From the BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/4242248.stm

Good stuff IMO. We should be improving all our infrastructure - railways, motorways, airports, etc. :)

the M1 at Luton is jammed pretty much near permanently, it needs to be 5 lanes each way. I wish they would finish the M2 as well. I think the half finished motorways like the Westway in London, or the Humber Bridge in Humberside, or the M60/M6 link. It is also a scandal that there is only one major road connection into Scotland and even then for 6 miles before the border its only duel carriageway. There needs to be another motorway around the bottom of the peak district connection Nottingham, Derby to Stoke and Cheshire. Another from the A1 connecting to the M6 up at Scotch Corner.

We didn't finish building our motorway network let alone the mess its currently in. When was the last major motorway built, the M40?

For such a crowded little island you would think our system would be similar to Hollands instead Nepal probably has a better network.

^ There is an vocal anti-roads lobby in the UK. They have a point of course - motorways are an environmental problem - but I think the capacity agument (ie that new lanes/roads get filled immediately and therefore there is no point in building them at all) is wrong. It is possible to build your way out of congestion.

We prioritised road building over every other type of mass transport. This is where we went wrong, not finishing a few stretches of 4-lane road pales into insignificance.

There needs to be another motorway around the bottom of the peak district connection Nottingham, Derby to Stoke and Cheshire. Another from the A1 connecting to the M6 up at Scotch Corner.

We didn't finish building our motorway network let alone the mess its currently in. When was the last major motorway built, the M40?

For such a crowded little island you would think our system would be similar to Hollands instead Nepal probably has a better network.

You have just described my very own personal hell...thank God it is never likely to happen. The A50 adequately caters for the Peak District route you refer to. And Holland's motorways are, in my experience, very congested. Not really something to aspire to.

Within reason, we might consider widening existing motorways, but in a small island like ours new motorway routes - cutting through areas that are currently remote and rural - must never happen. In the next 50 years we will need to focus on reducing the need to travel (unnecessary commuting etc.) rather than continually catering for an expansion in road and rail capacity.

how come we have the fewest kilometres per person of ANY Western European Country.

how come we have the fewest kilometres per person of ANY Western European Country.

pricemazda, please, those European fascists haven't taken over fully yet. Lets use miles eh ;)

You have just described my very own personal hell...thank God it is never likely to happen. The A50 adequately caters for the Peak District route you refer to. And Holland's motorways are, in my experience, very congested. Not really something to aspire to.

Within reason, we might consider widening existing motorways, but in a small island like ours new motorway routes - cutting through areas that are currently remote and rural - must never happen. In the next 50 years we will need to focus on reducing the need to travel (unnecessary commuting etc.) rather than continually catering for an expansion in road and rail capacity.


You mean by restricting who can travel through increasing the cost? Like with the Congestion Charge or Road Pricing, or wanting air fares to cost more? This is the major problem with the environmental movement i cannot stand in effect their policies would penalise the poor.

The second problem is people are under the illusion that by restricting housing developments or only allowing those high density ones will somehow solve the problem. We live in a free market democracy in which we allow our citizens to live and work where they want. Again by restricting where people can live will nonly ultimately mean the rich would be the only ones who would have the choice to live where they want while the urban poor are forced to live in ever smaller units in rough areas. Hardly socially just. We shouldn't restrict economic growth thereby making it government policy to say 'sorry you can't make your life any better'.

You cannot force people to use public transport no matter how fantastic the system. Most people like their own personal space where they can make as much noise as they like, smoke, sing, fart, play music loudly, shout into their hands free kit and something which will take them from door to door without having to make hundreds of transfers.

The reason we have congestion in London not seen in European capitals is not because we don't have enough public transport over 80% of London commuters come into London by public transport, it is because we didn't build a decent motorway system ringing the city meaning there are very few ways to get across or around London, take a look at Paris it virtually has a 3 ring system and major urban expressways through the city. We were short sighted and like all public services we let slide into decline.

We need expansion of ALL forms of transport. There is a great myth put around by environmental groups and the CPRE that somehow Englands green and pleasant land is disappearing, it is not about 9% of the UK is built up meaning 91% of it is not.

