The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.
There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).
Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.
Berk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 16:07
I think you’re putting a lot of faith into one line of an entry on the Wiki - which has quite likely been cut’n’pasted.
The LAR can hardly be primary without the ability to carry large volumes of traffic. Which is going to converge on a B-road - Brampton Road - in order to cross the railway in Huntingdon.
I agree some of the road may still ‘feel like’ the A14, but it certainly won’t in Huntingdon.
Actually it can, there are lots of primary roads that are S2 and many end at the destination on unclassified roads. It does not need to 'feel' like the A14 at Huntingdon to be primary. It simply needs to be the route to be used between two primary destinations. Note that as the A604 the curent A14 was primary before the viaduct was built and the road dualled. It went into Huntingdon over this bridge. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.32738 ... 6656?hl=en
I know, but as I mentioned earlier these were most often the trunk roads of that generation.
I can’t really conceive of a situation today where a newly-created LAR (even if it is repackaging of an older road) would be allowed to obtain primary status.
The A168 and A6055 weren’t, even though they used to be as the A1. The whole point is to discourage non-local traffic from using it as a through route or shortcut.
From Pevensey to Havant the route is effectively shadowing the A27, only going through more towns and sticking closer to the coast. The A259 forms part of the
Berk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 22:13
The A168 and A6055 weren’t, even though they used to be as the A1. The whole point is to discourage non-local traffic from using it as a through route or shortcut.
Being primary would run counter to that.
The A168 and the A6055 both run very closely with the A1(M) and are easily accessible from the motorway, but the new A14(M) will deviate quite considerably from the present A14 and completely miss Huntingdon. The motorway will not exactly overshadow the old road as in the case of the A168/A6055, so they would probably be regarded as two completely separate transport corridors.
I think it will be interesting to see how many local commuters do need to use the road.
Let’s not forget this will include people from villages currently accessed by the A14 - which will be reduced down to Bar Hill, and maybe Swavesey.
I think it may have been a mistake to force the whole road to switch sides halfway through. I can imagine some of those over-bridges becoming very crowded.
Then again, if you’re coming straight from Huntingdon, you’ll use the old A14 to join the new one. Your journey shouldn’t be any worse, in fact it should be a whole lot better.
There is no evidence to suggest the status of the road will be primary, but equally, there is no evidence to say that it will not be.
In reality, I suspect that some sections (such as the former A14SPUR) and A1-A141 link past Huntingdon racecourse will be primary, whereas the parallel LAR won't be. As for the section from Swavesey to Huntingdon station and then up to Spittalls, who knows - I'd suspect not, but there's nothign to say.
Berk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 22:13
The A168 and A6055 weren’t, even though they used to be as the A1. The whole point is to discourage non-local traffic from using it as a through route or shortcut.
Being primary would run counter to that.
The A168 and the A6055 both run very closely with the A1(M) and are easily accessible from the motorway, but the new A14(M) will deviate quite considerably from the present A14 and completely miss Huntingdon. The motorway will not exactly overshadow the old road as in the case of the A168/A6055, so they would probably be regarded as two completely separate transport corridors.
The A168 has been much messed about. Before the Thirsk bypass was built it ran from A1 near Dishforth to an intersection with the A19 in Thirsk before continuing to Northallerton. It was trunk as far as Thirsk. The section from the Dishforth to Thirsk is of course still primary and trunk being managed by HE. The section from Wetherby to Boroughbridge is actually the old A1 southbound carriage way while the extension to Wetherby is not and never has been primary being a number conveniently appropriated for the LAR.
The trunk section of the A168 is actually more like what would have happened to the A14 if the original plans for an online upgrade as far as Fen Ditton retaining the Huntingdon viaduct had gone ahead. The clear deterioration of the Huntingdon Viaduct and strong local opposition to any plans to repair or upgrade the viaduct ruled out any plans to retain it. In fact however flawed the current plans to replace the access to Huntingdon may be that has come from local planners not Highways England.
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 07:43
I think it will be interesting to see how many local commuters do need to use the road.
Let’s not forget this will include people from villages currently accessed by the A14 - which will be reduced down to Bar Hill, and maybe Swavesey.
I think it may have been a mistake to force the whole road to switch sides halfway through. I can imagine some of those over-bridges becoming very crowded.
Then again, if you’re coming straight from Huntingdon, you’ll use the old A14 to join the new one. Your journey shouldn’t be any worse, in fact it should be a whole lot better.
It is expected that local commuters will use the road. In fact HE seems to have designed the junction with the A1198 to make them use the A1307 rather than head down the A1198 and pick up the new A14(M) in order to keep local and through traffic separated. They can of course continue down the A1198 to Caxton Gibbet and take the A428 into Cambridge as many do now. The aim from the HE point of view is to get traffic from the London on the M11 and the A14 from Felixstowe on its way to the Midlands and North as efficiently as possible. Handling local commuter traffic is the responsibility of Cambridge County Council which is not exactly famous for favouring automobile traffic.
As for switching sides this is inevitable with Swavesey and Business park being to the North of the Road with the Bar Hill junction serving both Bar Hill and the new developments at Longstanton while maintaining access to the Cambridge Crematorium and Dry Drayton to the south of the new road. As in the case of the other junctions there is a clear policy of keeping local traffic off the new A14(M). Given that much of the congestion on the existing road occurs at points such as Bar Hill and Girton where local and through traffic merge and then diverge this is hardly surprising.
