Will we ever see any more new stretches of motorway in the UK?

[paul1609]

That's not quite right. The Southern M25/M26 was part of the proposed Ringway 4. Ringway 3 would have run further in, and the eastern side was built between Bromley and Dartford. The southern section of it was cancelled, so the section between the M20 and M26 was added as a quick fix, leading to the bodge we have now

Ironically the Ringway 4 concept along this section was also a bodge as it took over what was previously just planned to be a new alignment of the A25 between Godstone and the A20 at Wrotham. Even in the mid sixties this section of Ringway 4 was going to be a multi purpose road rather than full blown motorway. At this time there was no plans for a M20 either.

 

[snowball]

Always thought there could be a motorway joining the M50/M5 junction to the A46 at Stratford and turning that whole stretch to the M69 into a motorway. I believe the original plan however was to join the M50 with the M42 at Solihull.

There was a plan like that, but it was not part of the original conception of the M50. It was not invented until the late 1960s. Most of the M50 was opened in 1960, and the connection to the M5 in 1962.

 

[HOOVER29]

Passing Markeaton Roundabout a couple of weeks back I was astonished to see the A52 Ashbourne Road, right at the roundabout exits, still has a zebra crossing (not push button crossing).

Only live 15 miles from Derby.
20 odd years ago I didn’t mind driving around the place.

Dreadful now.

 

[The Ham]

It's worth noting that there is essentially zero difference (other than presence of a hard shoulder, and even that is debatable) between the current design standards for all purpose dual carriageways and motorways, which makes it even more stupid that "they" don't build motorways any more.

Hard shoulders only actually add 2m compared to a rural all purpose road in terms of road construction for each direction, however in terms of corridor width (existing earthworks such as cuttings and embankments) the difference for both directions is 2.6m, as the verge behind the hard shoulder is smaller than that behind the 1m edge strips of the rural all purpose road.

As such, it is slightly crazy that when upgrading roads to rural all purpose roads that hard shoulders aren't built in to the design (given all distances are minimums).

Edit: especially given that such routes should provide for non motorised users (walking, cycling, equestrian, etc.) as such the extra distance from the live traffic would be an advantage to study users.

 

[TPO]

Always thought there could be a motorway joining the M50/M5 junction to the A46 at Stratford and turning that whole stretch to the M69 into a motorway. I believe the original plan however was to join the M50 with the M42 at Solihull.

Indeed.

There are few east-west routes, you just need to experience how much HGV traffic levels increase on the A46 when the M42 is in car park mode (as it is a lot at the moment thanks to the 15 miles of roadworks through the busiest stretch).

TPO

 

[DM352]

Passing Markeaton Roundabout a couple of weeks back I was astonished to see the A52 Ashbourne Road, right at the roundabout exits, still has a zebra crossing (not push button crossing).

There are boarded up houses near the A52 roundabout so hopefully will get done as the roundabout is pretty awful with delays. It will not be a motorway though as there is no shoulder.

The nearby A42 should have been a motorway.

 

[adamedwards]

To answer the OP question, my answer would be no.

Having said that there are some serious gaps in the network, in the north Manchester - Sheffield has to be one of the most significant. The M67 gets you maybe 5 miles east of the M60 and then fizzles out into a poor single carriageway road. A good quality all weather road is needed, to bypass towns and villages. Connectivity to Manchester from Sheffield and the northern part of the East Midlands isn't any better by rail, the Hope Valley route seems really slow, particularly at the Manchester end. I know there have been various proposals to reuse the Woodhead tunnel for a road link, not sure how practical these are. I had wondered if the eastbound route could go up and over, and westbound use the tunnel, with two way through the tunnel in the event that the up and over is closed due to snow. This would be unlikely to be motorway standard however.

Like a lot of UK infrastructure the motorway network looks half finished, but I cant see there being either the money or the political will to address even the most glaring missing bits. And looking ahead high speed rail looks to be following the same path.

The Woodhead tunnel is actually 3 tunnels: 2 x original single track rail tunnels (abandonned) and a 1950s built double track rail tunnel (so at best a single road lane in each direction) However, that tunnel is now occupied by high voltage cables routed through the tunnel to avoid the Peak District National Park. So the old rail tunnels are effectively useless for any road. The National Park is then the big barrier to a new road given the environmental cost.

For anyone interested in the Ringways around London this is an excellent detailed site with maps:
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways

It's also quite frightening what was planned for innner London: Think spaghetti junction in Camden!

 

[Bald Rick]

Think spaghetti junction in Camden!

and at West Hampstead.

 

[Lost property]

When I post a link on here, seemingly I'm doing something wrong, so apologies in advance because I'm really not sure what.

It seems the A38 has been resurrected....again.

