National Highways boss implies that major road building maybe ending

[The Ham]

What are people's thoughts on this:

National Highways boss gears up for period of 'rapid change' for roads | New Civil Engineer

Harris told a Westminster policy conference on the next steps for road infrastructure and the third road investment strategy (RIS3) that there are both

www.newcivilengineer.com

National Highways chief executive Nick Harris is gearing up for a period of "very rapid change" for the road network. Harris told a Westminster policy conference on the next steps for road infrastructure and the third road investment strategy (RIS3) that there are both challenges and opportunities. "We are in a period of very rapid change particularly when we look at the environment and emerging transport challenges," he said. "That period of rapid change isn't going away which is exciting and an opportunity but something we need to get to grips with. "Looking at our plans for the next road period it's clear that we're going to be challenged very hard on our impact both on the environment and on carbon." RIS3 will cover the period of 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2030, and its initial business plan and review is due to be published this summer. Harris said that "building nothing is probably the best solution", but realistically innovation is needed to enable the roads operator to build less. He sees "a lot of opportunities" in terms of maintaining and building roads, embracing the innovation needed for a sustainable future and developing digital and technology solutions.

"Building nothing is probably the best solution", that's a huge thing for the head of the Strategic Road Network to be saying (even if it's something that many in the industry privately may think, given that we can't build our way out of road congestion and everyone switching their car for EV's isn't enough to reduce our emissions enough, as there's a need for people to also use active travel for the journeys less than 5 miles; which are 52% of all journeys made).

Discuss.

 

[lachlan]

Completely agree with what you've said in your post. Perhaps an exception should be converting at grade junctions on existing dual carriageways to grade separated, such as at Laurencekirk in Scotland, to improve safety. However there certainly should not be new major roads built or even dialling, since discouraging car use has to be the priority. Road improvements make public transport less competitive.

 

[Ken H]

I think major new roads are out, but some junctions are crying out for grade separation
Fix whatever causes the A1 between Ferrybridge and the A1 (M) to snarl up
A1 (M) -M18 jct
M1 - M69 jct (think they are doing that)
The road between the A46 and the Leicester Ring Road at Beaumont Leys. Loads of trucks, many going to the crisp factory
Newark (have they started that?)
M40 - A34 jct
Shipley
M6-A66 Penrith.
Just the ones I know..

 

[Cloud Strife]

Completely agree with what you've said in your post. Perhaps an exception should be converting at grade junctions on existing dual carriageways to grade separated, such as at Laurencekirk in Scotland, to improve safety. However there certainly should not be new major roads built or even dialling, since discouraging car use has to be the priority. Road improvements make public transport less competitive.

Dualling is, however, also a matter of safety. You can do it with 2+1 in many places, and I'd argue that this is a better solution for roads such as the A9 and A96.

 

[GusB]

Dualling is, however, also a matter of safety. You can do it with 2+1 in many places, and I'd argue that this is a better solution for roads such as the A9 and A96.

2+1 does have its issues, though. Firstly, such sections are never long enough to properly clear a backlog of traffic, and inevitably you get someone who tries to squeeze into the narrowing gap at the top of a climbing lane.

Secondly, they're frustrating for drivers going downhill as you've got double white lines separating the two sections of road, meaning that overtaking is forbidden even if the uphill lanes are clear.

 

[MotCO]

2+1 does have its issues, though. Firstly, such sections are never long enough to properly clear a backlog of traffic, and inevitably you get someone who tries to squeeze into the narrowing gap at the top of a climbing lane.

Secondly, they're frustrating for drivers going downhill as you've got double white lines separating the two sections of road, meaning that overtaking is forbidden even if the uphill lanes are clear.

Some 2+1 roads are actually 1+1+1, and either direction can use the middle lane, which I have always found inherently dangerous.

Fix whatever causes the A1 between Ferrybridge and the A1 (M) to snarl up
A1 (M) -M18 jct

I would endorse that. Also, despite it being said there should be no new road building, the A1 between Peterborough and Ferrybridge should be widened and straightened - it is very tiring driving down this road

 

[Ediswan]

Some 2+1 roads are actually 1+1+1, and either direction can use the middle lane, which I have always found inherently dangerous.

Otherwise know as a 'suicide lane'. I have not come across one for a very long time.

 

[Ken H]

Otherwise know as a 'suicide lane'. I have not come across one for a very long time.

On the skipton bypass between the A65 and the Grassington road there is a 3 lane single carriageway. 1 down 2 up. But part of it has a broken white line on the down side. I treat it very carefully! North Yorkshire has a few of those!

