[b]Open Road Campaign Group Founded[b]
Open Road, a new national campaign group promoting new road building schemes, was formed today. Open Road will promote appropriate new national infrastructure, lobby the government to increase budget spending on new road schemes, and provide the general public with information on why new roads are necessary.
An Open Road spokesman said, "The public are often very aware of anti-roads protestors up trees, but they are rarely provided with the reasons why a new road is being built. While protestors cause a nuisance, the residents in nearby towns continue to endure the nightmare of traffic passing through their communities day in, day out. Bypasses are built for a reason.
"Open Road will press for new roads wherever a local community is having to suffer heavy traffic day in, day out; and also where there are clear safety benefits from road building."
Open Road's website contains a Top Ten of road schemes that we consider most necessary for this country. The top two are the A556 and A14, which are both roads with appalling accident records that urgently need to be upgraded to motorway standard.
The spokesman continued: "Motorways are our safest roads, yet their construction in recent years has all but ground to a halt. In order to reduce accidents and save lives, the government urgently needs to re-instate motorways as an important part of transport infrastructure construction."
http://www.open-road.org.uk
Feedback appreciated -- this is a preliminary pre-launch to gauge reaction.

Some thoughts:
1 - Doubt we'll get a good reception if we label ourselves as advocates of "new motorway building". Didn't think we were - as can be seen by stating the reasons why we favour motorway construction (all perfectly acceptable), but then listing various keyschemes which the Govt is/isn't progressing -of whichmany aren't motorways. Indeed, three of our "top 10 schemes" aren't motorways, and only the Brum Western Orbital and Newport Relief Road would be a completely new-build motorways, the others are just upgrades essentially.
2 - who decides what the "Top 10 schemes" are? Should we have a vote? I'm very dubious about the merits of the Newport Relief Road & Brum Western Orbital being in our top 10, as there are far more-deserving examples.
And if we are to have any credibility at all, surely we should be advocating a proper widening of the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester rather than the idiotic,destructive, inefficient [b]andtolled[b]M6 Expressway scheme peddled by Darling?
3 - the M4 map-to-aerial photo example isn't agood one. Despite what we say about the map exaggerating the space the M4 takes up, it's clear from the overlay that the OS map is absolutely spot on in representing road widths! You'd be better comparing an aerial photo to a road atlas representation which would grossly exaggerate the motorway land take.
4 - whilst we want to be politically neutral, I think a critique of what has happened in recent years to clog up and slow down the decision-making process would be a good thing - eg, the multi-modal studies, excessive and drawn-out consultation processes trying to come up with alternatives to building the essential missing bits of road which everyone has known for years are needed (perhaps showing that various schemes which Labour scrapped when coming into office are now slowly getting approved after many years of consultation - just proving what everyone knew all along and meaning traffic has got many times worse in the meantime), and constraints imposed on the relevant agencies by the Govt to discourage road-building at all costs. Clearly, we don't want to be perceived to be an offshoot of the Conservative party (as I think ABD is), but some explanation of the context in which decisions are made under Blair would be useful.
5 - some real life "case studies" perhaps (maybe as the group develops) based on real communities blighted by a baulked bypass or ever-increasing congestion, or where bypasses have been built showing how these have not caused the damaging side-effects put about by the Swampy brigade/Guardianistas and have actually improved lives for these communities and stakeholders (aaargh - that word) using the old and new roads?
6 - presumably to have any impact we would need to get actively involved with local communities campaigning for particular improvements and in HA consultations - ie, actively advocating these schemes rather than just having a website sittng there?

<<And if we are to have any credibility at all, surely we should be advocating a proper widening of the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester rather than the idiotic,destructive, inefficient [b]andtolled[b]M6 Expressway scheme peddled by Darling? >>

I would suggest that an alternate M6 route is an infinitely better proposal. Online widening would take forever, cause widespread disruption,be disproportionately expensive and would just result in a largely deserted inside lane and little increase in traffic speed. You've only got to look at the difficulty of upgrading a few miles of M25 to D5M.
I'd much rather have the currentchoice between the M6 and M6T round Birmingham thanjust a wider M6.
The same applies to the M4 around Newport.

Thanks for your comments, Bob.

SABRE isn't the place for discussing how to take the OpenRoad campaign forward.

There's a discussion forum here

Please get involved - the more the better!

