Itchen Bridge closure set to cause misery for Southampton motorists

Daily Echo: The Itchen Bridge, Southampton, is to close for five nights. The Itchen Bridge, Southampton, is to close for five nights.

MOTORISTS in Southampton will face fresh traffic disruption when the Itchen Bridge is shut for five nights.

Resurfacing work will see the bridge closed to traffic from 7pm to 5.30am for nine nights next month. But the city council has warned the work may take longer due to poor weather conditions.

The work means bus operator First has made a number of changes to its timetable.

The project to revamp the bridge began in October, and caused major delays for motorists using it during rush hour.

It is part of a £1.7 million project approved by the Labour council’s Cabinet to create a cycle superhighway from Woolston to the city centre.

The bridge will be closed overnight from February 2 to 6, on February 9, and from February 11 to 13.

Signed diversion routes via Peartree Avenue and Northam Bridge will be in place. Pedestrians and cyclists will still be able to use the bridge.

The Itchen Bridge and Salt-marsh junction on the western side of the bridge, which has been closed since October, will reopen over the weekend of February 15 and 16.

A spokesman for the council said the bridge closure was essential to complete the new junction layout and add line markings before the reopening of the junction.

The spokesman added: “Diversion routes will be signed and can also be found on the council website.

“To minimise disruption, other major planned work in the area has been delayed, including the excavation work at the Orchard Place/Platform Road Junction that will start once the Saltmarsh Road junction has reopened.

“We envisage that these will be the only times that Itchen Bridge will be closed as part of these works, however this schedule could change if we encounter difficult weather conditions.”

First has revised the time-tables for eight of its bus services which use the bridge. Most services will be diverted away from the bridge and instead go via Northam Bridge during the evenings, causing delays to journey times.

Service 6 to Hamble in the early morning will start at Portsmouth Road in Woolston at 5.19am instead of the city centre at 5.10am.

Chrissie Bainbridge, general manager at First Hampshire, said: “We are sorry for any inconvenience this will cause to our customers, but we are doing all we can to minimise disruption to our services while the bridge’s resurfacing work is carried out.

“We will issue updates on our website and via Twitter and Facebook throughout the bridge closure, so customers are aware of any further changes to their services.”

Find out full information on the revised timetables at first group.com/ukbus/hampshire.

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:52pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Brite Spark says...

Bring back the Itchen Ferry, at least temporarily :-)
Bring back the Itchen Ferry, at least temporarily :-) Brite Spark
  • Score: 12

12:55pm Thu 30 Jan 14

townieboy says...

who cares im off on Holiday for 15 days. Blow it up for all i care.
who cares im off on Holiday for 15 days. Blow it up for all i care. townieboy
  • Score: -8

12:56pm Thu 30 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

Just how much traffic is there between 7pm and 5:30 am? This will inconvenience some people, sure, but it's hardly going to be the "misery for Southampton motorists" the headline baits us with.
Just how much traffic is there between 7pm and 5:30 am? This will inconvenience some people, sure, but it's hardly going to be the "misery for Southampton motorists" the headline baits us with. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 26

1:02pm Thu 30 Jan 14

downfader says...

Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free)

My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.
Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free) My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour. downfader
  • Score: 9

1:08pm Thu 30 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

downfader wrote:
Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free)

My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.
...or a brisk swim :)
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free) My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.[/p][/quote]...or a brisk swim :) gilbertratchet
  • Score: 6

1:15pm Thu 30 Jan 14

bigfella777 says...

I cant wait to cycle through there when it's finished and make all the cars stop, I might make a day of it.
I cant wait to cycle through there when it's finished and make all the cars stop, I might make a day of it. bigfella777
  • Score: -19

1:21pm Thu 30 Jan 14

freakout says...

Make no difference to First Bus travel as always late or never turn up at all ,Appauling service Chrissie bainbridge and trainne your drivers to be pleasent
Make no difference to First Bus travel as always late or never turn up at all ,Appauling service Chrissie bainbridge and trainne your drivers to be pleasent freakout
  • Score: -5

2:10pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Newforest says...

