Beeching Plan 2021: roads to close

[A0wen]

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.



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.

I think the bit alongside the football ground and Hatters Way wasn't the original railway formation, I believe the railway was moved when Hatters Way was built in the 80s ?

If the buslanes are empty and there are queues of traffic on the adjoining lanes, that is a poor use of space. And I've sat in queues in MK where just that happens - it happens in Northampton as well. At least in London the bus lanes are fairly bus, that's not true in the provinces and their construction is down to a few town hall Hitlers who basically haven't a clue about running a town viably as their town centres usually demonstrate.

 

[Ianno87]

If the buslanes are empty and there are queues of traffic on the adjoining lanes, that is a poor use of space.

Common car-centric fallacy.

By restricting the flow of traffic there, it makes it flow more freely further along. The net negative impact to car journey times of the bus lane is negligible if cars would just be simply queuing somewhere else instead.

That's how the M4 bus lane worked - a lane had to be dropped anyway approaching a viaduct.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I remember reading, after the Newbury Bypass opened, that there had been more fatal 'accidents' because vehicles were going much faster.

One can well believe it, for a main cause of 'accidents' is tiredness. Unfortunately it is hard to force car drivers to take breaks, but crawling through Newbury the old road forced them to slow down. With a bit of luck one had to stop for a few minutes, could stop the engine, open the window and relax.

 

[A0wen]

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?

Quite a few in East Anglia where roads like the A12 and A47 still run through places which probably ought to have been by-passed although most of the larger towns have been.

Lincolnshire you've got Boston with the A52 and A16 running through the middle of the town, Grantham has the A52 running through the middle, Stamford where most traffic from the east has to go through the middle to access the A1.

Moving to Leicestershire - Melton Mowbray which is criss-crossed by 2 A roads A606 and 607.

Loughborough still has the A6 running right through the middle - and for most areas of Leicester it's a more logical route than the M1.

Congleton in Cheshire - there is a bit of a bypass being built, but the A34 still goes through the middle (which is the main route between the Potteries and Manchester) and the A54 between Buxton and Holmes Chapel. Macclesfield similarly has all roads through it and none around it. In the same neck of the woods, Leek also has all roads through it.

There are no shortage of others and some of these are fairly large towns in their own right.

 

[biko]

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

You're right, I should have rephrased that. A criterion is of course whether it doesn't disproportionately affect drivers through lower capacity, but that is very much location-specific.

Common car-centric fallacy.

By restricting the flow of traffic there, it makes it flow more freely further along. The net negative impact to car journey times of the bus lane is negligible if cars would just be simply queuing somewhere else instead.

That's how the M4 bus lane worked - a lane had to be dropped anyway approaching a viaduct.

This can indeed be true, but again it is so location-specific. If a lane is dropped anyway and nearly no traffic exits the road, then indeed you're just moving the queue and improve the travel time of buses. But if that wasn't the case, you could be creating an additional bottleneck, which would lead to longer travel times for cars and also to more externalities to people living around the road.

I remember reading, after the Newbury Bypass opened, that there had been more fatal 'accidents' because vehicles were going much faster.

One can well believe it, for a main cause of 'accidents' is tiredness. Unfortunately it is hard to force car drivers to take breaks, but crawling through Newbury the old road forced them to slow down. With a bit of luck one had to stop for a few minutes, could stop the engine, open the window and relax.

I see on Google Maps that the Newbury Bypass is nearly Motorway standard. Dual carriageways are much safer than single ones. Single carriageways outside built-up areas are the most dangerous roads that exist because of the lack of segregation. So these accidents could have been people overspeeding or just bad luck. Removing the bypass means sending those tired people through a town with pedestrians and cyclists. I am not convinced it is a good idea.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Back then we crawled through Newbury, not much chance of serious 'accidents'. Bridges or tunnels or crossings could be built so people (walkers, cyclists) could cross in safety.

Has Newbury expanded to fill the space available?

 

[Essan]

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

Not as bad as it was.

When the "new" stretch was build around the head of Loch Ailort in the 1980s it was almost wide enough to be a dual carriageway. And came to an end at a single track railway bridge ...... Improvements have, I think, now been made all the way through to Mallaig and it is now 2 way traffic throughout. Apart, I think, from the railway bridge near Drimsallie, a mile east of Glenfinnan, which is still single track (and on a sharp bend). That does really need sorting.

 

[ABB125]

Has Newbury expanded to fill the space available?

In a word, yes.

