Support needed for £250 million traffic solution for Gloucestershire

Stroud News and Journal: Support needed for £250 million traffic solution for Gloucestershire Support needed for £250 million traffic solution for Gloucestershire

PUBLIC support is needed for a £250 million solution to the worst traffic spot in the South West.

The government will set out its future road schemes at the end of March and Gloucestershire County Council is spearheading a campaign to see the missing link solution – the A417 loop - added to the list.

The missing link is a 5km stretch of single carriageway on the A417 trunk road with the remaining route between the M4 at Swindon and M5 at Gloucester being dual carriageway.

It is a significant bottleneck and has the worst average vehicle delay of all strategic routes in the South West.

The A417 loop is a new road made up of a short bypass of Nettleton Bottom, widening of Birdlip Bypass, a new junction at Birdlip, a new junction replacing the Air Balloon roundabout and construction of an additional two lane carriageway down Crickley Hill.

The result will be an uninterrupted dual carriageway all the way from the M5 at Gloucester to the M4 at Swindon.

Now people across Gloucestershire are being asked to show their support for the A417 loop by signing up and pledging their backing on www.a417missinglink.co.uk.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne, leader of Gloucestershire County Council, said: “This is our one chance to show the government how important this scheme is to our county.

“For more than 20 years people have talked about a possible solution but it’s only ever been talk up to this point, without the money to see it through.

“We know the government will announce its list of schemes at the end of March and this is our opportunity to put our case forward and get the cash we need.”

The missing link is a 5km stretch of single carriageway on the A417 trunk road with the remaining route between the M4 at Swindon and M5 at Gloucester being dual carriageway.

The A417 loop follows the existing path as much as possible and has been judged as the most environmentally friendly by the Environment Agency.

Other solutions, including a tunnel which would cost £1billion, have been ruled out on cost and environmental grounds.

To back the campaign go to www.a417missinglink.co.uk.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:18am Sat 18 Jan 14

bobirving says...

For £250 million, we could provide a) a decent bus service to reduce the number of cars; b) a HGV service area to check for overloaded lorries and test their brakes and still have change to fix the awful roads of Gloucestershire...
For £250 million, we could provide a) a decent bus service to reduce the number of cars; b) a HGV service area to check for overloaded lorries and test their brakes and still have change to fix the awful roads of Gloucestershire... bobirving
  • Score: -1

10:59am Sat 18 Jan 14

steve1234 says...

What a waste of money, 250 million would go a very long way in improving public transport. Poor biased Journalism SNJ
What a waste of money, 250 million would go a very long way in improving public transport. Poor biased Journalism SNJ steve1234
  • Score: -2

8:48am Sun 19 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

Given the huge, and ever increasing, tax burden on todays motorist, both direct and indirect; I'm outraged they have to lobby so hard for such a fundamental infrastructure improvement, that wouldn't only improve traffic flow but also the economy.
Given the huge, and ever increasing, tax burden on todays motorist, both direct and indirect; I'm outraged they have to lobby so hard for such a fundamental infrastructure improvement, that wouldn't only improve traffic flow but also the economy. dimreepr
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Phil W Jones says...

If this money were spent, within a year or two there would be a new highway hotspot in Gloucestershire needing another 250million pounds. The whole UK is being paved over. It has to stop. Let it stop here. No 250million pounds. I am dead against it. Get people out of their cars. Put in more public transit. That's the answer. Not pave, pave, pave, pave, pave!!!! Ever see the full-length cartoon based on humans in 2300 -- with the humans having tiny legs on which they can hardly carry themselves when out of their vehicles?? That's where we're going! It has to stop. NO to 250million pounds for highway expansion in Gloucestershire!!
If this money were spent, within a year or two there would be a new highway hotspot in Gloucestershire needing another 250million pounds. The whole UK is being paved over. It has to stop. Let it stop here. No 250million pounds. I am dead against it. Get people out of their cars. Put in more public transit. That's the answer. Not pave, pave, pave, pave, pave!!!! Ever see the full-length cartoon based on humans in 2300 -- with the humans having tiny legs on which they can hardly carry themselves when out of their vehicles?? That's where we're going! It has to stop. NO to 250million pounds for highway expansion in Gloucestershire!! Phil W Jones
  • Score: -3

2:18pm Sun 19 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

Phil, the thing that seems most often forgot with this sort of debate, is the fact, that the state of our infrastructure is woeful (for historic/feudal reasons); which is tremendously detrimental to our economy. However much of our country that seems to be built on or paved, it’s actually only a paltry 5%, so instead of advocating our return to the dark ages you may want to consider how uncomfortable that would be.
Phil, the thing that seems most often forgot with this sort of debate, is the fact, that the state of our infrastructure is woeful (for historic/feudal reasons); which is tremendously detrimental to our economy. However much of our country that seems to be built on or paved, it’s actually only a paltry 5%, so instead of advocating our return to the dark ages you may want to consider how uncomfortable that would be. dimreepr
  • Score: 2

4:43pm Sun 19 Jan 14

TigerTigerBurningBright says...

