Motorway and A road charging

[robbierunciman]

Originally Posted by JayPeeDee

You can't make a statement like that without providing the figures to back yourself up. Please. Thanks

Sorry taking a leaf out of the motoring lobby's approach to justifying itself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...e-accidents-eu

[robbierunciman]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

The M1-A1 link doesn't have the traffic levels to support or need a wider road. The new built section (west of Kettering) is built to a very high standard.

As for an extension of the M6 - why change around 50 junction numbers for a route that doesn't really form a logical part of the route (OK, Birmingham area-east, yes, but Carlisle-Kettering is a big load of rubbish as one route)
What? A good one for the most part, though bits and pieces are rather bodged? Certainly better than Labour who recycled Tory plans on the A1 and opened the Tory schemes that were too-far-gone in 97 to scrap. That's it for new motorways (and other major roads) under the last bunch. I'd rather have a road that isn't quite there to no road!The M25 was badly designed? How so? It's much more a victim of its own success!Kettering is one of the fastest growing towns in the country, of a fairly decent size, and hardly a backwater - especially if you take into account that it is at the heart of the Northants growth area and is also far from the most congested part of the A14 (Huntingdon-Cambridge is).

Like the busiest bit it's a re-route of the E-W route (before 1990s via Northampton and Bedford) onto a N-S axis - in this case a take over of the A6. Junction spacing is a little tight (not that tight though), but which one of the primary routes don't you serve with a junction? OK, junctions 5 and 6 (as part of an online upgrade) are unnecessary, but they aren't going to drive much traffic. The widening to 3 lanes between junctions will remove any Kettering bottleneck.
I don't know what you mean here? The M6 Toll is certainly an example of a road which the owners don't want you to use, in fear they might have to spend money. Make it £1 for cars via a tag/ring and pay system, and protest the ATM that reduces congestion on the M6, and they could have both got some traffic, and been able to service their debt!1)there's no such thing as motorway standard
2)everyone knows what you mean though
3)it would have to be off-line, and I can see them spending £1 billion just on Girton Interchange (with the M11) and improving the 3 miles north of there to cope with the potential traffic!
4)outside of some small improvements just west of the A1 to close right turns, and a couple of isolated improvements, it is only the Cambridge - A1 area that needs the widenening that would mean you can give the route motorway status.How big do you think this budget is?The M1, M6 and M62 are taking the money right now, and they are even more vital than the A14 (which I agree ought to be a high priority).Not least as doing so would push people onto even more inadequate links. However I'm not sure tolling an essential link (though don't forget it wasn't needed as an E-W link until about the 90s - and we've since upgraded a lot of the old route) 'doesn't make sense' in the abstract - after all many countries, not least France, toll their major links.

1 - The route is Birmingham to Felixstowe. The junction with the M6 is being expensively improved (predictable) and they failed to build a bypasses on the A6 north of the road where problems were predicted - added later at great cost. I think it is Corby that generates most growth in the region. Widening to 3 lanes will make the problems worse because local drivers will career across the motorway between junctions to gain a few seconds The junctions here should have been designed more like the M20 in Maidstone so that one lane for local traffic is grade separated from two for through traffic between the Corby Junction and that for Burton Latimer. The section east of Kettering has too many local roads and farm access roads for a strategic route.

2 - The M25 was underspecified. The Government had experience of the growth in traffic that comes from providing more space for roads by the time they built this road and its growth was predictable - yet still built only 2 lanes in the now 8 lane section between the M23 and the M3. Billions have just been spent without comment widening the section between the M20 and the crossing.

3 - Labour did the right thing in not expanding the road network. The assumptions behind the business cases for new roads is weak. If roads generated prosperity - the North of England and Birmingham would be the richest parts of Britain now. No one seems to check if claims stand up. Like with the funding of Crossrail, if local businesses claim that a new road will boost growth - the taxpayer is entitled to a direct local contribution from those who benefit to match their investment.

[Malcolm of Kent]

Originally Posted by robbierunciman

1 - ...- yet still built only 2 lanes in the now 8 lane section between the M23 and the M3. ....

I have some sympathy for much of what you say. But I cannot let this go! Either you count lanes in both directions ("4 lanes in the now 8 lane section"), or in one direction ("2 lanes in the now 4 lane section"). Switching from one convention to another in the same sentence is overegging it! And of course, we all know a lot more in hindsight.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by Malcolm of Kent

I have some sympathy for much of what you say. But I cannot let this go! Either you count lanes in both directions ("4 lanes in the now 8 lane section"), or in one direction ("2 lanes in the now 4 lane section"). Switching from one convention to another in the same sentence is overegging it! And of course, we all know a lot more in hindsight.

And it opened as 3 lanes (each way, or 6 lanes in total), not 2/4. So was totally rubbish as a point! The section between M3 and A30 (and maybe M3 and St Peters Way, but I can't remember) opened with space for a forth lane to be added easily.

