• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

BBC article on other ambitious infrastructure projects (Includes Welwyn)

Status
Not open for further replies.

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,103
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587557

The government is pressing ahead with the HS2 high-speed rail link between London and the North of England, but there are critics who believe the money could be better spent elsewhere.

But what are the alternatives? Here are five other infrastructure projects, suggested by experts. Another five will follow tomorrow.

Some are much smaller, some represent blue-sky thinking and some are every bit as ambitious in scale as HS2.

Welwyn North tunnel

It may not be as sexy as a country-spanning high speed rail link, but users of the East Coast Main Line might see palpable benefits from tackling one of the rail network's most problematic bottlenecks, near Welwyn North in Hertfordshire. The line narrows from four tracks to two as it passes over the Digswell Viaduct and through a series of tunnels. Despite being just four miles, the narrow section has a big knock-on effect for trains up and down the line. If an inter-city train finds itself behind local traffic it can't simply overtake as on most of the line. It must wait or go slowly. A four-track tunnel and viaduct would have a big impact on punctuality for all destinations on the East Coast Main Line and cost relatively little, rail experts suggest. In the 1990s such a plan was announced. But the project was killed off with Railtrack's demise.

Cost: £440m estimated (New Economics Foundation)

Likelihood: Probable, at some point


A motorway for the east

There are north-south motorways up western England - the M5, M40, M6. The M1 goes up the centre. But east of that is nothing but the A1, which is motorway only in parts. "There's definitely a bias to motorways taking you west to go up north," says Paul Watters, head of transport policy at the AA. One plan could be to expand the M11 up from Cambridgeshire to Lincolnshire and the North East. But building brand new motorways is out of fashion. A more realistic option would be to upgrade the A1 to motorway all the way along, Watters says. The most pressing need for improvement is the section north of Newcastle serving the east coast of Scotland, he says. It is currently a mix of single and dual carriageway. Another eastern option is taking the A14, which runs from Felixstowe to the M6, and turning that into motorway, says Jack Semple, policy director at the Road Hauliers Association. Then there's the A12 from Brentwood to Suffolk.

But road widening of any kind is hugely contentious for environmentalists. It is also expensive. When the government announced in 2002 that it was widening a 29-mile section of the A1 to three lanes, the price tag was £263m. Scaling that up crudely over the course of the entire A1 would suggest the cost could even run into billions. Sian Berry, the Campaign for Better Transport's roads campaigner, says widening the A1 is "hugely expensive" and unnecessary. "There are much better choices for spending billions of pounds. Building wider roads in the long-term just causes them to fill up and encourage more car traffic."

Cost: Billions

Likelihood: Small widening projects likely but overarching motorway plan unlikely


Bridge to the Isle of Wight

A hardy perennial of life in the Isle of Wight is the suggestion that a bridge to the mainland would be a good idea. Many Isle of Wight residents joke that the island has the most expensive ferry crossing in the world by mile. A return trip with car and two adults can come in at over £100 during high season. The frustration was summed up by a letter writer to the Daily Telegraph: "Every other island community in the British Isles which had the feasibility of a bridge has seen one built. Why is there no bridge to the Isle of Wight?" Supporters of a bridge argue that even a toll-based crossing would produce competition that would push prices down. They also suggest that the island could get an economic boost.

The Isle of Wight Party was set up to campaign for a fixed link with the mainland, whether bridge or tunnel. Tunnels are expensive. As a rule of thumb a rail tunnel of about 10m in diameter costs about £30m per kilometre, says Bill Grose, former chairman of the British Tunnelling Society. Bridges are cheaper. The road bridge to the Isle of Skye opened in 1995. But it too was controversial. It cost a total of £39m to build under the Private Finance Initiative, £12m of which came from the government. In 2004, the Scottish government bought the bridge from its private owners after public criticism of what was said to be the highest per mile toll in Europe.

