Budget cuts have led to 'dangerous' roads

CUTTING the budget for road maintenance by £1m. over the last four years has led to dangerous, potholed roads, Deputy Tony Spruce has said.

CUTTING the budget for road maintenance by £1m. over the last four years has led to dangerous, potholed roads, Deputy Tony Spruce, pictured, has said.

A caller to the BBC phone-in raised the issue.

‘With the amount of money that we’ve been paying out for our petrol, surely we can have better roads than we’ve got,’ he said.

‘We used to have good roads.’

He said the Tarmac being used was not strong enough to cope with the recent difficult weather conditions.

Comments for: "Budget cuts have led to 'dangerous' roads "


Try being a cyclist on those roads. Some are *awful*, the potholes are big enough to throw you off your bike. Anyone ever checked out the roundabout on the bridge? Real bad.

Island Wide voting

In early December 2012 after complaining several times about a large deep pothole just up the road from my house I was quite pleased to see a PWD lorry and three men busying themselves around the hole as I drove by on an errand

On my return an hour later the lorry and men were gone but there was a warning sign stating ' Beware-Pothole'


The cost of placing a pothole warning sign with three men and a truck must cost as much as effecting the repair with the same three men and truck?

Conclusion is, therefore: we have a management problem, not a budget problem?


So we had Motor Tax, which was abolished for fuel tax.

Now we pay MASSIVELY more than we used to (even with taking inflation into account), and have worse roads and no funds to repair them.

Yet another clueless c**k up by the States.

Name something they have done successfully?!



Try living somewhere else for a while, and you'll soon find out.


In addition to the general condition has anyone noticed the state of some sections of the coastal road, especially corners on the route of the Lagan traffic, but that'd be just a coincidence I'm sure. Let's hope there's allowance in the Airport budget to repair these sections of road at the end of the contract.

The biggest issue with the "savings" made by departments is that they seem to be imposed by bean counters with little appreciation for how their easy broad brush savings are affecting the community and the whole Island.

Leaving roads to fall into disrepair is just a short sighted saving, in several years time we'll all be asked to pay more tax somewhere or another just to sort the mess out.


I would love to know who is resposible for the pitronnerie business complex as the "potholes" outside R and R removals have damaged my car on more than one occasion, which is a fiesta so its not as if its even a low sprung sports car! You cannot go straight down the road, it is more of a slalom to avoid the holes and the other traffic. I wonder if it is the states traffic or the businesses that are responsible - would be great to know who to send the bill to if my cat gets damaged again!


Private road, so I doubt whether you could claim compensation from anyone.

Island Wide Voting

...especially for the cat



If its a private road someone personally owns it or the businesses that lease/own the premises are responsible surely? Seriously though, something NEEDS to be done its a disgrace and down right bloody dangerous.


There may be an element of liability, but my guess is that there is a sign somewhere saying you use the area at you your own risk. I know this approach has been challenged in the past in the UK, but I'm not sure what the Gy law is ref this.

Proving liability is very difficult and you would probably have to have written to the 'owners' of the road (or whoever is ultimatley responsible for the condition of it) expressing your concerns and informing them of you intention to pursue a claim.

A long winded process I'm sure and even then no guarantee of a favourable result.


Your prayers have been answered..drove past Target today (16th Jan) to see the nasty bit of potholed road by R&R removals being resurfaced.



Many thanks for that information. Its about time too! I would still be interested in finding out who is responsible for the upkeep - just for future reference!


heh heh only just realsed my typo! car and cat fixed!


So. Millions can be spent on airport and aircraft, but there's no money for basic road use for the working public? Something, somewhere, is seriously evil and wrong.


The answer is simple - the Airport is needed for the finance industry, for all other things we can whistle.


You are having a laugh?


That's right. Only the finance industry uses the airport. No-one else.

Hang on, don't the finance industry also use the roads to/from the airport?

Oh no, the theory doesn't stack up.

You are right about one thing though - your answer was simple.