Where's the Floating Bridge when you need it?!
Where's the Floating Bridge when you need it?! Newforest
  • Score: 2

2:29pm Thu 30 Jan 14

clarkey31 says...

freakout wrote:
Make no difference to First Bus travel as always late or never turn up at all ,Appauling service Chrissie bainbridge and trainne your drivers to be pleasent
it must be impossibly hard to keep to such a tight timetable on the buses with all the road works and extra traffic. I have found most bus drivers to be very pleasant I can only assume they treat as they find and maybe its you that needs to be more pleasant
[quote][p][bold]freakout[/bold] wrote: Make no difference to First Bus travel as always late or never turn up at all ,Appauling service Chrissie bainbridge and trainne your drivers to be pleasent[/p][/quote]it must be impossibly hard to keep to such a tight timetable on the buses with all the road works and extra traffic. I have found most bus drivers to be very pleasant I can only assume they treat as they find and maybe its you that needs to be more pleasant clarkey31
  • Score: 7

2:33pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Jesus_02 says...

Any news on the cyclist incident in Bittrene Park this morning?
Any news on the cyclist incident in Bittrene Park this morning? Jesus_02
  • Score: -6

2:34pm Thu 30 Jan 14

elvisimo says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Just how much traffic is there between 7pm and 5:30 am? This will inconvenience some people, sure, but it's hardly going to be the "misery for Southampton motorists" the headline baits us with.
could have been worse. they could have put "misery" in capital letters...
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Just how much traffic is there between 7pm and 5:30 am? This will inconvenience some people, sure, but it's hardly going to be the "misery for Southampton motorists" the headline baits us with.[/p][/quote]could have been worse. they could have put "misery" in capital letters... elvisimo
  • Score: 2

2:35pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Brite Spark says...

Newforest wrote:
Where's the Floating Bridge when you need it?!
It's now a restaurant on the Hamble at Bursledon.
[quote][p][bold]Newforest[/bold] wrote: Where's the Floating Bridge when you need it?![/p][/quote]It's now a restaurant on the Hamble at Bursledon. Brite Spark
  • Score: 5

2:40pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Dave Juson says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
downfader wrote:
Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free)

My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.
...or a brisk swim :)
Alas: "The Floating Bridge has had it, It just had to go, The motorists didn't like it, At 15 pence a throw...", but surely, for pedestrians, some enterprising small boat owners could reintroduce the Itchen Ferry?
Or should that be "the Itchen Ferry ferry"?
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free) My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.[/p][/quote]...or a brisk swim :)[/p][/quote]Alas: "The Floating Bridge has had it, It just had to go, The motorists didn't like it, At 15 pence a throw...", but surely, for pedestrians, some enterprising small boat owners could reintroduce the Itchen Ferry? Or should that be "the Itchen Ferry ferry"? Dave Juson
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Thu 30 Jan 14

voiceof thepeople says...

All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior voiceof thepeople
  • Score: -7

3:24pm Thu 30 Jan 14

so'tongirl says...

clarkey31 wrote:
freakout wrote:
Make no difference to First Bus travel as always late or never turn up at all ,Appauling service Chrissie bainbridge and trainne your drivers to be pleasent
it must be impossibly hard to keep to such a tight timetable on the buses with all the road works and extra traffic. I have found most bus drivers to be very pleasant I can only assume they treat as they find and maybe its you that needs to be more pleasant
It's true, plus they run late on purpose just to f**k you off.
[quote][p][bold]clarkey31[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freakout[/bold] wrote: Make no difference to First Bus travel as always late or never turn up at all ,Appauling service Chrissie bainbridge and trainne your drivers to be pleasent[/p][/quote]it must be impossibly hard to keep to such a tight timetable on the buses with all the road works and extra traffic. I have found most bus drivers to be very pleasant I can only assume they treat as they find and maybe its you that needs to be more pleasant[/p][/quote]It's true, plus they run late on purpose just to f**k you off. so'tongirl
  • Score: 2

3:32pm Thu 30 Jan 14

mickey01 says...

downfader wrote:
Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free)

My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.
one way of stopping the jumpers
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free) My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.[/p][/quote]one way of stopping the jumpers mickey01
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Thu 30 Jan 14

kevinchandler100@talktalk.net says...

downfader wrote:
Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free)

My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.
If you read the store right it is still open for cyclists and pedestrians .
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free) My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.[/p][/quote]If you read the store right it is still open for cyclists and pedestrians . kevinchandler100@talktalk.net
  • Score: 1

3:35pm Thu 30 Jan 14

mickey01 says...

