A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon "news"

[KeithW]

]Is it on the part(s) due to be downgraded as A1307?? It might prove rather useful then.

Not even close - its the A14 in Kettering about 30 miles away and all honesty a stripe of paint marking off a lane that must be 1/2 m wide is not what I would call cycle provision. The draft from first passing HGV is likely to pull you under its wheels.

[KeithW]

There was always a prohibition of pedestrians, cyclists and horse drawn vehicles included in the Development Consent Order. For example see green dot at back of nose of west facing slip roads at New Ellington Junction on pg13 of the plans from the DCO examination https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... EX-222.pdf

That's dated 2015 - I'm talking 2013-14 when cycling prohibitions were, at-best, not on the project team's radar.

I'm glad it was there earlier than I thought (ie 2018), but that doesn't mean there was always a prohibition planned.

As it happens there was - see Page 816

Again, 2015, not 'the start'.

That WAS the start - let me remind you of the timeline.

2011/12 Detailed study of options for A14
July 2012 Government announces A14 improvement will include a toll
June 2013 Government announces fast track delivery programme
September 2013 Scheme Options consultation
December 2013 Government removes tolling from the proposal
7 April to 15 June 2014 Pre-Application consultation
December 2014 Development Consent Order application
13 May to 13 November 2016 Development Consent Order examination
11 May 2016 Secretary of State decision
March 2017 Start of works

The document concerned is a summary of what was discussed during the pre-application consultation. That only started in April 2014 and the intention to restrict NMU traffic had been made before that. It was certainly conveyed to the parties involved in that consultation. The decision to restrict non motorised traffic was also covered by the local press and was the subject of many discussion in the Cambridge Office where I worked as 2 of my co workers were very keen cyclists.

This road is a rare example of a rapid decision making process. Consider that the consultation period for the A14 between Brampton and Catthorpe took around 10 years. Plans for it had been put forward in 1965. Even after the consultation the secretary of state dithered for years before granting consent. To go from the options study to start of construction in 5 years is very fast indeed by modern standards.

As an example consider the time line of the M11.

"http://www.ukmotorwayarchive.org.uk/en/ ... /index.cfm"]
August 1962 the Ministry of Transport, the Rt Hon Ernest Marples, appointed W S Atkins & Partners as consultants to investigate a proposed motorway between Temple Mills in east London and Bishop's Stortford in Hertfordshire

Route alternatives covering 480 kilometres were examined before a draft scheme was published by the Ministry in 1966.

This met with numerous objections, as a result of which the Ministry modified their proposals and republished them in December 1968. In July of the following year a public inquiry was held at Epping at which further objections to the project were voiced, not least of them being concerned with the inevitably intrusive effect of the proposed motorway on the Roding Valley, the neighbouring residential areas and their sports and recreational grounds. But the scheme did provide the most acceptable solution to a difficult problem, and the outcome proved successful. In the autumn of 1969 W S Atkins & Partners began the final design of the route.

The first stage of Construction only started in 1973 !

[si404]

That WAS the start - let me remind you of the timeline.

2011/12

That's 3 years before the 2014/15 you are claiming is the start isn't it! Do we have different definitions of 'start'?

The decision to ban NMUs was early, and well before construction - you've proven that. But it wasn't there at the start - it was there after they had detailed plans and consulted on them.

The document concerned is a summary of what was discussed during the pre-application consultation. That only started in April 2014 and the intention to restrict NMU traffic had been made before that. It was certainly conveyed to the parties involved in that consultation.

Clearly not conveyed to the staff doing the webchats that were part of that consultation, judging by how they conveyed nothing but cluelessness to me, a participant!

I took part in the June 2014 webchat - that's where they couldn't/wouldn't give an actual answer my question about banning NMU from the new road. And if it was in the documentation that I scoured several times beforehand to see whether it did address this, I'd have spotted it and not joined the awkwardly timed webchat to ask the question!

