Archive for February, 2013

Mottram Bypass: Jonathan Reynolds Letter To Constituents.

Dear Constituent,
I am writing to provide you with an update on the work I have been doing regarding our
chronic traffic problems in Longdendale.

Just after being elected as our MP, I and the new MP for High Peak organised a meeting
between the local authorities in our area and officials from the Department for Transport to
discuss how we might get Government to listen to local concerns about the traffic problems
throughout Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle.

Since the Public Inquiry into the Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass was abandoned, we have faced uncertainty as to what the future holds.

Although funding for a more modest scheme has been allocated within the Greater
Manchester region for some sort of scheme, there has not been clear agreement on how
best to use this.

One proposal, which was to build a road from the M67 roundabout around
Mottram, then across Mottram Moor to Woolley Bridge (known as ‘LITS’ — the Longdendale
integrated Transport Scheme), did not seem satisfactory for a number of reasons, including
the lack of substantive relief for Hollingworth.

Together, we have now successfully established a working group comprised of
representatives from Tameside, High Peak, Derbyshire, and Barnsley Councils; the
Department for Transport; the Highways Agency; and the Peak District National Park.

This group has been meeting regularly for the last year to look at how we can build support for
solutions to the traffic problems within the entire peak corridor area, which begins and ends
in Longdendale. Getting all these organisations to commit to working together on a solution
is in itself a breakthrough. Any previous efforts have been much more fragmented and have
suffered as a result.

One reason why the Public Inquiry failed in 2007 was because although the scheme had
strong support locally, it did not command the same breadth of support further afield. This is
what we are seeking to overcome. In addition, however, we must also be conscious of the
likely scale of resources available: the Greater Manchester area has had an indicative
£65.4m allocated for all transport projects between 2015 and 2019.

For Sheffield and South Yorkshire the indicative figure is £37.3m. The previous Bypass plan was estimated as
costing between £24O—£315m back in 2008.

I strongly supported that previous Bypass plan and am still of the belief that local people
need and deserve a scheme which is as comprehensive as that. However, I also want to
see relief brought to people as soon as possible.

I am willing to consider any plan which does this, although it is still my view that any solution will have to involve the building of a
new road to relieve Mottram Moor and Market Street. We need to take the traffic out of the
centre of the villages.

Whilst this obviously will not be easy, we have already scored some small victories. For
instance, the Highways Agency had started to consider selling all the properties they hold in
the Mottram area – which were purchased over the years as a means of protecting the route
of the Bypass. Had this happened it would have been a significant setback.

By ensuring the Highways Agency did not do this, we managed to prevent the properties from being sold and
the route has been protected. in addition, the Group recently commissioned the first piece of
work to look into the economic benefits of investing in traffic solutions in the area. This is
crucial as govemment does not support these kinds of schemes unless there is a clear
benefit to the wider economy.

Just before Christmas we also met with the Transport Minister,
Stephen Hammond, who agreed to task his officials to look into the case we have made so
far and come back to us early this year.

l also want to say that, having lived in Hollingworth and Mottram for several years, and
represented the area as a Councillor before being elected to Parliament, I understand just
how important this issue is, and also how frustrating it is that nothing has still been done
despite all the years of effort.

However disappointing the lack of success might be, we have
to keep up the effort, and l am determined to do exactly that.

I keep a database of all constituents interested in this issue; if you would like to be added to
it please email me at: [removed so he doesn’t get spam] Also, if you would like to meet me
to discuss this issue further, l am always happy to do so.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Reynolds MP

PS. l have also been contacted by a number of constituents regarding Tameside MBC’s
Core Strategy consultation paper. Whilst this is a local council document rather than a
national govemment matter (which l deal with as your MP), it does impact on this particular
issue. This paper proposes that part of the land at the end of the M67 (behind Hyde Road)
be designated for future light industrial use.

I want to make a number of things clear – firstly this is not a planning application: it is only
a guide as to where future planning applications might be. It is also not an attempt to end any
hope of a road being built between the M67 roundabout and Stalybridge Road — any
development would have to incorporate this.

Clearly, any such development could cause
further traffic problems if it came before we had a new traffic scheme in place, and I would
need to see how this would be dealt with before I could support development in this area.

I would also be concerned to ensure any recreational areas where preserved or relocated.
However, my instinct is that this is a better proposal than one which would have put more
houses in this particular area. You can read more about the Core Strategy document here:
http://bit.ly/XfrxNg

New Scam email from “Alex Williams”

URGENT ASSISTANCE NEEDED the scam email screams in its title.