Why did the States buy the Gatwick landing slots and Aurigny then?


If you want an accurate answer, the States bought the airline to secure the slots (which it can't own or buy). The reason for that, from recollection, was to secure a lifeline link to London which was/is potentially under threat, the loss of which would have serious repercussions for the island. That includes the finance industry, which like it or not (and I don't particularly) is a key contributor to the local economy. But it is not the only local sector and/or aspect of local life that would have suffered. I personally don't want to be reliant entirely on FlyBE for my travel, and make no mistake that was the other option!


Another simpleton with a chip on his shoulder.


Yes of course only those who work in the finance industry are intelligent, oh wait maybe not, that's why the global economy is in such a mess, if there are any fools most are working in finance.


Ok Backchat, I'll briefly explain.

The States secured the Gatwick slots / Aurigny so that Flybe were not left with a monopoly on Gatwick flights, and also to ensure that the Gatwick lifeline remains open should Flybe pull out.

The airport needs to be maintained to a certain standard in order to meet international regulations, whereas roads do not.

There, is that ok? No conspiracy, no bending over backwards for the finance industry, just sensible policy decisions.


Oh your not using insulting comments now!


And SOG rescuing Aurigny also saved a local bank from losing millions of pounds if Aurigny had gone bust and defaulted on the loan.


No comment on potholes! Too many but regular drivers know where they are ~~ so catch a bus!!


Sorry, they've been cancelled today.


What on earth do you expect. There is constant clamour to cut budgets and then moans when they are cut. Of course a cut to budgets will lead to lower standards, it's happening in most States departments and is obvious. It's called the FTP.


Road tax additional to tax on fuel to return at next budget?


I hope so, paid parking also, it's far too cheap to use a car over here, and until such time as it becomes more expensive than public transport then people are hardly likely to flock onto buses are they?


Just the sort of comment I'd expect from someone who either does not drive or earns far too much money - which category do you fall into?

Owning and running a car is already far more expensive than public transport and having your own car is far more convienient than any bus or taxi could ever be, the buses could be free and most people would still not use them.


They'd use them if the cost of using a car was a lot higher than it is. Cheap insurance, no parking charges, relatively cheap running costs due to small distances covered, where is the incentive to use public transport?


Yes paid parking to completely finish off town retailers what a good idea not...


up to 2 hours could remain free, it's the commuters that need to pay.


Yes, the way the retailers tell it, it would.

The rest of us know that the town has been dying for years due to the fact it's quicker, cheaper and invariably better service and prods buying off the Internet, and that getting parking in town is mission impossible.....due to the fact it's free, perhaps...?

Quite possibly.

Jersey, along with many other places, has had paid parking for years, and they haven't 'died' because of it, so that myth is absolute nonsense.



Interesting you are saying "the rest of us know that the town has been dying for years due to the fact its quicker, cheaper and invariably better service and prods buying off the internet" - so are you saying the "the rest of us" meaning the majority of people? buy off the internet not from town?

"Parking in town is mission impossible due to the fact it is free, perhaps" - why are the car parks full then? does this mean the people are just parking there for fun and not actually buying anything in town?

When you found the parking was mission impossible, were you going to buy something from town or just parking for fun?

If they do bring in paid parking, I will be going to town far less often, so there will be one extra space for you to park, but not shop of course as you will have already brought it off the internet.


In other words you want just the wealthy to be able to drive cars. This horrible little island is already a rich mans playground and jumped up little dictators like you want to make it worse.


They should never have removed the road tax.... it was another tool in the box to help influence driving choices. I agree with the tax on fuel too tho'.



Road tax on fuel is a far better and fairer way - you pay for what you use.

Road tax for each vehicle (as it used to be) was ok if you used the same vehicle all the time but some people who had a vehicle they only used a few times a year it was a nightmare.

We can only drive one vehicle at once so how would road tax influence driving choices?


Kevin. How would road tax influence driving choices? Because you band it according to the kind of vehicle being registered. The wider, more road hogging, heavier and polluting the vehicle, the more it costs. The smaller and less polluting the vehicle- the less is charged to the point that small electric cars would pay nothing.

