Plough money into roads to boost Essex business, minister told

4:00pm Thursday 28th February 2013 in Local News

Lord Green, second from right, visits Southend Airport Lord Green, second from right, visits Southend Airport

MILLIONS of pounds need to be ploughed into the A127 and A13 to open Southend up for business.

That is the view of the Essex Chamber of Commerce, which invited Government minister Stephen Green to visit the area yesterday to lobby for his support.

Lord Green, minister for trade and investment, called for the county’s companies to explore the possibility of exports and praised the impact of the revamped Southend Airport.

But he refused to condemn possible plans for a Thames estuary airport, which business and political leaders believe could devastate the local economy.

Lord Green said: “Clearly aviation capacity is a vital issue for this country and the south east in particular, and that is why the Government has commissioned an inquiry into the matter.

“I cannot comment further on that at the moment.”

The Government is facing mounting pressure to come up with a way of expanding the UK’s airport capacity in order to maintain the country’s status as an international hub.

In 2011, Lord Norman Foster’s published plans to build a four-runway airport on the Isle of Grain in Kent, adding flesh to the bones of London mayor Boris Johnson’s long-held advocacy for an estuary airport.

But council chiefs and traders in Southend, Canvey and Kent claimed it would ruin the economies of estuary towns and irrevocably damage habitats for wildlife.

Denise Rossiter, chief executive of Essex Chambers of Commerce, and Robert Leng, the chambers’ president, spent yesterday giving Lord Green a tour of flourishing businesses in Rayleigh and Southend.

But Mr Leng was insistent that sizeable sums of money needed to be invested in the county by Whitehall if it was to fulfil its potential.

He said: “There is a great opportunity in Essex - we have a lot of factors in our favour.

“However, our road infrastructure is something that needs to be improved.

“We believe investment in the A127 and A13 would do a lot to open this area up for business, and that’s what we have been telling the minister.”

Comments (35)

4:05pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Cosmo Spring says...

just don't use a plough to do it.....
just don't use a plough to do it..... Cosmo Spring

4:06pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Carnabackable says...

I think it would have to be billions, not millions.
For years, both these roads have been patched and botched, too many roundabouts, to many lights, not enough flyovers, and that's just the mere tip, of this enormous fiasco.
I think it would have to be billions, not millions. For years, both these roads have been patched and botched, too many roundabouts, to many lights, not enough flyovers, and that's just the mere tip, of this enormous fiasco. Carnabackable

4:20pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Displeased of Shoebury says...

There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed. Displeased of Shoebury

4:46pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Displeased of Shoebury wrote:
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937.
[quote][p][bold]Displeased of Shoebury[/bold] wrote: There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.[/p][/quote]There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937. Shoebury_Cyclist

4:51pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Eric the Red says...

Displeased of Shoebury wrote:
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
No such thing since 1937, mate. If you mean the (Vehicle) Excise Duty, then is the Excise Duty on booze and fags spent on the NHS?
Roads are paid for out of general taxation - both National and local (Council Tax). But I agree with you about the benefits and aid. Trouble is that this corner of Essex is all build, build, build - then people wonder why the roads are clogged up!!
[quote][p][bold]Displeased of Shoebury[/bold] wrote: There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.[/p][/quote]No such thing since 1937, mate. If you mean the (Vehicle) Excise Duty, then is the Excise Duty on booze and fags spent on the NHS? Roads are paid for out of general taxation - both National and local (Council Tax). But I agree with you about the benefits and aid. Trouble is that this corner of Essex is all build, build, build - then people wonder why the roads are clogged up!! Eric the Red

4:55pm Thu 28 Feb 13

mys842 says...

I was about to put a bet on that '1937' and 'no such thing as Road Tax' would be mentioned by cyclist. Too late :(
I was about to put a bet on that '1937' and 'no such thing as Road Tax' would be mentioned by cyclist. Too late :( mys842

5:01pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Nebs says...

When you build a new house or flat in Essex you are being given immediate access to all the infrastucture that has been built up over the years, at other peoples expense.
The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area.
When you build a new house or flat in Essex you are being given immediate access to all the infrastucture that has been built up over the years, at other peoples expense. The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area. Nebs

6:26pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Carnabackable says...