A photo of one ferry taken from another ferry, of which several cars are visible on the deck
Many Isle of Wight residents are against a bridge. And an OFT report in 2009 into ferry fares found they were "not obviously out of line with other commercial ferry services across Europe". And then there is the issue of squirrels. A bridge might allow grey squirrels in to wipe out the island's population of red squirrels. Red squirrels on the mainland have almost died out. But up to now the Solent has acted as a natural barrier to their grey cousins.

Cost: Unclear

Likelihood: Not on the immediate horizon


A new Channel tunnel

Would a direct road tunnel be better than the Eurostar or Le Shuttle?
If blue skies thinking is allowed, there is no bluer option than either a road tunnel under the Channel or a bridge over it. Bearing in mind the cost of the original privately funded tunnel many politicians would have kittens at the thought of financing another one. But before the rail tunnel under the Channel was chosen back in 1986, there were three other proposals on the table, all involving road links. Some say this would make more sense. Drivers could just speed between France and the UK without needing to get out of their car and on to a train. "As a motoring organisation we'd prefer a free-flow system of drive in, drive out." says Watters.

The challenge for a road connection is gales on a bridge and exhaust fumes in a tunnel. "Road tunnels need much more ventilation than rail tunnels and so there is a technical challenge there," says Grose. "You'd probably need a mid-Channel ventilation island." What about the route? "Difficult to say whether to go to France or Holland," he says. "If the former it would relieve the rail tunnel, if the latter it would replace ferries." One of the original proposals suggested a tunnel between artificial islands approached by bridges, Watters says. If the bridge held a tube protecting cars from gales - as the original bridge plan envisaged - then that might be feasible.

But is a second tunnel needed? The freight industry says no. "There's plenty of spare capacity in the existing tunnel," says James Hookham, managing director of the Freight Transport Association. The government is due to examine capacity in 2016, Watters says. And it's no good just thinking about now. We need to be planning for 20 or 30 years time, he argues. It means starting on the planning soon. But he doubts it will happen. The first tunnel cost billions. Today, with one tunnel already, such a cost looks excessive.

Cost: Many billions

Likelihood: Minimal


Trams for Liverpool and Leeds

Trams would be a "much more equitable" way of helping the regions than HS2, says rail expert Christian Wolmar. Left-of-centre think tank the New Economics Foundation is backing tram schemes in Liverpool and Leeds as part of its alternative plan to HS2. David Theiss, author of the report says that for every pound spent on HS2 the taxpayer will get back between £1.20-£1.90. In contrast the Leeds and Liverpool trams - each price tagged £1 billion - would give a return of between £2 and £3 per pound spent. Quality of life in these cities is more important to boosting their economies than cutting inter-city journey times, Theiss argues. Trams have key advantages. They are seen as a pleasant way to travel. They take the pressure off the road network. And they attract more users than buses, he says. But trams are not always a badge of honour for a city. Edinburgh's tram has proved controversial and expensive. Campaigners say the scheme arrived 10 years late and cost £776m.

Cost: £1bn each for Liverpool and Leeds (New Economics Foundation)

Likelihood: Might happen, but timing unclear

Found it quite interesting. And also Welwyn described as probable.

Just out of interest, Railtrack did own the land for 4 tracking Welwyn but who does now?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,747
Location
South Wales
trams for Leeds and Liverpool - Yes

Bridge to the Isle of Wight - Is it reallly necessary what with all the ferry routes etc.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
12,169
Actually, the thought of double-decking Digswell Viaduct is to me, ahem, almost sexier than the whole of HS2 :D

Getting a new trunk road or motorway through Cambridgeshire has already been looked at in some detail. With £1.4bn being the price tag for the recently-revived A14 Toll bypass (that being a ridiculous idea as it stands), due in part to the planning having taken so long, I cannot see at all any big plans for big roads in the east. Even a Solent crossing would be more likely, perhaps!

If done properly these projects could improve our lives in some way ;)
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,459
Location
UK
I hope some of these projects will happen as well as HS2, not instead of.
 