As usual, the epic failure sometimes called planning "policy" in Britain has resulted in huge expansion of car-dependent housing and "tin sheds" to fill up the space created on the former A34 by the construction of the bypass.

 

[biko]

Back then we crawled through Newbury, not much chance of serious 'accidents'. Bridges or tunnels or crossings could be built so people (walkers, cyclists) could cross in safety.

Has Newbury expanded to fill the space available?

Crawling is actually quite dangerous, with sudden changes in speed, requiring a lot of attention. The safest roads are generally motorways, followed by dual carriageways, small streets in urban areas, major roads in urban areas, and single carriageways (outside built-up areas). So safety-wise, Newbury probably now has a better deal than before. As through traffic has reduced, crossing the road should have become much easier already.

Looking at the map, the old road in Newbury is actually still used quite a lot, as another main road to/from Basingstoke now follows that route. So you could even argue the bypass should be lengthened to a ring road. But if they'd have a good council, they would then make the original route unattractive for car users and focused on active modes and PT.

To come back to the thread title, I would think outright closures aren't a good plan, but redesign with a totally different focus is much needed. Keep the bypasses and make the towns attractive for cyclists, pedestrians and provide good bus links.

 

[Kingston Dan]

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.



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 ?

Not sure the cooking sherry reference is strictly necessary...

Where are you getting your figures on relative width of roads/railways from? This presentation from the Permanent Way Institution suggests (at least in urban areas) running railways alongside or in road alignments is perfectly feasible.
8_september_2020_-_rail_alignment_for_new_railways_-_phil_edwards.pdf

My view is that we have to stop people driving so much if we are to deal with the climate emergency and pollution and taking away road space would seem a way to do that (it's surely the opposite of induced demand?)

 

[Ianno87]

I remember reading, after the Newbury Bypass opened, that there had been more fatal 'accidents' because vehicles were going much faster.

One can well believe it, for a main cause of 'accidents' is tiredness. Unfortunately it is hard to force car drivers to take breaks, but crawling through Newbury the old road forced them to slow down. With a bit of luck one had to stop for a few minutes, could stop the engine, open the window and relax.

Sometimes, if doing a late drive from East Anglia to the North West, I'll deliberately drive via the Snake/Woodhead Pass rather than the M62, to break up the motorway monotony that induces tiredness.

 

[ashkeba]

[...] 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.

Did not DaFT Minister Shapps announce that last year as part of the "Gear Change" policy? But there seems to be little sign of anywhere outside London doing it yet.

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

There was a survey by Sustrans some years ago which found that retailers massively overestimated how many of their shoppers came by car. I think it is because shopkeepers use commercial vans, which is reasonable, which means they do not realise how much their customers carry by bike or on foot.

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.

Again, this is not true overall from research. People on foot or bike buy less per visit, but they buy more in total because they do not have the pavlova of driving through traffic and find and buy car parking. Maybe also because they are not giving as much money to the petrol companies and car mechanics.

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.

Ah! So you are one of the shop workers who thinks more customers arrive by car than do!

Surely removing the noisy polluting destructive unpredictable cars from High Streets makes them easier for people to use and makes people happier to spend longer there. I think of the thriving town centres and market squares in towns across neighbouring countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium where they are managing the cars out of the centres, and then I look at the struggling ones in British towns which seem to favour cars like Ely, March, Downham Market, Peterborough... I know which I think looks like it has the more fortunes!

 

[A0wen]

Did not DaFT Minister Shapps announce that last year as part of the "Gear Change" policy? But there seems to be little sign of anywhere outside London doing it yet.


There was a survey by Sustrans some years ago which found that retailers massively overestimated how many of their shoppers came by car. I think it is because shopkeepers use commercial vans, which is reasonable, which means they do not realise how much their customers carry by bike or on foot.


Again, this is not true overall from research. People on foot or bike buy less per visit, but they buy more in total because they do not have the pavlova of driving through traffic and find and buy car parking. Maybe also because they are not giving as much money to the petrol companies and car mechanics.


Ah! So you are one of the shop workers who thinks more customers arrive by car than do!

Surely removing the noisy polluting destructive unpredictable cars from High Streets makes them easier for people to use and makes people happier to spend longer there. I think of the thriving town centres and market squares in towns across neighbouring countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium where they are managing the cars out of the centres, and then I look at the struggling ones in British towns which seem to favour cars like Ely, March, Downham Market, Peterborough... I know which I think looks like it has the more fortunes!

Not sure I'd place too much store by a survey undertaken by Sustrans - they do have something of an agenda.

And all is not rosy in Germany - their retail foot fall fell about 5% in 2017 -18 and 2018 - 19.