"huge, and ever increasing, tax burden on todays motorist"

Poppycock. Motoring is subsidised.
"huge, and ever increasing, tax burden on todays motorist" Poppycock. Motoring is subsidised. TigerTigerBurningBright
  • Score: 1

5:47pm Sun 19 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

By whom and what evidence can you provide?
By whom and what evidence can you provide? dimreepr
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Sun 19 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

Tiger, are you seriously suggesting the taxing of every aspect of motoring from the VAT on the vehicle to the same on every single part of said vehicle from the oil in the engine to the bulbs in the lights and every part in-between, not to mention the direct TAXing on fuel and, each and every vehicle on the road and coupled with the indirect TAXing of vehicles via parking, speeding and other road offences; you are clearly talking ****.
Tiger, are you seriously suggesting the taxing of every aspect of motoring from the VAT on the vehicle to the same on every single part of said vehicle from the oil in the engine to the bulbs in the lights and every part in-between, not to mention the direct TAXing on fuel and, each and every vehicle on the road and coupled with the indirect TAXing of vehicles via parking, speeding and other road offences; you are clearly talking ****. dimreepr
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Sun 19 Jan 14

TigerTigerBurningBright says...

dim, you made a statement that you did not back-up (You did that in your first comment - some bland pertrolhead DailyMail-esque wibble about the poor put-upon motorist. No facts, unfortunately.) Back your statements up with facts and you might get a different response.

Sadly your fourth comment, at 6:13pm, cannot be commented on other than to say it does not make sense.
dim, you made a statement that you did not back-up (You did that in your first comment - some bland pertrolhead DailyMail-esque wibble about the poor put-upon motorist. No facts, unfortunately.) Back your statements up with facts and you might get a different response. Sadly your fourth comment, at 6:13pm, cannot be commented on other than to say it does not make sense. TigerTigerBurningBright
  • Score: -3

8:50am Mon 20 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

TigerTigerBurningBri
ght
wrote:
dim, you made a statement that you did not back-up (You did that in your first comment - some bland pertrolhead DailyMail-esque wibble about the poor put-upon motorist. No facts, unfortunately.) Back your statements up with facts and you might get a different response.

Sadly your fourth comment, at 6:13pm, cannot be commented on other than to say it does not make sense.
Tiger were you drunk when you posted this nonsense or were you presenting your application for resident troll?

If you, really, need evidence of taxation on cars, just look in the windscreen of any vehicle on the road and you will see a coloured disk; there’s your fact.
However the onus of proof is yours, as it was you that disputed my statement, and as usual you’ve provided nothing, so far.

As for my comment not making sense; it is written in English, correctly spelt and is grammatically accurate, so which part is tripping you up?
[quote][p][bold]TigerTigerBurningBri ght[/bold] wrote: dim, you made a statement that you did not back-up (You did that in your first comment - some bland pertrolhead DailyMail-esque wibble about the poor put-upon motorist. No facts, unfortunately.) Back your statements up with facts and you might get a different response. Sadly your fourth comment, at 6:13pm, cannot be commented on other than to say it does not make sense.[/p][/quote]Tiger were you drunk when you posted this nonsense or were you presenting your application for resident troll? If you, really, need evidence of taxation on cars, just look in the windscreen of any vehicle on the road and you will see a coloured disk; there’s your fact. However the onus of proof is yours, as it was you that disputed my statement, and as usual you’ve provided nothing, so far. As for my comment not making sense; it is written in English, correctly spelt and is grammatically accurate, so which part is tripping you up? dimreepr
  • Score: 1

2:09pm Mon 20 Jan 14

TigerTigerBurningBright says...

"Tiger were you drunk when you posted this nonsense or were you presenting your application for resident troll? "

The position is taken, you'd need to stand down for there to be one. Your comment of 6:13pm yesterday still makes no sense. It is not a sentence, just a wibble of words thrown together.

