plus the chance of finding top grade Welsh coal under the new Debenhams It's a win win win. KarloMarko
  • Score: 12

10:16pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA. . .I'll brush up on that grammar. In fact. . . I'll take a class! But I'll need to find educated people. Hmm. I know! I'll take classes with professors and experts who have written detailed reports that maintain that the Black Route is a lousy alternative. There doesn't seem to be any shortage.

The lines out and I can feel nibbles galore,
The Army
MKA. . .I'll brush up on that grammar. In fact. . . I'll take a class! But I'll need to find educated people. Hmm. I know! I'll take classes with professors and experts who have written detailed reports that maintain that the Black Route is a lousy alternative. There doesn't seem to be any shortage. The lines out and I can feel nibbles galore, The Army Paxman's Army
  • Score: -2

10:21pm Sat 19 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. . .I'll brush up on that grammar. In fact. . . I'll take a class! But I'll need to find educated people. Hmm. I know! I'll take classes with professors and experts who have written detailed reports that maintain that the Black Route is a lousy alternative. There doesn't seem to be any shortage.

The lines out and I can feel nibbles galore,
The Army
...and yet you still can't actually give me a cogent and logical reason why the Black route is a worse alternative than the Blue route...
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. . .I'll brush up on that grammar. In fact. . . I'll take a class! But I'll need to find educated people. Hmm. I know! I'll take classes with professors and experts who have written detailed reports that maintain that the Black Route is a lousy alternative. There doesn't seem to be any shortage. The lines out and I can feel nibbles galore, The Army[/p][/quote]...and yet you still can't actually give me a cogent and logical reason why the Black route is a worse alternative than the Blue route... mkaibear1
  • Score: 1

11:14pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Sheep'n'wellies says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. . .I'll brush up on that grammar. In fact. . . I'll take a class! But I'll need to find educated people. Hmm. I know! I'll take classes with professors and experts who have written detailed reports that maintain that the Black Route is a lousy alternative. There doesn't seem to be any shortage.

The lines out and I can feel nibbles galore,
The Army
...and yet you still can't actually give me a cogent and logical reason why the Black route is a worse alternative than the Blue route...
Loving the debate chaps keep it up
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. . .I'll brush up on that grammar. In fact. . . I'll take a class! But I'll need to find educated people. Hmm. I know! I'll take classes with professors and experts who have written detailed reports that maintain that the Black Route is a lousy alternative. There doesn't seem to be any shortage. The lines out and I can feel nibbles galore, The Army[/p][/quote]...and yet you still can't actually give me a cogent and logical reason why the Black route is a worse alternative than the Blue route...[/p][/quote]Loving the debate chaps keep it up Sheep'n'wellies
  • Score: 2

12:53am Sun 20 Jul 14

Paxman's Army says...

S'great, innit?

Hey MKA. A cogent and logical reason? . . .Hmm . . besides it's too expensive, harms business, destroys the environment, that it was obviously rushed through the WAG and that the Blue Route makes more sense . . .um. Let me give it a ponder. OH I've got a good reason! How about . .it's supported by people who say "Wildlife do better on Motorway verges than in Nature Reserves." I loved that one! Didn't you?

MKA. . .sorry for winning this argument. .better lwc next time.
S'great, innit? Hey MKA. A cogent and logical reason? . . .Hmm . . besides it's too expensive, harms business, destroys the environment, that it was obviously rushed through the WAG and that the Blue Route makes more sense . . .um. Let me give it a ponder. OH I've got a good reason! How about . .it's supported by people who say "Wildlife do better on Motorway verges than in Nature Reserves." I loved that one! Didn't you? MKA. . .sorry for winning this argument. .better lwc next time. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -4

1:13am Sun 20 Jul 14

Robert Shillabeer says...

