Came past this this afternoon. Earth works well advanced on both sides, steel structures now rising from the ground.

Is the swerve in the M25 still there? That bit is bonkers

yes it is

i have to get some pics next time im down there.

Are they installing one of the bridges / sections of the bridge imminently? I noticed 3 extra-long lorries with bridge girders on them parked up on the A3 near the M25 junction this week. The lorries were parked up for at least 2 days. I was wondering whether the idea is to gradually get all of the bits ready and deliver / assemble in one go. Maybe due to the size, these bridge segments cannot be stored on site until installation.

The only swerve now is on the clockwise carraigeway; the anticlockwise is running over its new bridge now. I do feel that they need to get a move on if it all supposed to be open in the Summer - it is not all that many months away.

Maybe they are bits of the clockwise carriageway bridge. Any other bridge building projects in the area?

I'll be looking forward to see these new services when I go down that direction. A much needed service area in my opinion: though ideally one nearer to Heathrow would have been better sited.

Gold standard: both?

The buildings do seem to be making good progress now - I suppose once the main construction is done it won't take long to fit them out. Business wise, it's an odd one though. Over on Johnny's site, we've been trying to work out who owns Extra. I think it's the fact that Cobham will have an Eat In rather than LP4 as its self-service restaurant, of course a Welcome Break brand, which has caused this confusion. They have also replaced Starbucks with Costa at Cambridge and Peterborough, while still having Starbucks at Cobham, and the M&S franchises are owned by Moto rather than Extra (Welcome Break owns the Days Inns at Extra MSAs). We wondered whether either Welcome Break or Moto had taken Extra over. The whole situation with Extra seems odd: they own petrol stations at a couple of MSAs (Winchester and Tibshelf), but have divested themselves of Derby with Burton and Leicester Services (though when I went into D with B, I couldn't see how it could possibly be viable - there were only a couple of people there apart from me in the food court and a few buying petrol).

Are they putting in a new services from scratch here or just expanding an existing one? How many MSAs are on M25 in any case? Are the existing ones adequate?

Many orbital motorways don't have MSAs from what I gather.

This is a brand new Service Area just south of J10. It will be one-sided site with a trumpet interchange being built onto a live 4 lane M25. The M25 is around 110 miles along and there are currently 3 services: Clacket Lane between J5 & J6, South Mimms at Junction 23 and Thurrock at J31. I would say that the existing ones are each adequate in themselves, but seen in terms of a complete provision then they are not. The SW quadrant is amongst the most heavily used parts of the M25 and a lot of long distance journeys join and leave the M25 without passing any of the other 3.
The M25 was planned with 4 service areas from the outset and the first three had been provided by the mid 90s, but finding a site for the fourth has been problematic. The original concept was for services between J15 & J16 at Iver and that would also have had a park & ride facility but planning and exact siting difficulties have caused the long delay before the arrival of the 4th.

Tony

Beaconsfield seems to be a replacement for Iver/Denham area services

Beaconsfield may actually be a replacement for the services that were never built on the M40 near Wycombe Marsh, between J3 and J4. The ghost slips are very evident as you drive past.

Its a both-and, not an either-or when it comes to replacing Abbey Barnes and Iver plans.

I don't really see each proposal as a replacement for a previous one, but if we're heading down that path, then Beaconsfield replaces the 1998 plans for Hedgerley, about two miles to the east. Hedgerley was a partner for Oxford, which replaces 5 other planned services. Before that the M40 ended at Wheatley, and only before then does Oxford come in to it.

There's probably a bit of showing off in there, but the point was a lot has happened here and Abbey Barns was a long time ago.

With Iver it's a bit more clear-cut as it has been on the cards pretty much the whole time from the construction of the M25 until the widening, but they varied between three sites, including one by Poyle.

One thing you do notice driving past Clockwise is how short the exit slip road from the services is. That is going to cause some problems unless they lengthen it. It is nothing like as long as the ones from Clacket Lane.

Here's my drive-by pic of the services.

That slip has been there from very early on in the works - once the temporary diversion was in place; it seems to be simply a Works exit from the building site. Don't forget that the clockwise carriageway is currently on this temporary diversion whilst they build the under-bridge, and I suspect that once the carriageway is back on its permanent route then they will build the permanent slip roads (as is now happening on the anti-clockwise carriageway).

Tony

I know a bit about this as I was invloved in the hugh public inquiry for the MSA's to the west of London between 2003 and 2004. Bascially planning applications were submitted for M25 Cobham, M25 Iver, M40 Beaconsfield, M40 at Hedgerley (between M25 and J2), the M4 at J8/9, and at 2 sites between J8/9 and J10. All were refused by the respective planning authorities on Green Belt grounds and at M40 J2 on local highway grounds.

As a result John Prescott decided that one planning inquiry would be held in all 7 sites and that only 2 would be approved. At the end of the inquiry , the 2 that were approved were M40 Beaconsfield and M25 Cobham.

Given the remit of the Inquiry , that 2 would be allowed and they were all refused on Green Belt grounds, the main thrust of everyones argument came on need and safety. In short, given the inspectors report was 500 plus pages the reasons for and against each were as follows.

M25 Iver - one of the most congested sections of the M25 with extensive weaving between the M4 and M25, the introduction of a services would worsen this and be detrimental to road safety.

M4 sites - No need on journeys out of London, given Heston and services at Reading, which should be ample to serve motorists on the M4. Also would not pick up a majority of M25 south to M4 west journeys(or vice verse) given the prefered route of A329(m), A322, M3.

M40 Hedgerley was only located 1 mile from J1A with M25 in a prominent position. Refused on additional weaving close to M25 junction and the fact given its prominent position would be extremeley detrimental to the Green Belt.

M40 at J2 Beaconsfield was allowed as in the Inspectors view, was that after Park Royal the A40 is a HQDC , similar to a motorway, with no online services and therefore in affect there were no services between Park Royal and Oxford a distance of over 40 miles. Given J2 was basically half away , it was offline surrounded by trees and therefore only one building was needed , lessening the impact on the Green Belt it was acceptable on Green Belt and need.

Chobham was chosen as it picked up Gatwick M23 journeys , going around the M25 towards the M3 and M4 and on this journey there was very little provision. It was accepted that Clacket Lane was only 20 miles east but the volumes of vehicles undertaking M23, M25 then M3 / M4 was high. It was also argued that with a provision here it lessened the need on the M4.

Hope that provides some insight in to why the new MSA's are where they are

Interesting. There must be lot of quite lengthy journeys involving the western quadrant of the M25 (M1 - A3) and yet there's no services. South Mimms to Cobham is too big a gap in my view, especially as the nearest services on the M1, M3 and M4 are all quite some distance outside the M25. Many A1(M) users will cut the corner and miss South Mimms, too.