SkyscraperCity Forum banner

National Rail & Road Infrastructure Plans

526K views 3K replies 176 participants last post by  danm 
#1 ·
See less See more
1
#7 ·



"End of the road? Are major routes through cities outdated?"

"A report looking at Birmingham's transport network for the next 20 years has concluded the future of the Queensway tunnels should be examined. It is not the only place in the UK that relies on a route for cars through the city. So are such roads outdated?

"When it emerged Birmingham's Queensway tunnels would be closed for six weeks over the summer, it is no surprise there were predictions of 'chaos'.

"The main through route for the A38, the tunnels are used by thousands of drivers each day and have been an integral part of the city's transport network since they were built in the 1970s.

"There was some surprise, therefore, when the anticipated gridlock did not materialise."​


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-25420370

.
 
#10 · (Edited)
The thing about the Birmingham tunnels closure is though that there is no way of telling how the scare stories of potential gridlock affected peoples' transport choices (and thus in turn averted the gridlock). Had nothing been said, maybe it would have been gridlock.

If you keep cars out of city centres, then you keep people out of city centres.

I don't think the article is suggesting getting rid of traffic from the centre, but just overly wide roads and structures that form barriers. In the article they talk about Boston and how they took a highway underground.

Thinking about Birmingham, I can imagine some enhancements to the a38 that could come to similar effect.
 
#12 ·
No the issue is that your directing traffic trying to cross the city into the city centre where they are competing for roadspace with those who want to use the city centre itself. By burying the freeway you remove the conflict, as in Boston they removed the on ramps connecting to the city centre and removed the ability to directly connect between the East-West and North-South freeways. That means traffic no longer interacting with city centre traffic and pushing the congestion out of the city centre and into the suburbs where the freeways are acessed from.

Before


After
 
#13 ·
No the issue is that your directing traffic trying to cross the city into the city centre where they are competing for roadspace with those who want to use the city centre itself. By burying the freeway you remove the conflict, as in Boston they removed the on ramps connecting to the city centre and removed the ability to directly connect between the East-West and North-South freeways. That means traffic no longer interacting with city centre traffic and pushing the congestion out of the city centre and into the suburbs where the freeways are acessed from.

Any idea if they seriously considered any alternative, like spending the same amount of money of rail and light-rail in the city?
 
#14 ·
The Big Dig was an awesome project - cost billiions and billions of dollars - I spent a fair bit of time working in and around Boston in spates from 1995 to 2003 - and I never saw the job started, and never saw it finished; but having visited on holiday in 2011, the transformation of the east side of the city centre is unbelievable - the green elevated highway replaced by a park and a clear view to the waterside
 
#15 ·
And meanwhile in Singapore, where there are massive disincentives to owning and running a car, massive projects such as the Marina Coastal Expressway are still considered to be a legitimate way of preventing the city becoming gridlocked, along with mass transit.

For cities in the UK I think the notion taking traffic off local streets and into tunnels is a valid proposition, so long as the space left behind can be given over to people. It's less about increasing road capacity and more about organising it to encourage a smoother faster flow and giving people streets back. Its about getting the right balance.
 
#19 ·
I think the point is the flyover will need replacing at some point, so money has to be spent on another one or a tunnel, both relative degrees of being expensive. A tunnel would probably be more, but it also might offer better value in the broader sense over the longer-term.
 
#20 ·
Much to the annoyance of Hammersmith & Fulham, the concrete of the flyover is apparently in good condition, and the current TfL work on the flyover's tensioned steelwork and the sliding expansion pads at the top of the columns has a design life of 60 years, so not until 2074!
 
#23 · (Edited)
#26 ·


Competition to deliver innovation in Light Rail




Through SBRI funding from the Technology Strategy Board, UKTram is promoting a £3 million competition to deliver innovation in light rail.