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Best thing to do with 2+1 roads would be to convert to 1+1 and use the free space for a decent wide cycleway, with more attractive gradients than the winding sustrans routes.

It has been known for many years that new roads mean more traffic. High time to stop building and 'improving' roads and to encourage people to live near work.

 

[Snow1964]

Best thing to do with 2+1 roads would be to convert to 1+1 and use the free space for a decent wide cycleway, with more attractive gradients than the winding sustrans routes.

It has been known for many years that new roads mean more traffic. High time to stop building and 'improving' roads and to encourage people to live near work.

You have obviously never driven along the A36
It has lots of these, but as the main road from Bristol &South Wales to Southampton and Portsmouth it does have lots of lorries. The 3 Lane sections are almost as wide as a 2+2 road so why they didn’t just widen it a metre and stick a crash barrier down the middle is a mystery.

Not doing completely new road schemes is a sensible plan, but there are some pinch points on current network which need improvements for both safety and congestion reasons


Today is a bank holiday Friday but DfT has chosen today to announce improvements to some road bridges

Today (3 June 2022) the government has announced 4 schemes in Newcastle, Cornwall, Greater Manchester and Southampton, which will generate an estimated £659.3 million in economic benefits for the regions through improved investment, new housing and employment opportunities.

The road and bridge schemes will level up infrastructure across the country, helping local economies thrive through bolstered employment opportunities, new housing developments and improving connectivity to incentivise business investment.

The 4 major road schemes announced today, backed by a total of £160.8 million investment, include:

• £78.5 million for a new 3.85 mile (6.2 kilometre) road linking St Austell to the A30 – the main transport artery in Cornwall, creating 6,300 new local jobs – the scheme will generate almost £112 million in wider economic benefits through reduced journey times, increased investment in the local area and better opportunities for clean travel thanks to a new shared pedestrian and cycle facility running alongside the whole length of the new road
• £35.3 million for essential maintenance to the Tyne Bridge and adjacent Central Motorway, including improvements to traffic management and cycle route facilities – the repairs will generate £130.5 million in economic benefits by improving local connectivity, tackling congestion and poor air quality as they will avoid the rerouting of HGVs through residential areas
• £33.6 million to enhance walking and cycling accessibility and tackle congestion across the A34 between Greater Manchester and Stockport – with estimated economic benefits of £76.8 million, the scheme will support the development of more than 2,500 new homes and 33.3 hectares of employment space, while boosting transport links to Manchester Airport and HS2
• £13.4 million for essential maintenance to the A35 Redbridge Causeway – a vital link between New Forest, Southampton and its port – the scheme is estimated to be very high value for money and will generate almost £340 million worth of direct economic benefits through better connectivity, improved employment and housing opportunities and the expansion of the Port of Southampton

Major road and bridge upgrades to boost economic growth across the country

Investment in transport schemes in Cornwall, Greater Manchester, Newcastle and Southampton.

www.gov.uk

 

[swt_passenger]

Otherwise know as a 'suicide lane'. I have not come across one for a very long time.

Agree. I’m not saying there are none whatsoever, but they are now incredibly rare compared to when I started driving in the 70s.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

What are 2+1 lanes needed for? I thought trucks were allowed to do 50 mph, cars can do 60, by UK law. No need to overtake to 'save' a few seconds.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

2+1 does have its issues, though. Firstly, such sections are never long enough to properly clear a backlog of traffic, and inevitably you get someone who tries to squeeze into the narrowing gap at the top of a climbing lane.

Secondly, they're frustrating for drivers going downhill as you've got double white lines separating the two sections of road, meaning that overtaking is forbidden even if the uphill lanes are clear.

What's worse is where there's a 2+1 which alternates... ( not the same as a 1+1+1 )

 

[ABB125]

Major strategic road building ended in this country at least a decade ago.

To be replaced by major "development at any cost" road building that exists purely to facilitate car dependent housing development (and "business/logistics parks". Road users are an afterthought ("we've built this new road for all this horrible new car dependant housing, so we might as well plug it into an existing road at an awfully-designed inadequate junction").

 

[MotCO]

What are 2+1 lanes needed for? I thought trucks were allowed to do 50 mph, cars can do 60, by UK law. No need to overtake to 'save' a few seconds.

They are often used on steep sections of road to allow slower vehicles to be overtaken.

 

[ABB125]

They are often used on steep sections of road to allow slower vehicles to be overtaken.

Unfortunately, often these sections are on relatively recently-built sections of road where the alignment is far better than the "old" road. So you can be stuck behind someone dithering at 40mph who, upon reaching the new/upgraded section will speed up to 60mph, thus rendering it impossible to legally overtake. Once the new/upgraded bit finishes, they'll almost invariably slow down again.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I certainly hope they slow down again on the unrebuilt narrow winding stretches.

