Re: We do not need a third crossing

General Chat

We do not need a third crossing

The One And Only 10/12/2007, 10:57 AM
why is everybody moaning about not having a third crossing? The other day at rush hour I went into the town centre with no problems whatsoever. at other times if everyone used both lanes at the asda roundabout there would be no queues whatsoever. also if the aggressive,ignorant drivers who continuously block you from getting into the correct lane on the bridge let you in there would also be no queues. the buses are the worst for doing such a thing. another solution would be to keep the temporary footbridge and close it when a ship wants to come through the bridge and then take away the footpaths on the main bridge and make it into four lanes instead of three. the 14.9 million pounds spent on the sunrise scheme was not a complete waste of money. most of it was well spent on better,even paving and the new relief road which i feel is a total success. the fountains provide fun and entertainment for people of all ages. another reason for not needing a third crossing is that if more people used bicycles and their own two legs which are made for walking and also the bus there would not be so many cars heading in and out of lowestoft. i also feel that lowestoft is crowded now with buildings and other attractions so where would a third bridge be put. that's all i'm putting for now because there are too many reasons to mention on why we don't need a third crossing.

Re: We do not need a third crossing

blackswan 10/12/2007, 4:07 PM
you obviously do not live in the same lowestoft as I do Confused [*-)]

Re: We do not need a third crossing

Jonathan 19/12/2007, 1:00 PM
Re third Crossing: While the bridge was closed it was lovely and quiet...

Re: We do not need a third crossing

Suffolkboy 24/01/2008, 7:51 PM
We really don't need to spend all that money on on extra roads. The traffic problems in the town are nothing when compared to other areas of the country. Can't we upgrade the roads we already have? We could start with not only repairing the bridge but also making it wider to accomodate four lanes of traffic. That way the full potential of the relief road could be realised.

Re: We do not need a third crossing

George 08/03/2008, 1:21 AM
It's not a third crossing we need, its a third less cars. If the people who drive less than two miles were to leave their cars at home and use a bike or the bus, then the traffic problems would vanish.

Re: We do not need a third crossing

Suffolkboy 12/03/2008, 4:58 PM

George wrote:
It's not a third crossing we need, its a third less cars. If the people who drive less than two miles were to leave their cars at home and use a bike or the bus, then the traffic problems would vanish.

That's what we buy cars for - to leave our cars at home!!!! I think not!!! What real traffic problems do we have? Now that most of the roadworks have finished the traffic system has improved greatly.Things are far better than they used to be.

Re: We do not need a third crossing

Jonathan 14/03/2008, 10:19 AM
I agree they are begining to get better, they would be better still if more people cycled. Despite owning a car and a van I find it is often quicker and more enjoyable to cycle. It is of course better for the environment and gives me good exercise......

Re: We do not need a third crossing

George 21/03/2008, 2:10 PM
Thats the way forward, more people sitting longer traffic jams because they think that more roads will solve the problem. Building more roads is like letting your belt out another notch to cure your weight problem.

I am not anti-car as I drive for a living. But it must be better for the town and those who live in it to reduce the amount of short car journies taken.

Why drive your kids to school when they could get there just as fast by foot or bike?
Do you drive a mile or so in to town, then moan that there isnt enough parking and that it is over priced?
Drive to the corner shop?

Small changes like these will make a lot of difference to our town. Why not try it?, you never know you may find you like it!

Re: We do not need a third crossing

tommo 31/07/2009, 8:12 PM
I've finally got round to joining the Journal forum and am greatly encouraged that the majority (in this forum that is!) argue against the third crossing for the reasons I've been arguing for ages. I just wish you would write to Postbox as well!

No, people don't buy cars to leave them at home. I use my car when I genuinely have to but it's not sitting around. The point is if able-bodied people are buying cars purely for journeys of 2 miles or less then apart from the damage they're doing to their own helath and everyone elses, bigger fools them. Think of the money they would save.

You might like to see my posting "Why Suffolk Count Council is right to spend on cycling."

Re: We do not need a third crossing

tommo 31/07/2009, 8:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif"> <strong>tommo wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">I've finally got round to joining the Journal forum and am greatly encouraged that the majority (in this forum that is!) argue against the third crossing for the reasons I've been arguing for ages. I just wish you would write to Postbox as well!

No, people don't buy cars to leave them at home. I use my car when I genuinely have to but it's not sitting around. The point is if able-bodied people are buying cars purely for journeys of 2 miles or less then apart from the damage they're doing to their own helath and everyone elses, bigger fools them. Think of the money they would save.

You might like to see my posting "Why Suffolk Count Council is right to spend on cycling."</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re: We do not need a third crossing

tommo 31/07/2009, 8:30 PM
Aha, silly me, there's rather a lot of views that I haven't read. I'm still encouraged though

Re: We do not need a third crossing

Peter Waller 03/10/2009, 10:09 PM
If we weren't to have a third crossing then we should have stopped building houses for incomers years ago!

The Broads is the Broads, much more than just a national park.

Re: We do not need a third crossing

Suffolkboy 08/10/2009, 8:00 PM

Peter Waller wrote:
If we weren't to have a third crossing then we should have stopped building houses for incomers years ago!

By incomers I assume you mean "Londoners".........Such an old fashioned outlook..........Shame on you!!