Jesus_02 wrote:
Any news on the cyclist incident in Bittrene Park this morning?
one way of stopping the jumpers
[quote][p][bold]Jesus_02[/bold] wrote: Any news on the cyclist incident in Bittrene Park this morning?[/p][/quote]one way of stopping the jumpers mickey01
  • Score: -5

3:37pm Thu 30 Jan 14

mickey01 says...

they should start charging the cyclists a toll when all this mess is finished with as it is all for them THE MINORITY
they should start charging the cyclists a toll when all this mess is finished with as it is all for them THE MINORITY mickey01
  • Score: -9

3:41pm Thu 30 Jan 14

sotonboy84 says...

I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?
I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas? sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

3:43pm Thu 30 Jan 14

downfader says...

kevinchandler100@tal
ktalk.net
wrote:
downfader wrote:
Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free)

My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.
If you read the store right it is still open for cyclists and pedestrians .
Story seems to have changed since this morning...
[quote][p][bold]kevinchandler100@tal ktalk.net[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free) My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.[/p][/quote]If you read the store right it is still open for cyclists and pedestrians .[/p][/quote]Story seems to have changed since this morning... downfader
  • Score: 1

3:44pm Thu 30 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

voiceof thepeople wrote:
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?
[quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior[/p][/quote]Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 5

3:49pm Thu 30 Jan 14

downfader says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?
There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?[/p][/quote]There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side. downfader
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Thu 30 Jan 14

downfader says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
voiceof thepeople wrote:
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?
"Road tax" myth debunked: http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/magazine-23694
438
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior[/p][/quote]Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?[/p][/quote]"Road tax" myth debunked: http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/magazine-23694 438 downfader
  • Score: -1

3:53pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Dave Juson wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
downfader wrote:
Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free)

My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.
...or a brisk swim :)
Alas: "The Floating Bridge has had it, It just had to go, The motorists didn't like it, At 15 pence a throw...", but surely, for pedestrians, some enterprising small boat owners could reintroduce the Itchen Ferry?
Or should that be "the Itchen Ferry ferry"?
The problem with the floating bridge is the guide chain, the ships that call in at the cemex plant to be loaded and unloaded are now so big, that they drag on the river bed just to fit under the bridge, the chain would rip the hull of those ships open and sink them(if you can call dropping a foot or 2 sinking) which one reason why it won't ever be reintroduced.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Juson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: Frequencies of traffic at the times it is closed wont mean any issue. Non-story, just travel down Northam Bridge (and for free) My understanding is that its also being closed to pedestrians too. Now that might cause some issues for them as its a 2 mile detour.[/p][/quote]...or a brisk swim :)[/p][/quote]Alas: "The Floating Bridge has had it, It just had to go, The motorists didn't like it, At 15 pence a throw...", but surely, for pedestrians, some enterprising small boat owners could reintroduce the Itchen Ferry? Or should that be "the Itchen Ferry ferry"?[/p][/quote]The problem with the floating bridge is the guide chain, the ships that call in at the cemex plant to be loaded and unloaded are now so big, that they drag on the river bed just to fit under the bridge, the chain would rip the hull of those ships open and sink them(if you can call dropping a foot or 2 sinking) which one reason why it won't ever be reintroduced. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Thu 30 Jan 14

spotburst says...

voiceof thepeople wrote:
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
Road Tax? - no such thing. Vehicle tax contributes nothing to upkeep of roads. Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted by a vehicle - commuter cyclists generally produce little more CO2 that a person sat in a big 4x4 gas guzzler or any other motor vehicle BUT the vehicular production of CO2 is what's being taxed. I drive a car - I pay the price.
[quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior[/p][/quote]Road Tax? - no such thing. Vehicle tax contributes nothing to upkeep of roads. Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted by a vehicle - commuter cyclists generally produce little more CO2 that a person sat in a big 4x4 gas guzzler or any other motor vehicle BUT the vehicular production of CO2 is what's being taxed. I drive a car - I pay the price. spotburst
  • Score: 2

4:24pm Thu 30 Jan 14

BorislawGeorgiew says...

Even though it may take me longer, up to an hour, I could get around on free pedal power
Yes, this would be a more economical scene. I won’t have to worry about buying gasoline
With no gas burning engine, there is no air pollution
Doesn’t this seem like a practical solution?
This mode of transportation would cost considerably less
Many consumed calories can be burned off in the process
I would like to ride my bicycle to work each day. However, there is one factor getting in the way
They do not allow bicycles on the bridge into the city. I am stuck driving my car. Isn’t that a pity?
Even though it may take me longer, up to an hour, I could get around on free pedal power Yes, this would be a more economical scene. I won’t have to worry about buying gasoline With no gas burning engine, there is no air pollution Doesn’t this seem like a practical solution? This mode of transportation would cost considerably less Many consumed calories can be burned off in the process I would like to ride my bicycle to work each day. However, there is one factor getting in the way They do not allow bicycles on the bridge into the city. I am stuck driving my car. Isn’t that a pity? BorislawGeorgiew
  • Score: -2

