Beeching Plan 2021: roads to close

[Snow1964]

Being a railway forum, thought an example going under a railway would be appropriate
A350 (Chippenham -Poole), first one is the GW main line (between Chippenham and Thingly) spot the unused electrification gantry,
the second one Kennet & Avon canal south of Melksham (both views face south, and I have no idea why they they used opposite carriageways for the one they built)

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

 

[Bald Rick]

Apparently it was built that way because it was some sort of PFI-type deal, and the traffic forecasts suggested that 4 lanes may be necessary something like 20 years into the (I think 25-year) contract. Rather than face a costly, disruptive upgrade near the end of the contract, the builder decided to build 4 lanes from the start. (I could be wrong, that's just what I've heard.)
What I've never understood about this bit is why the 4th lane ends at the junction before Peterborough; you would have thought it might make sense for the lane drop to be taken by the nice flyover into Peterborough, but what do I know... The main reason I can think of is that the A1(not-M) beyond is only 2 lanes, so a double lane-drop for Peterborough may be excessive (or "too confusing for the drivers" ).

Or is it some sort of consideration (now probably unlikely) of the continuing A1 to be upgraded to 3 lanes in future?

The rapid change in the quality of the road from high spec 4 lane motorway to twisty 2 lane dual carriageway in the practical blink of an eye is almost comical!

A bit of both. AIUI it was designed st the same time as the designs were done for the A1M all the way from Letchworth to Blyth, which was going to be 3 lane the whole way, with 4 lanes at the busy sections, of which Alconbury to Peterborough was the busiest. I saw the designs for the Grantham bypass bypass back in the early/mid 90s.

As the Alconbury - Peterborough stretch was the busiest, it was to be built first, so went through the consents process. It then took a while to get funding (through PFI, ultimately), and although it probably didn’t need the 4 lanes, the consents granted required it. And thus it was built.

Similar reason why the M1 between Junctions 6 and 10 was rebuilt sufficiently wide to land an A380 on each carriageway - dual 4 lanes with one stretch of 5, all with full hardshoulder. The orders were made about a decade before the money arrived, but it had to be built to the orders to get it done.

The A830 from near Fort William into Mallaig is similarly a bit variable in standard.

But absolutely magnificent.

The same situation exists with the top end of the A3 from the Hook underpass (going south) - motorway standard but still just plain old A3..

Only as far as Painshill, then it loses the hard shoulders and has some side roads. Nevertheless, very useful for a Learner driver to get some Motorway style driving in prior to passing ones test.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The A830 from near Fort William into Mallaig is similarly a bit variable in standard.

But absolutely magnificent.

Very definitely (as also is the rail line running parallel) but still a little disconcerting on the sections where the A830 carriageway narrows to little more than single track width and there's a HGV bearing down on you in the opposite direction!

 

[ashkeba]

The rapid change in the quality of the road from high spec 4 lane motorway to twisty 2 lane dual carriageway in the practical blink of an eye is almost comical!

If your blinks last 3 miles then are you sure you are fit to drive?

 

[Lucan]

Bypasses have two purposes - to make it easier for through traffic and to ease congestion for the locals.

There is a large village in Somerset which I often passed through, which had a by-pass built. Soon after, at least a dozen signs appeared on the approaches to the roundabouts at the by-pass ends, imploring travellers to come into the village. These signs advertised the pubs, B&Bs, petrol station, cafes, craft shop etc.

 

[HSTEd]

I saw the designs for the Grantham bypass bypass back in the early/mid 90s.

Wait, there was going to be a Grantham bypass bypass?

But the A1 runs through the middle of empty countryside?

 

[ABB125]

Wait, there was going to be a Grantham bypass bypass?

But the A1 runs through the middle of empty countryside?

I imagine it would have been part of the proposed motorway upgrade of the A1

 

[Bald Rick]

Wait, there was going to be a Grantham bypass bypass?

But the A1 runs through the middle of empty countryside?

It was very close to the existing bypass, but another 6 lanes.

 

[HSTEd]

It was very close to the existing bypass, but another 6 lanes.

Is this more madness from the Roads to Prosperity era?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is this more madness from the Roads to Prosperity era?

Early 90s. The A1 was to be motorway standard throughout.

 

[BayPaul]

I know the op was originally in jest, but ripping up long distance roads is pretty pointless, the environmental damage of building them is already done, and the ongoing cost of maintenance is low.

I would love to see a programme of road closures in town centres, however - more pedestrianised high streets, roads that are bus (and/or tram) only, and most importantly, turning one lane of key corridors into high quality segregated cycle lanes,either by singling duel sections, or even making roads one way. Reclaiming City streets for people, rather than having them car dominated would make a huge difference.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@BayPaul
I was not jesting at all.