Just a few miles East of Newport stands the second Severn crossing, an achievement in engineering right on the door step, so design is not a problem. The hardest piece of the proposed new section of motorway is clearly the section through the dock area as the rest is next to industrial land anyway. Just examine the maps and you will see there will be very little impact on any wildlife, which is remarkably good at adapting to changes in environment as they've been doing it for millennia. There will be some congestion at the Magor end as there ain't a lot of room there. The rest of the route is quit straight forward until you reach the Usk and the docks. Build the flyover high enough, just like the bridge at Briton Ferry and the Avanmouth bridge on the M5 and there is not much problem at Newport docks, anyway two additional cranes to cover the affected dock isn't that hard to provide and actually reduces the workload on the cranes as there would be two new ones to play with. The arguments being put forward against the route is too me simply trying to throw a spanner into the works by those who have list the argument anyway or simply trying to maximize any compensation that specific organization want, as is the case ABP who had been very quiet about this up until last week.
Just a few miles East of Newport stands the second Severn crossing, an achievement in engineering right on the door step, so design is not a problem. The hardest piece of the proposed new section of motorway is clearly the section through the dock area as the rest is next to industrial land anyway. Just examine the maps and you will see there will be very little impact on any wildlife, which is remarkably good at adapting to changes in environment as they've been doing it for millennia. There will be some congestion at the Magor end as there ain't a lot of room there. The rest of the route is quit straight forward until you reach the Usk and the docks. Build the flyover high enough, just like the bridge at Briton Ferry and the Avanmouth bridge on the M5 and there is not much problem at Newport docks, anyway two additional cranes to cover the affected dock isn't that hard to provide and actually reduces the workload on the cranes as there would be two new ones to play with. The arguments being put forward against the route is too me simply trying to throw a spanner into the works by those who have list the argument anyway or simply trying to maximize any compensation that specific organization want, as is the case ABP who had been very quiet about this up until last week. Robert Shillabeer
  • Score: 3

8:21am Sun 20 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
S'great, innit?

Hey MKA. A cogent and logical reason? . . .Hmm . . besides it's too expensive, harms business, destroys the environment, that it was obviously rushed through the WAG and that the Blue Route makes more sense . . .um. Let me give it a ponder. OH I've got a good reason! How about . .it's supported by people who say "Wildlife do better on Motorway verges than in Nature Reserves." I loved that one! Didn't you?

MKA. . .sorry for winning this argument. .better lwc next time.
Regurgitating the usual rubbish PA?

Too expensive? Compared to wasting the money on the blue route which will not work?

Harms business? Compared to the blue route which will disrupt many more businesses?

Obviously rushed through? Does WAG ever rush? Half of your posts have been about how slowly they work. Can we have a little consistency?

Blue route makes more sense? The worse for business, more disruptive, unexpandable route makes more sense? Sorry PA you're talking nonsense.

To address your two genuine concerns: 1) the blue route may cost less in the short term but because of its disruption and the fact that it's unexpandable it means that it's not fit for purpose. A different route will have to be found anyway and that will end up costing more (and wasting the 400m spent on the blue route)

2) the environmental impact is worse than the blue route. There's no two ways about it, putting a line through the SSSIs is going to damage the environment. The question then becomes "is the cost worth the benefits" - I think it is, you think it isn't - well I doubt we're going to agree on that.

To sum up;

Black route: more expandable, less disruption, fit for purpose, better for the majority of people, worse for the environment, more expensive.
Blue route: less expensive, better for the environment, can't be expanded, worse for the majority of people, more disruption, not fit for purpose.

Sorry but I choose the expensive option which will work over the cheaper option which won't. Upgrading the blue route is a waste of money, time and will disrupt people's lives for no benefit.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: S'great, innit? Hey MKA. A cogent and logical reason? . . .Hmm . . besides it's too expensive, harms business, destroys the environment, that it was obviously rushed through the WAG and that the Blue Route makes more sense . . .um. Let me give it a ponder. OH I've got a good reason! How about . .it's supported by people who say "Wildlife do better on Motorway verges than in Nature Reserves." I loved that one! Didn't you? MKA. . .sorry for winning this argument. .better lwc next time.[/p][/quote]Regurgitating the usual rubbish PA? Too expensive? Compared to wasting the money on the blue route which will not work? Harms business? Compared to the blue route which will disrupt many more businesses? Obviously rushed through? Does WAG ever rush? Half of your posts have been about how slowly they work. Can we have a little consistency? Blue route makes more sense? The worse for business, more disruptive, unexpandable route makes more sense? Sorry PA you're talking nonsense. To address your two genuine concerns: 1) the blue route may cost less in the short term but because of its disruption and the fact that it's unexpandable it means that it's not fit for purpose. A different route will have to be found anyway and that will end up costing more (and wasting the 400m spent on the blue route) 2) the environmental impact is worse than the blue route. There's no two ways about it, putting a line through the SSSIs is going to damage the environment. The question then becomes "is the cost worth the benefits" - I think it is, you think it isn't - well I doubt we're going to agree on that. To sum up; Black route: more expandable, less disruption, fit for purpose, better for the majority of people, worse for the environment, more expensive. Blue route: less expensive, better for the environment, can't be expanded, worse for the majority of people, more disruption, not fit for purpose. Sorry but I choose the expensive option which will work over the cheaper option which won't. Upgrading the blue route is a waste of money, time and will disrupt people's lives for no benefit. mkaibear1
  • Score: 4