Rational Plan

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2011
Messages
235
trams for Leeds and Liverpool - Yes

Bridge to the Isle of Wight - Is it reallly necessary what with all the ferry routes etc.

As a person who has family on the Island, it most certainly is for all sorts of reasons.

1. The car ferry is very expensive. Over a £100 return most times you'd actually want to travel. Personally this means I can't afford to visit my family that often. But more importantly it really stunts tourism on the Island. People rarely take long holidays in the UK anymore, but there has been a big growth in short breaks. Once people have to add £100 to the budget, a lot of people decide to either save the money and go elsewhere of spend it on better accommodation elsewhere.

2 The other factor is the time and inconvenience of the trip. At busy periods the ferry is not turn up and go and you need to book otherwise you might wait a sailing or two before you can cross. So when traveling you want to leave a margin for traffic and then there is the 50 minute journey time. You can often add up to two hours to your total journey time. Then their is the inconvenience of the time table, which is okay during the day but after 8pm often has several hours gap between sailings.

A bridge that charged £50 return for a car would be a bargain compared to the ferries and you could leave anytime you wanted, even in the middle of the night (gasp).

The result of this isolation is that the Island is quite poor, and has few year round jobs. Young people on the Island have a tough time finding jobs on the Island.

But it probably won't ever happen as the Island is stuffed full of retirees and holiday home owners from the Mainland who don't need jobs on the Island and like it being isolated. They are always at the forefront protesting absolutely any new development proposed on the Island. Why would they want things to change, poverty means that local services and tradesmen are quite cheap compared to London and it's commuter belt. They like the Island as it is thank you very much.
 

Ironside

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
418
I hope some of these projects will happen as well as HS2, not instead of.

Quite.

I would build the trams and the Isle of Wight bridge (latter with car and rail).

The Welwyn tunnel I would build after HS2 construction was well under way and only if it was still needed as well as HS2.

Second channel tunnel would be difficult to justify until the first one fills up more. When it fills up more I would build it facing towards belgium or the Netherlands .

Not so sure about the motorway.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,649
Question is where you would build an Isle of Wight crossing.
The lymington ferry route would permit an easy combined rail-road crossing that would get main line rail services onto the island, but it would be a little out of the way for displacing the eastern ferry routes.

Vice versa for the ferries at the eastern end of the island but without the rail connection, leaving only the longest route in the middle of the island, possibly extending the Island line across the bridge.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
12,169
I would build the trams and the Isle of Wight bridge (latter with car and rail).

Don't suppose a Eurotunnel-style bridge or tunnel shuttle would be suitable. How easy would it be to connect to Island Line from the west?

The Welwyn tunnel I would build after HS2 construction was well under way and only if it was still needed as well as HS2.

Fair enough but you'd need to get two more tracks onto the viaduct, don't forget ;)

Second channel tunnel would be difficult to justify until the first one fills up more. When it fills up more I would build it facing towards belgium or the Netherlands.

It's worthwhile planning ahead, hence HS2, but Channel Tunnel won't be filling up for a long time.

Not so sure about the motorway.

Very little chance in the east as I explained earlier.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,905
Question is where you would build an Isle of Wight crossing.

Upgraded road down through Dibden and Holbury, avoiding the New Forest national park, cross the coast half way between Lepe and Calshot, lines up nicely with both West Cowes and an improved road towards Newport.

Large commercial shipping doesn't really use the western Solent much, so a massive bridge wouldn't be necessary, a combination bridge/viaduct would probably work.
 

giblets

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
133
Location
Northamptonshire
Get them all done!
A1 should be dualed North of Edinburgh (and another dualed route up the East side), Trams yes, bridges to Isle of Wight.
Only question would be the rail bridge, for the sole reason that I thought HS2 was going to be taking the strain (though the bridge would be far quicker to build and relieve pressure.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,649
Even with HS2 to relieve the pressure building the Welwyn Relief would be a good thing because it would enable the slow lines to be completely decoupled from the fast lines.
 