I need no evidence of taxation of cars. What I need is evidence supporting your facile claim: " the huge, and ever increasing, tax burden on todays motorist". You threw out a statement with no backing up. Either you can back it up or you cannot.
"Tiger were you drunk when you posted this nonsense or were you presenting your application for resident troll? " The position is taken, you'd need to stand down for there to be one. Your comment of 6:13pm yesterday still makes no sense. It is not a sentence, just a wibble of words thrown together. I need no evidence of taxation of cars. What I need is evidence supporting your facile claim: " the huge, and ever increasing, tax burden on todays motorist". You threw out a statement with no backing up. Either you can back it up or you cannot. TigerTigerBurningBright
  • Score: -1

6:27pm Mon 20 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

I have backed up my claim with the post you, bizarrely, can't understand, but, as I've previously stated, you haven't, so question remains
'Who is subsidising the motorist'?
I have backed up my claim with the post you, bizarrely, can't understand, but, as I've previously stated, you haven't, so question remains 'Who is subsidising the motorist'? dimreepr
  • Score: 2

7:50am Wed 22 Jan 14

TigerTigerBurningBright says...

You have not backed up your claim. You have merely listed a load of words in a wibble post that is not in full English.

And since you appear to be so dimly hard of understanding, perhaps you can explain what it is in your wibble that you are trying to say I am suggesting.

Finally, it is not for me to back up my statement that the motorist is subsidised until you give evidence for your statement. I thought you said you liked debating - here you are not debating, you are trolling.
You have not backed up your claim. You have merely listed a load of words in a wibble post that is not in full English. And since you appear to be so dimly hard of understanding, perhaps you can explain what it is in your wibble that you are trying to say I am suggesting. Finally, it is not for me to back up my statement that the motorist is subsidised until you give evidence for your statement. I thought you said you liked debating - here you are not debating, you are trolling. TigerTigerBurningBright
  • Score: -2

8:36am Wed 22 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

Yet another vacuous post, tiger, you don’t seem to understand the term debating, because all you are doing is mindless, childish and probably drunken gainsay and yet again you fail to answer the simplest question; I suggest you look up the term ‘debate’ and try again this time before you get drunk.
Yet another vacuous post, tiger, you don’t seem to understand the term debating, because all you are doing is mindless, childish and probably drunken gainsay and yet again you fail to answer the simplest question; I suggest you look up the term ‘debate’ and try again this time before you get drunk. dimreepr
  • Score: 1

9:07am Wed 22 Jan 14

TigerTigerBurningBright says...

Ah, dim.

For the last time: your post of 6:13pm Sun 19 Jan 14 is not grammatically correct. It makes no sense. It is not in full English.

Interesting, also to see you in your last comment that you use the very tactics that you accuse others of. What a hypocrite.

You are trolling.
Ah, dim. For the last time: your post of 6:13pm Sun 19 Jan 14 is not grammatically correct. It makes no sense. It is not in full English. Interesting, also to see you in your last comment that you use the very tactics that you accuse others of. What a hypocrite. You are trolling. TigerTigerBurningBright
  • Score: -2

9:53am Wed 22 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

Feel free to point out exactly how it's not grammatical or "not in full English" just repeating something ad nauseam doesn't make it correct.
Feel free to point out exactly how it's not grammatical or "not in full English" just repeating something ad nauseam doesn't make it correct. dimreepr
  • Score: -1

6:08pm Wed 22 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

“Interesting, also to see you in your last comment that you use the very tactics that you accuse others of.”

I really don’t see how I can ignore the irony of this statement, not only do you misinterpret the ad hominem, but your grammar is abysmal; the sentence should read:

Interesting, I also notice, in your last comment; you use the very tactics, you accuse of others.
“Interesting, also to see you in your last comment that you use the very tactics that you accuse others of.” I really don’t see how I can ignore the irony of this statement, not only do you misinterpret the ad hominem, but your grammar is abysmal; the sentence should read: Interesting, I also notice, in your last comment; you use the very tactics, you accuse of others. dimreepr
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Wed 22 Jan 14

A Stroud Worm says...

This is so off topic and boring now.
This is so off topic and boring now. A Stroud Worm
  • Score: 2

8:31pm Wed 22 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

A Stroud Worm wrote:
This is so off topic and boring now.
completely agree; care to add something?
[quote][p][bold]A Stroud Worm[/bold] wrote: This is so off topic and boring now.[/p][/quote]completely agree; care to add something? dimreepr
  • Score: 3

9:53am Fri 24 Jan 14

TigerTigerBurningBright says...

All we need is dim to answer the point, but he appears incapable of doing so.
All we need is dim to answer the point, but he appears incapable of doing so. TigerTigerBurningBright
  • Score: -1

11:19am Fri 24 Jan 14

dimreepr says...

Your far too shrewd for me tiger, I deduce, it’s pointless arguing with you.
Your far too shrewd for me tiger, I deduce, it’s pointless arguing with you. dimreepr
  • Score: -1

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