9:27am Sun 20 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

Great news! Edwina has worked through the night and come up with a Plan C....Move Newport!
Great news! Edwina has worked through the night and come up with a Plan C....Move Newport! KarloMarko
  • Score: 6

10:43am Sun 20 Jul 14

Bobevans says...

landyman3030 wrote:
They were taking soil samples and the like 15 years ago. The new road was supposed to be raised over the dock to allow shipping, cargo operations and crane movements to be unhindered. Two one hundred foot high harbour mobile cranes regularly travel around the dock for cargo. Without the mobile facility of these cranes it would seriously reduce the ports cargo viability. If the ships can't get discharged it's not just the stevedores who lose work. It's the crane drivers, plant operators, fitters, electricians, signalmen, train operators, lorry drivers, warehouse operators and supporting administration staff in Engineering, Operation and Safety who all lose out. Then you've got the hundreds of companies who supply these people. Then you have the port tenants who occupy hundreds of acres of land for their own businesses. Many will have their quayside areas cut in half and workshop/storage facilities removed. Many local people work in this environment. This is bad news for Newport.
Seem about par for the WAG choose the worst possible option for the route
[quote][p][bold]landyman3030[/bold] wrote: They were taking soil samples and the like 15 years ago. The new road was supposed to be raised over the dock to allow shipping, cargo operations and crane movements to be unhindered. Two one hundred foot high harbour mobile cranes regularly travel around the dock for cargo. Without the mobile facility of these cranes it would seriously reduce the ports cargo viability. If the ships can't get discharged it's not just the stevedores who lose work. It's the crane drivers, plant operators, fitters, electricians, signalmen, train operators, lorry drivers, warehouse operators and supporting administration staff in Engineering, Operation and Safety who all lose out. Then you've got the hundreds of companies who supply these people. Then you have the port tenants who occupy hundreds of acres of land for their own businesses. Many will have their quayside areas cut in half and workshop/storage facilities removed. Many local people work in this environment. This is bad news for Newport.[/p][/quote]Seem about par for the WAG choose the worst possible option for the route Bobevans
  • Score: -1

12:39pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Jack Land says...

Why can't they simply build a taller bridge? there's no reason why it can't be raised to go over the essential dock areas so as to not impeede current dock workings. Has anyone ever seen the motorway bridges in and around the alps? Building bridges clearly pose no problems for us
Why can't they simply build a taller bridge? there's no reason why it can't be raised to go over the essential dock areas so as to not impeede current dock workings. Has anyone ever seen the motorway bridges in and around the alps? Building bridges clearly pose no problems for us Jack Land
  • Score: 5

1:01pm Sun 20 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Bobevans wrote:
landyman3030 wrote:
They were taking soil samples and the like 15 years ago. The new road was supposed to be raised over the dock to allow shipping, cargo operations and crane movements to be unhindered. Two one hundred foot high harbour mobile cranes regularly travel around the dock for cargo. Without the mobile facility of these cranes it would seriously reduce the ports cargo viability. If the ships can't get discharged it's not just the stevedores who lose work. It's the crane drivers, plant operators, fitters, electricians, signalmen, train operators, lorry drivers, warehouse operators and supporting administration staff in Engineering, Operation and Safety who all lose out. Then you've got the hundreds of companies who supply these people. Then you have the port tenants who occupy hundreds of acres of land for their own businesses. Many will have their quayside areas cut in half and workshop/storage facilities removed. Many local people work in this environment. This is bad news for Newport.
Seem about par for the WAG choose the worst possible option for the route
Worst possible option for the route apart from all the other mooted options, you mean?
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]landyman3030[/bold] wrote: They were taking soil samples and the like 15 years ago. The new road was supposed to be raised over the dock to allow shipping, cargo operations and crane movements to be unhindered. Two one hundred foot high harbour mobile cranes regularly travel around the dock for cargo. Without the mobile facility of these cranes it would seriously reduce the ports cargo viability. If the ships can't get discharged it's not just the stevedores who lose work. It's the crane drivers, plant operators, fitters, electricians, signalmen, train operators, lorry drivers, warehouse operators and supporting administration staff in Engineering, Operation and Safety who all lose out. Then you've got the hundreds of companies who supply these people. Then you have the port tenants who occupy hundreds of acres of land for their own businesses. Many will have their quayside areas cut in half and workshop/storage facilities removed. Many local people work in this environment. This is bad news for Newport.[/p][/quote]Seem about par for the WAG choose the worst possible option for the route[/p][/quote]Worst possible option for the route apart from all the other mooted options, you mean? mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Sun 20 Jul 14

DavidMclean says...