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:00
There’s still no logical explanation why this (and several other) LAR(’s) have to switch sides of the main carriageway halfway along.
Why not remain consistent?? It suggests a deliberate attempt not to allow a through route on to Huntingdon Road at Girton.
That would because the current Huntingdon road junction, like the rest of the Girton interchange is a complete mess. A single slip road serves both the Huntingdon road which is one of the major routes into Cambridge and the A14 Eastbound. It causes congestion that frequently blocks the A14 back beyond Bar Hill. Worse yet the existing route from the Huntingdon Road to Madingley and the A428 is an terrifying weave from right hand lane to left hand lane in under 200 metres. The new layout is clearly intended to maintain the separation between local and through traffic which is expected on a major strategic route. No longer will traffic between Cambridge, the Crematorium, Dry Drayton and Bar Hill HAVE to use the A14 was they do now. For Bar Hill today the A14 is the only practical access to the national and local road system they have which is why the A14 section from the Huntingdon Road to Bar Hill is D3 at present.
Ideally of course you would start from scratch at Girton and do the job right but its now much too late for that while maintaining traffic flows on the A14 and M11. There are simply no realistic diversion routes for displaced traffic were you to try.
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:00
There’s still no logical explanation why this (and several other) LAR(’s) have to switch sides of the main carriageway halfway along.
Why not remain consistent?? It suggests a deliberate attempt not to allow a through route on to Huntingdon Road at Girton.
I don't know that it really matters.... Is anyone particularly inconvenienced by this between Alconbury and Peterborough? Clearly, it makes sense to have the main LAR on whatever side at the time has more development/side roads linking to it, coupled with easier build, fewer property demolitions, and I would think that there is also some consideration made about construction time and cost, while accommodation bridges and access tracks can provide field and property access on the other side. It would cost more, and require more land take to build LARs on both sides, or to build accommodation bridges every few hundred yards for property access.
The A168 has to cross the A1 at some point between Walshford and Dishforth, and only does so once. Really can't see a problem there.
As for the new A1307- yes, it would have been possible to run it entirely north east of the A14(M). But as others say, only if you completely demolish Girton Interchange and start again. Which, to be fair, would have a desirable outcome, it is the interim that's not ideal. The route chosen is cheaper and does not cause significant inconvenience. It is hardly a bad thing that it won't form an unbroken straight.
Looking at the maps of the final road layout, I would say that the A1307 will be primary from Swavesey to Huntingdon, where it is D2, which would make sense to me, as the Primary route between Cambridge and Huntingdon will be A14(M) to Swavesey, then A1307.
As for the road switching sides, I don't see it being a big deal, it will only be NMU's using the whole route, and the switch does not occur at a junction on the A14(M), so there will not be a clash. Most vehicles will just use the appropriate junction to join the LAR. The only awkward move seems to be going from the northern bypass to the crematorium area, but I assume that is not common. I have been trying to work out the best route for that, possibly turning back at Bar Hill, but NMU's don't have it so simple.
Does anyone have any data how many vehicles used side-road junctions other than the B1050?? All of those will now have to use the LAR.
The context is fairly clear. Swavesey-Huntingdon is staying as D2, so it would be appropriate for it to be primary. And the plan would seem for commuters to keep using that, then switch to the A14 as before.
I have just noticed that not all NMU will have to switch sides with the A1307, as the access track for the buildings next to Girton interchange is going to connect with the Girton Grange bridge, so if you are heading that way, you can avoid a few roundabouts.
Berk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 22:13I can’t really conceive of a situation today where a newly-created LAR (even if it is repackaging of an older road) would be allowed to obtain primary status.
The A162 is primary between the A1 at Darrington and the A645 at Knottingley, because even though through traffic is now directed to use the A1(M), the old road still forms the primary routes between A1(S) and M62(E), and between A1(S) and Pontefract. While it isn't all that common, there are enough examples of roads that have retained primary status because of the primary destinations they serve along the way despite being superseded by motorway bypasses – which is what would be happening here – that it clearly does have precedent.
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:00There’s still no logical explanation why this (and several other) LAR(’s) have to switch sides of the main carriageway halfway along.
It's really not difficult. On many corridors, there will be sections where it makes more sense to have the LAR on one side or the other. That is particularly the case where one of the original carriageways is being repurposed but it can still hold true even if there is total reconstruction. The LAR is there to provide access to local roads, facilities and properties. If there is a section where more of them are on one side of the corridor than the other then it makes sense for the LAR to be on that side with them, so that you don't need to have as many bridges connecting side roads and access points on the far side of the motorway with the LAR. There may also be reasons to do with the local geography and concerning horizontal and vertical curvature where it is cheaper to put the LAR to one side of the mainline than the other because it doesn't need to have such good alignment and so can more easily be accommodated.
LARs don't just switch sides for the heck of it, or because the planners were bored of having the motorway on their right and thought drivers would like a change, and it certainly isn't done for the farcically nebulous purpose of stopping the LAR from looking like a through route, because nobody would ever look at an LAR switching from one side of the motorway to the other and be put off using it as a result.
nowster wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:01
Did someone say the road to the crematorium was going to be a dead end?
Could be a T junction, depending on how good you've been....
On a more serious note, improving the access to the crematorium is one of the benefits of the scheme - the current direct access off the busy, unpleasant ramshackle A14 is horribly undignified, and also means mourners/funeral parties can face stressful delays.