This is what I wrote in this very thread, just minutes after taking part in that consultation via webchat - now, the whole thing could have been terrible communication by the project team and there were TROs planned, but if it was "certainly conveyed" as you say, I wouldn't have been saying this, and - rather than frustrated - would have be happily informing everyone of the answer to my question! Perhaps we have different definitions of "clearly conveyed" too?

Total waste of time, nothing but stock answers that often didn't directly address the question.

[KeithW]

That WAS the start - let me remind you of the timeline.

2011/12

That's 3 years before the 2014/15 you are claiming is the start isn't it! Do we have different definitions of 'start'?

The decision to ban NMUs was early, and well before construction - you've proven that. But it wasn't there at the start - it was there after they had detailed plans and consulted on them.

The document concerned is a summary of what was discussed during the pre-application consultation. That only started in April 2014 and the intention to restrict NMU traffic had been made before that. It was certainly conveyed to the parties involved in that consultation.

Clearly not conveyed to the staff doing the webchats that were part of that consultation, judging by how they conveyed nothing but cluelessness to me, a participant!

I took part in the June 2014 webchat - that's where they couldn't/wouldn't give an actual answer my question about banning NMU from the new road. And if it was in the documentation that I scoured several times beforehand to see whether it did address this, I'd have spotted it and not joined the awkwardly timed webchat to ask the question!

This is what I wrote in this very thread, just minutes after taking part in that consultation via webchat - now, the whole thing could have been terrible communication by the project team and there were TROs planned, but if it was "certainly conveyed" as you say, I wouldn't have been saying this, and - rather than frustrated - would have be happily informing everyone of the answer to my question! Perhaps we have different definitions of "clearly conveyed" too?

Total waste of time, nothing but stock answers that often didn't directly address the question.

I know from many years experience in the construction industry that many initial studies never lead to a project and as such are are never considered as a start. What happened in 2011/12 was somebody asked the question 'We have a problem with the A14 what are our options ?'

The very earliest date that could be considered a start would be Sep 2013 when the Scheme Options consultation began. At this stage you are deciding which options are going to brought forward and one option is always defer the project. As an example consultations on the Sizewell C nuclear power station proposal are under way but it is certainly not a project at this stage and may never become one. Clearly your question was not answered accurately but equally clearly other participants in the consultation process were given the information and responded accordingly.

From a legal point of view there is no project until the Development Consent Order is approved and work is authorised by the Secretary of State but the starting point for the DCO is the application document which was issued in Dec 2014. As I recall under the aegis of the fast track decision contractors were already being selected in 2015 although probably not being allowed to make major purchasing decisions,

[SarahJ]

As a user of the A1(M) to A14 there is one thing I've never been able to work out. At the moment heading south the A1(M) is 4 lanes, with one lane heading off to the A14(M). Since under the new plans that will be heading almost to a traffic light junction for local traffic, is the D4 being extended further south to the new junction, the current D2 will struggle, even D3 will seem odd.

[Berk]

The D3 is being extended to the new Brampton Interchange. That’s basically a weaving section between Brampton Hut and the junction for the Huntingdon Southern Bypass.

That being said, the ‘new A14’ (i.e. old A1) will remain as D2, sitting alongside the new A1(M). So effectively, it could be said to be D3+2 at this point.

I don’t know whether any thought was given to merging the carriageways over the short distance, making it actually D5, or not. The A14 will remain D3 all the way to Bar Hill.

[KeithW]

As a user of the A1(M) to A14 there is one thing I've never been able to work out. At the moment heading south the A1(M) is 4 lanes, with one lane heading off to the A14(M). Since under the new plans that will be heading almost to a traffic light junction for local traffic, is the D4 being extended further south to the new junction, the current D2 will struggle, even D3 will seem odd.

I believe the new D3 section of A1(M) is now open. Given the average levels of traffic on the A1(M) (70k before the diverge) I hardly think the new D3 section will struggle. Traffic heading for Huntingdon, the A141 and A1129 to St Ives will of course still use the old A14 route as far as Stukeley Meadows.

[jackal]

The D3 is being extended to the new Brampton Interchange. That’s basically a weaving section between Brampton Hut and the junction for the Huntingdon Southern Bypass.

