The car will always be more convenient than the train, nothing we can do about that. What we need to try and do is take more freight off the roads.
The car will always be more convenient than the train, yes. But there other aspects to consider, where the train can beat the car, which in my opinion should, must even, be provided and promoted to reduce car use.
This is false and there is no evidence that shows it.
Lowering congestion will lower overall emissions as traffic will be moving faster.
Traffic will be moving faster, yes. And yesm if you just split the current traffic between the two roads it would lower the emissions a little. However, the fact the traffic will be flowing easier and faster will encourage more traffic, which will increase emmissions.
I don't know why it's taking so ridiculously long to decide whether or not to build it.
At least two of the new road options are listed as having severe biodiversity impacts. That and cost are probably two reasons not to do it.
As for the OP, I really can't see the WG spending much money on proper railway improvements. The money that they have allocated to transport seems to be focussed on road (the "head of the valleys" route etc), air (Cardiff Airport, the Holyhead - Cardiff flights), buses (fast buses to Cardiff Airport for those arriving from Holyhead)...
...what railway investment there has been (from the WG) seems to be tinkering at the margins (Fishguard, a "premier class" train with a restaurant for the Holyhead route). I really don't see the WG as being "green"
I agree, they aren't acting 'green' with regard to transport spending, it's nearly all car/lorry and air (I count the Cardiff Airport bus as more spending on air, not on buses, as it is reportedly only for travel to/from the airport).
When you improve or build a road, you make it easier for people to travel by car. That has some beneficial impact in terms of increasing people's freedom. It also comes with all the usual adverse consequences - pollution, possibly increased congestion on all the roads that feed into the new road, etc. And - worse - it will generally encourage some people to switch from bus or train to the car, which not only exacerbates the environmental harm but can start a vicious circle where it becomes harder to provide adequate public transport for the remaining people who still wish to use it. It even may do things like reduce the viability of small local shops (because more people are using the road to travel to the superstore 5 miles away instead, resulting in local shops closing). In most cases that adds up to a lot more harm than good overall. When you improve or build a railway, you make it easier for people to travel by train. Again there's some beneficial impact in terms of increasing people's freedom. And there are some adverse consequences - more pollution etc. (but crucially, not nearly as much as if those extra journeys were made by car). And now, the effect of encouraging people to switch modes of transport becomes a good thing: Some people will swap from car to train, which is an environmental benefit (some will swap from bus to train, which is probably more neutral). The greater use of public transport may make it more viable to provide yet more additional public transport services. It's much less likely to impact the viability of small local shops. So it's not hard to see that in most cases with the railway you're probably going to do more good than harm.
I agree, well said.
What improvements to the rail service in the Newport, Cardiff, SE Wales area would have the effect of reducing congestion on that section of the M4?
(Genuine question, I really don't know!)
I don't know either. Might help to have an answer to one of the questions in the OP:
Where does the traffic come from and why doesn't it use rail?
Your options were not sufficiently comprehensive, none of them could I vote for, sorry .
Sorry, what would you have said if the option was there?
I have also just realised you have put this in the wrong section, it should be in Infrastructure.
My thinking behind the topic was more what sort of rail
service improvements could help, and how much they would help. Those service improvments may or may not require infrustructure enhancments, but this thread's more about the level of service needed, and perhaps the road infrustructure needed.
The basic issue is the mega congestion whenever there's an accident on the Brynglas tunnels section ( 2 lanes) no hard shoulder. Essentially a duplicate motorway is deemed neccesary in case of accidents.
Yes, to answer somebody else as well, I can't deny that Brynglas is a horrible bottleneck when something goes wrong. In my opinion though, that's not enough to warrant a duplicate motorway. If you shut one tunnel due to an accident, surely a dual-carriageway diversionary route is sufficient (as you'd still have 6 lanes, two (out of the four when all is well) at Brynglas and four on the diversionary route).
We already have a partial dual-carriageway diversionary route in the form of the steelworks access road, you just need to build the other half (either as a new road or by upgrading the A48).
no feasible rail improvement options could deal with the diverse origins/destinations of M4 users.
Diverse maybe, but are there any major entry/exit points? For example, is a large portion of the traffic using the M4 for a long distance, having joined west of Port Talbot and staying on the M4 until England? Or is there a large flow to Swansea from England?