I am a simple soul (2)

[claymore]

If they are going to turn these Motorways into 8 laners - I assume they will be coning off the existing slow lane and hard shoulder whilst they get the job done. This will reduce existing busy 3 lane motorways down to dual carriageways - no doubt interspersed at regular intervals by speed cameras.
Do we think that this is going to make motorway travel a greater and more expensive nightmare than it already is for the forseeable future?

regards
Claymore

 

[Pete_k]

all the more reason to take to the sea

 

[plopp]

No sir, had it happen to me three times in 8 years in traveling from Heathrow area to Gatwick on M25. First for two and half years Heathrow to Chertsey section 3 to 4 lanes, then Gatwick section year and half 3 to 4 lanes, then Chertsey to Gatwick 3 to 4 lanes god knows how long, instead of doing it all in one go! Every time SHEER BLODDY HELL.
Andy

 

[BarryD]

Course not, they will probably make three "narrow" lanes. It's often done on the M25/M1 - makes for hairy driving, a bit like going down the fairway in the marina at cruise speed.

So you unscrew this, and put it safely here, then oopps...
All - IMHO, BTW, FWIW and NWGOI

 

[davtt]

But by the time we have had the disruption for 1 or 2 years, together with all the cost, one has to ask if digging up the M-Ways and re-inventing the canal system is not a better spend of the dosh! You may even get there faster (if your 'local' is the M25).

 

[AndrewB]

Conspiracy theory (1)

The purpose of the exercise is not to create super-motorways for ever more efficient travel, but to keep the builders in business. Take a look at the composition of any local council, and work out how many councillors are employed by firms that benefit from land development. Then you realise why the country is a permanent building site.

 

[chas]

Come and see how it is done at the bottom of the M5! Second thoughts don't - you would only get bored waiting.

 

[Magic_Sailor]

Re: Conspiracy theory (1)

2 immutable laws (according to me)

1. Politicians will only do that thing which causes the most disruption to the most people - in direct opposition to what those people actually want. Thus they can be seen to wield power.

2. You cannot reduce the overall amount of pain or disruption. Squeeze more of it into a shorter time (roadworks) or allow it to spread out over time (no roadworks). (The same is true of the common cold as well).

Magic

 

[jimi]

I'm all for it. I've sat on the M6 at the top of the M5 moaning too many times not to welcome the long overdue enhancement of our roads.

 

[claymore]

Wee Jamesie
Youse shudnae even be there laddie - stick tae ra M74/M8 if ye dinna mind
Its jest this kindae thing - being on roads she shudnae be usin' as is causing a' ra congestion onyways

regards
Claymore

 

[sailbadthesinner]

but how else would he get to see some civilisation???????


This isn't an office, its hell with strip lighting

 

[Twister_Ken]

You are a simple soul

Jimi,

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. If you build extra roads, people make extra journeys, to the point where you end up with a four-lane traffic jam, rather than a three- lane one. But the "I can't believe it's not Tory" government we have at the moment is desparate to be seen to be doing things that make it look like they are tackling congestion. In ten years time when the 16 lane M5/M6 interchange is gridlocked it'll be too late to tell Alistair Darling that he was wrong, and the money would have been better spent on hi-speed rail links and subsidies to keep the fares reasonable.

(Spot a hobby horse, anyone?)

 

[Jacket]

Re: You are a simple soul

As a researcher involved in the design and analysis of motorway structures, I'm in grave danger of getting on my hobby horse over this subject, but I'll try not to.

Currently the UK has a road system that is 30 years out of date, and of which we, as a country, should be seriously ashamed of.

Ken's statement that:

"If you build extra roads, people make extra journeys"

is a commonly held belief, but has been shown to be wrong in the more sensible countries that updated their road networks years ago. Sure, over the last 50 years or so, more and more people have got cars, as they becone cheaper. However, we've more or less reached a status quo where everyone who wants a car can afford one (within reason). So the number of cars on the road won't increase too much more. We've also reached the stage where if we want to go somewhere, we go. Better roads won't lead to people making significantly more journeys.

We have two choices. Either we stick with the current road network which is blatantly not up to the task. In this case, we're stuck with traffic jams for ever. This is arguably good for the UK- after all, the brits love moaning, and this gives us something to moan about.