 

[Ken H]

Unfortunately, often these sections are on relatively recently-built sections of road where the alignment is far better than the "old" road. So you can be stuck behind someone dithering at 40mph who, upon reaching the new/upgraded section will speed up to 60mph, thus rendering it impossible to legally overtake. Once the new/upgraded bit finishes, they'll almost invariably slow down again.

I use the A65 between Skipton and Kendal a lot. So many people dont seem to be able to go round corners at any speed. Most of the A65 corners are quite OK at 60 unless its very wet. But many slow down to 35-40. But I know the road so accelerate round the corner before a straight so can be in a position and in the right gear to overtake (or not!) before they realise there is a straight bit. Its a road I have been driving since I passed my test in '79 -knowing the road helps. The A65 is quite a well laid out road.

 

[ABB125]

I certainly hope they slow down again on the unrebuilt narrow winding stretches.

Depends on just how narrow/windy it is.

On something like this, I wouldn't want to do any more than 40mph (and didn't when I drove along it in the morning before all the tourists arrived last summer). Obviously there are some bits where 40mph would be too fast (like this corner). When I drove along it in the afternoon, I was stuck in a long platoon of vehicles where the person in front wouldn't exceed an indicated 30mph (26mph in real life).

Compare that to here, where I have been stuck behind people doing 40mph, but who speed up to 60mph on the main bit which is safe for overtaking here.

 

[Class 170101]

What are 2+1 lanes needed for? I thought trucks were allowed to do 50 mph, cars can do 60, by UK law. No need to overtake to 'save' a few seconds.

Also a loaded lorry going uphill will struggle to do 50mph depending on gradient.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The A303 Ilminster By-Pass in Somerset is a 'three-laner', and notorious for many accidents over the years. Initially the central lane was a free for all, but double-white lines now protect one side or the other, but alternating over its length. This is a further cause of accidents as overtaking vehicles leave it too late and run out of road when the lines switch. I loathe driving on it.

This road was built in the (penny-pinching) 1980s, but a lot of the former 'three-laners' were widening schemes of the old trunk roads in the 1920s/30s as job-creation projects. The A38 in Gloucestershire had long stretches of it, but it is now a conventional two-way road allowing for very generous cycle-lanes on both sides. It is great for bike-touring if you need to 'press-on' and make progress.

 

[stuu]

The A303 Ilminster By-Pass in Somerset is a 'three-laner', and notorious for many accidents over the years. Initially the central lane was a free for all, but double-white lines now protect one side or the other, but alternating over its length. This is a further cause of accidents as overtaking vehicles leave it too late and run out of road when the lines switch. I loathe driving on it.

Not quite right. It was built as two wide lanes which a lot of the time became unofficially four lanes. This worked most of the time but went tragically wrong fairly regularly.

It is a lot safer now it is 2+1 but when busy it would almost certainly be quicker if it was just one lane in each direction as there is a queue at the end of each two lane section. It's hopefully being dualled this decade, thankfully

 

[lachlan]

The comments are interesting given National Highways are still pursuing a dual carraigeway past Stonehenge. I know he was referring to 2025 onward, but if building nothing is the best solution why not start now?

Highways Magazine - National Highways names preferred bidder for £1.25bn Stonehenge scheme

National Highways has selected the MORE joint venture as its preferred bidder for the £1.25bn contract for the tunnel and main construction work for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down scheme at Stonehenge.

www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk

National Highways has selected the MORE joint venture as its preferred bidder for the £1.25bn contract for the tunnel and main construction work for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down scheme at Stonehenge.​

However, the planning application for the scheme is still pending redetermination by transport secretary Grant Shapps after his decision to grant the Development Consent Order against the advice of the Planning Inspectorate was quashed.

National Highways said that to ensure programme timescales are maintained in the meantime, it has selected the MORE joint venture - comprising FCC Construcción, WeBuild and BeMo Tunnelling - as the preferred contractor.
Project director Derek Parody said: ‘The announcement of a preferred bidder in no way pre-empts any decision, and once that is finalised, and should the Development Consent Order be granted, having a contractor in place will put us in the strongest possible position to deliver this transformational scheme and deliver the benefits we know it can.'
National Highways added that the announcement followed a robust procurement process, a major part of which required shortlisted tenderers to develop their design solutions and demonstrate these as compliant with its requirements.
The MORE JV has enlisted a consortium comprising Atkins, Jacobs and Spanish designer Sener as the design joint venture.
Mr Parody added that, despite the contract being awarded to a foreign consortium, ‘they will be making best use of considerable UK skills by using a range of local, regional and national suppliers and contractors to help them deliver the scheme’.
In a statement, the joint venture said: ‘For the companies that are part of the MORE JV this project is a clear example of the development of sustainable, innovative infrastructures that not only provide traffic solutions but also improve people’s quality of life.’
The Main Works Contract covers the construction of the proposed tunnel’s civil, structural, mechanical, electrical and technology components, including the tunnel boring machine, along with the approach roadworks and structures and the environmental components of the five-year construction phase.
National Highways added that it is finalising the process of awarding a Delivery Assurance Partner Contract, up to the value of £60m, but did not give a timescale for this.
The proposed scheme includes:

• eight miles of dual carriageway
• a tunnel at least two miles long beginning and ending within the World Heritage Site (WHS), closely following the existing A303 route, but a further 50 metres away from the Stonehenge monument
• a new bypass to the north of the village of Winterbourne Stoke
• junctions with the A345 and A360 on either side of the WHS

 

[Busaholic]

Not quite right. It was built as two wide lanes which a lot of the time became unofficially four lanes. This worked most of the time but went tragically wrong fairly regularly.

It is a lot safer now it is 2+1 but when busy it would almost certainly be quicker if it was just one lane in each direction as there is a queue at the end of each two lane section. It's hopefully being dualled this decade, thankfully

It was most certainly 2+! from the start. By chance, I travelled on it the day of its opening and hated it then and every one of the numerous times I used it thereafter. I believe the government soon declared after its opening that it would be the last new build incorporating this dangerous feature. By that time a few high speed head-on accidents had occurred.

 

[stuu]

It was most certainly 2+! from the start. By chance, I travelled on it the day of its opening and hated it then and every one of the numerous times I used it thereafter. I believe the government soon declared after its opening that it would be the last new build incorporating this dangerous feature. By that time a few high speed head-on accidents had occurred.

No, it wasn't, as this photo shows. There may have been a section up the hill going east that was 2+1 from the start, but the majority of it was two wide lanes. Similar roads were built until at least the mid 1990s. The quote I remember was that dual carriageways were no longer necessary because of this new idea!

 

[The Ham]

No, it wasn't, as this photo shows. There may have been a section up the hill going east that was 2+1 from the start, but the majority of it was two wide lanes. Similar roads were built until at least the mid 1990s. The quote I remember was that dual carriageways were no longer necessary because of this new idea!

I certainly drove it when it looked like that after I meet my now wife which was in 2003.

I don't recall when it changed, but it was certainly after that, with the image on this website (shows current layout) dated as 14 years ago (2022-14= 2008):

Ilminster Bypass © Andy Pearce cc-by-sa/2.0

This stretch of the A303 sees quite a lot of accidents mainly due to poor driving on a very dangerous 3 lane road. Why wasn't it built as a dual carriageway? False economy!

www.geograph.org.uk

In theory a single wide carriageway road (10.5m, maybe 12.5m with 1m hard stips) can carry more traffic than a single carriageway (7.3m), however not as much as a all purpose 2 lane dual carriageway (over 20m wideby the time you've built the central reserve and the various 1m hard stepstrips, as the crash barrier needs enough space so that is it deforms when hit it doesn't impinge on the opposite carriageway, this is typically circa 1.5m, although depending on the spacing of the uprights can be as little as 1m).

Even single lane dualing would require circa 15m, as the carriageway in each direction is 4m with two 1m hard stips so any breakdown doesn't block the carriageway.

As such you can't just put up a central reserve to make the road safer, especially given that bridges tend to to have much extra space over the minimum required at the time of construction.

 

[inais20]

Interesting comment from the National Highways boss but I suppose he’s just saying something that’s kind of been reality for a while anyway?

I wonder if something like the Hindhead Tunnel would still get built if it was starting now.

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting comment from the National Highways boss but I suppose he’s just saying something that’s kind of been reality for a while anyway?

I wonder if something like the Hindhead Tunnel would still get built if it was starting now.

If getting rid of pollution and through traffic from a village centre is worth doing, then why not, if there’s no alternative.

 

[lachlan]

If getting rid of pollution and through traffic from a village centre is worth doing, then why not, if there’s no alternative.

The risk is that by bypassing, it creates more demand as car journeys become quicker and more convenient. It also makes the car more competitive against public transport. Resulting in more pollution in the long run. I'm not denying the immediate effect a bypass can have on a village, but I think the focus should be on reducing all car journeys instead.

 

[inais20]

And then, thinking about a bit further north up the A3, would this assumption of no new roads mean that Guildford wouldn't get the A3 bypass it's been needing for years?