Germany: retail footfall YoY change monthly 2017-2019 | Statista

The statistics presents the year-on-year change in retail traffic footfall in Germany from April 2017 to March 2019.

www.statista.com

Frankly I haven't been into my local town centre for shopping for probably 5 years. To be ripped off on parking costs, to go and find the items I want out of stock doesn't appeal. And it would appeal even less if I had to sit on a bus for 30 mins with a load of chavs to get there.

I'll use the out of town places and the rest will be online. And my children have grown up not using the high street.

Not sure the cooking sherry reference is strictly necessary...

Where are you getting your figures on relative width of roads/railways from? This presentation from the Permanent Way Institution suggests (at least in urban areas) running railways alongside or in road alignments is perfectly feasible.
8_september_2020_-_rail_alignment_for_new_railways_-_phil_edwards.pdf

My view is that we have to stop people driving so much if we are to deal with the climate emergency and pollution and taking away road space would seem a way to do that (it's surely the opposite of induced demand?)

That article doesn't have dimensions in it.

The point they make is *in some places* it has been done. But if you look it isn't usually high speed rail - it's been done in California using the 'median' i.e. the gap in the middle, without sacrificing capacity.

Not expanding the road network has been the government policy since 1997 and all it's done is increase congestion. It hasn't stopped people travelling and hasn't changed how people travel.

FWIW if you even tried to achieve a 10% modal shift the public transport network couldn't cope. So private transport will still be the prime mover outside of London.

 

[Clayton]

Not sure I'd place too much store by a survey undertaken by Sustrans - they do have something of an agenda.

And all is not rosy in Germany - their retail foot fall fell about 5% in 2017 -18 and 2018 - 19.

Germany: retail footfall YoY change monthly 2017-2019 | Statista

The statistics presents the year-on-year change in retail traffic footfall in Germany from April 2017 to March 2019.

www.statista.com

Frankly I haven't been into my local town centre for shopping for probably 5 years. To be ripped off on parking costs, to go and find the items I want out of stock doesn't appeal. And it would appeal even less if I had to sit on a bus for 30 mins with a load of chavs to get there.

I'll use the out of town places and the rest will be online. And my children have grown up not using the high street.



That article doesn't have dimensions in it.

The point they make is *in some places* it has been done. But if you look it isn't usually high speed rail - it's been done in California using the 'median' i.e. the gap in the middle, without sacrificing capacity.

Not expanding the road network has been the government policy since 1997 and all it's done is increase congestion. It hasn't stopped people travelling and hasn't changed how people travel.

FWIW if you even tried to achieve a 10% modal shift the public transport network couldn't cope. So private transport will still be the prime mover outside of London.

Bit sad for your kids, not being introduced to the human scale of the High Street. I never go to the out of town places, I like a mooch around town to visit remaining small shops and the market, and have a coffee. I cycle or get the bus as I choose not to live in the sticks or anywhere car dependent.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Not sure I'd place too much store by a survey undertaken by Sustrans - they do have something of an agenda.

And all is not rosy in Germany - their retail foot fall fell about 5% in 2017 -18 and 2018 - 19.

Germany: retail footfall YoY change monthly 2017-2019 | Statista

The statistics presents the year-on-year change in retail traffic footfall in Germany from April 2017 to March 2019.

www.statista.com

Frankly I haven't been into my local town centre for shopping for probably 5 years. To be ripped off on parking costs, to go and find the items I want out of stock doesn't appeal. And it would appeal even less if I had to sit on a bus for 30 mins with a load of chavs to get there.

I'll use the out of town places and the rest will be online. And my children have grown up not using the high street.



That article doesn't have dimensions in it.

The point they make is *in some places* it has been done. But if you look it isn't usually high speed rail - it's been done in California using the 'median' i.e. the gap in the middle, without sacrificing capacity.

Not expanding the road network has been the government policy since 1997 and all it's done is increase congestion. It hasn't stopped people travelling and hasn't changed how people travel.

FWIW if you even tried to achieve a 10% modal shift the public transport network couldn't cope. So private transport will still be the prime mover outside of London.

Isn't your last point exactly why we need to be increasing public transport capacity outside of London?

 

[A0wen]

Isn't your last point exactly why we need to be increasing public transport capacity outside of London?

No. Because London has a much higher population density than the rest of the UK.

London's transport system is also running at a massive loss.

I'm not sure trying to increase population density to drive public transport use is a good idea. And sinking ever more money into any industry with little or no chance of return is madness - that was the failing of the pre Beeching rail network.