This competition is seeking innovative solutions that reduce the whole lifetime cost and impact of light rail schemes. We are seeking solutions that address either one of the two main themes, track or energy infrastructure. Proposals for both re-fit or replacement in existing schemes and new build opportunities are welcome. Proposals for solutions with international market opportunities are encouraged, as long as the solution can be demonstrated in the UK.

There is no single accepted definition of Light Rail but for the purposes of this competition “Light Rail” includes all the types of system described in Chapter 1 of the Green Light for Light Rail white paper.

For track we are seeking solutions that address one or more of the following:
  • Reduce the whole-life cost of track and support
  • Reduce the time to construct track, particularly in urban situations, and the associated disruption to businesses and the public
  • Reduce the impact on statutory undertakers’ equipment within the carriageway and associated cost and time impacts
  • Solutions addressing the construction phase and/or maintenance and rail replacement.

For energy infrastructure we are seeking solutions that address one or more of:
  • Reduce the total environmental impact of supplying traction power to light rail vehicles
  • Reduce the whole life cost of energy supply for light rail vehicles.

Solutions addressing system design, construction, maintenance, energy generation, supply storage and operations and signalling and control are included in scope. Proposals involving vehicle development alone for improved energy performance are out of scope as this challenge is being addressed through other funding routes. However, proposals to demonstrate the integration of vehicle systems with infrastructure at a whole system level to meet these challenges may be considered in scope.

There are a number of practical constraints in the light rail environment and applicants will be expected to show how their solution operates within these constraints.

Solutions must:
  • Maintain and/or improve the customer experience
  • Maintain and/or improve the safety of the system and the public domain
  • Show practicability of implementation in real scenarios
  • Show how wider environmental and engineering issues such as noise, vibration and stray currents will be managed or assessed in the proposed project.

The competition opened to applications on 13 January 2014.​





http://www.uktram.co.uk/News/Low_Impact_Light_Rail.aspx


.
 
#27 · (Edited)


Here is a list of all significant road schemes in England and Wales.

It's on a campaign group web site, but I assume all the info. is neutral information.



This is the "Roads2Nowhere" web page. The map is lower down on the page:

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/roads-to-nowhere/map


As an example though, It would be nice if cross-Pennine rail routes were to get the same treatment as this:



By the way, why has Manchester never had a proper motorway from the south, like Leeds has?
Because the M6 was always a by-pass, and the M1 was built as the "London-Leeds Motorway"?


.
 
#30 ·
#29 ·



Material savings: Mersey Gateway


Late last month, client Halton Borough Council (BC) and its design and build Spanish-led consortium Merseylink announced that a whopping £250M had been knocked off the cost of the new Mersey Gateway bridge, a six-lane toll bridge linking Runcorn and Widnes.

It was common knowledge that the saving had been made by switching from steel to concrete box girder for the bridge’s deck; that much had been revealed when the Merseylink consortium was named as preferred bidder last summer. But it was made clear that the detail - and extent - of the savings could only be revealed once Halton BC and Merseylink reached financial close on the privately financed project.

... Financial close means all the 30-year contracts between Merseylink and Halton Borough Council have been agreed, and funding committed to allow construction to begin.

The next few months will see work starting on:

  • setting up the accommodation compounds on both sides of the river
  • final demolition work around Ditton, Astmoor, Catalyst Trade Park, Victoria Road and Hutchinson Street
  • access roads across the saltmarsh to the river in both Widnes and Runcorn
  • construction of two pylon cofferdams in the River Mersey from floating barges
  • two floating trestles - one from each side of the river - to take vehicles to the two pylons
  • upgrading the road network in Runcorn, starting at the Bridgewater Interchange and M56 roundabout.

Work will continue through to an anticipated bridge opening date of autumn 2017.

Once it is open, there will be an opportunity to close the Silver Jubilee Bridge 1.5km away, while it undergoes essential maintenance and is remodelled as a local bridge, with improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as better public transport links.