Many roads take so much land, they have wide banks and cuttings, they could be narrowed and cycleways could be built a good distance from the road.

My first candidate for return to nature: the Newbury Bypass. More roads mean more traffic so fewer roads mean less. The madness of long-distance commuting has become far too attractive.

I used to drive a lot, for work and privately, in UK and abroad. Regularly drove through Newbury, 1994-95.

 

[deltic]

I seem to recall Beeching was asked to look at the road network by Barbara Castle and recommended that all on street parking was removed to improve its efficiency and no-one should be allowed to own a car if they didnt have an off road parking space for it (a policy that seems to apply in some Japanese cities). Roads being for moving people and goods not for leaving tons of metal lying around on. The suggestion was rapidly dropped as to difficult politically and practically (where would all the new parking spaces be built). I have never been able to find any evidence this story is true though.

 

[24Grange]

I think Devon has more roads than any other county other than Yorkshire( x times bigger) . Loads of country lanes with big banks each side to shut.Traffic survey would show they don't pay their way with income ! Also shut the A303 - it duplicates the M4/M5 if you are driving from London to Cornwall to go surfing! - Would make the Stone hengers happy as well.

A1(M) duplicates M1 ( at least in part).
Every road in the south goes to London , all North/ South. Extremely difficult to travel East/West across the country.

 

[Ianno87]

(where would all the new parking spaces be built).

Why more parking spaces? Why not fewer cars instead? It's (when you think about it rationally) a bit insane that, for every 5 cars out there only (maybe) 2 are used at any one time on average. The idea that everybody needs their own chunk of metal sat on the road outside "just in case" needs challenging, with a move towards car clubs and the like.

I'm of the view that certain places now should see the "Japanese method" applied (e.g. here in Cambridge); if you don't have a designated parking space in certain areas, then you cannot own a car (it is sort of the case today; in some residential parking areas not every address, particularly newer-build, is entitled to a residents parking permit. That, but stricter).

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Actually there are three spaces for each vehicle, I used to find a place at work, at the food shop on the way home, and at home.

Certainly closing the A303 as a trunk road would be a good idea, I regret very much that it has been 'improved' (is there a better word for this?). One does hope that the Stonehenge scheme is abandoned.

 

[ac6000cw]

I would love to see a programme of road closures in town centres, however - more pedestrianised high streets, roads that are bus (and/or tram) only, and most importantly, turning one lane of key corridors into high quality segregated cycle lanes,either by singling duel sections, or even making roads one way. Reclaiming City streets for people, rather than having them car dominated would make a huge difference.

This is nothing new - the town in the Black Country that I grew up in had completely pedestrianised the town centre by the early 1970s, and some of the other local towns had done some of the same.

BTW - the only part of the A14 (which runs about 130 miles from the M1/M6 junction near Rugby to Felixstowe) that is 'motorway build standard' is the roughly 15 miles between Cambridge and Huntingdon - the rest of it is only modern A-road standard e.g. no hard shoulders, some minor flat junctions (albeit mostly 'left turn only' - no carriageway crossing).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually there are three spaces for each vehicle, I used to find a place at work, at the food shop on the way home, and at home.

Certainly closing the A303 as a trunk road would be a good idea, I regret very much that it has been 'improved' (is there a better word for this?). One does hope that the Stonehenge scheme is abandoned.

Roads are often detrunked for political reasons, but I don't see what the sensible alternative to the 303 would be, there isn't a duplicate of it.

 

[A0]

I know the op was originally in jest, but ripping up long distance roads is pretty pointless, the environmental damage of building them is already done, and the ongoing cost of maintenance is low.

I would love to see a programme of road closures in town centres, however - more pedestrianised high streets, roads that are bus (and/or tram) only, and most importantly, turning one lane of key corridors into high quality segregated cycle lanes,either by singling duel sections, or even making roads one way. Reclaiming City streets for people, rather than having them car dominated would make a huge difference.

BIB - I think you also need to talk to the retailers who actually trade out of such places to see what they think.

Basically you'd remove a load of passing trade from most of them and it would change the types of shops that could viably trade from such places to those where you can 'pick up and walk out' with the item, so anywhere selling bulky, large or heavy items wouldn't be viably trading from such units. Additionally if you restrict it so it's only what people can carry, then people will buy less.

Sorry, but the High Street is already on its knees - if you think making it more difficult for people to use high streets will miraculously make them more attractive and lead to a renaissance in their fortunes, then you really haven't got a clue. I did spend the best part of 2 decades working in retail in various roles, so have some idea what does / doesn't work.

 

[Kingston Dan]

On a related issue - are there motorway or other road alighnments that could be repurposed for rail or public transport purposes - I'm thinking taking a lane in each direction out of multi lane highways to build a rail alignment? Could we avoid some of the HS2 nimby land take issues by aligning new railways on existing much wider highway alignements - while keeping a reduced highway capacity and encouraging modal shift?

