Campaign for Better Transport : Reopenings Fund

underbank said:

No buildings were demolished for the route of the new by pass. Dozens of buildings would need to be demolished to put in a new tram or railway line with stations etc. to encourage more city centre travellers out of their cars. Quite simply because the by-pass route is fields around the city, whereas a tram/railway track would only be beneficial if it went through the city centre and built up residential areas. Not much point in a railway track to the M6 (which is where the by-pass goes) is there? Of course, unless you were going to build a new rail/freight terminal at Heysham and a new railway line to join it to the WCML but that would also mean loads of buildings being demolished too!

Click to expand...

What happens when the road can't go through green fields?

underbank said:

Of course not, but buses were caught up in the congestion too, meaning very slow journey times, cancelled services, etc as a daily occurrence. Bus users reported a noticeable improvement once the new road was open and many roads were a lot clearer meaning buses could run to timetable. In fact, a side effect was Lancaster bus station being congested with buses as they were arriving early and had no bay to park in! Car and pedestrian journeys also better as far less traffic to negotiate in residential areas, etc. There'll be VERY few people in Lancaster and north of it, drivers and non drivers, who'll say it's not benefited them.

The new road doesn't stop the councils providing better public transport options too, but given that the local councils have done nothing for decades, no reason to think they'll start now!

Click to expand...

That's a fair point, and I speak as someone who's used the bus between Lancaster and Morecambe a couple of times. However, I believe there needs to be dedicated national funding to bring towns back onto the railway network, just as the recent transport fund was available to alleviate the road congestion in Lancaster.

If we could look 25 years forward what are the chances of this conversation being repeated, except the need will be that it has to be widened to four lanes,. loads of comments in this thread discussing the economic benefits, however all that they actually are is more factories etc. providing more jobs for ever more people, once there is no land to provide food and water for us all then we may see solutions to traffic problems but not until. Rail is not the answer to it all either, but total rethink of how we live our lives and look after our world.

I see mention was made in this thread earlier about the situation at Tavistock. I think that there have been two long threads about that matter on this website over recent years and I followed both of them with interest at the time. I think a hoped-for housing development was a driver for a new station with much forthcoming information over the months from the county council. Does anyone know what finally became of this proposed housing development there?

underbank said:

Just one of the business expansions facilitated by the new Lancaster by pass:-

https://www.peelports.com/news/2016/expansion-plans-for-heysham-with-10m-facility-investment

"It is estimated that for £1 invested, the link road will earn £4.40 for the local economy."

Click to expand...

That's simply a line in a local newspaper quoting something with no source or reference given and even then its what the unknown someone or something has estimated not what has actually happened......

underbank said:

No buildings were demolished for the route of the new by pass. Dozens of buildings would need to be demolished to put in a new tram or railway line with stations etc. to encourage more city centre travellers out of their cars. Quite simply because the by-pass route is fields around the city, whereas a tram/railway track would only be beneficial if it went through the city centre and built up residential areas. Not much point in a railway track to the M6 (which is where the by-pass goes) is there? Of course, unless you were going to build a new rail/freight terminal at Heysham and a new railway line to join it to the WCML but that would also mean loads of buildings being demolished too!

Click to expand...

Maybe we should be concentrating on getting people to and from sustainable points of development within cities, and not pretending we can expand quasi-urban car-dependent development forever into the countryside.

Btw why would a new railway line to Heysham have required demolition, if it had followed the route that the demoltion-free by-pass did ? Could it be that you're applying different standards to railway construction because, like a surprising number of people posting on a railway site, you actually prefer road transport and believe it should be promoted at rail's expense ?

B&I said:

Btw why would a new railway line to Heysham have required demolition, if it had followed the route that the demoltion-free by-pass did ?

Click to expand...