But sensibly, we really need a major overhaul and update of our road networks. Sure, it means there'll be a 10 year period when, at times, we are seriously inconvienienced by roadworks. But, provided its done properly, we'll end up with a road network capable of handling the volumes of traffic predicted by the most negative of estimations, for the next 50 years.

The government is actually being very brave. The road expansion plans will go against them at the next election, as all we'll see is the inconvienience that they'll cause. Not many people will give them credit for the long term benefits that they'll be bringing to the country.

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: You are a simple soul

i agree with almost everything you say
but there are lots of journeys i would do for leisure purposes if the roads were not so bad that they would make it a misery.

This isn't an office, its hell with strip lighting

 

[zefender]

Re: Agreed

If roads automatically create more cars, can someone tell me which came first, the road or the car?

Secondly, can anyone tell me if the news that new /extended roads are to be built will cause them to buy a car or buy a family member a car?

Thirdly, if you have to go with the family to Manchester from London, would you seriously decide not to spend £500 on rail tickets and take the car instead, just because you heard the M6 was to be widened?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: You are a simple soul

You'll notice I said extra journeys, not extra cars owned (although that figure continues to climb).

Case in point, if the A303 is twinned through its length, I'm much more likely to visit my friends in East Devon, and deepest darkest Zummerzet (and they're more likely to pop up to Town). I might even consider moving the lugger down to Exmouth for a season or two.

More journeys, more pollution, more congestion, less countryside, less clean air, less tranquility.

 

[Jacket]

Re: You are a simple soul

I've got a report on the results of a survey on this sort of thing somewhere- I'd dig it out if I wasn't currently feeling quite so hung over and ill (must give up drinking!), but you'll have to make do with my memories of it.

Yes, there are people who would make extra trips if the roads were better, but the argument runs along the lines of:

i) The extra trips would be leisure trips- most journeys required for work are made irrespective of congestion. Business related journeys (which includes going to and from work) apparently far out number leisure trips, so the increase would be relatively small.

ii) while the traffic in some areas is bad enough to discorage people from making journeys, this isn't the case in many parts of the country.

iii) While some people would make extra leisure trips, many people's idea of leisure is sitting in front of the TV etc, and so wouldn't make any extra journeys if the roads were better.

The net result is that the amount of extra traffic on the roads if the road network was improved is less than the extra capacity that could be provided by improving the road network.

Obviously, thats just the feelings from one study, but I went to a seminar given by one of the authors, and he seems to have his head screwed on the right way round, so I'd tend to trust his findings.

 

[Jacket]

Re: You are a simple soul

>More journeys, more pollution, more congestion, less countryside, less clean air, less tranquility.

People are always going to want conveinience, so unfortunately we're stuck with more and more journeys.

However pollution, less clean air and less tranquility can be over come irrespective of this, both through stricter pollution controls and the use of new technology.

Unfortunately, both of these will cost more, so its a question of when people decide that they're willing to pay more for the things they claim they want (low pollution etc). When they reach this point, companies will produce lower emmision cars etc. Cars like this are buildable already, but aren't produced, as they wouldn't sell due to the higher price.

As for less country side, does a 4 lane road really take up much more room than a 3 lane one? Campared to the amount of countryside lost to urban sprawl, its nothing.

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: You are a simple soul

mmmm

if you take my location of leisure, anglesey

has become vastly more busy as road improvements have been made over time
okay i am goign back 20 odd years which includes a new bridge

the local beach carpark is impossible to get on in summer
the facilitites have not improved it is just easier to get to.
just an observation

This isn't an office, its hell with strip lighting

 

[ParaHandy]

Oh but you are, you are.........
There aren't nearly enough of our cousins across the Irish Sea to build tube, terminal 5, and the umpteen shoddy hospitals and schools (give them about 10 years before maintenance costs get prohibitive - just about the time they pass back into public ownership?) T Blair and G Brown are spending our money on. But, across the English Channel at Sangatte there's a large number of bods who are desperate to come over here and there's lots more when EU gets enlarged which the gov welcomes. I can see A Darling in his day-glo jacket handing out the spades and shovels as they come off the coach.. The timing of all this is about right.

Oh - you might ask the citizens of Edinburgh what they thought of Mr Darling's efforts as a councillor on the Lothians Transport Committee from 1982 to 1986? Apparently, transport is Darling's favourite subject but then, it obviously wasn't pensions........