Peter

I mentioned on the Open Road forum that I disagreed with either a wider M6 or a second motorway in the same corridor. The alternative which I would favour would depend on the cause of the current congestion:

Local commuters --> upgrade A34 to dual carriageway throughout with GSJs

Traffic to/from North Wales --> upgrade A5/A483 to dual carriageway throughout with GSJs

Traffic to/from Scotland --> upgrade A1 Northumberland and/or A66 to dual carriageway, to divert such strategic traffic to the east side of the country.

My observations:

* I'm not convinced the "Blue Line Brigade" phenomenon exists. If you cite it as a reason for building more motorways, or at minimum developing improvements already proposed to full motorway standard, then you have to have some way of answering those who will object that it is cheaper just to identify the essential elements of motorway standards and put up blue signs on all-purpose dual carriageways which have them.

* The induced traffic objection isn't answered very well. What is needed, I think, is something which will explain that the economy as a whole won't become more transport-intensive (i.e., more dependent on powered transport) if new roads are built. An argument of this kind won't bring environmentalists on board, but it might go far toward persuading fair-minded third parties that the environmentalists are embracing an inconsistent position by advocating pollution-producing congestion.

* There is no satisfactory response to road pricing as an alternative to laying down new pavement, or debottlenecking as an alternative to developing completely new corridors.

The site is a good start but I.M.O. it needs more in order to be persuasive in the new age of pro-roads advocacy. At the moment most of the arguments it presents for new roadbuilding, except the attempted rebuttal of the "induced traffic" argument, look as if they have been recycled from B.R.F. leaflets.

B.T.W., I don't think planning "due process" and the multi-modal studies can be blamed for the death of so many necessary road schemes in the past few years. They are only symptoms of a more general collapse in the political resolve needed to sustain prudential provision.

Regarding the M6 Expressway proposal, these seem to me to be the biggest objections to what the Govt proposes:
1 - it will be tolled
2- it will be a toll motorway with only two lanes. I don't like 2 lane motorways. If some dawdler is overtaking a fellow dawdler, I will be dawdling too.
3 - it will be built alongside or within a few hundred metres of the existing M6. It will therefore probably cause more environmental destruction and blight than widening the existing M6 to 8 or 10 lanes each way. Any new road building or widening should be done to minimise the effects on communities that have to live with the new roads - having 2 motorways running in parallel doesn't seem very fair to me
4 - would anyone use it? Mmm, do I travel to Birmingham on a three lane motorway which will probably be busy but chances are won't cause me much if any delay, or go for the inferior two lane motorway alongside, which I will have to pay to use. "Ah, but what if the M6 Free is closed by an accident?" - well, what if choose the M6E and that gets blocked by an accident? How will I know the M6 Free is going to be blocked by an accident before I commit to it? If it does get blocked, will i be able to get off at the next exit and join the M6E - and if so, won't everyone else do the same?
Drumlake72: <Online widening would take forever, cause widespread disruption,be disproportionately expensive and would just result in a largely deserted inside lane and little increase in traffic speed. >

Well, I agree it won't be done overnight, but other stretches of very busy motorway have been widened without massive disruption. J11a to J19 are entirely rural and I reckon a lot of the construction work could be done without any restriction on traffic flow or speed.
Would it cost more to widen the M6 to 4 lanes than it would cost to build an entirely new, two lane motorway alongside?
The inside lane may well be deserted when the motorway is quiet and free-flowing, but when capacity is pushed at peak times, I doubt that would be a problem. I would put my mortgage on average traffic speeds increasing on the 4 lane M6 at peak times in comparison to current peak times on the 3 lane version.

<<Regarding the M6 Expressway proposal, these seem to me to be the biggest objections to what the Govt proposes:

3 - it will be built alongside or within a few hundred metres of the existing M6.>>

No - it will range between a few metres away and a few miles away, wherever the best fit is. So around existing built up areas it would diverge from the current route.

<<If it does get blocked, will i be able to get off at the next exit and join the M6E - and if so, won't everyone else do the same?>>

This is my main concern. If the M6E had junctions everywhere the current road does, imagine the chaos if an accident north of Sandbach caused half the M6's traffic to try to come off there and do a left turn at the Give Way line. No thanks.

<<Would it cost more to widen the M6 to 4 lanes than it would cost to build an entirely new, two lane motorway alongside?>>

I would suggest it would be cheaper to built a new three lane motorway than add a fourth lane.

Why not do an M60, adding extra segregated lanes down each side to access more local junctions, with the current lanes serving only (say) the A500 and A556?