It isnt about poor and rich it is about the car and its very nature. It is a private transport that involves having one per person thus resulting in congestion. It uses a polluting combustion engine resulting in widespread pollution and its minimum size and the fact that is 100% controlled by the human driver means that it has to have its own space isolated any other use; the result is that it owns and dictates our urban environment.

There are plenty of routes to go that dont involve charging the poor out of private transport.... speed limiting has been proven to be useful in limiting congestion on existing roads. For a more sustainable and pleasant urban environment would require sharing road space with other uses, especially in residential and town centres which would also involve speed limiting and other automated systems to be a complete success. Replacement for the combustion engine would remove the danger of pollution. The size of the transport, the current private motor vehicle is advertised on a one-size-fits all basis, there is no particular reason why urban vehicles couldnt be far smaller in size where only certain routes would be available to larger vehicles.

All of these points would be heavily critisised and fought against by the motor industry and probably the public too because over the decades it has been spoon fed to us that we are nothing without a particular flavour of private vehicle that must behave in a certain way.

how would I get large objects to my house if i was forced to have a small car because of where i live?

that is just detail, all things can be worked out there jsut needs to be a big shift in the way were percieve and the form or private transport

is it though? Thats a pretty major issue for most people. It is one of the most annoying things about using public transport to go to the supermarket, or shopping in general. I think the small car idea wouldn't work. You can barely get two people in a smart car let alone some ikea furniture.

lets just build a maglev system

I don't think a maglev system is going to run to every town and village. We will need roads pirlo.

is it though? Thats a pretty major issue for most people. It is one of the most annoying things about using public transport to go to the supermarket, or shopping in general. I think the small car idea wouldn't work. You can barely get two people in a smart car let alone some ikea furniture.

Why not just order stuff online and get it delivered? One lorry doing a drop at twenty households is better than twenty cars all making a return trip. An even better option with food is to buy from local suppliers on a more regular basis. It's usually cheaper and usually healthier too. There really is no need to buy out of season, tasteless, bouncing strawberries from Chile.

If you don't believe in rationing through price what DO you suggest? Doing nothing is not an option, your point about there only being 9% development is true but that isn't really the point. Transport is one of the leading contributors to pollution and global warming, the rate that air and road travel is increasing is something that needs to be slowed down not encouraged even further.

People do not have a "right" to virtually free flights to Latvia but I do believe that our grandchildren have a right to an inhabitable and clean world.

PS PriceMazda, Paris has terrible traffic in many places. I've driven there and it can be equally as bad as London.

A maglev line with greater public transport integration is the more likely solution to these sort of problems. Get people as quickly from their homes to work and back again as quick, safely, happily and efficiently as possible and then your on to a winner.

Currently, the UK roads cover an area the size of Lancashire. In general I don't think many new motorways should be built. Some exceptions though, would be the upgrading of the 10km cumberland gap to motorway standard; dualling of the A1 on the full route north of Newcastle; dualling of the A9 and ugrading of the 20-25km section of the A42 from nr. Tamworth-East Midlands Airport (M1 Junction). All of those are for high speed travel rather than congestion. The real investment should come through improvements of public transport IMO, and cycling in cities. The need to travel could be reduced but that would mean convienience, which means more inefficent and more expensive. I would say about average distance to travel to work/school in Harrogate is 8-9km, but for most large cities I'm sure its much more. No-one in London should be using a car for travel within the M25 and that means no road improvements in London.

how come we have the fewest kilometres per person of ANY Western European Country.
What a ridiculously simplistic way to look at it. Road kilometres only takes into account the length of roads, not the length of individual lanes, so a 10km three lane road adds the same to the total as a 10km one lane road. Per square kilometre of land we are one of the best nations on earth for highway coverage (which incidentally is just as ridiculously simplistic a way to look at it). Why do I need more than one road leading into my city if it's wide enough to cater for the traffic? Try looking at lane kilometres per road user and you'll see the UK is a bit above average.

No-one in London should be using a car for travel within the M25 and that means no road improvements in London.

Have you ever been to London? What a ridiculous thing to say! I speak as someone who cycles to work or takes the train and avoids using the car whenever realistically possible. But just as in other parts of the country, there are certain journeys that are an absolute nightmare by public transport. It's easy enough getting in to the centre but you try travelling from one part of South East London to another with two young children without a car!