I agree that fuel tax means that pay for how much you use and therefore is equitable. They should have used both.


Agree Kevin that paying fuel tax is a fairer method of penalising the motorist.

I understand that some of the tax has been added on to fuel to help subsidise the (non-existant) transport strategy but surely the remainder (or most of it) has to be ringfenced to fund the roads and their infrastructure and not just ploughed back into general revenue.



I hear what you are saying about taxing larger heavier vehicles more - that is essentially what used to happen as diesel vehicles paid a much higher rate of road tax per cwt than the petrol equivalent.

I do agree that an incentive to use very small 'green' vehicles is a good idea, I'm talking of the type that fit the small car parking spaces on the piers.

Island Wide Voting


It was stated very clearly in the last few years by the then CM or possibly T & R that no taxes will ever be ring fenced ( probably around about the time they raided Roger Berry's millions stashed in the old Port's Holding Account)

So any income from increased petrol tax,which already stands at £2.11 per gallon for those who remember gallons,and any income from re-intro of vehicle by weight tax on top of the fuel tax,and any income from a paid parking stealth tax ( currently £116 per month for the cheapest Jersey season ticket)would just go into a huge melting pot

From there it is dished out to all sorts of good and not so good causes with multi millions continuing to prop up the public sector pensions scheme,many millions going to support the growing number of the more unfortunate amongst us who just cannot find themselves a job no matter how hard they try,or can't stop churning out babies no matter how hard they try, 3.9 Million? to pay off foreign fishermen due to sloppy law drafting,2.6 Million to the Fraudsters Benevolent Fund, 3 Million? to compensate the Suez incinerator people and of course the recent pay rise enjoyed by our 45 leaders ( about three times the number required to run a 100,000 population town in the UK ).So it is easy to understand why some of our tax and spend deputies (Brehaut,Gollop and Burford readily spring to mind)see the need to squeeze the pips just that little bit harder

Rosie is keen to hit the owners of large private vehicles.Can't argue against that but wouldn't it be easier to hit them hard at the time of first importation ( new or second hand)by adding a swingeing ( £2,000 ?)import tax on any private vehicle heavier than 'x' cwt or wider than 'y'inches ( for those who remember inches)

Fiduciary says above that it is the commuters who should be made to pay.The tag 'Fiduciary' conjures up a picture of a suitably well paid Trust Company manager in a top of the range company car wishing he could remove all the pleb shop and office workers and College students from the morning grind onto buses as he drives in to his free private underground space.I wonder what percentage of the 'morning grind' are NOT heading to the Salerie or North Beach but to a Fiduciary type free dedicated parking slot?

No need for me to conjure up a picture of the tiny, but vociferous well beyond their number, group of anti-car lobbyists who are determined to drag this island back to the 1950's


IWV. I think that there are several Deputies in this new house that do see the value in 'ring-fencing' certain levies in order to direct the funds to specific projects. Indeed, this house has already voted to ring-fence the additional tax on cigarettes to be spent on anti-smoking projects. So the precedence has been set.

There is certainly an argument for charging owners of over-sized and/or polluting vehicles just once at the point of importation. I wouldn't argue against that. I just think that if a tax was paid yearly, it would be an uncomfortable yearly reminder of the negative consequences of such vehicles on the rest of us.

Your comments re private parking in town offices. I really don't see why, in the event of paid parking, there shouldn't also be a tax-in-kind on work-place parking. In other words, it should be a taxable benefit. Ditto Frossard Hse etc.

Lastly- for the umpteenth time. I am not anti car. I have a car and I use it- and damned useful it is too when needed. I am however, anti a transport system that encourages us to use the car as the default mode of transport for all journeys without considering the alternative options. I am anti a transport system that is totally dominated by private vehicles so that there is no choice but to own a car in order to be able to participate in society. And I am anti a traffic system that actively discourages people from cycling or walking because of the levels of traffic on the roads.