Nebs wrote:
When you build a new house or flat in Essex you are being given immediate access to all the infrastucture that has been built up over the years, at other peoples expense.
The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area.
OK so when you go on holiday, be not surprised when, at the hotel you stay at, you find that you are given a surcharge to pay for the new bathroom suites, installed before you arrived, the salaries of the extra beach patrols, due to the summer season, the charge for the Wi access on board the flight, of which were added whilst you wasn't on board.
Doh,
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: When you build a new house or flat in Essex you are being given immediate access to all the infrastucture that has been built up over the years, at other peoples expense. The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area.[/p][/quote]OK so when you go on holiday, be not surprised when, at the hotel you stay at, you find that you are given a surcharge to pay for the new bathroom suites, installed before you arrived, the salaries of the extra beach patrols, due to the summer season, the charge for the Wi access on board the flight, of which were added whilst you wasn't on board. Doh, Carnabackable

6:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Eric the Red says...

mys842 wrote:
I was about to put a bet on that '1937' and 'no such thing as Road Tax' would be mentioned by cyclist. Too late :(
But I'm a motorist who's just paid £220 to keep his 40 year old classic in the garage and drive it about 400 miles a year - does that give me extra rights or something? A friend of mine has a VW Polo Blue Motion and pays zero VED for driving 10,000 a year....that's life.
[quote][p][bold]mys842[/bold] wrote: I was about to put a bet on that '1937' and 'no such thing as Road Tax' would be mentioned by cyclist. Too late :([/p][/quote]But I'm a motorist who's just paid £220 to keep his 40 year old classic in the garage and drive it about 400 miles a year - does that give me extra rights or something? A friend of mine has a VW Polo Blue Motion and pays zero VED for driving 10,000 a year....that's life. Eric the Red

6:58pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:13pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Carnabackable says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Public transport, don't make me laugh, a ruddy great double decker taking 6 people to the hospital, down to collect their pensions at 10 in the morning, run them properly during the rush hours, to ferry the workers.At other times run them every 3 hours, after all it will save on costs, pollution and declog our congested roads.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Public transport, don't make me laugh, a ruddy great double decker taking 6 people to the hospital, down to collect their pensions at 10 in the morning, run them properly during the rush hours, to ferry the workers.At other times run them every 3 hours, after all it will save on costs, pollution and declog our congested roads. Carnabackable

7:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Carnabackable wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Public transport, don't make me laugh, a ruddy great double decker taking 6 people to the hospital, down to collect their pensions at 10 in the morning, run them properly during the rush hours, to ferry the workers.At other times run them every 3 hours, after all it will save on costs, pollution and declog our congested roads.
No it won't. All those bus passengers would end up using their cars instead. So instead of one bus you'd have twenty or thirty more cars on the road for every missing bus.
[quote][p][bold]Carnabackable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Public transport, don't make me laugh, a ruddy great double decker taking 6 people to the hospital, down to collect their pensions at 10 in the morning, run them properly during the rush hours, to ferry the workers.At other times run them every 3 hours, after all it will save on costs, pollution and declog our congested roads.[/p][/quote]No it won't. All those bus passengers would end up using their cars instead. So instead of one bus you'd have twenty or thirty more cars on the road for every missing bus. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:37pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Biker One says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive.
And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it? Biker One

7:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive.
And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?[/p][/quote]Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy? Shoebury_Cyclist

8:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Nebs says...

Carnabackable wrote:
Nebs wrote:
When you build a new house or flat in Essex you are being given immediate access to all the infrastucture that has been built up over the years, at other peoples expense.
The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area.
OK so when you go on holiday, be not surprised when, at the hotel you stay at, you find that you are given a surcharge to pay for the new bathroom suites, installed before you arrived, the salaries of the extra beach patrols, due to the summer season, the charge for the Wi access on board the flight, of which were added whilst you wasn't on board.
Doh,
I'm not surprised. I paid hotel tax last time I went to USA, 15%. But it did have free wifi.
Perhaps we should do the same, and maybe we could have a local VAT of 1% of everything sold in the council area that goes to the council.
[quote][p][bold]Carnabackable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: When you build a new house or flat in Essex you are being given immediate access to all the infrastucture that has been built up over the years, at other peoples expense. The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area.[/p][/quote]OK so when you go on holiday, be not surprised when, at the hotel you stay at, you find that you are given a surcharge to pay for the new bathroom suites, installed before you arrived, the salaries of the extra beach patrols, due to the summer season, the charge for the Wi access on board the flight, of which were added whilst you wasn't on board. Doh,[/p][/quote]I'm not surprised. I paid hotel tax last time I went to USA, 15%. But it did have free wifi. Perhaps we should do the same, and maybe we could have a local VAT of 1% of everything sold in the council area that goes to the council. Nebs