4:25pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

BorislawGeorgiew wrote:
Even though it may take me longer, up to an hour, I could get around on free pedal power
Yes, this would be a more economical scene. I won’t have to worry about buying gasoline
With no gas burning engine, there is no air pollution
Doesn’t this seem like a practical solution?
This mode of transportation would cost considerably less
Many consumed calories can be burned off in the process
I would like to ride my bicycle to work each day. However, there is one factor getting in the way
They do not allow bicycles on the bridge into the city. I am stuck driving my car. Isn’t that a pity?
What bridge is that?
[quote][p][bold]BorislawGeorgiew[/bold] wrote: Even though it may take me longer, up to an hour, I could get around on free pedal power Yes, this would be a more economical scene. I won’t have to worry about buying gasoline With no gas burning engine, there is no air pollution Doesn’t this seem like a practical solution? This mode of transportation would cost considerably less Many consumed calories can be burned off in the process I would like to ride my bicycle to work each day. However, there is one factor getting in the way They do not allow bicycles on the bridge into the city. I am stuck driving my car. Isn’t that a pity?[/p][/quote]What bridge is that? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

4:41pm Thu 30 Jan 14

sotonboy84 says...

downfader wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?
There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.
The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?[/p][/quote]There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.[/p][/quote]The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste. sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

4:53pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Buntylicious says...

Great - more idiots getting stuck on the hill in Athelstan Road :-(
Great - more idiots getting stuck on the hill in Athelstan Road :-( Buntylicious
  • Score: 3

4:56pm Thu 30 Jan 14

voiceof thepeople says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
voiceof thepeople wrote:
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?
Read it properly, I was waiting for someone to say "who says they don't pay road tax..." They don't pay road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes !!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior[/p][/quote]Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?[/p][/quote]Read it properly, I was waiting for someone to say "who says they don't pay road tax..." They don't pay road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes !!!!!!!!!! voiceof thepeople
  • Score: -1

4:58pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

voiceof thepeople wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
voiceof thepeople wrote:
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?
Read it properly, I was waiting for someone to say "who says they don't pay road tax..." They don't pay road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes !!!!!!!!!!
No one pays road tax since it was abolished in 1937 and replaced with VED which is a tax on vehicle emissions and not a penny of it goes towards the roads.
[quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior[/p][/quote]Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?[/p][/quote]Read it properly, I was waiting for someone to say "who says they don't pay road tax..." They don't pay road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes !!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]No one pays road tax since it was abolished in 1937 and replaced with VED which is a tax on vehicle emissions and not a penny of it goes towards the roads. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

4:59pm Thu 30 Jan 14

stevo67 says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
voiceof thepeople wrote:
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?
What A complete moron !!!
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior[/p][/quote]Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?[/p][/quote]What A complete moron !!! stevo67
  • Score: -7

5:04pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

stevo67 wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
voiceof thepeople wrote:
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?
What A complete moron !!!
Yeah, "voiceof thepeople" is a complete moron.
[quote][p][bold]stevo67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior[/p][/quote]Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?[/p][/quote]What A complete moron !!![/p][/quote]Yeah, "voiceof thepeople" is a complete moron. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

5:27pm Thu 30 Jan 14

downfader says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
downfader wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?
There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.
The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.
Well no, you do have a lot of traffic heading over the Itchen Bridge from Portsmouth road and co. I think you're being disingenuous or misunderstanding that traffic isnt really busier further through the city.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?[/p][/quote]There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.[/p][/quote]The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.[/p][/quote]Well no, you do have a lot of traffic heading over the Itchen Bridge from Portsmouth road and co. I think you're being disingenuous or misunderstanding that traffic isnt really busier further through the city. downfader
  • Score: -7

9:02pm Thu 30 Jan 14

drakey says...