The project is being funded over the 30-year period by a mix of tolls paid by users and grants from the UK government.

The council will not make any payments to Merseylink until the road is open and toll revenues and government grants are available to fund these payments.

To finance the delay in receiving revenue, the Merseylink consortium has put in place finance arrangements that include making use of the new UK Government Guarantee Scheme. This will be used to guarantee £260M of the debt required, with the balance of the finance provided by four banks and the Merseylink sponsors.

Halton Borough Council has set up a new company - the Mersey Gateway Crossings Board - which has the delegated authority to deliver the Mersey Gateway Bridge project, and to administer and oversee the construction and maintenance of the new tolled crossings, including the tolling of the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge.


http://www.nce.co.uk/features/transport/material-savings-mersey-gateway/8661470.article


So are we getting better at building things (apart from in Edinburgh and a few other places)?

.
 
#32 ·
This would actually make me vote for Labour if anything comes of it.

http://t.news.uk.msn.com/uk/labour-open-to-railway-reforms-1

Labour 'open to railway reforms'

Labour leader Ed Miliband refused to rule out bringing the railways back into public ownership, saying the party was "looking at all the options".

He has come under pressure from former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott and more than 30 would-be Labour MPs to commit to renationalising the industry.

Mr Miliband said Labour would not return to the old days of British Rail but the current system was flawed.

He has been urged to consider the success of East Coast since it was taken back into public ownership, with Lord Prescott suggesting the existing franchise deals should simply be allowed to lapse.

The Labour leader told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: " We are looking at all the options on the railways. We are not going to go back to old-style British Rail."

He said Labour would be "pragmatic" and "we have got to recognise that the system at the moment has flaws in it".

"Passengers are paying high fares in this country and we are paying big subsidies from the taxpayer."

East Coast was in public hands but the Government was "dogmatically" privatising it, he said.

"I want to see value for money for the taxpayer. I am never going to write a blank cheque and I am not going back to the past, but we are looking at the different options."

He added: "There is a balance to be struck here because there are some benefits you can have sometimes from competition and we are not gong back to the old monolithic model that was British Rail.

"But we do need to look at how we can have a coherent system."

The call for renationalisation from prospective parliamentary candidates came in a letter to The Observer.

They said: "Train companies walk away with hundreds of millions of pounds every year, despite running monopoly services and benefiting from £4 billion of public investment in the rail network every year.

"These profits are even helping keep down rail fares on the continent as many of Britain's rail services are run by subsidiaries of the state railways of France, Germany and the Netherlands.

"Yet the not-for-private-profit model that works so well on the East Coast line has shown how there is a better way to run Britain's rail services. As well as making over £1 billion of franchise payments to government, East Coast reinvests all of its further profit to benefit passengers.

"A commitment to extend this successful model to the rest of the rail network, as existing contracts come to an end, would mean that hundreds of millions currently lost in private profit would be available to fully fund a bold offer on rail fares."

The demand was echoed by Lord Prescott, who used his Sunday Mirror column to say Mr Miliband should announce the renationalisation at the autumn party conference.

He said: "Ed Miliband says he wants to look at innovative ways of running our railway system. Well, 19 of these 25 railway franchises will have to be renegotiated over the next five years. So let each one lapse and pull them back into public ownership."

Meanwhile the party stressed that a document setting out proposals for tough restrictions on the sale and advertising of alcohol, unhealthy food and tobacco was not official Labour policy.

The plan would end sports sponsorship by drinks firms and impose minimum alcohol pricing in an effort to cut the impact of drinking on Britons' health.

There would also be new laws to curb the amount of sugar, fat and salt in food aimed at children, and a ban on advertising unhealthy products on TV before the 9pm watershed.

The Mail on Sunday reported that the plans are contained in a report to the "society" sub-group of the shadow cabinet.

A Labour spokesman said the leaked paper "represents a wide range of options" but was not official party policy.