Lrd

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2010
Messages
3,018
I've always been of the understanding that a bridge to the IOW would actually ruin the economy on the Island by bringing over to many cars for the roads to cope with, this is what I've heard from various people, be that residents or tourists.

Also, the ferry crossing is part of the holiday for most tourists, it makes it a real Island instead of just another part of the UK that happens to be surrounded by water, like Portsmouth.
 

Ironside

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
418
Even with HS2 to relieve the pressure building the Welwyn Relief would be a good thing because it would enable the slow lines to be completely decoupled from the fast lines.

Yes, and starting work on it just after HS2 to Leeds is complete would lead to the least amount of disruption as most of traffic could be rerouted.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,102
As has been said before, Welwyn Tunnels (and viaduct) are not the worst capacity constraint(s) on the ECML. The long 2/3 track section from Peterborough to Huntingdon is. Then it is Welwyn North station.

A bridge to the IoW would be a good value time machine; spend £50 to go back to 1957!
 

Birdbrain

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2007
Messages
398
I would much prefer a rail tunnel to the Isle Of Wight. That would soon sort out the road congestion and the ferry companies prices!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,649
As has been said before, Welwyn Tunnels (and viaduct) are not the worst capacity constraint(s) on the ECML. The long 2/3 track section from Peterborough to Huntingdon is. Then it is Welwyn North station.

Eliminating Welwyn Viaduct as a bottleneck would involving solving the station problem by reconstructing it with a pair of through lines for the fast tracks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've always been of the understanding that a bridge to the IOW would actually ruin the economy on the Island by bringing over to many cars for the roads to cope with, this is what I've heard from various people, be that residents or tourists.

A combination rail/road bridge could be set up to charge a similar fare to the ferry for both cars and foot passengers while performing the crossing in a fraction of the time that the ferry takes.

That would prevent any flood of cars coming onto the island while providing the benefits associated with the bridge.
(A bridge at Ryde could replace all three ferry routes and even one at Lymington could probably replace all but the easternmost one).

Also, the ferry crossing is part of the holiday for most tourists, it makes it a real Island instead of just another part of the UK that happens to be surrounded by water, like Portsmouth.

Then they could continue to take the ferry, but deliberately hamstringing an areas non tourist economy for the sake of the tourist one is probably not a viable strategy in the long run.
The IoW has a population of well over a hundred thousand people, they aren't all engaged in the tourist trade.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
A combination rail/road bridge could be set up to charge a similar fare to the ferry for both cars and foot passengers while performing the crossing in a fraction of the time that the ferry takes.

That would prevent any flood of cars coming onto the island while providing the benefits associated with the bridge.
(A bridge at Ryde could replace all three ferry routes and even one at Lymington could probably replace all but the easternmost one).

Then they could continue to take the ferry, but deliberately hamstringing an areas non tourist economy for the sake of the tourist one is probably not a viable strategy in the long run.
The IoW has a population of well over a hundred thousand people, they aren't all engaged in the tourist trade.

A bridge at Ryde would utterly ruin the Solent, which is one of the most attractive areas in the south of England. It would need to be absolutely enormous due to the constant commercial and naval shipping in and out of Portsmouth harbour. It would also need to make landfall somewhere in the Portsmouth area, further destroying Southsea common and the seafront area, and there is precious little space for such substantial traffic flow onto the city, which is an island itself, and certainly no room at all for a rail extension to cross said bridge (the end of the line at Portsmouth Harbour is not in a suitable position to extend as it faces the peninsular of Gosport, not the open sea). Gosport is no better a solution as it suffers worse traffic issues than Portsmouth. The island bridge falls firmly into the same category as the ludicrous 'South Hampshire LRT' plans to build a tunnel under Portsmouth harbour; not needed and incredibly unlikely ever to happen.