 

[biko]

With more online shopping, it is needed to attract people to the high street by creating a good atmosphere. Cars do not really fit in this well. Of course parking around the corner is necessary, but the streets itself should be car-free. I know sufficient examples where making a high street car free or redesign a street to make it more green and nicer to be, really helps the shops.

And all is not rosy in Germany - their retail foot fall fell about 5% in 2017 -18 and 2018 - 19.

This is a general trend you see anywhere, online shopping has an impact. This actually shows it really is necessary to improve the attractiveness.

I'm not sure trying to increase population density to drive public transport use is a good idea. And sinking ever more money into any industry with little or no chance of return is madness - that was the failing of the pre Beeching rail network.

1) Increasing population density will be needed anyway if population grows and green areas are protected.
2) With increasing usage, there is a chance of return. Furthermore, government can also consider subsiding public transport because of environmental concerns, reducing externalities etc.

FWIW if you even tried to achieve a 10% modal shift the public transport network couldn't cope. So private transport will still be the prime mover outside of London.

The first part is true, but that really isn't necessary to have such a high shift. A slight decrease in car traffic (say 1-3%) will in most cases already eliminate congestion. Congestion leads to most unwanted side effects of traffic (pollution, emission, but also travel time), so small improvement can do a lot. Also to come back to another point you made, such a modal shift means a much stronger relative increase in public transport usage and thus possibly to a higher return.

 

[Clayton]

No. Because London has a much higher population density than the rest of the UK.

London's transport system is also running at a massive loss.

I'm not sure trying to increase population density to drive public transport use is a good idea. And sinking ever more money into any industry with little or no chance of return is madness - that was the failing of the pre Beeching rail network.

Public transport isn’t intended to make money - neither are the roads. They are forms of infrastructure paid for by taxation and fares.

 

[ac6000cw]

Surely removing the noisy polluting destructive unpredictable cars from High Streets makes them easier for people to use and makes people happier to spend longer there. I think of the thriving town centres and market squares in towns across neighbouring countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium where they are managing the cars out of the centres, and then I look at the struggling ones in British towns which seem to favour cars like Ely, March, Downham Market, Peterborough... I know which I think looks like it has the more fortunes!

Peterborough city centre *is* pedestrianised - just utterly nondescript and boring...

Ely is semi-pedestrianised (with minimal traffic in the town centre, and a thriving market), and very pleasant place to visit (we do frequently) which pre-Covid was pretty busy on weekends with shoppers.

 

[ashkeba]

Peterborough city centre *is* pedestrianised - just utterly nondescript and boring...

Closing about 200m of one street and some of the cathedral grounds and a few restrictions on others is not pedestrianised.

 

[ac6000cw]

Closing about 200m of one street and some of the cathedral grounds and a few restrictions on others is not pedestrianised.

You're ignoring the large area that Queensgate shopping centre covers (which includes former streets), and I would measure the length of the effectively pedestrianised 'main street' at 400m (from Westgate/Midgate south to Bourges Blvd), plus the large open square opposite the cathedral entrance (with St John the Baptist church in the middle of it).

 

[ashkeba]

You're ignoring the large area that Queensgate shopping centre covers (which includes former streets), and I would measure the length of the effectively pedestrianised 'main street' at 400m (from Westgate/Midgate south to Bourges Blvd), plus the large open square opposite the cathedral entrance (with St John the Baptist church in the middle of it).

Yes because vehicles drove along the streets in and out and along the east and south sides of that square when I was there last year. Were they banned and only not policed? Is a ban still a ban if everyone ignores it?

A shopping hall is a shopping hall, not a nice pedestrian zone. Peterborough's is especially dark and gloomy. People do not like them and deserted them for online faster than open streets. If we build back better, replacing dark shopping halls with airy open streets would be good, but replacing motorways with humanways may be better.

 

[A0wen]

Public transport isn’t intended to make money - neither are the roads. They are forms of infrastructure paid for by taxation and fares.

But massively expanding the cost of it both in terms of capital investment and ongoing costs has to be managed. So reopening a rail line which doesn't meet a BCR or funding a new loss making bus service isn't a good idea as all it does is consume more and more money each year - money which could be put to a more productive use.

That was the problem pre Beeching, 20% of the network incurred 80% of the costs and financially threatened the viable parts of the network.