8:38pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Biker One says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?[/p][/quote]Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?[/p][/quote]Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy? Biker One

8:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy?

http://i1353.photobu
cket.com/albums/q672
/Forumstufftoo/Forum
%20bits/carbusbike_z
psc558190c.jpg
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?[/p][/quote]Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?[/p][/quote]Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?[/p][/quote]One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy? http://i1353.photobu cket.com/albums/q672 /Forumstufftoo/Forum %20bits/carbusbike_z psc558190c.jpg Shoebury_Cyclist

8:54pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Biker One says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?
One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy? http://i1353.photobu cket.com/albums/q672 /Forumstufftoo/Forum %20bits/carbusbike_z psc558190c.jpg
I don't care for the link you posted as you appear to be a 'Google Warrior'
So a 60 seater bus is more friendly to the environment even though it may only be carrying a couple of passengers. have you ever seen 55 out of 60 cars driving with no one at the wheel? Your analogy is faulted.
.
Please read the article again, and forget the bus argument as it's flawed. This discussion is about 'Infrastructure' I will entertain your rants as you have a right to comment but for gods sake get with the topic as it makes you look like a right banana!!!
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?[/p][/quote]Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?[/p][/quote]Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?[/p][/quote]One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy? http://i1353.photobu cket.com/albums/q672 /Forumstufftoo/Forum %20bits/carbusbike_z psc558190c.jpg[/p][/quote]I don't care for the link you posted as you appear to be a 'Google Warrior' So a 60 seater bus is more friendly to the environment even though it may only be carrying a couple of passengers. have you ever seen 55 out of 60 cars driving with no one at the wheel? Your analogy is faulted. . Please read the article again, and forget the bus argument as it's flawed. This discussion is about 'Infrastructure' I will entertain your rants as you have a right to comment but for gods sake get with the topic as it makes you look like a right banana!!! Biker One

9:03pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Biker One says...

As we can't make a poll on this forum we can use the thumbs up/down option.

Thumbs down if you agree with Shoebury_Cyclist

Thumbs up if you agree with me
As we can't make a poll on this forum we can use the thumbs up/down option. Thumbs down if you agree with Shoebury_Cyclist Thumbs up if you agree with me Biker One

9:14pm Thu 28 Feb 13

jayman says...

oh dear god...

please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac.

we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)...

the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for.................
.. :(?
oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(? jayman

9:24pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Biker One says...

jayman wrote:
oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?[/p][/quote]The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control. Biker One

9:42pm Thu 28 Feb 13

jayman says...

Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?[/p][/quote]The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.[/p][/quote]i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads. jayman

9:46pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Biker One says...

jayman wrote:
Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.
No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong.

By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?[/p][/quote]The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.[/p][/quote]i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.[/p][/quote]No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong. By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-)) Biker One

11:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13

jayman says...

Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote:
Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.
No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong.

By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
my problem is not with the individuals who fly from Southend airport. my problem is with the council that sold it for a song and the company that sung for it...
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?[/p][/quote]The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.[/p][/quote]i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.[/p][/quote]No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong. By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))[/p][/quote]my problem is not with the individuals who fly from Southend airport. my problem is with the council that sold it for a song and the company that sung for it... jayman

2:38am Fri 1 Mar 13

ninagal says...

I'm just pleased he didn't reject the Thames estuary airport as this will be far better long term solution and will benefit Essex and Kent...
I'm just pleased he didn't reject the Thames estuary airport as this will be far better long term solution and will benefit Essex and Kent... ninagal

6:41am Fri 1 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?
One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy? http://i1353.photobu cket.com/albums/q672 /Forumstufftoo/Forum %20bits/carbusbike_z psc558190c.jpg
I don't care for the link you posted as you appear to be a 'Google Warrior'
So a 60 seater bus is more friendly to the environment even though it may only be carrying a couple of passengers. have you ever seen 55 out of 60 cars driving with no one at the wheel? Your analogy is faulted.
.
Please read the article again, and forget the bus argument as it's flawed. This discussion is about 'Infrastructure' I will entertain your rants as you have a right to comment but for gods sake get with the topic as it makes you look like a right banana!!!
You 'don't care for' the link because it highlights the folly of single occupancy motor vehicles vs public mass transit. The truth is we cannot continue giving up more and more space to cars. More car parks, wider roads simply increase the number of vehicles on the road. It's like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.
We have to start thinking differently.

