Amanda Martin

Just caught up with this. I think something similar (bank fraud) happened to Zane, the former owner of the Bastion Mews on the corner of Bath Street and Union Street. Can't remember the details now but I think it involved unilaterally increasing repayments, not telling him, waiting for enormous arrears to accrue and then repossessing.

That didn't last long. I was doing OK until my daughter sent me this: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/03/bikes-vs-cars-film-war-cyclists-drivers-fredrik-gertten-interview

Dippy and Two Wheels - one of you should be the candidate ! I value greenknight as a sparring partner far too much to bore him any further with my facts and logic, so here's a minor diversion: I'm currently looking out over a BT phone box with a large offensive advert for Domino's Pizza. In the old days, phone boxes were quite attractive and were for making phone calls. Nowadays their principal purpose seems to be to raise revenue from advertising. Have we all been conditioned into thinking that private companies have a God given right to infest the streetscape with trashy adverts for crap fast-food or the latest big telly? It was actually Julian who pointed this out. There's a strong streak of anarchism in him and he's really good at noticing things that I confess I have just factored in like everyone else. Now he's drawn my attention to it, it's really irritating me but I suppose it stops me thinking about transport stuff.

Apologies - I deal in facts not Daily Telegraph prejudices and I thought this was a discussion. I would also point out that I started this thread and staying with it is not compulsory.

Lol sorry, Ubique - must be my short term memory problem.

Comments appear to be disabled for this article :-)

Here's the link to Amey's report on an eastern link. This is the nitty gritty: the reality of what an eastern crossing would do to Bartestree and the rest of the network. Table 16 shows a time saving of 10.5 minutes between Rotherwas and Junction 7 M5. 10.5 mins. ..and there is no mention of induced traffic so we can assume that this has not been factored. Incidentally, during a meeting with the Highways Agency attended by Colin, John Harrington and me in the aftermath of the felling of the Edgar Street trees, I asked Paul Hillman (HA) about traffic induction on the pinch point schemes at Edgar St and the Asda roundabout dog's breakfast. I was told that it was not necessary to factor it in. I then showed him the central government guidance to the contrary and he did not reply. There is an agenda for roadbuilding and it's not congestion relief. They are "career defining" . Whatever the preferred route, the integrity of the ancient Holywell Gutter Lane would be lost forever and there would be "significant increases" in traffic volumes on the A438 and over existing structures so we can kiss goodbye to Lugwardine Bridge. "The Lugwardine Bridge is a 16th Century three span stone arch bridge with an extension to the west (up-stream) to widen the carriageway with steel beams supporting a deck slab built in 1942. This structure was listed in 1967 by English Heritage as Grade II. Any works at this bridge require the Listed Building Consent and liaison with Herefordshire conservation officers. The stone arch structure is assessed at full strength with the steel beam and deck slab extension partially assessed based on steel beams alone due to lack of construction information relating to the concrete slab. The assessment of the widening, undertaken in 1993, identified corrosion and section loss which would have continually deteriorated to date. This extension is capable of carrying highway loading but abnormal loads are directed across the fully assessed arch structure. " Building this road might save few minutes journey time for lorry drivers from South Wales, but would achieve nothing in Hereford except a worse traffic problem in Hafod Road, Bodenham Road, Eign Road, Bartestree and Lugwarding. It would produce marginal relief on Edgar Street but this would be wiped out very quickly by additional local journeys. It would destroy the Lugg Meadows, cost a fortune and in the meantime no doubt spawn a discussion about where the next road would go. I'm already getting deja vu. ​This is the kind of detail you have to get into to understand the predictions and cost/benefit analysis. A minute of working motorists' time used to be worth 15p. The parameters are spurious and the environmental and social costs - maintenance, accidents, policing, health and loss of habitat and natural assets - are usually ignored because how do you put a financial value on a habitat or an ancient landscape. https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/media/6411095/Eastern_Links_Assessment_Report_Nov_2012.pdf