That being said, the ‘new A14’ (i.e. old A1) will remain as D2, sitting alongside the new A1(M). So effectively, it could be said to be D3+2 at this point.

I don’t know whether any thought was given to merging the carriageways over the short distance, making it actually D5, or not.

This would of course create a far more intense weaving problem, as the volumes of traffic (and especially turning traffic) would be so much higher on a combined carriageway. The section of M1 between Lofthouse and the M621 interchange is a case in point.

[Al__S]

The D3 is being extended to the new Brampton Interchange. That’s basically a weaving section between Brampton Hut and the junction for the Huntingdon Southern Bypass.

That being said, the ‘new A14’ (i.e. old A1) will remain as D2, sitting alongside the new A1(M). So effectively, it could be said to be D3+2 at this point.

I don’t know whether any thought was given to merging the carriageways over the short distance, making it actually D5, or not. The A14 will remain D3 all the way to Bar Hill.

It's a limited weave though- west bound A14(M) traffic will be able to flow freely onto the north bound A1(M), and south bound A1(M) to east bound A14(M), but north bound A1 to west bound A14 or east bound A14 to south bound A1 will be via Ellington and Brampton Hut interchanges

[Berk]

When I looked at the strip diagrams, I believed that east-southbound traffic could stay on the A14 until they’d crossed over the new bridge, then move across to the A1.

Won’t that actually be the case??

[NICK 647063]

I believe the new D3 section of A1(M) is now open. Given the average levels of traffic on the A1(M) (70k before the diverge) I hardly think the new D3 section will struggle. Traffic heading for Huntingdon, the A141 and A1129 to St Ives will of course still use the old A14 route as far as Stukeley Meadows.

The fact is the D4M section was massively over built and these days it just would not happen, D3M would have been the maximum we would see now, basically although it seems rather strange having the lane drop to what will become a pretty local route rather than the A14 as it is now it’s just the reality of what we do these days, the new D3 is built to modern day requirements rather than the D4M north of it which was built at a time when we could massively futureproof things, these days money is in demand in so many road schemes we simply cannot built roads that will operate under capacity for over 20 years like the section north has, as so many roads need urgent upgrades for the traffic in the here and now.

[Berk]

The fact is the D4M section was massively over built and these days it just would not happen, D3M would have been the maximum we would see now, basically although it seems rather strange having the lane drop to what will become a pretty local route rather than the A14 as it is now it’s just the reality of what we do these days, the new D3 is built to modern day requirements rather than the D4M north of it which was built at a time when we could massively futureproof things, these days money is in demand in so many road schemes we simply cannot built roads that will operate under capacity for over 20 years like the section north has, as so many roads need urgent upgrades for the traffic in the here and now.

How can people keep saying things like this??

I repeat, before the motorway was built, the A1 was as busy and dangerous as the A14 currently is. Accidents were frequent and dangerous. And knock-on delays were the result.

Conversion to motorway has fixed all that. Even if the spec was geared up towards converting the rest of the A1 to motorway, it’s still a major trunk route, and no-one should think badly of spending on it due to that.

You only have to look at the state of the stretches of D3M that struggle (such as the M6) to see it is NOT the way forward. Not appropriate everywhere, obviously, but the idea that Peterborough-Huntingdon was such a rural backwater it was unnecessary is preposterous.

[marconaf]

Ref the comment that the "new A14" is the "old A1", where is that?

I agree the Pboro A1(M) is rather OTT, but what confuses me is where the roadworks stop on the A1 at the southern end (just past Brampton Jn northbound) the A1 (as currently being used if I'm wrong in thinking this bit is pretty much done?) is D2 under the new bridge in both lanes - whereas I understood this would be D3 and set up for a future offline A1(M) D3 upgrade to plug into?

The image is cut from the widely publicised images, and I've annotated where I think the section is actually D2 (it becomes D3 with a lane gain from the onslip after the bridge).