As I said, why would a new railway line be terminated at a motorway junction? It's route would have to be completely different to get it to the west coast main line. The newly built by-pass was far shorter and linked the existing Heysham by-pass to the motorway. The existing downgraded railway line into Heysham Harbour would require massive improvement and demolitions etc to make it capable for long freight trains, not least being extending the existing Morecambe station into what is currently a retail park, to allow run-around of the locos on longer trains!

B&I said:

like a surprising number of people posting on a railway site, you actually prefer road transport and believe it should be promoted at rail's expense ?

Click to expand...

No, I'm in favour of railways and use them as much as possible. But I'm realistic enough to realise that sometimes, you have to accept the least-worst options are roads. If the Beeching cuts hadn't happened, or at least if the lines had been moth-balled rather than redeveloped with indecent haste, things would be different. Back to Lancaster, the route of the old Green Ayre station to Morecambe/Heysham line would be an obvious choice for a re-opening and would massively reduce traffic and congestion, but it's now lost forever, and you can't bring it back. It would also only be of benefit to Morecambe/Heysham, and would do nothing for people living in the other towns, villages and more rural areas which would never justify their own stations these days (not that there's even a remote chance of the Hest Bank and Bolton Le Sands stations ever being rebuilt due to WCML capacity).

underbank said:

As I said, why would a new railway line be terminated at a motorway junction? It's route would have to be completely different to get it to the west coast main line. The newly built by-pass was far shorter and linked the existing Heysham by-pass to the motorway. The existing downgraded railway line into Heysham Harbour would require massive improvement and demolitions etc to make it capable for long freight trains, not least being extending the existing Morecambe station into what is currently a retail park, to allow run-around of the locos on longer trains!

Click to expand...

What massive improvement and demolition would be required to improve the line to Heysham ? Isn

underbank said:

No, I'm in favour of railways and use them as much as possible. But I'm realistic enough to realise that sometimes, you have to accept the least-worst options are roads. If the Beeching cuts hadn't happened, or at least if the lines had been moth-balled rather than redeveloped with indecent haste, things would be different. Back to Lancaster, the route of the old Green Ayre station to Morecambe/Heysham line would be an obvious choice for a re-opening and would massively reduce traffic and congestion, but it's now lost forever, and you can't bring it back. It would also only be of benefit to Morecambe/Heysham, and would do nothing for people living in the other towns, villages and more rural areas which would never justify their own stations these days (not that there's even a remote chance of the Hest Bank and Bolton Le Sands stations ever being rebuilt due to WCML capacity).

Click to expand...

Of course there are local difficulties which get in the way of improvements to the railways, but that applies to some road schemes as well. And I suspect that some of the difficulties you refer to eg running local trains north of Lancaster are more apparent than real. Sadly there seems to be a can't do attitude towards rail which isn't the case when new roads are under discussion

Just waiting for suggestions that the Glasson Dock branch line from Lancaster should be reopened...

Gareth Marston said:

That's simply a line in a local newspaper quoting something with no source or reference given and even then its what the unknown someone or something has estimated not what has actually happened......

Click to expand...

As someone whose family lives in Morecambe, I can assure you that the bypass has made a massive difference to traffic levels on the local roads. That is indisputable.

underbank said:

No, I'm in favour of railways and use them as much as possible. But I'm realistic enough to realise that sometimes, you have to accept the least-worst options are roads. If the Beeching cuts hadn't happened, or at least if the lines had been moth-balled rather than redeveloped with indecent haste, things would be different. Back to Lancaster, the route of the old Green Ayre station to Morecambe/Heysham line would be an obvious choice for a re-opening and would massively reduce traffic and congestion, but it's now lost forever, and you can't bring it back. It would also only be of benefit to Morecambe/Heysham, and would do nothing for people living in the other towns, villages and more rural areas which would never justify their own stations these days (not that there's even a remote chance of the Hest Bank and Bolton Le Sands stations ever being rebuilt due to WCML capacity).

Click to expand...

I don't think the closed route between Lancaster and Morecambe would be much of a go-er in this context. It wouldn't link anywhere notable that's not already on the network, and it wouldn't open up new travel opportunities (the existing line already links Morecambe and Lancaster). I think more use could be made of the existing route to Heysham though.