I fail to understand the obsession with bridging the Solent. The Isle of Wight is what it is, a relatively sleepy island separated from the mainland by a few miles of sea. It's a truly beautiful place and the 'isloation' and the ferry crossing add to the charm and appeal. If you build a bridge it will simply become cheap housing overspill from the mainland, with every empty space being filled in by developers. The place would swiftly become congested, unpleasant and devoid of it's unique character. Yes the ferries are expensive as a regular journey, but no moreso than the train is for anybody commuting on the mainland. I would be very surprised if a great many islanders, having actually considered the realities of a bridge beyond just the cost of ferry tickets, would ever actually want one built.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,649
A bridge at Ryde would utterly ruin the Solent, which is one of the most attractive areas in the south of England. It would need to be absolutely enormous due to the constant commercial and naval shipping in and out of Portsmouth harbour.

Or it could be a swinging bridge, or a raising bridge, or it could be a low causeway with a small "humpback" section, remember how long the bridge would be.
It could even have a short section of immersed tube tunnel if even that is considered to be too "destructive".

Or you could just dredge out the western passage from the solent to allow the shipping to go the other way.

It would also need to make landfall somewhere in the Portsmouth area,
Gosport is a far better choice since it is closer and also the pier is already pointing in the correct direction.

Gosport is no better a solution as it suffers worse traffic issues than Portsmouth. The island bridge falls firmly into the same category as the ludicrous 'South Hampshire LRT' plans to build a tunnel under Portsmouth harbour; not needed and incredibly unlikely ever to happen.

Well if you built it for an extended Island Line you could avoid the problems with the traffic in Gosport and run along the alignment of the Gosport-Fareham Tramway with a cross platform connection with national rail at Fareham.
This would avoid the need for the complete reconstruction of Ryde tunnel for mainline sized rolling stock.

Any attached roadway would come ashore well to the west of 'Central Gosport' [somewhere in the vicinity of Alverstoke] and appears to have a fairly high quality road through a patchwork of fields and housing estates to the A27.
If any improvements are needed along that road corridor they would not be massively disruptive to housing or similar.

I fail to understand the obsession with bridging the Solent. The Isle of Wight is what it is, a relatively sleepy island separated from the mainland by a few miles of sea. It's a truly beautiful place and the 'isloation' and the ferry crossing add to the charm and appeal.

But what about all the locals that are forced out because they cannot get jobs on the mainland due to the poor quality transport links that give it its charming isolation?

If you build a bridge it will simply become cheap housing overspill from the mainland, with every empty space being filled in by developers. The place would swiftly become congested, unpleasant and devoid of it's unique character.

The Isle of Wight council could prevent such 'over-development' through judicious use of its statuary planning powers.
To suggest otherwise is simply scaremongering.

Yes the ferries are expensive as a regular journey, but no moreso than the train is for anybody commuting on the mainland. I would be very surprised if a great many islanders, having actually considered the realities of a bridge beyond just the cost of ferry tickets, would ever actually want one built.

The realities are that people that are currently forced of the island to be replaced with rich retirees and people with holiday homes would be able to get jobs on the mainland and that the improved transport links would foster increased economic activity on the island beyond tourism and agriculture, which alone are not the foundations on which a stable economy is built.
 
Last edited:

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Any vehicle carrying bridge requiring closure each time a vessel passes would be unacceptably disruptive to the flow of traffic, particularly during high season. It would also present an unacceptable risk of major problems should it suffer a mechanical failure, with massive traffic problems and no alternative route should it fail 'up', and enormous disruption to shipping should it fail 'down'. The ferry links to the island, certainly from Portsmouth, would likely cease to operate if a bridge did open, leaving no 'plan b' for traffic if something went wrong. Bridge closure during festival week for example, what then? A fixed bridge requiring shipping to travel all the way to Cowes and then around the island is not an acceptable solution either, the massive increase in journey times and fuel costs would never be entertained by the ferry operators. A causeway is not appropriate as the 'small humpback' would need to be high enough to clear a cross channel ferry, rather a steep climb.