..and by the way, greenknight, what has happened in the South Wales valleys - next to my home patch - is a prime example of what happens to peripheral areas when you open up access with fast straight roads. As we know, the rug was pulled from under these communities when the mines closed and all the Welsh Development Agency's attempts to lure industry back with roads and grants, aka bribes, failed miserably because it was against the grain of globalism and the centralising effect of road building. The reason there is no manufacturing in Wales any more, or in Britain for that matter, is that cheap transport has spawned globalism and centralisation - both of which are a death sentence for local economies in developed countries. Unemployment in the valleys is nothing whatever to do with the lack of roads and building more will not solve it. The classic was the shmoozing of LG who were bribed to come and set up in a brand new purpose built factory that trashed two Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Gwent Levels west of Newport. As soon as the grant aid ran out they F*cked off and as far as I know, that white elephant is still sitting there empty - the same with the Ford plant outside Bridgend. Meanwhile, all the actual, real jobs provided to people in the Valleys were destroyed when Newport Council's brilliant plan to build car based out of town retain and business parks meant they couldn't get to work any more because they didn't have cars! I know all about South Wales and the WDA - I had this debate many times with the CBI and they just didn't get it even though the evidence of the fallure of their endless lobbying for new roads is everywhere.

green knight, this is about a lack of understanding both about how we could be doing things differently and where our current policy is taking us. The worrying thing for me is that I know that you are probably in the majority in Herefordshire. I don't understand how I've blown my own argument out of the water. When I worked in Midsomer Norton, Yeovil and Horncastle in Lincolnshire, I used my car because essentially you cannnot get to Midsomer Nortom, Yeovil and Horncastle any other way. When I worked in Bristol last year, I used the train and a very sh*te service it was too. When I'm at home in Hereford, I mostly cycle but I do use my car for some journeys. I have never said that we should all stop using cars tomorrow. The point is that, at the moment, we have no choice and while we have no choice this fruitless destructive cycle of endless pointless expensive roadbuilding will continue. What will happen to Herefordshire's local economy when we have turned the county into Slough? We only have to look around the country to see the consequences of this policy. It is insane. Our problem is not an engineering one: it's a cultural one.

I spent eight years as a locum. I have sat in a traffic jam all over the country and I have a carbon footprint to make Jonathan Porritt's eyes water.

No. There is no consensus on this at the moment but I am in a minority of those against it I believe.

edhatton, the Council's and the Highways Agency's own traffic data have confirmed that most traffic in the city is local and not trunk road traffic but I understand your scepticism. Dippy is right: doing things differently requires a leap of faith and whatever is done MUST command public support ; you cannot drag people along by the hair. They need to believe it and embrace it or it won't work. Whether or not I'm elected, I would like to organise some meetings with some influential and knowledgeable speakers: transport planners and experts who know far more about this than I do and can really paint that picture of how much better things could be if we can loosen our grip on the steering wheel. I do hope you will come along and engage. In the meantime, I'm sorry you feel I have not earned your vote but I fully respect your decision. We all have to follow our hearts in these matters and work things out for ourselves. We're not always going to agree but the worst thing is apathy - while there is debate there is the prospect of progress.

