<< 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"?