Gareth Marston said:

Popularity doesn't = being right after all as my old Politics Lecturer use to say National Socialism was popular in Germany in the 1930's. And does this new North to South Motorway go through the Chilterns?



Try Google - You'll get plenty about the estimated cost of road congestion however try and find anything about the benefits of building new roads to relieve it. If the benefits are so obvious and well known why isn't anything there?



Unlikely to be a solution on their own however there not a dead end solution.

Click to expand...

I believe there was a recent report which suggested that traffic congestion could cost the country 300 Billion in the next 15 years if there is no improvement in the Road Infrastructure. There will always be benefits to an improved Road Infrastructure just as there are to improved Rail Infrastructure and to say that is not the case is crazy.

You seem to want to try a force people to travel by Train and Public Transport in general but the reality is most people will much prefer the flexibility of the car, and many commuters to the large cities only travel by Train because there no real alternative other than gridlocked roads, expensive and insufficient parking although despite that many still choose the later.

Meanwhile I live in the real world and want to see both road and rail investment. However in the context of this thread I would prefer cheap quick win solutions such opening new stations on existing routes, or such as Tavistock where you are talking about 10's of Millions rather than 100's of Millions which may not represent particularly good value, and I suspect that is the government thinking as well.

Also the term 'Reopening' is the wrong premise to start with, the starting point should Town X needs better Public Transport that might be better Bus Network or possibly a Rail Service, and if we want a Rail Service what's the best way to achieve that, not we want to reopen this line to serve Town X because that's what happened 50 Years ago, and would it better value if it also served Town Y even the original route may not have served Town Y.

markydh said:

As someone whose family lives in Morecambe, I can assure you that the bypass has made a massive difference to traffic levels on the local roads. That is indisputable.

Click to expand...

A not irrelevant point and please dont take this on a personal level. I have been asking what empirical evidence/study's are there to show that the "perceived wisdom" that new roads solve traffic congestion and bring economic growth are there? What has happened is that we have been drawn to one road scheme around two medium size towns in rural Lancashire away from any City Region. We've had two people which say they live locally and it makes a difference and a third who gave a link to a local newspaper article that quoted an un-referenced claim about the supposed benefits made before construction started.

These are not study's on the impact of the road on traffic levels pre and post construction on roads in a 20 mile radius or that of economic activity pre and post construction in the locality. You can see the problem that there is a UK National Policy level the benefits of new roads are being taken as read and no actual analysis is being done to inform decision making on what actually happens. The study s that have been done in the past are all consistent pointing to Induced Traffic or the 2007 Welsh Government report that failed to find any positive economic impact of road construction at a sub regional level.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility that an individual scheme in one part of the country may have had positive effects locally however there is no study to conclusively proof this either way nor are there any other study s comparing different road schemes and their impacts in different parts of the UK. Its virtually impossible to draw the conclusion that new roads per se are a good thing from the evidence we do have. I started down this track after we had posters complaining a rail reopening scheme would divert money from "more deserving" road investment. i am yet to see how any road scheme can be more deserving wen we dont actual analysis them to see what actually happens.

Forgive me but can we have some hard evidence please?

underbank said:

No, I'm in favour of railways and use them as much as possible. But I'm realistic enough to realise that sometimes, you have to accept the least-worst options are roads. If the Beeching cuts hadn't happened, or at least if the lines had been moth-balled rather than redeveloped with indecent haste, things would be different. Back to Lancaster, the route of the old Green Ayre station to Morecambe/Heysham line would be an obvious choice for a re-opening and would massively reduce traffic and congestion, but it's now lost forever, and you can't bring it back. It would also only be of benefit to Morecambe/Heysham, and would do nothing for people living in the other towns, villages and more rural areas which would never justify their own stations these days (not that there's even a remote chance of the Hest Bank and Bolton Le Sands stations ever being rebuilt due to WCML capacity).