downfader wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
downfader wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?
There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.
The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.
Well no, you do have a lot of traffic heading over the Itchen Bridge from Portsmouth road and co. I think you're being disingenuous or misunderstanding that traffic isnt really busier further through the city.
Actually its very busy and every morning and evening there is alot or traffic and cyclists! There is alot of traffic, and as someone who has to cycle the bridge daily for work, I can say it will make cycling or walking the bridge much safer, especially on the town end where the roundabout it being swapped for a crossroad, as for the first ever time since the bridge opened it will be completely pedestrianised, meaning you won't have to go under those old subways anymore and walk straight into town.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?[/p][/quote]There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.[/p][/quote]The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.[/p][/quote]Well no, you do have a lot of traffic heading over the Itchen Bridge from Portsmouth road and co. I think you're being disingenuous or misunderstanding that traffic isnt really busier further through the city.[/p][/quote]Actually its very busy and every morning and evening there is alot or traffic and cyclists! There is alot of traffic, and as someone who has to cycle the bridge daily for work, I can say it will make cycling or walking the bridge much safer, especially on the town end where the roundabout it being swapped for a crossroad, as for the first ever time since the bridge opened it will be completely pedestrianised, meaning you won't have to go under those old subways anymore and walk straight into town. drakey
  • Score: 2

9:02pm Thu 30 Jan 14

drakey says...

downfader wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
downfader wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?
There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.
The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.
Well no, you do have a lot of traffic heading over the Itchen Bridge from Portsmouth road and co. I think you're being disingenuous or misunderstanding that traffic isnt really busier further through the city.
Actually its very busy and every morning and evening there is alot or traffic and cyclists! There is alot of traffic, and as someone who has to cycle the bridge daily for work, I can say it will make cycling or walking the bridge much safer, especially on the town end where the roundabout it being swapped for a crossroad, as for the first ever time since the bridge opened it will be completely pedestrianised, meaning you won't have to go under those old subways anymore and walk straight into town.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?[/p][/quote]There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.[/p][/quote]The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.[/p][/quote]Well no, you do have a lot of traffic heading over the Itchen Bridge from Portsmouth road and co. I think you're being disingenuous or misunderstanding that traffic isnt really busier further through the city.[/p][/quote]Actually its very busy and every morning and evening there is alot or traffic and cyclists! There is alot of traffic, and as someone who has to cycle the bridge daily for work, I can say it will make cycling or walking the bridge much safer, especially on the town end where the roundabout it being swapped for a crossroad, as for the first ever time since the bridge opened it will be completely pedestrianised, meaning you won't have to go under those old subways anymore and walk straight into town. drakey
  • Score: 1

11:09pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

drakey wrote:
downfader wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
downfader wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?
There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.
The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.
Well no, you do have a lot of traffic heading over the Itchen Bridge from Portsmouth road and co. I think you're being disingenuous or misunderstanding that traffic isnt really busier further through the city.
Actually its very busy and every morning and evening there is alot or traffic and cyclists! There is alot of traffic, and as someone who has to cycle the bridge daily for work, I can say it will make cycling or walking the bridge much safer, especially on the town end where the roundabout it being swapped for a crossroad, as for the first ever time since the bridge opened it will be completely pedestrianised, meaning you won't have to go under those old subways anymore and walk straight into town.
I'm sorry but just to correct you on something, cyclists are ALSO road traffic.
[quote][p][bold]drakey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand why the first scheme of it's kind in the city is linking Woolston to the city centre. There's nothing wrong with Woolston but it's mainly a residential area, like a lot of Southampton so wouldn't it make more sense to first introduce possibly Portswood/Highfield (university, The Avenue route into the city etc.) or Shirley (General Hospital, Shirley precinct etc.) and then start connecting the smaller or mainly residential areas?[/p][/quote]There are still a lot of shops in Woolston and even Netley. Co-op supermarket... Woolston high street used to be one of the best places for butchers, fishmongers, fishing tackle and camera stuff. Admittedly there's lot of charity shops now - it just needs a bit of effort to regenerate the shopping side.[/p][/quote]The point I was making is it would make more sense to link the busier routes into the city centre first (including the busy university and hospital) before linking residential areas. The more use the scheme gets and the bigger impact it makes will open it up to eventually including the rest of the city. Opening Woolston to the city centre over busier areas that are more congested with traffic risks not making much of an impact which will in turn dictate future funding for the rest of the city. And dare I say it, if there is no more funding, the whole scheme flops which would make the current route under construction a waste.[/p][/quote]Well no, you do have a lot of traffic heading over the Itchen Bridge from Portsmouth road and co. I think you're being disingenuous or misunderstanding that traffic isnt really busier further through the city.[/p][/quote]Actually its very busy and every morning and evening there is alot or traffic and cyclists! There is alot of traffic, and as someone who has to cycle the bridge daily for work, I can say it will make cycling or walking the bridge much safer, especially on the town end where the roundabout it being swapped for a crossroad, as for the first ever time since the bridge opened it will be completely pedestrianised, meaning you won't have to go under those old subways anymore and walk straight into town.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but just to correct you on something, cyclists are ALSO road traffic. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:19am Fri 31 Jan 14

zuki12 says...

townieboy wrote:
who cares im off on Holiday for 15 days. Blow it up for all i care.
hope it rains every day
[quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote: who cares im off on Holiday for 15 days. Blow it up for all i care.[/p][/quote]hope it rains every day zuki12
  • Score: 8

1:27am Fri 31 Jan 14

latitude19 says...