As for 'empty cars' how many fully occupied cars do you see in rush hour each day, and how many are only carrying one person?
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?[/p][/quote]Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?[/p][/quote]Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?[/p][/quote]One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy? http://i1353.photobu cket.com/albums/q672 /Forumstufftoo/Forum %20bits/carbusbike_z psc558190c.jpg[/p][/quote]I don't care for the link you posted as you appear to be a 'Google Warrior' So a 60 seater bus is more friendly to the environment even though it may only be carrying a couple of passengers. have you ever seen 55 out of 60 cars driving with no one at the wheel? Your analogy is faulted. . Please read the article again, and forget the bus argument as it's flawed. This discussion is about 'Infrastructure' I will entertain your rants as you have a right to comment but for gods sake get with the topic as it makes you look like a right banana!!![/p][/quote]You 'don't care for' the link because it highlights the folly of single occupancy motor vehicles vs public mass transit. The truth is we cannot continue giving up more and more space to cars. More car parks, wider roads simply increase the number of vehicles on the road. It's like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity. We have to start thinking differently. As for 'empty cars' how many fully occupied cars do you see in rush hour each day, and how many are only carrying one person? Shoebury_Cyclist

6:50am Fri 1 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote:
Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.
No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong.

By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
Actually it simply shows how many readers of this website do not comprehend the problem of increasing congestion and pollution and the need for greatly improved public transport. I could agree with you I would still receive 'unlinked' because people on this website don't like being confronted with the truth that the private motor vehicle has had it's day.
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?[/p][/quote]The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.[/p][/quote]i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.[/p][/quote]No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong. By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))[/p][/quote]Actually it simply shows how many readers of this website do not comprehend the problem of increasing congestion and pollution and the need for greatly improved public transport. I could agree with you I would still receive 'unlinked' because people on this website don't like being confronted with the truth that the private motor vehicle has had it's day. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:42am Fri 1 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

ninagal wrote:
I'm just pleased he didn't reject the Thames estuary airport as this will be far better long term solution and will benefit Essex and Kent...
It would kill off the south Essex economy. Southend airport would go bust at the cost of thousands of jobs, Southend's tourist industry would die - who wants to visit a beach next to a massive noisy airport?
[quote][p][bold]ninagal[/bold] wrote: I'm just pleased he didn't reject the Thames estuary airport as this will be far better long term solution and will benefit Essex and Kent...[/p][/quote]It would kill off the south Essex economy. Southend airport would go bust at the cost of thousands of jobs, Southend's tourist industry would die - who wants to visit a beach next to a massive noisy airport? Shoebury_Cyclist

12:54pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Alekhine says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote:
Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.
No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong. By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
Actually it simply shows how many readers of this website do not comprehend the problem of increasing congestion and pollution and the need for greatly improved public transport. I could agree with you I would still receive 'unlinked' because people on this website don't like being confronted with the truth that the private motor vehicle has had it's day.
How will "call me Dave" get his shoes to the office?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?[/p][/quote]The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.[/p][/quote]i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.[/p][/quote]No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong. By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))[/p][/quote]Actually it simply shows how many readers of this website do not comprehend the problem of increasing congestion and pollution and the need for greatly improved public transport. I could agree with you I would still receive 'unlinked' because people on this website don't like being confronted with the truth that the private motor vehicle has had it's day.[/p][/quote]How will "call me Dave" get his shoes to the office? Alekhine

5:21pm Fri 1 Mar 13

firedog says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Displeased of Shoebury wrote:
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937.
When someone says "road tax"everyone knows what they mean,
but silly cyclist allways has to comment
on it,try reading the Beano you might spot something there to comment on.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Displeased of Shoebury[/bold] wrote: There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.[/p][/quote]There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937.[/p][/quote]When someone says "road tax"everyone knows what they mean, but silly cyclist allways has to comment on it,try reading the Beano you might spot something there to comment on. firedog

8:09pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

firedog wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Displeased of Shoebury wrote:
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937.
When someone says "road tax"everyone knows what they mean,
but silly cyclist allways has to comment
on it,try reading the Beano you might spot something there to comment on.
Try reading the comment I was responding to. They clearly do NOT know that 'road tax' does not exist, and they clearly think their fictitious 'road tax' pays for roads. Every time I see someone perpetuating that falsehood I WILL correct them. If you don't like it that's your problem. But I won't stop doing it, not for you, not for anyone.