Smart move! Build a road that stops the MAJORITY of vessels entering Newport docks.

Way to go planners! Another triumph! Perhaps for an encore you can think of another way to cripple some more key businesses and infrastructure.
Smart move! Build a road that stops the MAJORITY of vessels entering Newport docks. Way to go planners! Another triumph! Perhaps for an encore you can think of another way to cripple some more key businesses and infrastructure. DavidMclean
  • Score: 1

1:42pm Sun 20 Jul 14

DavidMclean says...

I think they should concrete over the docks and build a few new Tesco Extras. Newport doesn't have nearly enough of those.
I think they should concrete over the docks and build a few new Tesco Extras. Newport doesn't have nearly enough of those. DavidMclean
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Sun 20 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

DavidMclean wrote:
Smart move! Build a road that stops the MAJORITY of vessels entering Newport docks.

Way to go planners! Another triumph! Perhaps for an encore you can think of another way to cripple some more key businesses and infrastructure.
Ah yes, like the Blue route which will cripple every business between the Spytty retail park and the M4.

Oh and you need to reread the article. It would stop 60% of vessels entering the north dock but makes no comment about vessels entering the south dock (which is a lot bigger) - so characterising it as a majority of vessels is inferring from insufficient information...
[quote][p][bold]DavidMclean[/bold] wrote: Smart move! Build a road that stops the MAJORITY of vessels entering Newport docks. Way to go planners! Another triumph! Perhaps for an encore you can think of another way to cripple some more key businesses and infrastructure.[/p][/quote]Ah yes, like the Blue route which will cripple every business between the Spytty retail park and the M4. Oh and you need to reread the article. It would stop 60% of vessels entering the north dock but makes no comment about vessels entering the south dock (which is a lot bigger) - so characterising it as a majority of vessels is inferring from insufficient information... mkaibear1
  • Score: 4

6:20pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Stan Edwards says...

ABP seem to assume that WG has not monitored shipping movements over a period of years . ABP were apparently offered an access road.
ABP will lever-up their compensation and throw the fear mongers into dread.
Worse than that. where the environmetal argument fails the green treens will pour into support for the micro impact on ABP to achieve their green end. We are not unaware of their devices.
This road is not needed in 8 years, but now. The environmental political bias over economic common sense kicked this much needed road into the long grass ten years ago. We must not let the myopic view of the few distract that of the majority in respect of the delivery of this road.

My greatest fear is that of the opinion of academic advisors who may have reasons to be swayed in a green way. Show me, you academics, what you have created and built (not what you have thought about and considered and got letters for) otherwise I wouldn't pay you in washers.
ABP seem to assume that WG has not monitored shipping movements over a period of years . ABP were apparently offered an access road. ABP will lever-up their compensation and throw the fear mongers into dread. Worse than that. where the environmetal argument fails the green treens will pour into support for the micro impact on ABP to achieve their green end. We are not unaware of their devices. This road is not needed in 8 years, but now. The environmental political bias over economic common sense kicked this much needed road into the long grass ten years ago. We must not let the myopic view of the few distract that of the majority in respect of the delivery of this road. My greatest fear is that of the opinion of academic advisors who may have reasons to be swayed in a green way. Show me, you academics, what you have created and built (not what you have thought about and considered and got letters for) otherwise I wouldn't pay you in washers. Stan Edwards
  • Score: -3

4:43pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

Stan Edwards wrote:
ABP seem to assume that WG has not monitored shipping movements over a period of years . ABP were apparently offered an access road.
ABP will lever-up their compensation and throw the fear mongers into dread.
Worse than that. where the environmetal argument fails the green treens will pour into support for the micro impact on ABP to achieve their green end. We are not unaware of their devices.
This road is not needed in 8 years, but now. The environmental political bias over economic common sense kicked this much needed road into the long grass ten years ago. We must not let the myopic view of the few distract that of the majority in respect of the delivery of this road.