[Berk]

The blue stretch the arrow is pointing is new-build A1(soon to be M). That’s why it’s been plagued with lane, and speed restrictions, and overnight closures. The yellow stretch parallel to it was the A1 until 18 months ago (or was it about 8 months ago when traffic was removed from it??).

The old A1 carriageways are being dug up and replaced, so they can form part of the new A14 carriageway, and be a consistent standard throughout.

[jackal]

Ref the comment that the "new A14" is the "old A1", where is that?

I agree the Pboro A1(M) is rather OTT, but what confuses me is where the roadworks stop on the A1 at the southern end (just past Brampton Jn northbound) the A1 (as currently being used if I'm wrong in thinking this bit is pretty much done?) is D2 under the new bridge in both lanes - whereas I understood this would be D3 and set up for a future offline A1(M) D3 upgrade to plug into?

The image is cut from the widely publicised images, and I've annotated where I think the section is actually D2 (it becomes D3 with a lane gain from the onslip after the bridge).

a1 d2.jpg

See detailed plan here with lane allocations and new A14 on old A1 alignment:

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... f%2024.pdf

[Al__S]

When I looked at the strip diagrams, I believed that east-southbound traffic could stay on the A14 until they’d crossed over the new bridge, then move across to the A1.

Won’t that actually be the case??

hopefully the link works- absolutely not. If you're driving east on the A14 and do not exit at the new Ellington junction, your next exit is to the A1198

[SarahJ]

So, to get this right. I'm putting down the A1(M) on a nice free flowing D4. But then the inside pops off onto a local road, and it's now D3. It then passes over a junction on what is today the A14 at Brampton hut, which will be still quite busy as there is a service area there and it caters for A14/A1 flows not W/B to NB A1 and S/B to W/B. Then just after this junction dumps it''s SB flows onto the A1(M) we all have to pottle in to lane 1, or squish between some HGV's to tiger tail from lane 2.
Meanwhile heading North. we take the nice new flyover onto the A1 ((m)) and within moment of joining, there is a pull off for A1 N/B flows to the A14 E/B/W/B, local and services.
Right.

Please tell me I'm wrong, and if not how has someone with a nice clean sheet of A4 come up with this?

Edit. Just noticed on one of the links the lane allocations. The A1(M) needs to be D4 between Brampton hut and the A14 EB slip. Mark it as 2+2. Weaving will be bad, but better than the S/B slip joining 1 lane and squishing in between the HGV's, then having to hook over. Gives them a bit more space with D2+2.

[Berk]

I think the services can be accessed by anyone - just as they stay on the A14/A1.

And remember to pull over to the right road for their onward destination after they leave.

[NICK 647063]

How can people keep saying things like this??

I repeat, before the motorway was built, the A1 was as busy and dangerous as the A14 currently is. Accidents were frequent and dangerous. And knock-on delays were the result.

Conversion to motorway has fixed all that. Even if the spec was geared up towards converting the rest of the A1 to motorway, it’s still a major trunk route, and no-one should think badly of spending on it due to that.

You only have to look at the state of the stretches of D3M that struggle (such as the M6) to see it is NOT the way forward. Not appropriate everywhere, obviously, but the idea that Peterborough-Huntingdon was such a rural backwater it was unnecessary is preposterous.

No I stand by what I say.....

My point is and nobody can argue the fact that the D4M A1(M) was over built and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that it was future planning at a time when we could do that and not be scrutinised, I do remember clearly the old A1 here and it was not pleasant as you say but a D3M would have sorted the issue, all I’m saying is these days things are different and we don’t have the luxury of future proofing as much as more schemes need money so everything has to be costed and achieve the best value for money, look at Darrington to Redhouse it’s busier than the Peterborough section but will only get a D3M upgrade as like I say these schemes must now present value for money and the fact they can actually close 2 lanes on the D4M A1(M) and not cause delays proves it is over engineered again nothing wrong with that but that’s a fact.

[c2R]

They'll have done cost benefit analysis on the new parallel section. The proposal is far better than the original which had a 270 degree loop for the main traffic flow!