Every project should be judged on merit and there is a huge need for the new road bridge across the thames to take some of the strain that the Blackwall Tunnel currently bears. A ten min journey from one side of the river the other becomes a one-hour epic!

I think the car is still a requirement, but its usage could be lowered drastically if the entire public transport system was given a kick up the arse and re-organised to a mode of transport that can be distint, no worry of smells, noisy idiots, slowness, low frequency, non-direct, etc....

The Fact is total spending on all forms of transport infrstructure in Europe is leagues ahead of our record. I spent a significant part of my childhood growing up in Germany and my experience is vastly different from what I saw in the UK. Practicly every town has some form of tram network. Which over the years has been improved by building tram tunnels in conjested city centres. I used to live Kilometres outside Bielfeld, But it was a quick trip by bus and then change onto the tram at the bus interchange into the city. At the same time I was always impressed by who every section of the city was criss crossed with dual carriageways and avenues. Unlike the roads in British cities which seemed waver between conjested single lane roads to dual carriageways and gyratories. I mean Bielefeld is a city with a four tram network with a city centre tunnel network, in a city with a total population less than 400,000. Germany has much higher car ownership than us but they use their cars less and so have less congested roads due much better public transport. All that has happened in this country is that road spending has been slashed. But where is the corresponding increase tram networks, subways and commuter lines? All other European countries are investing heavily in their road and rail networks.

^ There is an vocal anti-roads lobby in the UK. They have a point of course - motorways are an environmental problem - but I think the capacity agument (ie that new lanes/roads get filled immediately and therefore there is no point in building them at all) is wrong. It is possible to build your way out of congestion.

Absolutely...NOT Monkey! :)
There is an extensive scientific litterature on this believe me. The first findings were reported back in 1994 with the Sactra Report. Since then thousands of papers have been written on this.

But I support the M1 widening because it is a strategic link and it is far too congested. The widening should be accompanied by ramp metering and demand mangement devices too prevent to much induced trafic to materialize.

I think the car is still a requirement, but its usage could be lowered drastically if the entire public transport system was given a kick up the arse and re-organised to a mode of transport that can be distint, no worry of smells, noisy idiots, slowness, low frequency, non-direct, etc....

no miracle. Subsidise them more.

Have you ever been to London? What a ridiculous thing to say! I speak as someone who cycles to work or takes the train and avoids using the car whenever realistically possible. But just as in other parts of the country, there are certain journeys that are an absolute nightmare by public transport. It's easy enough getting in to the centre but you try travelling from one part of South East London to another with two young children without a car!

Every project should be judged on merit and there is a huge need for the new road bridge across the thames to take some of the strain that the Blackwall Tunnel currently bears. A ten min journey from one side of the river the other becomes a one-hour epic!

I used to live in London actually, admittedley a long time ago with no kids but still. The whole point is that if no-one drove there would be no need for car usage- why are they investing in a bridge? why not in a new public transport link. Instead of crossrail they could have built a circular outer high speed railway, such as crossrail but as an orbital so that travelling from south-east for example is easier.

the ELL will enable future orbital rail acting like a second circle line.

I know it will, but thats only 1 part of a possible circular, and its still a tube line, in other words, it would probably take quite a while to travel the distance, instead of on high speed rail links.

it won't be a tube line, this is the great con with the ELL, it will not be part of London Underground trains will only run every 15 mins.

well still, its still only 1 small part, and to be honest, I doubt there will be a circular line for a long time (at least 2020)

how come we have the fewest kilometres per person of ANY Western European Country.
Put it this way we are small compared to France, Spain and Germany and also we are not connected to any other country.

but we kind of are now with the chunnel, and really that shouldnt affect the transport. It does, but because the government lets it. Some reasons are: too much money is put into some areas, not enough in others; roads are prioritised; public transport is not up to quality is most areas; people aren't aware that in the long term public transport is better for them and everyone else, financially, healthily, environmentally...etc Providing they know about it, they will choose it. Most people don't know that when they use it properley (like getting a railcard) it will turn out alot cheaper.

But it doesnt cost any money to cross the border from Spain to France and it costs money to go from the UK to France.

I think we need less road capacity increase (but not none), and more investment in local lines and public transport.

it won't be a tube line, this is the great con with the ELL, it will not be part of London Underground trains will only run every 15 mins.