Click to expand...

The WCML was far busier in the days when Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands were open. Freight, for instance, is a fraction of the volume of those days.

muddythefish said:

The WCML was far busier in the days when Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands were open. Freight, for instance, is a fraction of the volume of those days.

Click to expand...

Passenger services on the other hand...

3 "Long Distance" services every hour all day vs one or two 20-odd years ago. Faster trains (thanks to the West Coast upgrade) over Shap that mingle less well with the freights that do remain.

Number of trains doesn't tell the full story here.

philthetube said:

If we could look 25 years forward what are the chances of this conversation being repeated, except the need will be that it has to be widened to four lanes,. loads of comments in this thread discussing the economic benefits, however all that they actually are is more factories etc. providing more jobs for ever more people, once there is no land to provide food and water for us all then we may see solutions to traffic problems but not until. Rail is not the answer to it all either, but total rethink of how we live our lives and look after our world.

Click to expand...

Not quite the same situation here as the M25 (say)

The M25 always fills back up every time it is widened due to the suppressed demand (or "Harlow to Heathrow" effect). Before the M25, no one dreamed of driving Harlow to Heathrow, and was hard to predict the traffic demand for. Add in an unconstrained new link, and all this new demand appears out of seemingly nowhere to fill it.

On the other hand, Morecambe and Heysham are, and always will be, a "dead end" on the road network that can only physically generate so much demand from their urban areas. Demand isn't going to appear to fill up the road in quite the same way.

Ianno87 said:

Passenger services on the other hand...

3 "Long Distance" services every hour all day vs one or two 20-odd years ago. Faster trains (thanks to the West Coast upgrade) over Shap that mingle less well with the freights that do remain.

Number of trains doesn't tell the full story here.

.

Click to expand...

I visited Hest Bank recently.....it seems like a quiet branch line compared to the late 1960s when the level crossing across to the sands was almost permanently shut because of the number of trains that followed each other nose to tail right through the day (and night).

muddythefish said:

I visited Hest Bank recently.....it seems like a quiet branch line compared to the late 1960s when the level crossing across to the sands was almost permanently shut because of the number of trains that followed each other nose to tail right through the day (and night).

Click to expand...

That may well have been the case. But the diverse mix of speeds today doesn't make getting a station in straightforward.

Ianno87 said:

That may well have been the case. But the diverse mix of speeds today doesn't make getting a station in straightforward.

Click to expand...

There were 30mph loose-coupled freights mixed with 80mph expresses in those days. Plus the junction down to Heysham was very busy with freight.

Ianno87 said:

That may well have been the case. But the diverse mix of speeds today doesn't make getting a station in straightforward.

Click to expand...

Especially when many of today's freights are too long for most of the loops that served for the shorter, under-powered trains of yesteryear.

muddythefish said:

There were 30mph loose-coupled freights mixed with 80mph expresses in those days. Plus the junction down to Heysham was very busy with freight.

Click to expand...

Exactly! It takes a long time to get a long freight across a crossing at 30mph (max), compared to a Pendolino whizzing through.

47802 said:

I believe there was a recent report which suggested that traffic congestion could cost the country 300 Billion in the next 15 years if there is no improvement in the Road Infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Was the report Evidence based giving examples and study's showing how road investment actually works or was it of the assumptive variety where the outcome is taken as read even though the evidence base has not been looked at?

47802 said:

There will always be benefits to an improved Road Infrastructure just as there are to improved Rail Infrastructure and to say that is not the case is crazy.

Click to expand...

So the Highways Agency own Post opening evaluations are "crazy" then?
http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transport/roads/item/4542-the-impact-of-road-projects-in-england

A review which included over 80 road schemes with post-opening project evaluations gathered by Highways England found that evidence for economic benefits from road schemes was weak, absent, or even negative. Twenty-five road schemes were promoted on the basis they would benefit the local economy, but only six had evidence of any economic effects. For those six schemes, there was no evidence that economic effects were directly attributable to the road scheme, and were not displacement of economic activity from elsewhere. Where a road scheme was justified on the basis that it would support regeneration of an area with a struggling economy, it was common for economic development following completion of the road scheme to be slower than expected, or not to materialise at all, or to be of a type which offered little benefit to the area concerned.