 

[EastisECML]

I think there are a lot of poorly maintained local roads which are lightly used which could be closed without doing much to harm access. But also very busy main roads that have seemingly endless amounts of feeder roads could do with many of those feeders being blocked off. Instead of junctions every hundreds of metres more feeder roads could be diverted towards one of a few main junctions on that main road. And if those junctions were roundabouts then right turns on the main road could be forbidden with drivers instead going to the next roundabout and turning back. That would eliminate a lot of conflicting movements.

Speaking of roundabouts, those ones with multiple lanes should be simplified into as few lanes as possible I think. It's too much to expect drivers to pick the right lane, stay in it and move into the correct one at the right time. Keep it simple.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think there are a lot of poorly maintained local roads which are lightly used which could be closed without doing much to harm access. But also very busy main roads that have seemingly endless amounts of feeder roads could do with many of those feeders being blocked off. Instead of junctions every hundreds of metres more feeder roads could be diverted towards one of a few main junctions on that main road. And if those junctions were roundabouts then right turns on the main road could be forbidden with drivers instead going to the next roundabout and turning back.

FWIW there is a programme of removing right turns in MK by blocking them off because they cause a lot of accidents.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The Development Consent Order for the A14 was as an A-Road (I think, formally, an "All Purpose Road)

There was a last minute decision to try and re-designate it as an "Expressway", as the A14(M).

However, that required a change to the scheme's Development Consent Order that would have delayed opening. That was impractical, as the Huntingdon bypass part of the road needed to be closed before Christmas 2019 to tie in with the first Network Rail possessions to dismantle the overbridge at Huntingdon on the old A14 alignment.

Therefore it wasn't progressed.

Makes no actual difference reality; 3 lanes, 70mph, hard shoulders/laybys, fully grade separated, traffic management. To all intents and purposes, it is a motorway, just with green signs rather than blue ones.

I haven't looked up the specifics for the A14 (not quite M).

But, you can walk, cycle or drive your horse and carriage down any 'all purpose' road!
Plus utility companies (Statutory Undertakers) can generally come along and put their tackle in.
You might even be able to insist on having a connection into it from adjoining land.

The A14 has parallel NMU (non motorised user) provision, so there is no reason why you would want to mix with the 70mph traffic. Not sure where low powered scooters, 3 wheelers etc fit into the 'expressway concept'.

Expressway seemed to be a political / environmental cop out - we are going to build a motorway but we are not going to call it a motorway because that is soooooo not green, but we do want to give it a whizz name so people know it is not your ordinary 'run of the mill' dual carriageway or Trunk Road.

A 'special road' you cannot do any of the above. By special road I mean roads designated under the Special Roads Act 1930 which generally have an M or an (M) in the number but not necessarily.

 

[ashkeba]

The A14 has parallel NMU (non motorised user) provision, so there is no reason why you would want to mix with the 70mph traffic.

That is not true of the new bit between Fen Drayton and Buckden, is it?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

That is not true of the new bit between Fen Drayton and Buckden, is it?

Correct.

I wasn't doing a mile by mile contrast and compare!

I responded out of general observation where I have had reason to look at schemes. For example the M6 to Heysham link road has NMU provision. Sections of the A1 upgraded to M standard in Yorkshire have the original parallel road or NMU provision - it would have to be if converting an 'all purpose road' to a 'special road', otherwise any journeys made by 'prohibited traffic' would become impossible. Sections of the A14 and nearby A1 around Alconbury seemed to have NMU / quieter side road provision.

I guess they feel that no-one wished to cycle from Fen Drayton to Buckden, or they can make do with the old alignment through town.

Many 'Trunk' dual carriageways were built with very poor provision for vulnerable users - they were local issues rather than strategic - even where the strategic road blasted through an urban area or took the alignment of an older road.

The DfT / Highways England / whoever do seem to give NMU's at least some consideration nowadays at the design stage rather than it being a peripheral issue until someone makes a big enough fuss about it.

 

[ashkeba]

I wasn't doing a mile by mile contrast and compare!

I responded out of general observation where I have had reason to look at schemes.

Ok. I don't think it is generally true that the A14 has parallel NMU provision, except for a few sections like Fen Drayton to Cambridge. Of course no one will cycle Fen Drayton or points beyond to Bucken or points nearby (once the inevitable workplaces appear by the A14 new junctions) if they suffer a 10km penalty over driving it.


It may be one of Highways England's greatest failure, because of its proximity to Cambridge, or maybe the A11 beats it. Highways England East and the county governments play pass the parcel over it and it rarely is built.

 

[Ianno87]

That is not true of the new bit between Fen Drayton and Buckden, is it?

Although that would be a bit useless as it doesn't really go anywhere compared to, say, heading to the centre of Huntingdon.