Beeching Plan 2021: roads to close

[ashkeba]

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

Not yet but towns tend to grow out to their bypasses and there are points beyond, like maybe people in Buckden will work near Cambridge. There is little sign even the biggest metro will be of use to them soon.

 

[Mikey C]

A slightly silly thread, but if you were to take the Beeching approach to roads, i.e. looking at how much they are used and whether they are "loss" making, you wouldn't be closing or rationalising busy roads in towns or the main Motorway Network, but rather the barely used "uneconomic" roads in rural areas which cost a lot to maintain, for the amount of use they get

 

[Bletchleyite]

A slightly silly thread, but if you were to take the Beeching approach to roads, i.e. looking at how much they are used and whether they are "loss" making, you wouldn't be closing or rationalising busy roads in towns or the main Motorway Network, but rather the barely used "uneconomic" roads in rural areas which cost a lot to maintain, for the amount of use they get

The thing is that barely used roads (unless they have a major problem like a landslip, and they sometimes are not reopened if that happens) don't cost a lot to maintain. You build them and have to do nothing to them for years. A railway is different as you have to actively run the service.

 

[BayPaul]

The thing is that barely used roads (unless they have a major problem like a landslip, and they sometimes are not reopened if that happens) don't cost a lot to maintain. You build them and have to do nothing to them for years. A railway is different as you have to actively run the service.

Barely used roads also have a tiny environmental impact, and virtually no practical alternative, other than evacuating the hamlets that they serve.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

If 'accidents' were monetised there would be plenty of roads to be closed or narrowed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 'accidents' were monetised there would be plenty of roads to be closed or narrowed.

Sorry, what do you mean by that?

 

[BayPaul]

If 'accidents' were monetised there would be plenty of roads to be closed or narrowed.

But roads are also used by ambulances and fire engines, so potentially make a 'profit' on a public health point of view.

 

[Mikey C]

Barely used roads also have a tiny environmental impact, and virtually no practical alternative, other than evacuating the hamlets that they serve.

Fine, then you tell the hamlets that their roads won't be maintained, and it's up to them whether they want to leave (and go and live in the City) or pay for it themselves

Of course I'm not seriously suggesting that, but the situation with rural broadband isn't dissimilar, where it makes no economic sense to lay high speed cables to deserted rural areas, and some have chosen to pay for it themselves

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fine, then you tell the hamlets that their roads won't be maintained, and it's up to them whether they want to leave (and go and live in the City) or pay for it themselves

They do contribute to it themselves by way of their Council Tax and (to a lesser extent these days) Vehicle Excise Duty. And such roads require almost no maintenance anyway.

Of course I'm not seriously suggesting that, but the situation with rural broadband isn't dissimilar, where it makes no economic sense to lay high speed cables to deserted rural areas, and some have chosen to pay for it themselves

The difference is that the roads are already there and have been for years, whereas broadband cabling isn't.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Sorry, what do you mean by that?

An 'accidental' death may assigned a monetary value (several million?). Where a new road permits higher speeds and more 'accidents', the road could be closed or narrowed to reduce speeds and reduce 'accidental' deaths. When the Newbury Bypass opened speeds increased, more people died for the sake of a few minutes 'saved'.

I should much prefer to crawl through Newbury on the old road than to be endangered by others doing 71 mph or more on the new road, with the chance of completing my journey in a coffin.

 

[ABB125]

An 'accidental' death may assigned a monetary value (several million?). Where a new road permits higher speeds and more 'accidents', the road could be closed or narrowed to reduce speeds and reduce 'accidental' deaths. When the Newbury Bypass opened speeds increased, more people died for the sake of a few minutes 'saved'.

I should much prefer to crawl through Newbury on the old road than to be endangered by others doing 71 mph or more on the new road, with the chance of completing my journey in a coffin.