Click to expand...

47802 said:

You seem to want to try a force people to travel by Train and Public Transport in general but the reality is most people will much prefer the flexibility of the car, and many commuters to the large cities only travel by Train because there no real alternative other than gridlocked roads, expensive and insufficient parking although despite that many still choose the later.

Click to expand...

Many more people are effectively forced into car ownership/use because of how we have planned our country for the last 50 years with employment sites with poor/ no public transport, urban sprawl, green field development near road junctions etc.

Gareth Marston said:

Many more people are effectively forced into car ownership/use because of how we have planned our country for the last 50 years with employment sites with poor/ no public transport, urban sprawl, green field development near road junctions etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's odd that the only restriction on anyone's freedom which seems to matter in the transport context is the freedom of car drivers to drive wherever and whenever they like. The rest of us are expected to put up with the country being remoulded around their wishes, regardless of the effects on the environment and public health.

B&I said:

Yes, it's odd that the only restriction on anyone's freedom which seems to matter in the transport context is the freedom of car drivers to drive wherever and whenever they like. The rest of us are expected to put up with the country being remoulded around their wishes, regardless of the effects on the environment and public health.

Click to expand...

Theirs also an expectation to be able to park for free immediately outside of where there going also, the reality is that of the 30 million private motor vehicles on the road in the UK they spend on average 95% of their time stationary. Finding space for these is a serious land use issue in many places especially in the center of larger settlements.

A really interesting and well debated thread here and one that I find myself sitting on the fence a little, mainly because in years past I drove 20,000 + miles a year for work and now try to use the rail network whenever I can.

For the most part I really don't think building more roads provides the economic benefits that are often touted by their advocates - certainly no more than improving the public transport infrastructure would. However as someone who spent many hours stuck in traffic on the A505 through Baldock, I think that bypasses that are essentially relief roads can bring benefits to the local communities and drivers alike - even in terms of non visible ones like a reduction in local air pollution for example.

I also think that until public transport is as convenient as owning a car then people aren't going to give them up although I suspect (although I have no evidence to hand to support this) that the congestion on our roads (during the peak periods at least) is why many people chose to travel by train instead, which in turn is causing congestion there! I would be interested to see whether or not if there is a decline in the number of 17+ year olds taking the driving test or actually owning a car - given the costs involved these days, and how much this differed via demographics (rural vs urban/city). Neither of my children have shown much interest in owning a car and both seem happy to use public transport whenever possible.

One final thing - I was watching a oldish documentary about the railway network recently and a commentator said that our system was originally built for profit (freight) whilst others in Europe were built to serve communities and for social reasons, and this attitude still pervades today. I'm not sure how true that statement is, but it got me thinking..

MostlyHarmless said:

A really interesting and well debated thread here and one that I find myself sitting on the fence a little, mainly because in years past I drove 20,000 + miles a year for work and now try to use the rail network whenever I can.

For the most part I really don't think building more roads provides the economic benefits that are often touted by their advocates - certainly no more than improving the public transport infrastructure would. However as someone who spent many hours stuck in traffic on the A505 through Baldock, I think that bypasses that are essentially relief roads can bring benefits to the local communities and drivers alike - even in terms of non visible ones like a reduction in local air pollution for example.

I also think that until public transport is as convenient as owning a car then people aren't going to give them up although I suspect (although I have no evidence to hand to support this) that the congestion on our roads (during the peak periods at least) is why many people chose to travel by train instead, which in turn is causing congestion there! I would be interested to see whether or not if there is a decline in the number of 17+ year olds taking the driving test or actually owning a car - given the costs involved these days, and how much this differed via demographics (rural vs urban/city). Neither of my children have shown much interest in owning a car and both seem happy to use public transport whenever possible.