 

[A0]

A1(M) duplicates M1 ( at least in part).

Not sure it does - apart from being a link between London and Leeds. Once you get past Edgware they diverge - the southern section of the M1 actually shadows the A5 until you get to the Rugby area when the A5 heads North West towards Wales and the M1 continues north. The M1 then links Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, none of which were linked by the A1 which runs a good distance to the east. If anything the M1 replaced the A50 which used to start at Hockliffe (near Dunstable) ran through Newport Pagnell, Northampton to Leicester. From Derby to Sheffield and Leeds it replaced the A61.

On a related issue - are there motorway or other road alighnments that could be repurposed for rail or public transport purposes - I'm thinking taking a lane in each direction out of multi lane highways to build a rail alignment? Could we avoid some of the HS2 nimby land take issues by aligning new railways on existing much wider highway alignements - while keeping a reduced highway capacity and encouraging modal shift?

Been looked at before and discounted. The road alignments are often not ideal for rail use and you have the problem of the 'final mile' into the destination to consider.

Add in you can fit a single carriageway road (i.e. 2 lanes of traffic) onto a single line rail formation - see Dunstable or St Ives busway for evidence. To put 2 rail lines in would mean taking out 4 lanes of road. So on a 'traditional' 3 lane motorway you'd be left with a single carriageway road.

And if you think this would encourage "modal shift" can I respectfully suggest it's a bit early in the day to be on the cooking sherry ?

 

[biko]

Many roads take so much land, they have wide banks and cuttings, they could be narrowed and cycleways could be built a good distance from the road.

It is absolutely a problem that roads take so much space. Bicycles are so much more space-efficient, but even if people would use public transport more, that’s much more space-efficient. So bus lanes are also a good idea.

My first candidate for return to nature: the Newbury Bypass. More roads mean more traffic so fewer roads mean less. The madness of long-distance commuting has become far too attractive.

But from here on, I disagree. Indeed more and wider roads attract more traffic, but it is too simple to say that just removing a road will reduce the number of cars. Bypasses can, while they might attract more cars, reduce other externalities. They make the roads in town more safe, reduce congestion and thus reduce emissions and reduce noise in the town.

I do agree long-distance commuting isn’t good. But I believe most long-distance commuting already happens by train to London. Are there really many people commuting to London by car because there is a bypass?

 

[Ianno87]

But from here on, I disagree. Indeed more and wider roads attract more traffic, but it is too simple to say that just removing a road will reduce the number of cars.

I think in towns and urban areas, reducing or restricting road capacity does, generally, have this affect (over time)

Bypasses can, while they might attract more cars, reduce other externalities. They make the roads in town more safe, reduce congestion and thus reduce emissions and reduce noise in the town.

Yes - bypasses are "what cars do best" so I don't think are inherently a bad thing. But are there many places left that don't have a bypass of some form that still "need" one?

 

[A0]

It is absolutely a problem that roads take so much space. Bicycles are so much more space-efficient, but even if people would use public transport more, that’s much more space-efficient. So bus lanes are also a good idea.


But from here on, I disagree. Indeed more and wider roads attract more traffic, but it is too simple to say that just removing a road will reduce the number of cars. Bypasses can, while they might attract more cars, reduce other externalities. They make the roads in town more safe, reduce congestion and thus reduce emissions and reduce noise in the town.

I do agree long-distance commuting isn’t good. But I believe most long-distance commuting already happens by train to London. Are there really many people commuting to London by car because there is a bypass?

Except roads take *less* space than a railway line does. The Cambridge and Dunstable busways were built on the formation of single line railways yet managed to have 2 carriageways (1 each direction) on the same footprint.

Rail is *very* space inefficient in that sense.

Bus lanes are only a good idea if they actually work - if they are empty 50% of the time - which many local to me are - then that is a monumental waste of capacity.

Long distance commuting to London happens by train, but London is a city which is 1569 sq km or 607 sq miles. I know people who drive from places like the Cotswolds to places like Hillingdon and then use the underground for the final part of the journey.

Long distance commuting to other cities is where people are more likely to drive the full distance, mainly due to time and convenience. If you're travelling from the Wirral to Rochdale or Bolton it's going to be quicker and easier by road.

 

[Ianno87]

Except roads take *less* space than a railway line does. The Cambridge and Dunstable busways were built on the formation of single line railways yet managed to have 2 carriageways (1 each direction) on the same footprint.

Rail is *very* space inefficient in that sense.

Rail is very, very space-efficient when you consider the speed achieved and capacity achieved by that space.

For example, HS2 will have capacity to shift something like 22,000 passengers per dircetion per horu.

