“I do not care about the report you have linked to, it is always very easy to find a biased report and present it as fact. Your previous Labour Government provided its own facts and figures, as did many other impertial ones, which contradict this report.

Basic science shows vehicles constantly moving emit less emissions than those constantly stopping and starting, and those continually accelerating to overtake slower vehicles. It does not need a report to state, or even try to contradict such basic facts.

The public transport system system, and entire transport system needs a radical overhaul, i have said this many times, and you seem unable to digest this, it needs prioritising to the road networks, and full integration with other forms of transport, including properly thought out tram networks.

It does not need expensive stand alone tram systems like the one in Nottingham, and another add on system which will be equally as bad. It needs proper financial planning and not the dubious, manipulated, alleged facts which were presented as a case for the Nottingham tram. It does not need a tram system which has subsidies to the tune of £10 per passenger journey, it needs to be cost efficient and provide the service people need, where people need it.

This is where i am in favour of de-politicising the infrastructure and developing proper national transport networks, not the vague politically motivated system as Nottingham currently has, which is a white elephant.

I notice you failed to comment on the minorityof people the current tram system serves, and the fact it does not serve the majority who pay for these excessive subsidies.”

“Andyman, I don't think that assertion is backed up by the report I have linked to.

The report studied 4 case studies, and in the one which I think is most comparable to this; the A11 widening around Roundham Heeth, forecasts were made relating to journey times, and the only way in which these were met were because a lot of drivers broke the speed limit; itself a safety issue.

And as for 1 of your last points:
"it must be much bigger than a single tram line,"

That's why we need the new tram extention.”

“This shows the madness of the socialists at the City Council. They are prepared to spend public money ¿ our money ¿ on a prestige road scheme that will cost millions and benefit just a handful of people. I am confident that Philip Hammond will see this for the nonsense it is and send them packing.”

“The evidence actually shows the opposite, that it does reduce congestion as well as pollution, journey times, and incidents of road rage, the last one surprised me.

Public transport is not the answer or a better alternative as the majority of car users are business users. The only time this is not the case is the morning and evening rush hours, where private journeys outweigh business travel.

How affordable is public transport if you put it on an even playing field, remove the subsidies and it becomes considerably more expensive than the car. It is impractical for most business journeys, so impractical at anything other tham the rush hour for the majority of travellers, and i cannot carry the amount of equipment i have to, let alone transport it by public transport.

Public transport has a place, it must be integrated with the road and other transport networks to give people a choice, it must be much bigger than a single tram line, and part of a coherent transport policy, not the expensive politically indoctrinated efforts they currently are.”

“Andyman, the evidence does not suggest that widening roads actually cuts congestion.

A better and more effective idea is to provide a practical and affordable alternative to the car.”