Poor mykel felps

https://restaurantmnd.ytmnd.com/

https://hpmuseum.org/srinst.htm

The Museum of HP Calculators

Heat gun on the battery, that sounds fun

I was just mocking that fact that you would rather insult someone and try to act superior than actually back your argument up with any kind of facts.

I never said that building more roads doesn’t lead to more traffic in all scenarios as there are plenty of scenarios where this is true. I provided plenty of reasons to convey why this is not relevant in this scenario. Rather than counter my argument with any relevant fact, you reverted to a smug insult presuming that I don’t use public transport and that you are superior for using it.

Have a nice evening.

Hell yea, great game to play with the kids

Carbrain /kar 'bren/ [1] is a neighbourhood in Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire in Scotland. It gets a brief mention on William Roy’s eighteenth century map of the Scottish Lowlands.[2] In the nineteenth century it was no more than a farm steading.[3] An early map shows just a few buildings existed in 1864.[4] By the start of the First World War it had not grown significantly, although there was a school near the railway station.[5] It was sometimes spelled Carbrane.[6] Even in 1956 Carbrain was mostly farmland[7] with a small burn flowing through it.[8] The map seems to show this flowing possibly down the Gully[9] and eventually feeding the Red Burn in the Vault Glen. This burn isn’t named so can’t be identified with the Horseward Burn from historic maps.[10]

If by traffic, you mean the flow of traffic will increase, then yea, of course because if you remove obsticles and increase capacity, then more cars can use it instead of travelling through small villages and clogging up their roads.

If you mean building more capacity and removing junctions in the middle of nowhere where there is a bottleneck of traffic because of poor road layouts and a world heritage site will cause more traffic jams, I’d love to see that study. That’s pretty a niche study, and I’d imagine the people protesting this tunnel would appreciate seeing it.

If there were a train route along the a303 this may be true. It’s also not building an extra Lane the whole route, most of the route is a 2 Lane dual carriageway, this section is not, it gets gridlocked as the roads struggle with it going from 2 lanes to 1 Lane, this is a rural route, everyone already drives anyway.

I’m not defending the building of the tunnel as I no longer need to use it, I couldn’t care less. But saying that building the tunnel won’t make a difference is completely wrong here as the traffic is not caused because the roads cannot handle the traffic, it’s caused because it’s a single lane road next to a world heritage monument that everyone slows down to look at it. Building a tunnel will improve the area around the monument and will stop idiots from stopping to take pictures on a single lane road. The extra lane will also prevent the bottleneck caused by going from 2 lanes down to one.

It might fix everyone slowing down to a crawl as they go past Stonehenge though. The a303 is a dual carriageway that goes down to 1 Lane past stone henge, the new tunnel would stop the bottleneck that happens as it goes past stonehenge, if having a busy road that goes past Stonehenge hasn’t affected it’s world heritage status, then changing that to a tunnel shouldn’t affect it either, if anything it will improve the aesthetics as all you can hear there is the road.

The main question should be, could this money be better spent? The answer is obviously yes.

Read the article, he was not referencing the UK, he was advising them how to get more backing from western countries.

My favourite sub to comment has not made the move, come on boxing fans, mainly lurk on most posts