A 6 lane motorway only achieves 11,000 "passengers" per hour (based on an average 2 people per car, every 2 seconds in each lane)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except roads take *less* space than a railway line does. The Cambridge and Dunstable busways were built on the formation of single line railways yet managed to have 2 carriageways (1 each direction) on the same footprint.

Guided busways take slightly less width than a railway because buses are about 30cm narrower than trains (because that's what the law requires) and can pass, when guided, at similar distances. In essence a guided busway is a rubber tyred train in this regard.

Manually driven roads need to be wider because without guidance you can't pass at the same speed as closely. Indeed, this is basically the only reason for building a guided busway at all rather than a simple tarmac bus-only road (as was done for the Eclipse busway in Gosport, for example). Controlling which vehicles access can be done in other, much cheaper ways like "car traps" on entry or just cameras that automatically issue fines to an errant vehicle. Using the Cambridge example, the use of a guided busway allowed the fitting-in of the cycle track on the same formation, which wouldn't have fitted had a tarmac road been used as it would have had to be wider.

I don't think the formation of either was designed for a single line, though. Even if they were singled, they are full-width double-track formations.

 

[A0]

Guided busways take slightly less width than a railway because buses are about 30cm narrower than trains (because that's what the law requires) and can pass, when guided, at similar distances. In essence a guided busway is a rubber tyred train in this regard.

Manually driven roads need to be wider because without guidance you can't pass at the same speed as closely. Indeed, this is basically the only reason for building a guided busway at all rather than a simple tarmac bus-only road (as was done for the Eclipse busway in Gosport, for example). Controlling which vehicles access can be done in other, much cheaper ways like "car traps" on entry or just cameras that automatically issue fines to an errant vehicle. Using the Cambridge example, the use of a guided busway allowed the fitting-in of the cycle track on the same formation, which wouldn't have fitted had a tarmac road been used as it would have had to be wider.

I don't think the formation of either was designed for a single line, though. Even if they were singled, they are full-width double-track formations.

Dunstable wasn't - that was only ever single track line all the way back to Welwyn Garden City. The two track sections were at some of the stations.

 

[biko]

think in towns and urban areas, reducing or restricting road capacity does, generally, have this affect (over time)

Over time certainly. People will then consider if they really want to stand in a queue every time and will change mode or change house. However, if there are sufficient alternatives, people will change to another route. It is the opposite mechanism of widening roads. But one shouldn’t forget that reducing capacity can lead to more unwanted side effects of traffic.

Yes - bypasses are "what cars do best" so I don't think are inherently a bad thing. But are there many places left that don't have a bypass of some form that still "need" one?

No idea to be honest. I don’t live in the UK so don’t know a good example of a town with a lot of congestion in it.

Except roads take *less* space than a railway line does. The Cambridge and Dunstable busways were built on the formation of single line railways yet managed to have 2 carriageways (1 each direction) on the same footprint.

Rail is *very* space inefficient in that sense.

Rail is very space efficient, as some other posters explained, you should be looking at the total number of people that can be transported. If you look at it that way, trains and trams are best, followed by bicycles and motorcycles.

Bus lanes are only a good idea if they actually work - if they are empty 50% of the time - which many local to me are - then that is a monumental waste of capacity.

They make bus journeys quicker so more attractive. The time they are empty should not be the only criterion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dunstable wasn't - that was only ever single track line all the way back to Welwyn Garden City. The two track sections were at some of the stations.

I guess they probably acquired more land and widened it, then. The fact remains that a two way guided busway does not fit in the space of a single-line railway, unless you do something else to it, because a single line railway needn't be more than about 3m wide, but two buses next to one another touching are 5m wide (about 2.5m each), so a guided bus formation has to be at least about 5.2m wide to provide a gap between the two buses.

Something else might I suppose involve taking an embankment down to ground level, because buses can do gradients better, I wonder if there was some of that? However, what I do know is that the bit by the Luton Town stadium isn't just on the original railway formation, it takes much more land right up to Hatters Way, and I think goes slightly closer to the stadium, too.

They make bus journeys quicker so more attractive. The time they are empty should not be the only criterion.

The time they are empty isn't any criterion at all. The criterion is whether having them means the bus doesn't wait in queues on the main carriageway.

That doesn't mean there aren't pointless bus lanes - the ones in Central Milton Keynes are a good example of that.

 

[snowball]

Roads are often detrunked for political reasons

Not true. A lot of second-rank trunk roads in England were detrunked in the early years of the century after a review initiated by John Prescott in 1998-9. They included a large proportion of the remainining single carriageway trunk roads in England. Other than that, it is extremely rare for a stretch of road to be detrunked except when it has been bypassed. Since that review, the A7 and A68 stop being trunk roads at the point where where they cross from Scotland to England, and similarly the A458 and A465 from Wales.