However, new roads are virtually always safer than old ones, as the standards are much higher (and usually gold-plated). For example, forward sight distance, no sharp bends, no hidden dips etc, so any increased average speed is more than offset by the higher quality of the road.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

The safety benefit gives way to a performance benefit, there are still lots of 'accidental' deaths. I think a civilised society would not accept this. Not to mention the numerous people who survive 'injured' and die more than 30 days after the 'accident', they are not registered as 'accidental' deaths, or those who live on for decades heavily disabled in a wheelchair for example. Caring for them must cost millions.

 

[ashkeba]

However, new roads are virtually always safer than old ones, as the standards are much higher (and usually gold-plated). For example, forward sight distance, no sharp bends, no hidden dips etc, so any increased average speed is more than offset by the higher quality of the road.

I think there are problems with that argument:

1. the higher speed increases the collision energy and so the damage done on impact by more than the reduction from those improvements.

2. often a new road now is an addition to the old one, not a replacement. In the example used, I believe it is still possible to drive through Newbury on the older bypass. The older bypass was a replacement because driving on the original high street is now discouraged and maybe closed to through traffic or even all non-residents. So in order to secure the safer road is used, should the older bypass now be closed to non-resident through traffic perhaps? Put a number plate reader on the river bridges, allow locals to register their vehicles, but anyone else driving through must pay a high penalty.

 

[DorkingMain]

I suppose some local LTNs (Low Traffic Neighborhoods) recently implemented would qualify. Although not so much reduction of roadspace as reallocation to other users. And, despite a few whining motorists, most have not cause any material traffic issues.

I live in an area with loads of them. It's shocking the number of people round here that are whinging about them - London has some of the most effective public transport in the world.

I work a fair distance from where I actually live, but I've never once felt the need to drive to work.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Another one to unbuild could be the A55, looks like it should be carrying a lot less traffic to and from Ireland, ferries are picking up business direct from Ireland to France.

Did you ever drive on the old A55, especially where it went inland through the high terrain areas before descending towards the Prestayn/Rhyl areas in peak holiday summer season? The new A55 has its tunnel under the river in Conwy and Anglesey is now much easier to access time-wise.

 

[biko]

I think there are problems with that argument:

1. the higher speed increases the collision energy and so the damage done on impact by more than the reduction from those improvements.

2. often a new road now is an addition to the old one, not a replacement. In the example used, I believe it is still possible to drive through Newbury on the older bypass. The older bypass was a replacement because driving on the original high street is now discouraged and maybe closed to through traffic or even all non-residents. So in order to secure the safer road is used, should the older bypass now be closed to non-resident through traffic perhaps? Put a number plate reader on the river bridges, allow locals to register their vehicles, but anyone else driving through must pay a high penalty.

There are also some problems with this first argument:
1) The bypasses often are dual carriageways replacing a single carriageway. Therefore the probability of a head-on collision becomes very small. Cars driving in the same direction have a relatively small speed difference and thus the energy is not as large. Also there is more space to change direction if needed without creating a head-on collision.

2) Bypasses have no or at least far fewer pedestrians and cyclists, so the most vulnerable road users are not present.

3) As mentioned by a previous poster, standards are better.

Because of these reasons motorways and dual carriageways are the safest roads.

With respect to your second point, it would in my opinion always be good to discourage use of the road that is bypassed. The whole idea of a bypass is to guide traffic around a town. Depending on the local circumstances, you could for example close a tiny part of the road at the strategic location to make sure through traffic cannot use it. Also traffic calming and narrowing might help by increasing the travel time of the old route.

 

[ainsworth74]

Perhaps all motor vehicles should be proceeded by someone carrying a red flag to warn others of the presence of the vehicle? That would probably help to reduce accidents.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps all motor vehicles should be proceeded by someone carrying a red flag to warn others of the presence of the vehicle? That would probably help to reduce accidents.

Will that idea give credence to the aspiration in the anthem that says "We'll keep the red flag flying here".....