Here's the comment again:

"There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed."
[quote][p][bold]firedog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Displeased of Shoebury[/bold] wrote: There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.[/p][/quote]There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937.[/p][/quote]When someone says "road tax"everyone knows what they mean, but silly cyclist allways has to comment on it,try reading the Beano you might spot something there to comment on.[/p][/quote]Try reading the comment I was responding to. They clearly do NOT know that 'road tax' does not exist, and they clearly think their fictitious 'road tax' pays for roads. Every time I see someone perpetuating that falsehood I WILL correct them. If you don't like it that's your problem. But I won't stop doing it, not for you, not for anyone. Here's the comment again: "There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed." Shoebury_Cyclist

8:11pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote:
Biker One wrote:
jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.
No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong.

By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
Ooh! That must be a bit embarrassing for you, eh?

http://i1353.photobu
cket.com/albums/q672
/Forumstufftoo/EchoS
tuff/ScreenShot2013-
03-01at151905_zps090
a3f27.jpg
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?[/p][/quote]The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.[/p][/quote]i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.[/p][/quote]No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong. By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))[/p][/quote]Ooh! That must be a bit embarrassing for you, eh? http://i1353.photobu cket.com/albums/q672 /Forumstufftoo/EchoS tuff/ScreenShot2013- 03-01at151905_zps090 a3f27.jpg Shoebury_Cyclist

12:35pm Sat 2 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car.
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?[/p][/quote]Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?[/p][/quote]Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?[/p][/quote]When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:10pm Sat 2 Mar 13

Nebs says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car.
Yes but the bus service is subsidised, as are the roads the buses use. You have to include this in the cost of the bus ride, as that part of the fare isn't paid by the passenger but rather by the taxpayer.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?[/p][/quote]Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?[/p][/quote]Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?[/p][/quote]When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car.[/p][/quote]Yes but the bus service is subsidised, as are the roads the buses use. You have to include this in the cost of the bus ride, as that part of the fare isn't paid by the passenger but rather by the taxpayer. Nebs

8:00am Sun 3 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Nebs wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car.
Yes but the bus service is subsidised, as are the roads the buses use. You have to include this in the cost of the bus ride, as that part of the fare isn't paid by the passenger but rather by the taxpayer.
The buses are not as heavily subsidised as the private motor vehicle. The private motorist does not pay the cost of externalities from motoring. They don't pay the cost of pollution, the health costs, the costs of hundreds of thousands of collisions and road closures, the cost of noise pollution,. Taken as a whole motoring costs every man, woman, and child in the country over £600 per year, and none of that cost is recovered from motorists, the cost comes from other areas. There's the cost to the health service, the cost to the police, etc.

This was recognised as far back as 1994:

http://ind.pn/YW45F9


It is still true today:

http://bit.ly/WIU8IG
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.[/p][/quote]Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?[/p][/quote]Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?[/p][/quote]Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?[/p][/quote]When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car.[/p][/quote]Yes but the bus service is subsidised, as are the roads the buses use. You have to include this in the cost of the bus ride, as that part of the fare isn't paid by the passenger but rather by the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]The buses are not as heavily subsidised as the private motor vehicle. The private motorist does not pay the cost of externalities from motoring. They don't pay the cost of pollution, the health costs, the costs of hundreds of thousands of collisions and road closures, the cost of noise pollution,. Taken as a whole motoring costs every man, woman, and child in the country over £600 per year, and none of that cost is recovered from motorists, the cost comes from other areas. There's the cost to the health service, the cost to the police, etc. This was recognised as far back as 1994: http://ind.pn/YW45F9 It is still true today: http://bit.ly/WIU8IG Shoebury_Cyclist

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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