Now I'm all for being environmentally aware and friendly, but, in this case, I can't see any basis for their objections. For anybody who has had the misfortune to be caught in the grid lock / rush hour / accident related traffic, surely negating these would be an environmental improvement.

Derby A38 flyover scheme gets government go-ahead

After previous plans were rejected in court, a new scheme for the A38 gets the green light.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[eldomtom2]

Now I'm all for being environmentally aware and friendly, but, in this case, I can't see any basis for their objections. For anybody who has had the misfortune to be caught in the grid lock / rush hour / accident related traffic, surely negating these would be an environmental improvement.

Not if it leads to more people driving and thus more carbon emissions.

 

[The Ham]

When I post a link on here, seemingly I'm doing something wrong, so apologies in advance because I'm really not sure what.

It seems the A38 has been resurrected....again.

Now I'm all for being environmentally aware and friendly, but, in this case, I can't see any basis for their objections. For anybody who has had the misfortune to be caught in the grid lock / rush hour / accident related traffic, surely negating these would be an environmental improvement.

Derby A38 flyover scheme gets government go-ahead

After previous plans were rejected in court, a new scheme for the A38 gets the green light.

www.bbc.co.uk

We certainly shouldn't be designing road capacity for when there's delays from accidents.

As I've highlighted before, the reduction in traffic for school holidays is about 10%, yet the roads are much less congested.

Even a 5% less car use would help congestion a lot. Building new roads or improving capacity at a junction just causes the next bottleneck to become the big problem.

 

[lachlan]

We certainly shouldn't be designing road capacity for when there's delays from accidents.

As I've highlighted before, the reduction in traffic for school holidays is about 10%, yet the roads are much less congested.

Even a 5% two on vat use would help congestion a lot. Building new roads or improving capacity at a junction just causes the next bottleneck to become the big problem.

Indeed. Quoted at £250 million, that money should be going towards public transport or cycle infrastructure where it will have a positive impact

 

[Dai Corner]

As I've highlighted before, the reduction in traffic for school holidays is about 10%, yet the roads are much less congested.

They are in urban areas, particularly near schools, but not in tourist areas.

 

[route101]

Ideally the M6 toll extended up to Manchester.

Edinburgh City Bypass upgrade to 3 lanes

M8 upgrade to 3 lanes.

 

[The Ham]

They are in urban areas, particularly near schools, but not in tourist areas.

True, however (as with most things) if we stopped to explain all the exceptions you'd lose the main point.

 

[Lost property]

We certainly shouldn't be designing road capacity for when there's delays from accidents.

As I've highlighted before, the reduction in traffic for school holidays is about 10%, yet the roads are much less congested.

Even a 5% less car use would help congestion a lot. Building new roads or improving capacity at a junction just causes the next bottleneck to become the big problem.

"Not if it leads to more people driving and thus more carbon emissions "


There seems to be some confusion here regarding the benefits and necessity for this scheme hence my inclusion of the second post.

First, traffic volumes are already established, thus the scheme is intended to offer more free flowing traffic than is currently feasible. A mention also for the volumes using Kingsway retail park, which has significant issues in its own right, but which compound the flows at the roundabout.

Second, it is not intended to purely alleviate accidents, albeit this would, I suggest, become evident at the Kingsway roundabout which has a well deserved notoriety for such. Likewise at Little Eaton where many decide they want to exit the A38 onto the A61...directly, without getting into the signed lane first.

Markeaton can be a bit like Le Mans, it's prudent to stay in the inside lane, where 3 lanes merge into 2 heading East. The A6 junction, heading East, also has foliage obscuring the slip road, which affects both drivers joining the A38 and those already on it.

In this instance, I cannot see an validity in the environmental impact or traffic flow increase.

I can see a much improved transit around Derby on a major arterial route.

Possible neither of the contributors above are familiar with this transit ?

 

[eldomtom2]

First, traffic volumes are already established, thus the scheme is intended to offer more free flowing traffic than is currently feasible.

What is the basis for this claim? It is well known that road capacity increases to reduce congestion tend to result in more people deciding to use the road, often to the point where it's congested again.

 

[Lost property]

What is the basis for this claim? It is well known that road capacity increases to reduce congestion tend to result in more people deciding to use the road, often to the point where it's congested again.

The basis is twofold.

The first is this.

A38 Derby junctions - National Highways

The A38 is an important route from Birmingham to Derby and through to the M1 at junction 28. Where it passes through Derby, long distance traffic interacts with a large volume of vehicles causing congestion and delays for those making local journeys.

nationalhighways.co.uk

The second is a personal observation based on many years of transiting the route, and many occurrences of grid lock / accidents causing lengthy delays.

Have you ever used the route ?

 

[eldomtom2]

The basis is twofold.

The first is this.