2 - The M25 was underspecified.

Actually, at the time of building much of it, it was massively overspecced, even for the distant future of 2013 traffic levels that would use it.

3 - Labour did the right thing in not expanding the road network. The assumptions behind the business cases for new roads is weak.

So why are you moaning about the M25 not being built wide enough for massive expansion in traffic levels, or the A14 being widened to only 3 lanes each way, rather than 2+2, in the Kettering area, or that they merely online dualled the A604 to create the A14 between Thrapston and Brampton, rather than build a parallel motorway?

You can't complain that they didn't expand the road network enough, and then say that not expanding the road network was the right thing to do.

[robbierunciman]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

And it opened as 3 lanes (each way, or 6 lanes in total), not 2/4. So was totally rubbish as a point! The section between M3 and A30 (and maybe M3 and St Peters Way, but I can't remember) opened with space for a forth lane to be added easily.Actually, at the time of building much of it, it was massively overspecced, even for the distant future of 2013 traffic levels that would use it.So why are you moaning about the M25 not being built wide enough for massive expansion in traffic levels, or the A14 being widened to only 3 lanes each way, rather than 2+2, in the Kettering area, or that they merely online dualled the A604 to create the A14 between Thrapston and Brampton, rather than build a parallel motorway?

You can't complain that they didn't expand the road network enough, and then say that not expanding the road network was the right thing to do.

Either they do it right or they don't waste taxpayers money in the first place with something that is not fit for purpose and has huge taxpayer liability for the future.

[sotonsi]

In the case of the M25 (and in fact most roads), most of it was due for a full on maintenance (resurfacing, comms and barriers upgraded to latest tech, etc) when it was widened, which would have needed the traffic management, which was most of the cost of widening.

Your solution to being only a sticking plaster is to spend shed loads of money until you can have something that lasts for 100 years or more (should the cows have walked in a D3M formation to create the Harrowway? Or should it have been those hauling stones along the road? and should they have buried the road under the site by where they had dumped the stones, allowing 16 foot trucks to pass underneath? Or should the Romans had done it? Or the turnpike trust? Or those in 1934 who renumbered that ancient route 'A303'?). Doing so creates both a very poor road network (as almost nothing is passed as 'fit for purpose' in your eyes), and what is built is chuffing expensive if you had to build the M25 as D3+D2 or D3+3 from the get go. I think the word they use is 'white elephant'...

I stand by my statement that the M25 was fit for purpose when it opened - it was fine for 25 year traffic predictions. It was a good job that they radically over future-proofed it on the older sections when they reached those predictions pretty quickly (though we went slower than the 1989 Orbit study suggested - which said that they didn't expect, nor could do anything about, the new found round-London commuters, shoppers, etc.) - due to other plans falling through, a change in travel culture that was radically different.

[JayPeeDee]

Originally Posted by robbierunciman

Y3 - Labour did the right thing in not expanding the road network. The assumptions behind the business cases for new roads is weak. If roads generated prosperity - the North of England and Birmingham would be the richest parts of Britain now. No one seems to check if claims stand up. Like with the funding of Crossrail, if local businesses claim that a new road will boost growth - the taxpayer is entitled to a direct local contribution from those who benefit to match their investment.

Whilst the business case for expanding the road network is dubious, so is your claim that Birmingham and the north would be the richest parts of the country because you perceive them to be overcrowded with roads. Absurd.

[JayPeeDee]

Originally Posted by robbierunciman

Sorry taking a leaf out of the motoring lobby's approach to justifying itself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...e-accidents-eu

Thanks for posting that link.

Whilst there is some credible points in the report even the authors say it is all based on assumptions rather than facts. It was also commissioned by the Green Party so is hardly going to be unbiased and includes consequential costs of such things as lost sleep and having to talk louder because of a nearby road. It, and you, also fail to address the effects of eliminating road transport altogether and the costs of noise, pollution, accidents, etc of alternative transport solutions, because these will all increase. Alternative transport means that are already heavily subsidised.

Further, the Guardian article fails to mention tax on new and used car purchases, IPT, maintenance, etc. All these contribute much more than the perceived shortfall.

Just before you decide to go off on one, I'm not pro-car, just think that the government are using all transport means as a positive tax generator, which I don't have an issue with per se, its the way they go about it by deliberately creating inefficiencies.

[Comfortably Numb]

I do believe that the time to expand Britain's motorway network is now. Perhaps any new motorway built should be built as a toll motorway, to attract private investment? I don't think the expansion needs to involve a plethora of new motorways, but rather connecting certain dots or converting some existing A roads to motorway standards. These (I think) would be worthy projects:

- Extend M42 to circle Stourbridge, Dudley and Wolverhampton from the M5, joining the M54 and M6 where it meets the M6 Toll, giving the West Midlands a proper ring motorway. Not only would this alleviate traffic on the congested M6, but it would severely reduce congestion in the Black Country, thus saving businesses money by reducing delivery times.