Of course, he isn’t really called Alex Williams.

The African (usually) bank scam emails are not new, but nobody has submitted this one to Google yet, so I thought we would.

This particular one has two email addresses associated with it: alexwilliams650@yahoo.es and United-n@solid.ocn.ne.jp.

That suggest an origin of either Spain or Japan.

Neither is the case as you will find out.

Here is the scam email:

Dear Friend,

My name is Alex Williams and I work with a Bank here in London-England, The name of the bank is Metro Bank London (England). We had a Mr. Allan P. Smith, customer that had a deposit of US$43.5M (Forty Three Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) before he Died in a plane crash with his wife and only Child about 8 years now (January 30, 2005) and since he died, we in the Bank here have been expecting his/her next of kin/relative(s) for the inheritance of the deposit, but none has surfaced.

The policy of the Bank however stipulates a limited time period for such inheritance to be made or the fund will be written off going by the record of the incident, the time limit for the claim is closing up. In this consideration, I am contacting you to seek for your kind understanding and sincere co-operation to claim this inheritance for our mutual benefit.

If you can stand as the next of kin in this project, success is assured because I am in possession of the personal file jacket of the deceased which contains every needed information about the account and the deceased and you and I stand no risk of any kind because I have enough information to support you in claiming the inheritance. The proceedings of the transaction will be shared 50% each after Expenses are reimbursed.

Kindly indicate your willingness by return email or you call for more informartion, and we shall proceed with the initial step for the claim. The entire project is expected to last for about ten working days.
my direct line is +447924573508.

Best Regards,
Alex Williams.

Its amusing that Metro bank – who our hero claims to work for – didn’t start operations in the UK until 2010, but our hero’s imaginary client had millions of imaginary dollars in there since pre 2005. I mean, how stupid are these people?

The IP address the email actually came from is 83.113.201.209 which actually resolves to La Crau in France.

Another amateur email scammer most likely from Africa.

I wonder if anyone actually answers this stuff?

Could the Mottram Bypass Be Replaced By Shared Space Similar to Poynton?

Anyone who knows Mottram knows about the traffic problems and the lack of funding for the Mottram Bypass.

We have another article on Real Deal about the Mottram Bypass here: e-petition deliver Mottram – Mottram Bypass – Stuck in Traffic?

Local MP Jonathan Reynolds has recently taken up the reins on the issue and sent local residents a long and informative letter on the subject.

The locals of Mottram are glad that someone is finally back on the case.

It is clear to anyone who lives in or near Mottram that the bypass is a much-needed road.

However, if the funding is ever going to be available is anyone’s guess. If the funding actually becomes available, it will be many years until it is built and in operation.

Is there a medium term solution maybe?

A good medium term solution wouldn’t cost millions.

A good medium term solution would be useful to keep in the distant future if a bypass is ever actually built.

Well, we at Real Deal have come up with an idea.

Politicians and the media are free to steal this idea and present it as their own. It goes like this:

This is a two pronged attack on the traffic problem. The first being to dissuade some of the trucks from using Mottram as a convenient cut through instead of using the M62.

The second being to implement a scheme at the junction of Mottram Moor / A57 Hyde Road / Stalybridge Road / Market Street / B6174 (Post Office) that calms the traffic somewhat and allows pedestrians to cross.

This where Mottram could learn something from Poynton in Cheshire. The main junction in Poynton suffered similar traffic problems to Mottram and they did something about it. Watch the video below to see what they did.

Such a scheme might work quite well at the Mottram Moor / A57 Hyde Road / Stalybridge Road / Market Street / B6174 junction.

Similar to the scheme in Poynton, it would allow both sides of Mottram not to be cut off from each other as they are now. It would slow the angry traffic and perhaps alleviate the long queues towards the junction that form on Stalybridge Road and Market Street.

The other prong of the attack is to make what is currently a convenience for trucks into an inconvenience that costs money.

That means installing one of these:

You put one at the beginning of Hyde Road at the end of the M67 (where the Big Baps butty van is) and make all trucks larger than 3500kgs pull into the side to pay £5 to pass through Mottram.

You put another one on the far side of Tintwistle somewhere to collect another £5.

You charge traffic both ways at both points.

Drivers with delivery notes indicating a delivery between the two points get though for free maybe.

Cars and vans below 3500kgs go free and do not need to pull off and stop.