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I have done an awful lot of train travel, cycling, and driving. On a train the chance of being KSI is next to none. I cycle carefully and slowly, away from motor traffic, the chance of being KSI is very small. I am so glad I retired and no longer need to drive. Used to drive a short trip to a small town, most days I observed some driving madness, blind overtaking etc etc.

@Xenophon PCDGS
I have had several holidays at the Top of Wales. Back then people only travelled when they needed to. The new A55 is full of people commuting daily 50 miles each way, trucks taking Dutch tulips to Dublin, or Irish butter to mainland countries where cows may be kept etc etc

 

[Bletchleyite]

An 'accidental' death may assigned a monetary value (several million?). Where a new road permits higher speeds and more 'accidents', the road could be closed or narrowed to reduce speeds and reduce 'accidental' deaths.

This is exactly how road safety changes (vs. impact on other things like the economy, and determining what to spend budget on) are assessed.

Speed does not directly mean unsafe - motorways are by far the safest roads (because their use is highly disciplined, even given how people misbehave a bit), and (to take it sideways a bit) the smart motorway argument is very similar to the Pfizer vs. AstraZeneca vaccine argument - you're choosing between very safe and very slightly less safe but very safe.

Of course you're right that trains are to all intents and purposes 100% safe. I have been involved in 2 car accidents and one serious bicycle accident that I was very lucky didn't kill me (plus lots of more minor skids etc). I have never been involved in an incident on the railway that was a threat to my safety (even in other countries where the attitude to safety is more relaxed), and I do not expect that I ever will.

 

[BayPaul]

Fine, then you tell the hamlets that their roads won't be maintained, and it's up to them whether they want to leave (and go and live in the City) or pay for it themselves

Of course I'm not seriously suggesting that, but the situation with rural broadband isn't dissimilar, where it makes no economic sense to lay high speed cables to deserted rural areas, and some have chosen to pay for it themselves

I was making exactly the same point as you - that closing lightly used roads is pointless and impractical - frankly so is everything else on this thread!

 

[biko]

The only roads that should be 'closed' are some roads now bypassed by another road. By strategically cutting a road in two, through traffic is removed and negative consequences to the residents around it are reduced. But the road should remain open to cyclists, pedestrians and possibly buses. I don't have good examples, as I don't live in the UK...

 

[BayPaul]

An 'accidental' death may assigned a monetary value (several million?). Where a new road permits higher speeds and more 'accidents', the road could be closed or narrowed to reduce speeds and reduce 'accidental' deaths. When the Newbury Bypass opened speeds increased, more people died for the sake of a few minutes 'saved'.

I should much prefer to crawl through Newbury on the old road than to be endangered by others doing 71 mph or more on the new road, with the chance of completing my journey in a coffin.

As others have said, high quality dual carriageways are far safer than any other types of roads. You may not like roads, but saying that sending long distance through a town centre is safer is blatantly inaccurate. In particular, when driving at 69mph on the Newbury bypass, you are endangering noone but yourself and other vehicle users, and even then at a very low level of risk. When driving at 29 mph through a town centre you are also putting pedestrians and cyclists at risk, who rarely win an argument with a vehicle.

Ideal world - encourage walking, cycling and public transport as much as possible. For road journeys, discourage use of unsafe city centre roads by pedestrianising, traffic calming, bus / cycle priority etc, but move vehicles to efficient high quality and safe dual carriageways.

 

[Ianno87]

The only roads that should be 'closed' are some roads now bypassed by another road. By strategically cutting a road in two, through traffic is removed and negative consequences to the residents around it are reduced. But the road should remain open to cyclists, pedestrians and possibly buses. I don't have good examples, as I don't live in the UK...

Good example would be Mill Road in Cambridge. The railway bridge mid way along its length can now only be crossed by pedestrians, cyclists, buses and emergency vehicles.

Result is a much safer and accessible Mill Road for active travel users.

 

[biko]

Good example would be Mill Road in Cambridge. The railway bridge mid way along its length can now only be crossed by pedestrians, cyclists, buses and emergency vehicles.