As for increased economic activity, I would think that a modest prospect at best. Even with a bridge, why would companies feel the urge to relocate to the furthermost point of the south coast? The problems of logistics and limited workforce choices would still remain, just to a slightly lesser degree. Unless the bridge was free to cross, it would still be far more costly to do business on the island than it would be on the mainland.

I can appreciate that the lack of employment and the need to commute are a constant issue on the island, but there is little that can realistically be done to change that. The primary economy is tourism, and any area in that position suffers somewhat, but the island is hardly remotest Cornwall. Portsmouth and Gosport are not prohibitively expensive places to live in comparison to the Isle of Wight, and the option is always there to relocate if one so desires. Of course, many would say quite rightly that the island is a far nicer place to live - but there is a reason for that, and you can't have it both ways!
 
Last edited:

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
8,063
Location
Herts
On a niggling point - shame the BBC cannot tell the difference between a GWR express train and an LNER one with reference to Welwyn ....(unless there was a severe routing mistake at Acton East Junction and the photographer struck lucky)
 

joeykins82

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2012
Messages
601
Location
London
How would four-tracking the Welwyn viaduct and tunnel actually work? I've seen that the viaduct itself would need to be double-decked; would the slow lines be lifted up on top of the fast lines? If so, is there space to get them back down alongside the existing tracks before Welwyn North station and the current tunnel portal, or would the double-deck layout have to continue through the station?
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,501
As has been said before, Welwyn Tunnels (and viaduct) are not the worst capacity constraint(s) on the ECML. The long 2/3 track section from Peterborough to Huntingdon is. Then it is Welwyn North station.

Are there any particular obsticles to bringing this part of the route up to 4 tracks, or has it just not reached the point where it can be justified?
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
On a niggling point - shame the BBC cannot tell the difference between a GWR express train and an LNER one with reference to Welwyn ....(unless there was a severe routing mistake at Acton East Junction and the photographer struck lucky)

Do you think the web monkey charged with finding pictures for these articles has time to research much beyond typing "train" into Getty Images before moving on to the next article.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,459
Location
UK
I bet the writer is expected to source images him/herself these days than call upon the resources of a picture desk.

ITV News make journalists travel around on their own in many places, having to speak to a camera they set up on a tripod themselves.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
12,169
As has been said before, Welwyn Tunnels (and viaduct) are not the worst capacity constraint(s) on the ECML. The long 2/3 track section from Peterborough to Huntingdon is. Then it is Welwyn North station.

Are there any particular obsticles to bringing this part of the route up to 4 tracks, or has it just not reached the point where it can be justified?

I thought 4-tracking was at one point supposed to have been a CP5 or medium-term project. It will definitely have to be in place for Huntingdon North (Alconbury Weald) when that comes around. There's only one rail overbridge on that stretch, a 3-track iron bridge over Ermine Street in Huntingdon which will require another span immediately to the town side, or replacement. Which is likely to be disruptive. Only a few overhanging structures in the north of Huntingdon and the south of Peterborough (and I am not referring to the catenary!). Embankments will also need to be built up or dug out; some work but not too major an upheaval.

You say that, but you should see the state of road travel in Lincolnshire.

OK, I'll be more specific; East Anglia. Or at least not anywhere near where I live in the west of EA.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
8,063
Location
Herts
I bet the writer is expected to source images him/herself these days than call upon the resources of a picture desk.

ITV News make journalists travel around on their own in many places, having to speak to a camera they set up on a tripod themselves.


I may have done them an injustice - experts tell me it IS an LNER train - though I don't want to be Meldrewfied (note how critics round on for period innacuracies on buses and clothes in programmes),,,,
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
17,867
Location
East Anglia
Living in East Anglia & being a motorist (only when essential) I always go for a rail project & dismiss everything else.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,842
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
A1 should be dualed North of Edinburgh (and another dualed route up the East side)

The A1 doesn't go North of Edinburgh. :?

Presumably, you're meaning the A9. Though, rather than speed up making the whole thing dual carriagway, they're now going to put average speed cameras on it instead. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top