- Convert the A34 from the M3 to the M40 to motorway standard A34(M). The road handles far too much traffic to not be a motorway, complete with hard shoulders for broken down vehicles and emergency access. Also, completely re-do the junction with the M40, getting rid of the roundabout that causes a backlog of delays (and this was 11 years ago when I last used it) and convert it into a free flowing motorway interchange.

- Expand the M27 from Portsmouth all the way to Folkestone, where it would join the M20, allowing people on the south coast to connect more easily with the Channel Tunnel, avoiding London completely. The motorway could also be expanded westwards, all the way to Exeter, where it would meet the M5. The M5 could be extended to Plymouth, swallowing up what would be the former A30, converted to a full motorway.

- If there aren't any plans to connect Norwich and East Anglia with at least a full grade separated dual carriageway, there should be? I don't think that a motorway is necessary.

- Since the government are upgrading the A14 anyway, why not upgrade it to motorway standard, at least from where it meets the M6 to where it meets the M11 north of Cambridge? The road is screaming out for hard shoulders. Doing this would also allow an alternative route to London, taking some traffic off the M1 and onto the A14(M) and M11.

- Manchester > Sheffield motorway: if this can be done without ruining the Pennines, I think it would be a good investment as a possible toll motorway.

Just a few ideas, many of which could be tolled. I don't think we need to start building motorways like crazy, just connect the dots and upgrade some existing A roads that handle as much traffic as most motorways do anyway.

[tripleseis]

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb

Convert the A34 from the M3 to the M40 to motorway standard A34(M). The road handles far too much traffic to not be a motorway, complete with hard shoulders for broken down vehicles and emergency access. Also, completely re-do the junction with the M40, getting rid of the roundabout that causes a backlog of delays (and this was 11 years ago when I last used it) and convert it into a free flowing motorway interchange.

You'd need to build a new road around west Oxford or tunnel it under Botley if you wanted to upgrade it to a motorway standard. Unless you wanted to knock down 100+ homes along Westminster Way which I don't think will happen - it's middle class suburbia here and they are nice houses.

I think many of the A34's woes can be solved by moving more freight to rail and with major junction improvements.

[Comfortably Numb]

Originally Posted by tripleseis

You'd need to build a new road around west Oxford or tunnel it under Botley if you wanted to upgrade it to a motorway standard. Unless you wanted to knock down 100+ homes along Westminster Way which I don't think will happen - it's middle class suburbia here and they are nice houses.

I think many of the A34's woes can be solved by moving more freight to rail and with major junction improvements.

I understand. I thought the A34 bypassed most of Oxford though? From what I can remember, this is the only part of it that passes through suburban Oxford (Botley), which I believe is the section that you re referring to:

http://goo.gl/maps/OT14u

and

http://goo.gl/maps/ZpD4p

Most of the road seems to be surrounded by woods or fields and this section has a wide median, meaning that it could be widened sufficiently to include a hard shoulder:

http://goo.gl/maps/I40m6

Worst case scenario, perhaps the actual "motorway" part could begin just south of Oxford to avoid having to tunnel or knock down any homes, but the junction with the M40 still needs to be improved to a free-flowing one (I remember how backed up traffic was on the A34 approaching the M40 even back in the mid 90's).

No hard shoulder on a highway that carries so much traffic = bad. Same goes for the A14.

Rail freight is not always a viable alternative. You've still got to get the freight onto a lorry at the other end, meaning more delay, more loading and unloading. I agree that it should be used where it can be used, but it's not always practical. Could Britain's existing railway capacity even cope with a significant increase in rail freight?

[Flyer121]

Originally Posted by JayPeeDee

Indeed, you have some valid points.

The increase in traffic on our roads since I started driving 20 years ago is massive. I often have to leave home at 6am and the the roads are already packed, 20 years ago you would rarely see another car at that time of the morning. And even the last few years with massive increases in fuel prices the roads are still packed. You would have thought the high fuel costs would have forced people to shorten their journeys but they obviously place other life factors ahead of transport, such as home environment, schools, shops, leisure, etc...

I don't think it's ignorance or laziness, just a lifestyle choice that people are prepared to pay for through sacrifice in other areas of their life. Clearly we still haven't reached the limit of that sacrifice otherwise traffic volumes would be much less than they are now.

Just for one moment though consider what the effect would be if everyone switched to public transport, reverted back to living next to their workplace or could work from a home office. What would be the effect on taxation, house prices, living standards, healthcare, etc...