While it is true that there will be four trains an hour to West Croydon there will be four trains an hour to Crystal Palace and four trains an hour to New Cross. So over the central section there will be 12 trains an hour between Surrey Quays and Dalston. Once Phase two is built there will be another 4 trains an hour to Clapham. The extension to Highbury will have 4-8 trains an hour depending on how they can upgrade the North London line. Sure not an quite up to Central London tube capacity but more than equal to most S bahn line in a European city. The branch's in the South use the spare capcity on those lines. The real pinch point occurs just north of the ELL at the Bermondsey rail junctions.

I think the more anti-car members of this board seem to overlook one major issue with transport. You can build an all singing all dancing maglev super duper train and there will still be a big problem with it that will stop a lot of people using it given the choice. Its PUBLIC.

I think we should continue to improve the road network as cars become less polluting/switch to green fuels. Congestion will always be a problem, beats taking the bus though.

eh? So you admit non-pollluting engines wont cut congestion but then what is the point of your post? mass transit is the only solution to densly populated areas. If public transport is not loved then that is a design/cultural problem not some sort of inherent problem... some of the most romantic images of travel are with public transport (and car makers try so hard with their billions spent on advertising and buying record rights), the most technological advances allowing dramatic social change (balls to Ford, look what train travel did) and shrinking the world occured with public transport, it makes the private car seem rather mundane like a shopping trolley.

The whole point is, forget pleasant drives in the countryside, that most car journeys are a waste and therefore the congestion they cause is absurd. I agree that a private vehicle is something that will always be desired and of practical value but it has to adjust where it creates problems; in residential areas and on congested roads there needs to be automated speed limiter and automated collision detection and response. In the urban environment vehicle control has to be given over or complimented by centralised control so that space can be shared efficiently. Most definitely there will always be a need for public transport because our cities will have more people than there is space... unless you want the urban realm spread over the countryside... then what will they show in the car adverts?!

I give a swedish view of the English problems:

Let us start with the London-issue:

As i see, there are three mayor problems here. First of all, there only exists one circular ringroad, the M25. Building a second outer ringroad would make sense: at least with dual carriageway, but I would prefer three lanes in each directions (Frimley - Maidenhead - High Wycombe - Luton - Stevenage - Stansted).

For the southern parts of London I would prefer a second inner ringroad with motorwaystandards: A232 from Kingston upon Thames via Sutton, Croydon to Bromley.

The inner ringroad has by faar to less capacity. Its not even built with multilevel-junctions. A406-A205 should have at least 4 lanes in each direction, pronto.

Secondly, there are scares of urbantunnels in London. Building a tunnelsystem in central London would make it a lot easier for Londoners to travel. This would be the most expensive investment.. At least one downtown ringroad should be built inside todays inner ringroad.

Third, the capacity of the routes serving the centre of London with outer suburbs is to small, even with swedish standards. It should be at least 4 lanes in each direction for all of the mayor routes coming into London. From the inner ringroad and further in, this routes should be built in tunnels.

@Petter of Stockholm
Impossible, crazy and inefficient use of public money
Inside the M25, the road network should not be improved except for the A406 at Bounds.

Outside, orbital movments should be improved, but there are some alternatives to road building.

I give a swedish view of the English problems:

Let us start with the London-issue:

As i see, there are three mayor problems here. First of all, there only exists one circular ringroad, the M25. Building a second outer ringroad would make sense: at least with dual carriageway, but I would prefer three lanes in each directions (Frimley - Maidenhead - High Wycombe - Luton - Stevenage - Stansted).

For the southern parts of London I would prefer a second inner ringroad with motorwaystandards: A232 from Kingston upon Thames via Sutton, Croydon to Bromley.

The inner ringroad has by faar to less capacity. Its not even built with multilevel-junctions. A406-A205 should have at least 4 lanes in each direction, pronto.

Secondly, there are scares of urbantunnels in London. Building a tunnelsystem in central London would make it a lot easier for Londoners to travel. This would be the most expensive investment.. At least one downtown ringroad should be built inside todays inner ringroad.