Build another Bridge, Get over it,
the amount of traffic that uses this connection surely warrants a duplication of the bridge,
Build another Bridge, Get over it, the amount of traffic that uses this connection surely warrants a duplication of the bridge, latitude19
  • Score: 2

8:50am Fri 31 Jan 14

loosehead says...

no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way? loosehead
  • Score: 2

9:27am Fri 31 Jan 14

downfader says...

loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both) downfader
  • Score: -2

9:34am Fri 31 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
Indeed, thugh poiticians, the DVLA and nost office are now starting to call it either car tax or it's true name of Vehicle Excise Duty.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)[/p][/quote]Indeed, thugh poiticians, the DVLA and nost office are now starting to call it either car tax or it's true name of Vehicle Excise Duty. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

10:10am Fri 31 Jan 14

downfader says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
Indeed, thugh poiticians, the DVLA and nost office are now starting to call it either car tax or it's true name of Vehicle Excise Duty.
Exactly.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)[/p][/quote]Indeed, thugh poiticians, the DVLA and nost office are now starting to call it either car tax or it's true name of Vehicle Excise Duty.[/p][/quote]Exactly. downfader
  • Score: -2

12:39pm Fri 31 Jan 14

loosehead says...

downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this.
The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)[/p][/quote]we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this. The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Mr E says...

Could get interesting of they have a serious accident on Northam bridge and have to close that while the Itchen bridge is closed for roadworks.
Could get interesting of they have a serious accident on Northam bridge and have to close that while the Itchen bridge is closed for roadworks. Mr E
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this.
The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?
Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)[/p][/quote]we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this. The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?[/p][/quote]Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

2:32pm Fri 31 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

latitude19 wrote:
Build another Bridge, Get over it,
the amount of traffic that uses this connection surely warrants a duplication of the bridge,
"Get over it" is precisely what will happen. That's what bridges are -for-.
[quote][p][bold]latitude19[/bold] wrote: Build another Bridge, Get over it, the amount of traffic that uses this connection surely warrants a duplication of the bridge,[/p][/quote]"Get over it" is precisely what will happen. That's what bridges are -for-. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Fri 31 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this.
The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?
Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.
what about the one in poole? it was Government funded wasn't it?
the Government has told the council if I'm correct that it would look at any environmental scheme or job creating scheme.
so a Foot/ Cycle Bridge would be green so there's funding straight away,
build that bridge do away with any pedestrian/cycle access on the Itchen Bridge free flowing traffic less pollution less road snarl ups more attractive to companies moving to the town St Mary's industrial estate so more jobs so would it hurt to look into the possibility of Government funding for a new Foot/Cycle bridge?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)[/p][/quote]we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this. The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?[/p][/quote]Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.[/p][/quote]what about the one in poole? it was Government funded wasn't it? the Government has told the council if I'm correct that it would look at any environmental scheme or job creating scheme. so a Foot/ Cycle Bridge would be green so there's funding straight away, build that bridge do away with any pedestrian/cycle access on the Itchen Bridge free flowing traffic less pollution less road snarl ups more attractive to companies moving to the town St Mary's industrial estate so more jobs so would it hurt to look into the possibility of Government funding for a new Foot/Cycle bridge? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this.
The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?
Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.
what about the one in poole? it was Government funded wasn't it?
the Government has told the council if I'm correct that it would look at any environmental scheme or job creating scheme.
so a Foot/ Cycle Bridge would be green so there's funding straight away,
build that bridge do away with any pedestrian/cycle access on the Itchen Bridge free flowing traffic less pollution less road snarl ups more attractive to companies moving to the town St Mary's industrial estate so more jobs so would it hurt to look into the possibility of Government funding for a new Foot/Cycle bridge?
You would still get traffic snarl ups on the toll bridge, too many selfish people driving just themselves in 4 to 7 seater cars.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)[/p][/quote]we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this. The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?[/p][/quote]Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.[/p][/quote]what about the one in poole? it was Government funded wasn't it? the Government has told the council if I'm correct that it would look at any environmental scheme or job creating scheme. so a Foot/ Cycle Bridge would be green so there's funding straight away, build that bridge do away with any pedestrian/cycle access on the Itchen Bridge free flowing traffic less pollution less road snarl ups more attractive to companies moving to the town St Mary's industrial estate so more jobs so would it hurt to look into the possibility of Government funding for a new Foot/Cycle bridge?[/p][/quote]You would still get traffic snarl ups on the toll bridge, too many selfish people driving just themselves in 4 to 7 seater cars. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