edhatton, New roads are built on the basis that there will be a reassignment of traffic from existing routes but road planning rarely takes account of the traffic generation effect of the new road itself - it should do, and Government guidance says that it should - but it doesn't because politicians want a quick popular fix and highway engineers are used to doing things this way. In the case of the proposed eastern bypass, the logic is that, by providing a new river crossing on the east side of the city, traffic needing to enter and leaving the east side would no longer have to cross the city and use the A49. It's superficially appealing but it won't work in practice because we know for sure - and have known officially since 1994 - that the more roads you build in already congested networks, the more traffic you generate. This is why road widening schemes in the south east have proved completely fruitless - you could widen the M25 to ten lanes in each direction and the congestion relief would be minimal and temporary. The main reason for this is a phenomenon called "induced traffic". In congested networks, the congestion itself suppresses demand. When a new road is built, all that suppressed demand is liberated: people make more journeys and travel further to do the same things. In a very short space of time, the new road reaches capacity and vehicle movements then start to increase on the old routes too as people re-assign back so all you end up with is one more traffic clogged road. I guarantee that this is what will happen with the new city link road: for a few weeks or maybe months, there could be a slight fall in the amount of traffic on Newmarket Street and BLueschool Street but the congestion will return very quickly and this is without taking into account the additional traffic generated by the housing development. Ironically, the only way we could make an eastern river crossing stack up is by reducing local journeys to the point where the city network is no longer congested but then, of course, we wouldn't need the crossing at all. In my view, this is where we should be concentrating the scarce funds we have available. Road building is hugely expensive, doesn't solve the problem and you can't spend that money twice. I say let's look at the city's problems first with a package of measures for providing alternatives to the car and then re-assess the need for a new road. There are occasions where a bypass can be justified but only where traffic data show that most traffic movements are through traffic; this is not the case on the A49 and within the city. I was canvassing in Edgar Street a couple of Saturdays ago at around lunchtime. The traffic was nose to tail from one end to the other to the point where I could not physically place my bike on the road never mind cycle it anywhere. As a result, Edgar Street and the Moorfields area have become degraded, traffic dominated thoroughfares with consequent impact on quality of life, parking and property values. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these streets: they should be pleasant, attractive and desirable urban spaces and I believe that is achievable but not by throwing scarce resources away on miles of pointless, destructive, expensive tarmac. I firmly believe that by tackling the problems within the city, the need for a second crossing will disappear. I know I am fighting an uphill battle with this: adding extra capacity to the network has a superficial appeal. Politicians will always look for a short term, easy fix - most of them don't understand anything about transport planning anyway - and highway engineers will do what they're used to doing. It doesn't seem to occur to people that we've been trying to resolve this problem with expensive road programmes for decades and the problem is worse than ever. At some point we need to stop and take a fresh approach. I know I may not have convinced you, and you may not trust me with your vote, but I have studied this for many years and have also seen how successful alternatives to road building have been in Europe and I genuinely believe what I am telling you.

It's not IOC policy. IOC's official stand on this is not to rule it out but to evaluate it in due course. Where you put your X is a matter for you but I believe in not fudging these things. I can tell you that I know for a fact that this road would be massively destructive, a shameful waste of money and would not solve the problem. My party is not whipped and I will be making my case as when the opportunity arises. I anticipate that unless I can demonstrate by reference to the traffic data and cost/benefit analysis, that the net benefits (mostly an inaccurate assessment of prjected time savings) will not outweigh the social, environmental and costs, I will lose the argument and the road will be built. That is democracy.

But guys - it won't solve the problem. This is the point. An eastern crossing will cost a fortune and won't solve the problem. It's the M25 effect. It wil not solve the problem! Not now. Not tomorrow. Not ever.

The memory of that creep Jonathan Bretherton is still too fresh in my mind.

No. In what way are they similar?

Yes.

I'm quite curious to know what breed of dog it is. If it's anything like our fat, elderly spaniel, I think Cllr Greenow is busted.

Yes indeed - noted and also Maggie May's comment about Safe Routes to School. The school journey is the obvious one to focus on; making the streets safe for children has a knock on benefit for everyone. As I think I said elsewhere, there is nothing like walking and cycling the ward to get a feel for the issues. Moorfields has a terrible parking problem and a couple of elderly people have told me they don't get out much because they're afraid to cross the roads. Someone else mentioned the appalling underpass on Victoria Street - not in my patch but still relevant overall. Housing and litter are issues too, along with concerns about the integrity and efficiency of the Authority itself. It strikes me that it's often the subtle detail - green spaces, community facilities, good housing design - that tends to be ignored and neglected because those in power have been too focused on big "prestige" projects yet it's often the small things -the things that are difficult to quantify in pounds and pence - that add most quality and richness to people's lives. We need to start recognising the shades of grey and using them to inform policy: remember the local when planning strategically.

....although not progress.