What anti - road campaigners dont realise is that their claim -that roads are luxury non-essential items of infrastructure which when combined with the other fallacy "that more roads lead to more traffic" translates into a theory that " people drive for fun". Actually, I have never known anyone who would rev up his gaz guzzler if suddenly there were a road to appear magically.

Some people will switch from inconvenient public transport and that will lead to more traffic but then car is still the best door to door solution , if you do away with the artificial barriers put in its way like virtually no road developement , exhorbitant fuel & insurance, non-available or pay -thru -nose parking. And now this road charging.

Public transport - until it resolves its own high costs, inconvenience and capacity issues can only be the second best compromise.

This is still better than the tree hugging utopia which you have described in the last para. That kind of economy would be a wrecked one with output falling thru the floor and taxation revenue cease to meet any other public services.

Like it or not - travel (or ease of travel) has allowed the economies to grow as they have to provide for the very things we so nearly take for granted.

When we are arguing against road building - we are really arguing against economic developement. Congestion is a supply constraint and much better of the other evil of "no demand" for infrastructure.

[Flyer121]

As for the scheme, I am happy as long as it ensures 2 things

1> More high quality road development ensuring that my car doesnt sit in the driveway depreciating away while I decide to put off the travel for fear of the road congestion hell.

2> Lesser "overall" cost of motoring by lowering fuel duty for instance. And reducing journey times which #1 will definitely bring.

[nerd]

Originally Posted by Flyer121

What anti - road campaigners dont realise is that their claim -that roads are luxury non-essential items of infrastructure which when combined with the other fallacy "that more roads lead to more traffic" translates into a theory that " people drive for fun". Actually, I have never known anyone who would rev up his gaz guzzler if suddenly there were a road to appear magically.

Some people will switch from inconvenient public transport and that will lead to more traffic but then car is still the best door to door solution , if you do away with the artificial barriers put in its way like virtually no road developement , exhorbitant fuel & insurance, non-available or pay -thru -nose parking. And now this road charging.

Public transport - until it resolves its own high costs, inconvenience and capacity issues can only be the second best compromise.

This is still better than the tree hugging utopia which you have described in the last para. That kind of economy would be a wrecked one with output falling thru the floor and taxation revenue cease to meet any other public services.

Like it or not - travel (or ease of travel) has allowed the economies to grow as they have to provide for the very things we so nearly take for granted.

When we are arguing against road building - we are really arguing against economic developement. Congestion is a supply constraint and much better of the other evil of "no demand" for infrastructure.

I suspect you should get out of your car more, and widen your circle of acquaintances, because the people you have 'never known' undoubtedly exist everywhere in large numbers. Road space is a strictly limited, highly costly and valuable commodity, but there is no charge made for it at point of use. As any economist can tell you; this will encourage over-consumption. Provde something valuable for free and they will over-use it. Provide something valuable for a fixed annual charge (vehicle license fee) and they will over-use it a lot.

This phenomenon is observed universally as 'disappearing traffic'; whenever road tolls are introduced (or when a road is closed and traffic diverted onto other routes) total car trips drop by at least 15%. Since this drop tends to be concentrated at peak periods, when traffic goes slower, the effect is to reduce demand for road capacity by a least 25%.

Whether the 'disappearing traffic' was on the roads for fun is not easy to determine - it is very difficult to interview an absence. But it does make sense that there are a lot of drivers on the road who have no strong incentive to complete their trips (e.g. delivery drivers with a set round). It seems that there are a lot of people who have no objection at all to sitting in a traffic queue for an extended period; and that universally observed phenomenon destroys the assumption that congestion delays function as a sort of proxy price for road space consumption.

I take your point that the car would be the ideal solution in a fantasy world where there was unlimited road development, guaranteed cheap fuel, and no road accidents (and so no need for insurance). But in the real world of todays UK most people find a car unneccessary until they have kids to lug around. Hence the steadily increasing average age for passing the driving test. In my youth (long-long ago) this was around 20; now it is over 30. Most young people now buy or lease their first house or flat; before they buy their first car. And decreasingly few people use a car for work purposes; other than van drivers working of on-line delivery enterprises.

A lot of this is about the costs you talk about (especilally insurance); but equally it is because they find that they value the capability of remaining connected (which they can do on public transport, but not while driving), above any convenience of driving a car.

[JayPeeDee]

Originally Posted by nerd

I suspect you should get out of your car more, and widen your circle of acquaintances, because the people you have 'never known' undoubtedly exist everywhere in large numbers. Road space is a strictly limited, highly costly and valuable commodity, but there is no charge made for it at point of use. As any economist can tell you; this will encourage over-consumption. Provde something valuable for free and they will over-use it. Provide something valuable for a fixed annual charge (vehicle license fee) and they will over-use it a lot.

Whilst I agree there is no direct proportional charge for road use, there is an indirect charge that is directly proportional to ones road use. No one drives on the road for fun just because they don't pay a direct proportional charge for doing so.