The M2 needs to be widened at a later date to make room for new developments but I don't see it being widened this decade. Besides, adding more capacity to the M2 will only incentivise more people to travel by car, and not to mention that it'd be filled up by people living in new developments along the M2 corridor, so the cycle repeats again. This is not sustainable growth and improvement.
By that logic, LTC should not be built due to the extra traffic flow it'd cause and require subsequent upgrades.
The supply/demand problem is something that is encountered later on in development when the route provided is not adequate for all the movements being made, e.g. the southern corridor of the M25, at which point alternate routes and modes of transport are needed instead of the existing road being upgraded. The M2 is not at that point.
If lorries overtaking are a huge issue, then a weight limit could be imposed to prevent traffic from slowing down too much.
So what is your plan now that the A229 and M20 must take all of that traffic? What if the M20 is closed? You want all that heavy goods traffic forced on the A20?
Forcing traffic onto a single route is a terrible idea and is the kind of thinking that leads us to the problems we now have south of London. The M20 copes surprisingly well for its traffic numbers, likely thanks to being built to D3M standard throughout and no corners being cut, but forcing all of the M2's HGV traffic onto it will turn it into the M25 II and it won't cope at peak times.
If a road is regularly seeing slowdowns out of peak times due to excessive slow traffic not having enough lanes, then the road is over capacity and needs to be widened.
I agree that the M2 is inadequate for modern purposes, but the M20 copes just fine, especially after J6 and J7, where all the M2/M20 movements are located. However, I do not see how Ringways V2 is needed to solve traffic problems on the M25. I doubt such a project would get off the ground in the first place - it'd have to pass through several National Parks/Landscapes, which the M25 already encroaches upon. I don't see there being much appetite for this one.
It's needed because the link from east to west isn't sufficient. All traffic from Kent and most of East Sussex is directed up to London and on the M25(S) instead of westwards. This is overall an area with a population of ~2 million, so think about how much excessive traffic this part of the M25 is taking on due to the lack of a parallel route. The most ridiculous examples are probably journeys from the Kent coast to the Hampshire conurbation, there is no reason why this kind of direction should be directed up the M20 and M25(S) and then down the A3/M3.
It's either that or massively improve the railways in the area so such journeys are feasible by rail. It's arguably even more ridiculous that those living in this area going west should have to go all the way up to London and make their way through busy terminals and the underground before going west or northwest. Would it be so hard for a four-car, bihourly CrossCountry route to come down through the Redhill link to Ashford (bearing in mind this would require Redhill station to be rebuilt)?
Which is why I mentioned that more freeflow movements could be added to M2 J3 and M20 J6. KCC are proposing to widen the A229(S) to 3 lanes but are only adding at-grade connections to ease traffic, which is not desirable.
As KCC is completely strapped for cash and a few inches from declaring bankruptcy, I would be surprised if any improvements are made at all. This is something that really should be the responsibility of HE as this involves the motorway network.
If the rail network is in a worse state than the road network then why aren't we taking the time and money to improve it? I know the answer, of course, and that's due to political reasons with a dash of car-dependent development thrown in the mix. I don't think anyone reasonable truly desires to see London and the South East turned into a British replica of Houston, so I can't understand why people want these destructive road schemes to happen. It's not as if the South East is deprived of road infrastructure either - this is one of the densest parts of the motorway network.
You quite literally have answered your own question here.
As others have mentioned, the SE has nowhere near the level of road density as similar conurbations. People in the area such as yourself seem to want their cake and eat it too - You want a developed, suburban area, but also an undisturbed countryside. Unfortunately you can't have both, you'll either have to agree to the network being substantially improved or politely ask half of the population of this area to leave and find somewhere else to live so that the existing network will be sufficient without destroying more countryside.
While there are parts of the north that are in dire need of serious improvements, especially when it comes to rail, the Merseyside-south Lancashire-Manchester-West Yorkshire conurbation has at least gotten the road network right, with two major north-south motorways, functional ring roads, numerous small high quality A-road and motorway links and a high quality east-west motorway. I don't have the numbers but for the population and area, I suspect the density of the network in this conurbation is significantly higher than the SE and more similar to others in the developed world.
Would love to see a south coast expressway from Dover to Exeter.
Remember the Folkestone to Honiton plans!!!!
When it is quicker to go from Southampton to Dover via M25, something is wrong.
Totally agree. If it was up to me and I had infinite resources, I'd have the M27 run from Bournemouth to the M20, or at least until Brighton, with the rest of the route from Bournemouth to Honiton and if the motorway stops at Brighton, the rest of the way to the M20 as high-quality dual carriageway A27. (Sorry A31 and A35, consistently numbered routes and all that). As I'd use the existing A35 alignment to Honiton instead of going all the way to Exeter, the A30 from Honiton could do with an upgrade to D3 or D3M M30 to deal with the much-increased traffic load.
M2 <--> A299 was the dominant flow when the junction was designed in the early 1960s. Today the A299 is still considerably busier than the A2. On that basis the cretin you refer to got it right because the main course of traffic does not pass through the roundabout.
Oh, my bad, I would've thought M2 <--> A2 was the dominant flow outside of holiday time. Even so, the junction is a bit poor for today's standards, it could do with a free-flow to the A2 and both movements widened to two lanes.
OMG- sorry Cryoraptor, I noticed you were talking about J7, not J1… I can’t believe that slipped my mind. Yes, I completely agree with you on that.
No worries, accidents happen both on and off the road