"Improving public health is crucial to people's quality of life. That's why we've rightly pressed the Government to end their opposition to plain cigarette packaging," the spokesman said.

"This paper represents a wide range of options and not Labour party policy."

Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union acting general secretary Mick Cash said: " It's about time Labour woke up to the fact that bringing the railways into public ownership is both popular and cost effective and would free up the money we need to invest in staffing and capacity to modernise the network.

"It remains a disgrace that the last Labour government allowed the private profiteering and exploitation on our railways to continue unchecked and it's about time the party endorsed RMT's programme to bring the entire system under public control, free from the racketeering and greed of the past two decades."

Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna said: "I don't think we should be dogmatic or closed in either direction, public or private. The question is what works."

He told BBC Radio 5 Live's Pienaar's Politics: "I'm pragmatic and I think what matters is what gives people a good deal, good service and doesn't rip them off.

"We are not in the business of going back to old British Rail-style nationalisation but there is no denying how successful the East Coast main line has been."

He said a Labour plan to ban alcohol sponsorship of sports events was "highly unlikely" but played down reports of a rift with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham about the proposals.

He said: " Andy's approach, and I think it is absolutely the right one, is how can we actually help people to lead more healthy lives?"

But he added: "We are not in the business of coming at people with a stick and forcing people to do things."
 
#35 ·
#33 ·
It might for me too, but I believe the railways need to be in state control from the EU not Westminster. I believe this particularly for the high speed network. The national network could remain semi-autonomously managed, but the high speed network should be a single integrated European HSR network. Only then will we squeeze out its true potential.
 
#40 · (Edited)
I'm sorry to say that your wishes for a brave Eutopian future for rail don't appear to be in step with the views of the supranational organisation itself.

While you may get your "single market", that doesn't appear to be for the passengers' benefit or convenience, but instead just big pan-EU business.

No through-ticketing, no single pan-EU network with one company running everything with efficiency, not even single networks inside member countries. Just company competing against company, just like we have here.

New EU regs compel EU countries to liberalise their previously successful nationalised railways along UK lines, on the basis of a) stopping state subsidy in order to create a level competition playing field (L0L), and b) meaning any country's companies can run any country's railway system (and indeed across countries) - quite why this should be considered an issue is beyond me given the ownership of the "UK's" railways. (Ludicrous) separation of track and train, "equal" competition above all else - this is creating a single market for the sake of it, or rather for the sake of the EU project, rather than any benefit you or I will get. Settling on the UK model as a way of doing things should give you enough inkling as to whether it's a good thing or not. Yes the HSR standards can facilitate through journeys, but even with this - as far as the UK is concerned at least - is this really what it's about, or is it more about making sure that companies across the EU can bid for the work and associated work, and so that in the future company AN Autre from country X can plonk its rolling stock in country Y instead of the home countries having any sort of advantage?

So, one day in fifty years time you may be able to get a train ticket from Leeds to Lannion with some pan-EU train company (after shopping around with several companies) - but at what cost? Both literally and consequentially.

And then there's this: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/30/spain-high-speed-trains/ Note the para on competition ruling.

Sorry, but no - in this case it's very much a case of "the grass is always greener". The EU is not the best thing to happen to our trains.

The best thing to happen for railways is for the EU to take its mitts off, and appreciate that member countries need to intervene in what is essential infrastructure, to keep things going.

The best thing to happen for our railways is not to put control even further away, but for local devolution to become the norm (with total control), and for longer distance railways to be under sensible national (and nationalised) control. Should there be in the future any commercial desire to run services into other european countries, then by all means facilitate that, but that doesn't require ownership to be taken away. Talk about sledgehammer to crack a nut. The numbers of people going to and from european countries by rail will always be far, far less than those travelling domestically.

If anyone is unhappy about not being able to get through ticketing on Eurostar (inc with deals), then I would say the more achievable goal there is simply to lobby the people who matter and ask them to get it sorted.
 
Top