I am pro a transport system that encourages a varied transport mix so that we all use the appropriate transport option for each particular journey. I am pro a transport system that takes account of our vulnerable and precious environment and that recognises that our personal 'wants' should not necessarily take precedence over what would be best for the community as a whole.

I do NOT think that it is forward thinking Ray, as you would like to believe, to think that we should all continue to demand to be able to drive ourselves wherever and whenever we want without any consideration for the consequences. It is in my mind, lazy old-fashioned thinking.

Island Wide Voting

Ok Rosie,I know that you are not totally anti-car,it's just that sometimes when you are wound up you talk dirty so it was worth a try

Your 3.54pm post is very heavy on the punishment,through taxation, aspect of getting the vast majority of the island population ( the motor vehicle owning population)to follow your lead,and leave the car at home in favour of walking,cycling and bussing, not only to work but also at other times of the day and evening

As an upstanding citizen you surely must admit that during 'the rest of the day'there is absolutely no safety reason, through traffic density,to not walk or cycle if you so choose

As for taxing free parking at work in Town would you include Admiral Park office staff,or staff parking at the Guernsey Press,or at La Houguette School?

Where would you draw the line?


Kevin ,diesel vehicles did not pay more tax because of their weight! they paid more per cwt because duty/tax was already levied on petrol but no tax /duty was levied on diesel, so the road tax per cwt was higher to compensate for this.



Ok, I stand corrected on that one but the result was the same i.e bigger vehicles such as vans, trucks etc used to pay a lot more road tax - might be slightly different now though as I would guess a lot bigger proportion of cars are diesel compared to maybe 10 years ago.


Anyone checked out the potholes on the grange traffic lights coming off from brock road way? If a cyclist were going down the hill and hit that they'd be thrown off their bike for sure. Surely there's something terribly illegal with what the States are doing because it's endangering the lives of others (that's no exaggeration) because of budget cuts? There's far more around than that just from riding around today, going towards the Rohais from town etc.


I was led to believe that extra tax on motor fuel was to be ploughed back into maintaining better roads and taking the burden away for non drivers[tax payers]

Can anyone tell me where this motor tax profit goes?

Dave Haslam

Ok, so in the Guernsey there are massive problems with road surfaces due to the unseasonably cold winters we've had for the last few years, and the constant freeze thaw cycles that dont happen in most european countries.

Other countries manage to cope just fine with freeze thaw cycles, so why cant we?? presumably guernsey uses similar road surfacing to the UK who have worse problems than us, so why dont we look elswehere for solutions, because shock horror, you dont get this problem in Switzerland or Germany.


Try some of the roads in Poland or the Ukraine to see what freeze-thaw cycles and lack of maintenance can do!


I notice that no one is blaming the cyclists for all the wear and tear? Why do we always blame the poor motorist?


Good grief - I know I'm a bit overweight but roads would have to be of extremely poor construction to get damaged by me on my 'chang!!


Reference the state of the bridge roundabout ,when my daughter was riding her scooter on the bridge over ten years ago she came off in the night and damaged her scooter and injured herself because of pot holes.I processed a claim against the states road department at the time and after several letters was left in no doubt that we all use the roads at our own peril and the result would have been a long and expensive court case of which I was not in a position to proceed with at that time, with such doubt left in the outcome.I would only think nothing has changed as yet, that is why the states leave the roads in such a bad condition.


I think too much is spent on the roads ,we only driving at 35mph I don,t think we even need tar roads, Gravel would be fine on most of the island in Australia & NZ they drive a lot faster then us & most of the roads are not tar & its not because the climates are drier as NZ has more rain than us. Think road works would take a lot less time.


I nearly got hurled off my bike into the path of a passing car because of a nasty pothole, they are damned hard to see especially at night no matter how good your lights are.

If the States can't be bothered to fix it how about we just finance a private company to go around and deal with the worst ones, and then everyone along that road pays say £3 a la crowdsourcing.