Third, the capacity of the routes serving the centre of London with outer suburbs is to small, even with swedish standards. It should be at least 4 lanes in each direction for all of the mayor routes coming into London. From the inner ringroad and further in, this routes should be built in tunnels.

This sounds like the crazy 1950s/1960s motorway plans for London, which would rip it apart. You're forgetting the density of the city, as well as all the historical buildings that would be in the way.

The enviromentalists will rue the day that road tolls and (secretive) cameras are used to track our every movement to 'contain' polution from the roads. Their persistant campaigning against new building projects will, in the end, force the government into systematic road tolls, which, while in theory 'are for the better good of the environment' will in the end be yet another stealth tax that successive governments will tinker with, just to raise money. The government already makes money per mile via the fuel tax on petrol. At least, paying at the pump allows you to pay the charge in advance, rather that getting a potentially hefty bill at the end ... which, could amount to potentially between £1,000 and £12,000 a year (assuming 10p - £1 a mile charge and an average 12,000 miles a year average). Slightly higher that the £130 road tax currently? They say it will be tax-neutral, but assuming my estimated are correct, do you honestly believe that it will, in the end?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/resistme/_933965_fuel_duty3_300.gif

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/resistme/_933648_petrol_price2_gra150.gif

These figures, from 2000 (so it'll have gone up since then!) show that we pay approximately 75% in tax on a litre of petrol, ie approx 50p per litre.

However, assuming that the average miles per litre, is 6.7 miles per litre then the equivant cost of road fuel tax per MILE will be about 7.5 p. So if they are proposing costs in excess of say 10p per mile in road charging, then we, the punter will end up paying significantly more. Even taking the annual road tax of £130 and dividing it up over the year, per mile, wouldn't even add a 1p per mile, based on the average 12,000 miles per year.

The other major grip, is of accountablity or pricing. Imagine getting your first monthly bill of road charges? I only use my car at the weekend, to travel to Folkestone from Eltham. I go by car, because it only takes an hour. To go by train, takes nearly 2 and a half; cos I have to a train to central london then catch the train that takes nearly two hours from London...

The only effect will be to price UK goods out of the market with higher costs; and make money for the government. How much do you think they government makes on alcohol and cigarrettes? And, why aren't they open about it, all they talk about is an EXTRA 2p a litre, or 5p on fags; not 50, 60 or 100% TAX on these goods?

They will, if they are allowed, try and put speed and ID cameras, not visible as required now, but hidden in cats eyes to 'capture' offenders - AND RAISE MONEY. Rummours suggest prices of upto £2 a mile .... ie pricing it MORE expensive that public transport (or know doubt, that will increase exponentially too!). So the food old road fuel tax will seem like a bargin to you and me....

If the goverment was to invest, and I mean properly invest in fast, reliable and cost-effective public transport (how many times this month was your train late? Or Cancelled at rush hour?), and pursue a cost effective and non-poluting alternative to the combustion engine (I can't believe that since it was invested, engines and batteries haven't followed the IT revolution in innovation - remember the ZX81 - with a wopping 1k of memory!! We got men in the moon, but can't invent a new type or renewable energy source!) then the UK will again lead the way.

Once road pricing starts, it will never end. You'll probably be charged tolls to walk on the sidewalk soon....

And they'll be able to track you were ever you are.... when do we get the human tracker ID card built in?

Oh and I can I defer the cyborg implants just yet....

I hate Margaret Thatcher. But if faced with the question of whether to expand any roads in Britain, I'd have to give her famous reply:

"No, no, no."

Road travel isn't sustainable. The oil is running out, and we get it from some of the most politically inflamed places on the map. The more we rely on it, the more we need to fight for it, and the more people will resent us for it.

I would scrap the current road tax system and replace it with an increased fuel tax. At the moment people who own cars are given an incentive to drive them more - road tax, insurance and MOT are fixed costs that are only proportionally reduced by driving more. Policy should seek to make these costs more 'pay as you go'. Public transport would then get more of a fair shot when people make travel decisions.

It is only with a continued increase in usage (and fares) that public transport will improve to the levels we need before car use starts to decline. And it needs to decline.

how would I get large objects to my house if i was forced to have a small car because of where i live?
It's called 'home delivery' darling. And who said it was a god given right to be able to procure large items anyway! You talk of the right to consume like it's the right to breathe.