One final thing - I was watching a oldish documentary about the railway network recently and a commentator said that our system was originally built for profit (freight) whilst others in Europe were built to serve communities and for social reasons, and this attitude still pervades today. I'm not sure how true that statement is, but it got me thinking..

Click to expand...

Whilst we can find a report claiming positive benefits of a rail reopening. A reminder that by getting people out of cars we can improve air quality.

http://gov.wales/newsroom/transport...e-highly-successful-new-report-finds/?lang=en

Reopening of Ebbw Vale line highly successful, new report finds
The Welsh Government driven reopening of the Ebbw Vale line has been highly successful in increasing access to the jobs market and reducing green house gases, an independent report has found.

Click to expand...

Gareth Marston said:

Was the report Evidence based giving examples and study's showing how road investment actually works or was it of the assumptive variety where the outcome is taken as read even though the evidence base has not been looked at?




So the Highways Agency own Post opening evaluations are "crazy" then?
http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transport/roads/item/4542-the-impact-of-road-projects-in-england




Many more people are effectively forced into car ownership/use because of how we have planned our country for the last 50 years with employment sites with poor/ no public transport, urban sprawl, green field development near road junctions etc.

Click to expand...

Well of course CPRE a somewhat anti road group so they are not biased in any way are they?

If you take the next village to where I live they built a bypass around the village some years ago, now the immediate effect was to take traffic out of the centre of the village, so you cannot say it had no effect, the other effect was to make access to the motorway from my village and surrounding industrial estate much quicker and easier. However you can say it didn't entirely solve the problem because like many road schemes it was really half a job which is why possibly many road schemes don't work as well as they should. What they also should have done which I believe was planned at one time was to turn the road into a dual carriageway from the end of the bypass to the Bradford Ring Road, consequently traffic for Bradford still queues at the end of the bypass at peak time.

The fact that new Road Scheme's induce demand would suggest that there huge supressed demand from the countries totally inadequate road infrastructure.

Now I fully accept there certainly isn't going to be any mass road building program like the sixties and seventies but that doesn't mean that there should not be some new roads and improvements to existing roads going forward.

Now for Anti Road people like yourself there are potentially two new issues to contend with. Firstly Electric Cars and Hybrids are going to arrive in a big way in the next few years and that going mute the argument about localised pollution caused by Road Vehicles. Secondly well it seems to depend on which manufacturer and which so called expert you talk to as to how quickly fully Autonomous Vehicles will arrive, but lets take a conservative view and say its within the next 15 years even though some are still saying 2020. So in the context of this thread do we spend x hundred million to open a line to Town X which itself even if approved tomorrow will take quite a few years to build, or perhaps instead do we look at improving the roads to at least the nearest railhead from Town X that can be used by non driverless vehicles and eventually driverless vehicles? I would vote for the latter in all probability.

47802 said:

Now for Anti Road people like yourself there are potentially two new issues to contend with. Firstly Electric Cars and Hybrids are going to arrive in a big way in the next few years and that going mute the argument about localised pollution caused by Road Vehicles. Secondly well it seems to depend on which manufacturer and which so called expert you talk to as to how quickly fully Autonomous Vehicles will arrive, but lets take a conservative view and say its within the next 15 years. So in the context of this thread do we spend x hundred million to open a line to Town X which itself even if approved tomorrow will take quite a few years to build, or perhaps instead do we look at improving the roads to at least the nearest railhead from Town X that can be used by non driverless vehicles and eventually driverless vehicles? I would vote for the latter in all probability.

Click to expand...

You are aware that debris from vehicle tyres is also a major health hazard, which will persist regardless of what fuels a vehicle, and whether or not there is any human brain in charge of the vehicle ?

I have yet to see an argument in favour of promoting private car use whoch does not boil down to driver's convenience.