My greatest fear is that of the opinion of academic advisors who may have reasons to be swayed in a green way. Show me, you academics, what you have created and built (not what you have thought about and considered and got letters for) otherwise I wouldn't pay you in washers.
Well Stan, you appear to loathe everyone - EXCEPT the pro black route lobby.
[quote][p][bold]Stan Edwards[/bold] wrote: ABP seem to assume that WG has not monitored shipping movements over a period of years . ABP were apparently offered an access road. ABP will lever-up their compensation and throw the fear mongers into dread. Worse than that. where the environmetal argument fails the green treens will pour into support for the micro impact on ABP to achieve their green end. We are not unaware of their devices. This road is not needed in 8 years, but now. The environmental political bias over economic common sense kicked this much needed road into the long grass ten years ago. We must not let the myopic view of the few distract that of the majority in respect of the delivery of this road. My greatest fear is that of the opinion of academic advisors who may have reasons to be swayed in a green way. Show me, you academics, what you have created and built (not what you have thought about and considered and got letters for) otherwise I wouldn't pay you in washers.[/p][/quote]Well Stan, you appear to loathe everyone - EXCEPT the pro black route lobby. Woodgnome
  • Score: 1

7:51pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Johnb72 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
It doesn't matter which route they chose they would face all these comments from those who are negatively affected by the route.

There are a lot more people whose homes, businesses and schools would be affected by the blue route, or even the other two options, which is why the black route is much better for the people of Newport.

I don't think anything more needs to be said - PA you keep ranting about this but never introduce anything new to the equation. How about answering three simple questions;

1) is it sensible to pick the route with the most expansion potential or the least?

2) is it sensible to pick the route with the most disruption to the people of Newport or the least?

3) is it sensible to pick the route with the most people affected or the least?
1. Will the black route negatively effect the people of Magor Village

2. Will the black route devastate the Gwent wetlands and multiple SSSI's.

3. Will the black route cost far more tha Wales can afford to spend on one small section of road.

4. Will the black route make any future Green incentives by the Welsh government hypocritical and pointless.

5. Did the consultation process appear a little mercurial and a bit odd leaving out propositions and not really exploring the ecological impacts to enough depth.

6. Will it give the message that the Welsh don't really give a **** about their irreplaceable valuable natural environment.

Yes,yes,yes,yes,yes,
yes. ---- simple really.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: It doesn't matter which route they chose they would face all these comments from those who are negatively affected by the route. There are a lot more people whose homes, businesses and schools would be affected by the blue route, or even the other two options, which is why the black route is much better for the people of Newport. I don't think anything more needs to be said - PA you keep ranting about this but never introduce anything new to the equation. How about answering three simple questions; 1) is it sensible to pick the route with the most expansion potential or the least? 2) is it sensible to pick the route with the most disruption to the people of Newport or the least? 3) is it sensible to pick the route with the most people affected or the least?[/p][/quote]1. Will the black route negatively effect the people of Magor Village 2. Will the black route devastate the Gwent wetlands and multiple SSSI's. 3. Will the black route cost far more tha Wales can afford to spend on one small section of road. 4. Will the black route make any future Green incentives by the Welsh government hypocritical and pointless. 5. Did the consultation process appear a little mercurial and a bit odd leaving out propositions and not really exploring the ecological impacts to enough depth. 6. Will it give the message that the Welsh don't really give a **** about their irreplaceable valuable natural environment. Yes,yes,yes,yes,yes, yes. ---- simple really. Johnb72
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Fri 25 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

1. Possibly but more or less than affecting the much larger number of people in Newport.

2. No. There will be a negative impact but claiming "devastation" is far overstating the case.

3. No. It's the only option which will work and the cost to Wales of not doing it is higher.

4. No. Green government is a balance not an absolute. This puts a balance in a different place to where you might like it - it's still a balance.

5. No.

6. No. It gives the message that Wales is reluctantly willing to sacrifice some small amount if natural resource for the benefit of the people and businesses of Wales.
1. Possibly but more or less than affecting the much larger number of people in Newport. 2. No. There will be a negative impact but claiming "devastation" is far overstating the case. 3. No. It's the only option which will work and the cost to Wales of not doing it is higher. 4. No. Green government is a balance not an absolute. This puts a balance in a different place to where you might like it - it's still a balance. 5. No. 6. No. It gives the message that Wales is reluctantly willing to sacrifice some small amount if natural resource for the benefit of the people and businesses of Wales. mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree