Re: This won't happen when we have a bridge
Qwight
<'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:
>Car ferry sailings cancelled
>By County Press Reporter
>DUE to adverse weather, Wightlink has been forced to cancel some of its car
>ferry sailings today (Monday).
> | News feeds from the Isle of Wight County
Everyone's allowed to be a bit thick at times, but you really abuse
the privilege!
The Dartford bridge and the Severn crossings are both closed, or
restricted to high sided vehicles, during stormy weather. I expect the
other main bridges are as well but I can't be arsed to check.
A Solent bridge would be no different.
Steve
qwi...@not-qwight.invalid (Qwight) wrote:
> *Subject:* Re: This won't happen when we have a bridge
> *From:* Qwight <qwi...@not-qwight.invalid>
> *Date:* Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:37:21 +0000
I live a stones throw from the Severn crossing, and cannot remember a
time when cars cannot use it... If the ferries don't run, even motorists
cannot move!
Moot point however, the bridge won't happen, we all know that. Islanders
would have a bridge no more than they would have oil rigs or wind farms!!
- Steve
Qwight
j80k...@dea.spamcon.org (Steve) wrote:
>In article <ofiqh59evho0pui6n...@4ax.com>,
>qwi...@not-qwight.invalid (Qwight) wrote:
>
>> *Subject:* Re: This won't happen when we have a bridge
>> *From:* Qwight <qwi...@not-qwight.invalid>
>> *Date:* Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:37:21 +0000
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:10:19 -0000, "'Mike'"
>> <'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Car ferry sailings cancelled
>> >By County Press Reporter
>> >DUE to adverse weather, Wightlink has been forced to cancel some
>> of its car >ferry sailings today (Monday).
>> > | News feeds from the Isle of Wight County
>>
>>
>> Everyone's allowed to be a bit thick at times, but you really abuse
>> the privilege!
>>
>> The Dartford bridge and the Severn crossings are both closed, or
>> restricted to high sided vehicles, during stormy weather. I expect
>> the
>> other main bridges are as well but I can't be arsed to check.
>> A Solent bridge would be no different.
>>
>I live a stones throw from the Severn crossing, and cannot remember a
>time when cars cannot use it... If the ferries don't run, even motorists
>cannot move!
>
By "restricted to high sided vehicles", I meant that the restriction
applies to high sided vehicles, i.e. high sided vehicles are not
allowed.
In severe weather the Dartford bridge is closed entirely and
southbound traffic diverted to one of the tunnels, which causes huge
tailbacks. I have personally experienced this and it was no fun.
>Moot point however, the bridge won't happen, we all know that. Islanders
>would have a bridge no more than they would have oil rigs or wind farms!!
>
Yes we all know that. All except "confused of Lake" that is...
Mike
"Qwight" <qwi...@not-qwight.invalid> wrote in message
news:1soqh5do2hqv977q5...@4ax.com...
"""The joint applicants are now considering an appeal but may instead decide
to continue building three much smaller turbines, first granted permission
in 1995."""
Oil Rigs? Try Perreton Farm circa the 1950's and again in the 1970's :-))
Kindest regards
--
Mike
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk
Steve
'All.finished'@woolies.com ('Mike') wrote:
> >>Moot point however, the bridge won't happen, we all know that.
> Islanders
> >>would have a bridge no more than they would have oil rigs or wind
> farms!!
> >>
> >
> > Yes we all know that. All except "confused of Lake" that is...
>
>
> """The joint applicants are now considering an appeal but may
> instead decide to continue building three much smaller turbines,
> first granted permission in 1995."""
>
> Oil Rigs? Try Perreton Farm circa the 1950's and again in the
> 1970's :-))
>
...and the NIMBY's ruled the day!
- Steve
Richard Bird
"Qwight" <qwi...@not-qwight.invalid> wrote in message
news:1soqh5do2hqv977q5...@4ax.com...
Why would'nt the islanders want a bridge, surely it would be more convenient
and cheaper to use the a ferry, perhaps i have missed something
kj
of fish though
Steve
xricha...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Richard Bird) wrote:
> >>Moot point however, the bridge won't happen, we all know that.
> Islanders
> >>would have a bridge no more than they would have oil rigs or wind
> farms!!
> >>
> >
> > Yes we all know that. All except "confused of Lake" that is...
>
> Why wouldn't the islanders want a bridge, surely it would be more
> convenient and cheaper to use the a ferry, perhaps i have missed
> something
>
>
>
I can think of many reasons, I doubt it, I doubt it, How's your latin?
Insulae.
- Steve
Richard Bird
"kj" <vforven...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:F_idnf8qNZAtjIPW...@bt.com...
Would'nt a road bridge be more benificial to the residents of IOW as it
would be convenient and cheaper to get to the mainland
kj
traffic on the road and the two towns we would be connected too...we
should be encouraging people to come by foot(rail)
Anyway the bridge would have to be a toll bridge built by private
industry which means a higher toll set for a period..as was the Slye
Bridge. I beleive people would rather pay �40 to get on the ferry and
have someone else get them here than pay �20 and drive themselves.
I've still yet to have one guest moan about the ferry in the time we've
been here
Richard Bird
"Steve" <j80k...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:memo.2009120...@rook.127.0.0.1...
> In article <5pgTm.43895$7w6....@newsfe27.ams2>,
> xricha...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Richard Bird) wrote:
>
>
>> >>Moot point however, the bridge won't happen, we all know that.
>> Islanders
>> >>would have a bridge no more than they would have oil rigs or wind
>> farms!!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes we all know that. All except "confused of Lake" that is...
>>
>> Why wouldn't the islanders want a bridge, surely it would be more
>> something
>>
>>
>>
> I can think of many reasons, I doubt it, I doubt it, How's your latin?
>
> Insulae.
>
>
> - Steve
No good at all but Google gave me this LOL LOL
In Roman architecture, an insula (plural insulae) was a large apartment
building where the lower and middle classes (PLEBS) lived (i assume you read
apartment building as island)
I have altered my origional post as there was an error
Steve
wrote:
> *From:* "mark" <no-on...@noads.com>
> *Date:* Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:24:57 -0000
>
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Richard Bird" <xricha...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:DFoTm.67100$HK1....@newsfe22.ams2...
> >
> > "Steve" <j80k...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> > news:memo.2009120...@rook.127.0.0.1...
> >> In article <5pgTm.43895$7w6....@newsfe27.ams2>,
> >> xricha...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Richard Bird) wrote:
>
> >>> Why wouldn't the islanders want a bridge, surely it would be
> more
> >>> convenient and cheaper to use than a ferry, perhaps i have
> missed
> >>> something
>
>
> >> I can think of many reasons, I doubt it, I doubt it, How's your
> latin?
>
>
> >> Insulae.
>
> > No good at all but Google gave me this LOL LOL
> > In Roman architecture, an insula (plural insulae) was a large
> > apartment building where the lower and middle classes (PLEBS)
> > lived (i assume you read apartment building as island)
>
> ....Aegates Insulae.........?
> I've seen reference also to insulae as an *island* in the sense
> that the amount of buildings in large developments set them apart
> from surrounding areas.
> So not literally an Island but metaphorically an Island.
> It appears also that these tall buildings housed numbers of
> families, 4 or 5 typically, all living together (rather than
> specifically mixing up classes) but, of course, there will have
> been slaves in some of those families and perhaps that is where the
> notion of mixed classes comes from. In general, they were working
> class typr housing. They certainly were not the upper class houses
> (domus...? from memory).
> I can see the analogy with the Island but it's a bit of a
> stretch.....
>
>
> mark
>
>
>
>
It's no analogy, the analogy is with the building!
Insula and Island are very close relatives...
..if you translate directly you will see what I mean.