A38 Derby junctions - National Highways

The A38 is an important route from Birmingham to Derby and through to the M1 at junction 28. Where it passes through Derby, long distance traffic interacts with a large volume of vehicles causing congestion and delays for those making local journeys.

nationalhighways.co.uk

The second is a personal observation based on many years of transiting the route, and many occurrences of grid lock / accidents causing lengthy delays.

Have you ever used the route ?

Neither of these actually address my argument. I am not saying that congestion at these junctions does not exist. I am saying that schemes to reduce congestion often end up backfiring as they cause an increase of traffic as more people decide to use the road.

 

[bramling]

What is the basis for this claim? It is well known that road capacity increases to reduce congestion tend to result in more people deciding to use the road, often to the point where it's congested again.

I’m always a bit sceptical of this. Round here, for example, were the A1(M) widened between Welwyn and Stevenage it would remove a bottleneck as well as ease an awkward arrangement at Welwyn where first of all the northbound loses a lane, followed by an entry slip road at the bottom of a steep incline.

I’ve no doubt whatsoever that there would still be congestion at times, but it would almost certainly remove a noticeable amount of traffic from other local roads where people currently seek increasingly elaborate alternatives to using the motorway.

I guess local factors will always play a part though.

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed. Quoted at £250 million, that money should be going towards public transport or cycle infrastructure where it will have a positive impact

For schemes like this which separate through and local traffic, making bus services better.

 

[zwk500]

Neither of these actually address my argument. I am not saying that congestion at these junctions does not exist. I am saying that schemes to reduce congestion often end up backfiring as they cause an increase of traffic as more people decide to use the road.

Induced and Suppressed demand are certainly a thing but there's a good body of evidence that unpicking pinch points is a net positive to reducing congestion.

 

[eldomtom2]

Induced and Suppressed demand are certainly a thing but there's a good body of evidence that unpicking pinch points is a net positive to reducing congestion.

That body of research being?

 

[zwk500]

What is the basis for this claim?

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/post-opening-project-evaluation-pope-of-major-schemes.
See:
A3 Hindhead (construction of Dual 2-lane tunnels removing short section of single-lane single carriageway with a traffic-light controlled crossroads on it): https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/782581/POPE_A3_Hindhead_FYA_Summary.pdf,
M40 Junction 15 (building grade-separated bypass to allow through traffic on the intersecting route to avoid the roundabout for interchanging traffic): https://assets.publishing.service.g...2/POPE_M40_J15_Longbridge_FYA_Summary__1_.pdf
A23 Handcross (widening of dual 2-lane section between 2 dual 3-lane sections to dual-3 lane and smoothing out of alignment on section with tight bends): https://assets.publishing.service.g...E_A23_Handcross_to_Warninglid_OYA_Summary.pdf

It is well known that road capacity increases to reduce congestion tend to result in more people deciding to use the road, often to the point where it's congested again.

I do note you are yet to evidence this claim.

 

[lachlan]

For schemes like this which separate through and local traffic, making bus services better.

You’ll have a much bigger impact by spending that money directly on buses and infrastructure like bus lanes to allow them to bypass congestion. Increase road capacity and more people will choose to drive, making bus routes less viable

 

[Bald Rick]

A23 Handcross (widening of dual 2-lane section between 2 dual 3-lane sections to dual-3 lane and smoothing out of alignment on section with tight bends): https://assets.publishing.service.g...E_A23_Handcross_to_Warninglid_OYA_Summary.pdf

I worked on this, very briefly, as an intern at the Civil Engineering consultants working on it.
In 1990.

 

[Herefordian]

The M2 to London and M23 to Brighton are glaringly obvious candidates.

I also think the A27 Portsmouth to Chichester and A50 (M64) should have been motorways.

Sadly though, I expect we've seen the last of new motorways.

 

[PTR 444]

The M2 to London and M23 to Brighton are glaringly obvious candidates.

I also think the A27 Portsmouth to Chichester and A50 (M64) should have been motorways.

Sadly though, I expect we've seen the last of new motorways.

Indeed, particularly if the requirement for a hard shoulder in the wake of the Smart Motorway review is true.

I wonder if that also means any two-lane motorways without hard shoulders, such as the M90 north of the Forth, will be downgraded to an A-road?

 

[The Planner]

The M2 to London and M23 to Brighton are glaringly obvious candidates.

I also think the A27 Portsmouth to Chichester and A50 (M64) should have been motorways.

Sadly though, I expect we've seen the last of new motorways.

What are the benefits of doing so though? The A2 and A23 are three lanes or more anyway, what would motorway restrictions add? Its like the A42, that doesnt need a hard shoulder, it needs a third lane to mitigate the elephant racing.

 

[zwk500]

What are the benefits of doing so though? The A2 and A23 are three lanes or more anyway, what would motorway restrictions add? Its like the A42, that doesnt need a hard shoulder, it needs a third lane to mitigate the elephant racing.

The A23 could do with removal or all the side turnings tbf.