The M6 Free through Brum could then free-flow onto the local lanes. Bingo.

Chris

<< 1 - Doubt we'll get a good reception if we label ourselves as advocates of "new motorway building". Didn't think we were - as can be seen by stating the reasons why we favour motorway construction (all perfectly acceptable), but then listing various keyschemes which the Govt is/isn't progressing -of whichmany aren't motorways. >>
This probably needs to be better explained. The idea isn't to build loads of new motorways all over the place; but rather that if a new road is to be built or upgraded, and the traffic levels are expected to be high, then a motorway should be the type of road that is constructed.
<< 2 - who decides what the "Top 10 schemes" are? Should we have a vote? I'm very dubious about the merits of the Newport Relief Road & Brum Western Orbital being in our top 10, as there are far more-deserving examples. >>
Indeed, the Top 10 was an initial stab at it -- if you have any feedback on changing the priorities, please post on the OR forum.
As Peter says, we've been asked not to discuss the development of OR on this forum, so please go here to do so: http://s6.invisionfree.com/SpeedLIMIT/index.php?showtopic=9
<< 3 - the M4 map-to-aerial photo example isn't agood one. Despite what we say about the map exaggerating the space the M4 takes up, it's clear from the overlay that the OS map is absolutely spot on in representing road widths! You'd be better comparing an aerial photo to a road atlas representation which would grossly exaggerate the motorway land take. >>
Heh yes I noticed this when I checked the link. It needs to be fixed.
<< 5 - some real life "case studies" perhaps (maybe as the group develops) based on real communities blighted by a baulked bypass or ever-increasing congestion, or where bypasses have been built showing how these have not caused the damaging side-effects put about by the Swampy brigade/Guardianistas and have actually improved lives for these communities and stakeholders (aaargh - that word) using the old and new roads? >>
Yes, that would certainly be useful. Probably, OR needs to grow a bit first so that there are members who can write the case studies.
<< 6 - presumably to have any impact we would need to get actively involved with local communities campaigning for particular improvements and in HA consultations - ie, actively advocating these schemes rather than just having a website sittng there? >>
Ideally, yes. Obviously it depends on how much time people have to put into it, but it would certainly be a good idea to do more than just having a website.
<< * I'm not convinced the "Blue Line Brigade" phenomenon exists. If you cite it as a reason for building more motorways, or at minimum developing improvements already proposed to full motorway standard, then you have to have some way of answering those who will object that it is cheaper just to identify the essential elements of motorway standards and put up blue signs on all-purpose dual carriageways which have them. >>

This is a very valid point, and of course the best solution would be a new A10(X) style expressway classification for decent dual carriageways. Probably needs amending.

<< * The induced traffic objection isn't answered very well. What is needed, I think, is something which will explain that the economy as a whole won't become more transport-intensive (i.e., more dependent on powered transport) if new roads are built.
* There is no satisfactory response to road pricing as an alternative to laying down new pavement, or debottlenecking as an alternative to developing completely new corridors.>>

Thanks for your comments, will get things updated.

<< At the moment most of the arguments it presents for new roadbuilding, except the attempted rebuttal of the "induced traffic" argument, look as if they have been recycled from B.R.F. leaflets. >>

Excuse my ignorance, but what's "BRF"?

Hi!!!
The B.R.F. was the erstwhile British Roads Federation - a lobbying group formed from members of hauliers and the AA & RAC which campaigned during the 1970s & early 80s for new motorways and trunk road improvements!!!
During the 70s and early 80s they produced large coloured annual posters showing the progress of Britain's Motorway and trunk road system - many public reference libraries used to have these.
The BRF compained long for both the M42 and M64 schemes to be constructed in their original planned form as dual-three-lane motorways, but as we all know they got watered down to the M42/A42 we've got now and the A50 (partly the former A564) that isn't even GSJ'd throughout!!!!