- Steve
kj
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Richard Bird" <xricha...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> convenient and cheaper to use the a ferry, perhaps i have missed
>>>> something
>
>>> I don't want a road bridge - ever...a rail bridge is a different kettle
>>> of fish though
>
>> Would'nt a road bridge be more benificial to the residents of IOW as it
>> would be convenient and cheaper to get to the mainland
>
>
> Convenient and cheaper....?
> There's some assumptions in that, richard.
>
> From the outset, one might want to consider carefully the access points both
> at Yarmouth and on the mainland.
> Which side of the Yar would you forsee the bridge arriving..? Whichever
> side there isn't much of an infrastructure to allow two lanes of traffic off
> easily. Putting the infrastructure in (if that were possible..) wouldn't be
> terribly convenient to those affected by the land works. Then on the
> mainland, somehow you've got to get around Lymington and hinterland. The
> inconvenience to people who lived there who would not necessarily have any
> interest in a fixed link to the Island would be enormous. There's
> undoubtably compulsory land purchase involved... not always convenient to
> the owner.
> Further, arriving and/or leaving around Lymington is not that convenient for
> travel to and from the South East and London areas.
> In short, there's some technical issues that would very much inconvenience
> some people.
> However, perhaps far and away the most pertinent points surround the notion
> of the Island staying an Island (after all, it's been one for long enough
> now!).
> There is concern that unfettered access that a bridge would bring would,
> ultimately, change the whole infrastructure of the island as traffic of all
> types flooded on (..and off!) the Island bringing levels of traffic that
> the Island just could not cope with. The roads were never built to support
> the already volumous levels and worse, the level of coach traffic.
> Then we could consider the 'desire' of most Islanders to leave the Island
> regularly. As opposed to the volumes of people who wish to visit here. For
> whom is the bridge being built..? the residents to get off....or the
> visitors to get on..?
> One only needs to be around the fastcat and redjet at 7/8.00am in the
> morning and 5/6.00pm at night to see those who access work on the mainland
> (on foot) in Portsmouth and Southampton .. Lymington isn't that useful to
> those people.
> Clearly residents here need/want to leave the Island on occasions but I
> would suggest it is very much the case that the real volumes of traffic are
> visitors (that is beyond doubt in the summer months..)from the mainland.
> Then we have the desire of commerce to get their lorries on and off more
> *economically*. We've already had a large supermarket wanting to just
> develop a greefield site to put up warehousing to store all the goods
> brought across... I shudder to think how we'd make any sense of these
> bloody great lorries trundling off a bridge near Yarmouth, heading for
> Newport, inconveniencing just about everyone in their paths.
> It's a complex issue, as is always the case in matters like these. Some
> people want it, some people benefit from it and some people don't want or
> benefit from it at all.
> The interesting thing for me is the Mike Crowes of the world who come to the
> Island (as opposed to being someone from the island..) probably to access
> all the things it is... then decide that it's missing something and start to
> complain about it vociferously.
> I see exactly the same thing happening in France where thousands and
> thousands of ex pats take up residence (one must assume they move to France
> because they like/love France) then start to change the communities they
> have moved into by complaining about French ways. Shops still close at
> lunchtime(!). Shops don't open on sundays. In the South, getting anything
> done takes a lifetime of asking for it to be done..etc., etc.,
> It's the Mike Crowes of this world that want to change the intrinsic culture
> and spirit of the local residents that appalls me frankly....
> By the way, apart from mikes' puffing on about it there's very little ever
> mentioned or discussed on the Island either officially or privately. It's
> not really a serious consideration.
>
> mark
>
>
>
Most of the people I meet now assume I'm from the Island, which I take
as a compliment and can't beleive I've only been here 6 years
RG
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "kj" <vforven...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:oeSdnb2126IisYPW...@bt.com...
>
>
>> Most of the people I meet now assume I'm from the Island, which I take
>> as
>> a compliment and can't beleive I've only been here 6 years
>
> oops.
> I wasn't 'having a pop' at you kevin or anyone else that has settled
> here in
> particular.
> My point was about those that come to the Island and then wish to make
> changes to it...