3:44pm Fri 31 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this.
The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?
Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.
what about the one in poole? it was Government funded wasn't it?
the Government has told the council if I'm correct that it would look at any environmental scheme or job creating scheme.
so a Foot/ Cycle Bridge would be green so there's funding straight away,
build that bridge do away with any pedestrian/cycle access on the Itchen Bridge free flowing traffic less pollution less road snarl ups more attractive to companies moving to the town St Mary's industrial estate so more jobs so would it hurt to look into the possibility of Government funding for a new Foot/Cycle bridge?
You would still get traffic snarl ups on the toll bridge, too many selfish people driving just themselves in 4 to 7 seater cars.
Ginger we often agree with each other I was trying to show that if the right avenues were pursued maybe a safer option for walkers & cyclists could be built.
the Itchen Bridge is a cash cow for our council it was never envisaged as being the main route into town it was to replace the floating bridge making it easier for those living in Woolston Weston to get into town but we all know it's become more used than Northam Bridge.
I got a bus from Weston to Shirley every day & the amount of people right next to the bridge who jumped into cars to join the traffic jam across the bridge kinda surprised me as if I lived there & was only going into town I;'d have walked but hey people have money to burn don't they?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)[/p][/quote]we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this. The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?[/p][/quote]Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.[/p][/quote]what about the one in poole? it was Government funded wasn't it? the Government has told the council if I'm correct that it would look at any environmental scheme or job creating scheme. so a Foot/ Cycle Bridge would be green so there's funding straight away, build that bridge do away with any pedestrian/cycle access on the Itchen Bridge free flowing traffic less pollution less road snarl ups more attractive to companies moving to the town St Mary's industrial estate so more jobs so would it hurt to look into the possibility of Government funding for a new Foot/Cycle bridge?[/p][/quote]You would still get traffic snarl ups on the toll bridge, too many selfish people driving just themselves in 4 to 7 seater cars.[/p][/quote]Ginger we often agree with each other I was trying to show that if the right avenues were pursued maybe a safer option for walkers & cyclists could be built. the Itchen Bridge is a cash cow for our council it was never envisaged as being the main route into town it was to replace the floating bridge making it easier for those living in Woolston Weston to get into town but we all know it's become more used than Northam Bridge. I got a bus from Weston to Shirley every day & the amount of people right next to the bridge who jumped into cars to join the traffic jam across the bridge kinda surprised me as if I lived there & was only going into town I;'d have walked but hey people have money to burn don't they? loosehead
  • Score: 1

3:47pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax.
but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them?
Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ?
I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't.
Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?
I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it.