This means HGV’s pay £10 to use Mottram and Tintwistle as a cut through. Many will choose not to pay and use the M62 instead – as they should. And that will cut the traffic down to allow the scheme above like they have in Poynton to work.

The best part?

The best part is not only does it create jobs…………..

Not only does it reduce heavy traffic through villages……………….

Not only is it self funding…………

But it will make a profit. What to do with the profit? Well, why not ring fence it and use it to build the bypass with?

This way, even the bypass pays for itself!

When the bypass is built, Mottram village is left with a nice little shared traffic/pedestrian area, and people may even want to sit on that bench next to the statue of Lowry and not fear about getting choked on fumes.

Your comments are welcome on this topic. Comments do not appear immediately to prevent spam.

The American Social Class System – Does It Exist?

I think in the US there is a tendency to view the working class differently. There is a national attitude that makes, certainly service workers, often very proud of what they do. That is something the UK could learn from the US actually.

Go in a some stores in the UK and you will likely be met with a sullen person working a minimum wage job who would rather be some place else (to see that amplified by ten, go to Russia). And it shows on their face.

In the US, amongst the native English speakers at least, there is way more enthusiasm. More of a pride in what they do. Because American society seems to encourage appreciation of workers more. Indeed, songs are written that support that.

I suppose this why some Americans seem very defensive on this subject, and prone perhaps to infer superciliousness on the part of the asker when none is intended.

Examining the 5/2 Alternate Day Fasting Diet

While the idea that you can eat anything on your free days sounds great — especially for dieters who struggle to stick to low-calorie eating plans long-term without falling off the wagon — many nutritionists believe that those on the alternate day diet could end up over-indulging on ‘feast’ days, and actually put on weight.

However Dr Krista Varady of the University of Illinois in Chicago, one of the scientists involved in research into intermittent fasting, insists that this doesn’t happen.

‘Our studies show that people end up losing weight because they can’t fully make up for the lack of food on the fast day on the feed day. And people in our studies didn’t binge. They only ate about 100 per cent to 110 per cent of their calorie needs.’

Her findings fit in with what Adriana Wheatley discovered.

‘I think because, unlike other diets where certain foods are restricted, you know that you can have whatever you want, you’re just a bit more relaxed about things. I don’t go crazy on my feed days, but I might opt for a sandwich rather than having a salad, and have pasta, which in the past I might have avoided if I was trying to lose weight, but I don’t go over the top,’ she says.

Opinion is divided on just exactly what a fast entails — some say you should eat nothing at all for anything from 17 to 24 hours, while others argue that you can have 500 calories, but they should all be consumed in a single midday meal.

Michael Mosley on the Horizon programme ate his 500 calories split over two meals, breakfast (ham and eggs) and dinner (steamed fish and vegetables), as he found that was the best way to avoid feeling hungry or deprived.

Nutritionists do agree that it is vital to eat nutrient-rich foods if you only eat 500 calories a day.

If I didn’t Know Better (Dammit, I do) song from Nashville.

Here in the United Kingdom, we just got the new American imported ABC series Nashville which is airing on Channel Four. Nashville is an American musical drama television series. The series stars Connie Britton as Rayna Jaymes, a legendary country music superstar, whose stardom begins fading, and Hayden Panettiere as rising teen star Juliette Barnes. The series premièred on ABC on October 10, 2012, had more than […]

If he’s not marrying you, he’s just not that into you!

Why would a man want to marry a woman? Because in a cost/benefit analysis, the benefits of being with her outweigh the benefits of being alone – plain and simple!

When a man marries a woman, he makes an investment. He is investing 50% of everything he owns. Let’s compare that to the stock exchange! Imagine putting 50% of everything you own into a fund that may or may not give you an ROI, never mind the risk of a total failure.

When a man gives you that “piece of paper,” he is giving you a supposed lifetime of 50%. That’s a big investment! (Disclaimer: Pre-nups are entirely different, and are assessed on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it’s an issue of trust, and sometimes it’s an issue of protecting your assets. This is usually a grey area that is not currently being discussed – we’re talking bare bones here.)

So, ladies, if a man is not marrying you, he’s just not that into you. You are not worth the risk just quite yet.

Yes, it has everything to do with you, as difficult as it is to admit. Get yourself into shape and find something to offer the guy!

The reverse is true as well – if a woman is not marrying you, it is because she feels that she is better off without you, or keeping you at a distance. If she is more selfish, she may be looking for someone with more money, or more to be gained. Chances are, you probably need to step up your game financially, as you are not meeting the standards!


Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.