> Perhaps I didn't express that so well!
> Anyway, as we both seem to agree, the bridge is a problematic issue at
> many
> levels.
>
I can't believe how you people keep dancing to Crowe's tune and get so
excited every time he repeats this post to gain attention. But since you
are doing so *again*, let me put a visitor's point of view *again*.
I've been coming to the Island every year for 30 years, at least once and
sometimes 3 and 4 times in a year. I do so because it is a pleasant,
peaceful and generally attractive place to unwind and relax. Yes, there
are a few grubby spots on the east coast but they are easily avoided by
the visitor who has no need to go there. The Island is easy enough to get
to from London, but relatively isolated from the cities on the south
coast. The ferry cost is certainly not excessive if you take a little care
in choosing the crossing day/time.
If a fixed link was put in, the Island would become a suburb of
Southampton and/or Portsmouth. Assuming a bridge was put in to Yarmouth,
the volume of traffic there would destroy the peace of the west and
central parts of the Island. I would certainly visit once more, out of
curiosity to see it, but that would be my last visit ever. I know from
many discussions that this is a common view amongst regular visitors.
However this does not concern me unduly because I know that a fixed link
is inconceivable as far as one can see into the future. It is a mirage.
This tired old subject has been beaten to death far too many times. Next
time the feeble old troll drags it up, couldn't you just ignore it?
Richard Bird
"RG" <r...@nothereatall.net> wrote in message
news:op.u4mbc...@home1.mshome...
Could you give me some examples of the ferry costs for a car and passengers
during different times as i have no idea,
i do however take the points put forward regarding the extra trafficof all
sizes if a bridge were built plus the infrastructure problems that would be
caused and now that has been pointed out i agree it would be of no benefit
to the island at all in fact it would be just the opposite
Qwight
All the fares are on the Red Funnel and Wightlink websites.
pied piper
"Why not build the bridge the other side and connect to France
Mike
"pied piper" <halee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PzwTm.87568$Xc2....@newsfe24.ams2...
>
> "Why not build the bridge the other side and connect to France
'NEVER' happen.
Richard Bird
"Qwight" <qwi...@not-qwight.invalid> wrote in message
I looked on the Wightlink site and the fares are a rip off, to get any sort
of half sensible price in the summer you have to get up at sillyo'clock in
the night, what a crap way to start a holiday
We go to france (Dover/ Calais) every month for between 5 to 8 days and i
get a deal with P&O for �40 return anytime day or night and the ticket is
open ended so if i wish we could return in 3 months or so time also, i can
pass them on to friends and family for their use, this is for a car and up
to 9 people (how you get 9 in a car i dont know but that is the deal) we
usually aim for a crossing around 1200 having stopped for breakfast at
Clacket Lane on the way and return between 1500 and 1700 from Calais
depending on time of year
Mike
"Richard Bird" <xricha...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TmxTm.79250$P71....@newsfe28.ams2...
>
>
> I looked on the Wightlink site and the fares are a rip off, to get any
> sort of half sensible price in the summer you have to get up at
> sillyo'clock in the night, what a crap way to start a holiday
Be OK when we get the bridge :-))
Richard
> "Richard Bird" <xrichardbi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Ever heard of the Skye bridge? Nothing much to stop shysters like
those that run Wightlink and Red Funnel running an IOW bridge is
there?
kj
> X-No-Archive: yes> news:oeSdnb2126IisYPW...@bt.com...
>
>
>> Most of the people I meet now assume I'm from the Island, which I take as
>> a compliment and can't beleive I've only been here 6 years
>
> I wasn't 'having a pop' at you kevin or anyone else that has settled here in
> particular.
> My point was about those that come to the Island and then wish to make
> changes to it...
> Perhaps I didn't express that so well!
> Anyway, as we both seem to agree, the bridge is a problematic issue at many
> levels.
>
>
>
>
didn't think you were
kj
ticket,..travel early (bfore 8AM) or late (after 7PM) and you can get it
for �42 return