The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)
we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this.
The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?
Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.
what about the one in poole? it was Government funded wasn't it?
the Government has told the council if I'm correct that it would look at any environmental scheme or job creating scheme.
so a Foot/ Cycle Bridge would be green so there's funding straight away,
build that bridge do away with any pedestrian/cycle access on the Itchen Bridge free flowing traffic less pollution less road snarl ups more attractive to companies moving to the town St Mary's industrial estate so more jobs so would it hurt to look into the possibility of Government funding for a new Foot/Cycle bridge?
You would still get traffic snarl ups on the toll bridge, too many selfish people driving just themselves in 4 to 7 seater cars.
Ginger we often agree with each other I was trying to show that if the right avenues were pursued maybe a safer option for walkers & cyclists could be built.
the Itchen Bridge is a cash cow for our council it was never envisaged as being the main route into town it was to replace the floating bridge making it easier for those living in Woolston Weston to get into town but we all know it's become more used than Northam Bridge.
I got a bus from Weston to Shirley every day & the amount of people right next to the bridge who jumped into cars to join the traffic jam across the bridge kinda surprised me as if I lived there & was only going into town I;'d have walked but hey people have money to burn don't they?
Money to burn is quite the appropriate phrase as people driving over the ridge and getting caught up in the traffic do exactly that, burn money while their engines are running... Unless they have a hybrid, electric or hydrogen powered car.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: no matter if it isn't called road tax most people call it road tax. but a cycle with the amount of tyre touching the tarmac exactly how much could/would you charge them? Electric cars pay no road tax so what ban them ? I was waiting for the Anti Cruise ship hysteria to start but thankfully it hasn't. Personally maybe another bridge not as wide could have been built for pedestrians & cyclists & the Itchen bridge could be motor vehicles only would be the way?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure another bridge would work. Look at Boris' plans in London and the money he's spent on bridges over the Thames, Southampton cannot afford that and I dont think any of us would appreciate a council tax rise to pay for it. The fact people refer to it as "road tax" is down to politicians and companies trying to sway people for their vote and their money. These people have been misleading (no surprise there considering the history of both)[/p][/quote]we never paid for the Itchen bridge & still haven't, I lived in Thailand & bridges across main roads (foot) have been built by private companies & they use them to advertise theirs & other businesses so there could be away to do this. The Itchen bridge was built to replace the floating bridge for the east of our cities use it's now become a major artery into this city from in & out of the city it makes a fortune for this city so why not use some of those profits to fund a foot/cycle bridge?[/p][/quote]Another bridge for foot/cycle traffic would either have to be as tall as the toll bridge, be a lifting bridge like Tower bridge or the ones across Breydon Water in Norfolk or be a swing bridge like the one on Oultan broad or the Connaught Crossing in the docklands of London to allow water traffic to get through, for this reason, all of those bridges would be incredibly expensive to construct.[/p][/quote]what about the one in poole? it was Government funded wasn't it? the Government has told the council if I'm correct that it would look at any environmental scheme or job creating scheme. so a Foot/ Cycle Bridge would be green so there's funding straight away, build that bridge do away with any pedestrian/cycle access on the Itchen Bridge free flowing traffic less pollution less road snarl ups more attractive to companies moving to the town St Mary's industrial estate so more jobs so would it hurt to look into the possibility of Government funding for a new Foot/Cycle bridge?[/p][/quote]You would still get traffic snarl ups on the toll bridge, too many selfish people driving just themselves in 4 to 7 seater cars.[/p][/quote]Ginger we often agree with each other I was trying to show that if the right avenues were pursued maybe a safer option for walkers & cyclists could be built. the Itchen Bridge is a cash cow for our council it was never envisaged as being the main route into town it was to replace the floating bridge making it easier for those living in Woolston Weston to get into town but we all know it's become more used than Northam Bridge. I got a bus from Weston to Shirley every day & the amount of people right next to the bridge who jumped into cars to join the traffic jam across the bridge kinda surprised me as if I lived there & was only going into town I;'d have walked but hey people have money to burn don't they?[/p][/quote]Money to burn is quite the appropriate phrase as people driving over the ridge and getting caught up in the traffic do exactly that, burn money while their engines are running... Unless they have a hybrid, electric or hydrogen powered car. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

2:52am Sat 1 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

voiceof thepeople wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
voiceof thepeople wrote:
All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior
Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?
Read it properly, I was waiting for someone to say "who says they don't pay road tax..." They don't pay road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes !!!!!!!!!!
I may be a little late to this party but is it really that difficult to understand that if you work and pay tax then you pay for roads that way and road tax doesn't even exist anymore?!?!

Does every non-cyclist just use that as their "go - to" argument to express why they think cyclists deserve no say on road upkeep? Because its a worthless argument! The sooner the chubbers realise this the better.

Whether you drive or cycle, if you pay council tax - you pay road tax. I s that simple.
[quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceof thepeople[/bold] wrote: All of this for bl**dy cyclists, they pay no road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes, sod 'em, don't bother with the improvements, it'll just make them feel superior[/p][/quote]Who says they don't pay road tax? The majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Did you know that?[/p][/quote]Read it properly, I was waiting for someone to say "who says they don't pay road tax..." They don't pay road tax for their 2 wheeled bikes !!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]I may be a little late to this party but is it really that difficult to understand that if you work and pay tax then you pay for roads that way and road tax doesn't even exist anymore?!?! Does every non-cyclist just use that as their "go - to" argument to express why they think cyclists deserve no say on road upkeep? Because its a worthless argument! The sooner the chubbers realise this the better. Whether you drive or cycle, if you pay council tax - you pay road tax. I s that simple. camerajuan
  • 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