B&I said:

You are aware that debris from vehicle tyres is also a major health hazard, which will persist regardless of what fuels a vehicle, and whether or not there is any human brain in charge of the vehicle ?

I have yet to see an argument in favour of promoting private car use whoch does not boil down to driver's convenience.

Click to expand...

So if the driver has a more convenient and quicker journey that allows him to spend more time with his family, have more free time etc, allows him to get to work on time and in a better mood, doesn't that make for a happier more productive and contented worker in general.

As for Rubber dust there needs to be more research on that and improving tyre technology.

47802 said:

Well of course CPRE a somewhat anti road group so they are not biased in any way are they?
.

Click to expand...

Whilst its true that the people doing research and reports tend to be from an anti perspective if that's the right word the absence of any counter evidence from the Pro lobby it perhaps most telling - they don't seem to be able to come up with any counter evidence full stop.

47802 said:

The fact that new Road Scheme's induce demand would suggest that there huge supressed demand from the countries totally inadequate road infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Is this predict and provide? I think there's stacks of untapped suppressed rail demand so just build new rail lines look what happened when the Borders Line/Ebbw Vale reopened and more people than predicted used it........

47802 said:

Now I fully accept there certainly isn't going to be any mass road building program like the sixties and seventies but that doesn't mean that there should not be some new roads and improvements to existing roads going forward.

Click to expand...

But what is the criteria that decides? We currently have had since the Torys got back in every backswood Tory MP in the country promoting their local scheme(s) as "vital" to their local area and "unique circumstances mean its a national priority" theirs now so many of them approved or under active consideration it very much looks like its a national programme without the label. In a 40 mile radius of Newtown we have a bypass around Newtown under construction , the local Tory's are now lobbying hard for two bypasses that straddle the border one on the A483 Pant/Llanymynech and the other on the A458 @ Buttington. In Shrewsbury a "north west relief road" is being lobbied hard for despite there being bypass built in the early 90's which "replaced" the 1930's bypass....and there is a multi MP campaign to dual the entire A5 between Shrewsbury and Ruabon.

47802 said:

Now for Anti Road people like yourself there are potentially two new issues to contend with. Firstly Electric Cars and Hybrids are going to arrive in a big way in the next few years and that going mute the argument about localised pollution caused by Road Vehicles. Secondly well it seems to depend on which manufacturer and which so called expert you talk to as to how quickly fully Autonomous Vehicles will arrive, but lets take a conservative view and say its within the next 15 years even though some are still saying 2020. So in the context of this thread do we spend x hundred million to open a line to Town X which itself even if approved tomorrow will take quite a few years to build, or perhaps instead do we look at improving the roads to at least the nearest railhead from Town X that can be used by non driverless vehicles and eventually driverless vehicles? I would vote for the latter in all probability.

Click to expand...

Electric Cars - no infrastructure to support recharging yet and also the range issue. None of the current electric cars can guarantee 100 miles between charges due to variable road conditions. Mr Petrolhead screeches to a halt a a filling station an in a couple of minutes hes off again with a full tank. Are people really going to undertake long distance journeys by electric car with the hassle of recharging? The prized convenience of your own vehicle would appear to undermined. This could be good news for long distance rail travel demand and railfreight.

Obviously we will anticipate the technology getting better as an answer but it isn't there yet not by a long shot.Electric Cars cant solve congestion they will sit bumper to bumper the same as petrol vehicles do.

Autonomous Vehicles - the high tech industry in search of funding/future profit follow the $ and £ behind this- the technology is massively way off yet even further than Electric. Just look at the Uber self driving scandal in Arizona. Secret E mails to the Governor , a pedestrian killed by a self driving car.

Of course you can have SMART cars that can inform you of congestion ahead and alternative routes but when there's no way round what does it do flash up "Stay AT HOME TOO CONGESTED" .........and of course the other conundrum heres all these Self driving cars being safe and cautious and respecting each other what happens when Mr Petrolhead who wont give up on self controlled driving appears weaving in and out of them. Do they all STOP because its dangerous?