Other major trunk road improvements that were shown as "planned" on their maps that haven't materialised are:-
A17 Newark - King's Lynn:- Except for the Leadenham Bypass (S), Sutterton Bypass (S), Washway Road Improvememts (WS2)and Terrington, Walpole Cross Keys & Clenchwarton Bypass (S/D1) nothing else got done- the BRF wanted a full GSJ'd D2 route - even today there is absolutely no reasonwhy this could not be built - the HA detrunked it so it could wash its hands of further improvements!!!
A140 Norwich - Ipswich:- Only the Dickleburgh Bypass (D2) got built - Norfolk will construct their (hopefully D2!!!) Long Stratton Bypass but its a safe bet that anti-motorist Suffolk'll go in for more road-rage-inducing Designer Congestion!!!
A65/A650 Kendal - Bradford:- Some progress made on A650, but still needed are the A650 Hard Ings Road Improvement - a bottleneck stretch of S2 between two built sections of D2, plus relief for Saltaire.Nothing has been done to improve the A65 apart from the Settle and Skipton Bypasses.
A43 Kettering - Stamford:- Very little done apart from Kettering Northern Bypass!!!
A64 York - Scarborough:- Still the subject of yet more HA Route Management Study tripe!!! Nothing done since the Malton/Norton Bypass opened except the Copmanthorpe and Bilborough Top GSJ schemes!!!
A66Workington - Penrith:- Again the BRF wanted a D2 GSJ'd route!!!
A66 Penrith - Scotch Corner:- Even though the Government proposed (at long last!!!) full dualling progress is still exasperatingly slow!!!
I expect the next two lengths to start in the next 1-2 years will be Temple Sowerby-Winderwath and Carkin Moor - Scotch Corner.
A590 Kendal - Barrow:- Again the subject of more RMS tripe!!! The High & Low Newton Bypass will hopefully begin later this year - thankfully D2!!! Does anyone know why Levens Bridge - Meathop was built part D2/S???!!!
No doubt there's plenty more to supplement my list!!!
Chris Williams

One point I always make is that if we aren't brave enough togo ahead with big projects the country needs,the effect on the environment is often worse, leaving some parts of the country with a higgledy-piggledy mess of built, half-built, rebuilt and built-around roads.
I agree with most of the comments that have been made here, and I hope the website is tweaked a bit accordingly.
But the main thing is, this campaign is a good thing, and I look forward to supporting it. A

While they do need to be extremely measured in what they say I broadly support their actions here. For a long time it's seemed that the only voices heard in government are those opposed to road building.
Open-Road, while a good cause needs to go about it the right way, be measured in their approach, e.g. don't advocate building motorways anywhere and everywhere if there isn't a need for them and D2 would work just as well.
What it should definitely do it get fully behind any new road scheme the HA is considering and make sure it's seen through to its conclusion.

Open Road <<Generally speaking, solutions to urban congestion need to be found with public transport; but in rural areas and for inter-urban routes, we need to accept that public transport solutions are simply not practical due to the dispersed nature of people's journeys.>>
Not nessecarrily. Obviously someone travelling between say 2 villages can't really use the train because of complications at the stations where the passengers would have to get off. But if you want to travel into a city such as London it does work because there is sufficient urban transportto back the railway up. It really does work as seen in Britain (on the IC 125/225), in Frace (TGV), Germany (ICE) and Japan (Bullet Train). So I believe we should develop a high speed rail system (with parkway stations, and station rental cars) as well as motorways.

Open Road has now set up a web forum at:

News section.

Peter

Due to other commitments I no longer have time to run the Open Road site. Does anyone else want to take it over or should we just shut it down?

I see that this thread is 5 years old. I've never heard of your group. It's a shame you didn't come to more prominence and as it is grating than the stock CAVE pressure groups gets treated with more clout than they deserve.

It was always a nice idea, but where exactly did you go with it ?

Perhaps there is a desire in the general public to build new roads, but I feel that isn't being served by the ABD, which is seen by most industry people as a bunch of nutters... I'd like to get into a serious campaign for new road building, but certainly couldn't find the time to look at schemes all around the country... I've hardly got time to consider what we could do on my way home

Anyone keen to get onboard and help CJ out with a fresh injection of ideas, perhaps over a few beers and photocopied maps ? CJ, I suspect your campaign needs some meat of costings, realistic ideas for direction, perhaps even look for funding from construction firms who actually have a vested interest in more roads being built !

...takes a bow...

I'd love to take care of the technical side of keeping the site running (I have a VPS so the hosting is already taken care of, and I'm willing to pay for the domain), though I don't keep up to date with road news very much (heck, SABRE is my primary source!), so there'd have to be someone else to actually keep it updated.

What does CAVE stand for?

Assuming you're referring to anti-road protesters, could it not be just that they are indulged by the government because it allows them to justify their pandering to greedy Home-Owner-Ists, just as anti-nuclear environmentalists are useful idiots for greedy fossil fuel barons?