Result is a much safer and accessible Mill Road for active travel users.

That looks indeed like a good place to do such thing. It looks really recent as Google Maps doesn't know about it yet. Residents will probably be happy with it, especially as they live close to the road there.

 

[Ianno87]

That looks indeed like a good place to do such thing. It looks really recent as Google Maps doesn't know about it yet.

Yes, introduced summer last year. Officially temporary, but pretty likely to become permanent.

Residents will probably be happy with it, especially as they live close to the road there.

Very split opinions. Basically depends how addicted you are to your exhaust pipe (I personally think it is a huge improvement to the road). Although some of the original anti-s have come around to it now.

Some local traders on the street insisting it's limiting "passing trade" (although it probably isn't really, and has generated more)

 

[biko]

Some local traders on the street insisting it's limiting "passing trade" (although it probably isn't really, and has generated more)

Ah, the usual argument of traders. I think it depends on what kind of business it is. If they sell large stuff, it might be a problem, but generally there will be more people walking and cycling past and thinking 'let's pop in and have a look'.

 

[Mikey C]

People vote with this feet, and the reality is that an awful lot of people prefer to drive to supermarkets, shopping centres and retail parks, rather than their local "walkable" high street

Or they get their groceries online, substituting a Tesco's Sprinter van for using a car.

The only roads that should be 'closed' are some roads now bypassed by another road. By strategically cutting a road in two, through traffic is removed and negative consequences to the residents around it are reduced. But the road should remain open to cyclists, pedestrians and possibly buses. I don't have good examples, as I don't live in the UK...

The A3 at Hindhead is a good example. The old road over the hill has been replaced by a new tunnel under the hill and grassed over, a massive improvement for both drivers AND the local environment

Route of the old A3 around the Devils Punchbowl at Hindhead, Surrey, now returned to nature after the opening of the Hindhead Tunnel Stock Photo - Alamy

Download this stock image: Route of the old A3 around the Devils Punchbowl at Hindhead, Surrey, now returned to nature after the opening of the Hindhead Tunnel - KYWA7R from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors.

www.alamy.com

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, introduced summer last year. Officially temporary, but pretty likely to become permanent.

Very split opinions. Basically depends how addicted you are to your exhaust pipe (I personally think it is a huge improvement to the road). Although some of the original anti-s have come around to it now.

Some local traders on the street insisting it's limiting "passing trade" (although it probably isn't really, and has generated more)

The emergency services are also not a fan as they can slow down response.

 

[ashkeba]

The emergency services are also not a fan as they can slow down response.

I thought they actually liked them because emergency vehicles are still allowed through most closures so now have a nearly clear road and do not need to fight past jams so often?

There are also some problems with this first argument:
1) The bypasses often are dual carriageways replacing a single carriageway. Therefore the probability of a head-on collision becomes very small. Cars driving in the same direction have a relatively small speed difference and thus the energy is not as large. Also there is more space to change direction if needed without creating a head-on collision.

2) Bypasses have no or at least far fewer pedestrians and cyclists, so the most vulnerable road users are not present.

3) As mentioned by a previous poster, standards are better.

Because of these reasons motorways and dual carriageways are the safest roads.

With respect to your second point, it would in my opinion always be good to discourage use of the road that is bypassed. The whole idea of a bypass is to guide traffic around a town. Depending on the local circumstances, you could for example close a tiny part of the road at the strategic location to make sure through traffic cannot use it. Also traffic calming and narrowing might help by increasing the travel time of the old route.

I concede point 1. I was misled by the Newbury and huntingdon bypasses which were dual carriageway replacing dual carriageway.

Point 2 is not true in the UK yet. I wonder if @Bletchleyite know if the shoulder of the MK A5D bypass is still officially a 70mph 1.5m unprotected cycle lane with bike symbols painted on it? That was nasty shock in a city with otherwise OK bike ways.

Point 3 is debatable case by case I think for current bypass proposals.