A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

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.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by A303Chris »

A320Driver wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 19:10 Decision by SoS now deferred until 17th July, along with Stonehenge.

Several other infrastructure schemes have been delayed, hard to tell whether it is procedural due to Covid related issues, or whether they can be afforded.

My suspicion is that they will both get approved and advance to construction, particularly as a contract has been awarded for Sparkford, or they both get canned. If the latter, it’s game over for the A303 for a generation probably.

This is actually the first official update on this scheme since its original deadline of 12th December.
Makes sense read today in the weekly construction news that the government is looking to fast track infrastructure projects for construction to help the industry after the pandemic. The projects will be announced in June and JUly.

I can not see it being dropped, I suppose the government do not want to be seen publishing schemes in the current situation, where they could be accused of trying to announce them on the sly. Dammed if they do dammed if they dont
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
StockburyRoundabout
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 19:06
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by StockburyRoundabout »

A303Chris wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 15:32
A320Driver wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 19:10 Decision by SoS now deferred until 17th July, along with Stonehenge.

Several other infrastructure schemes have been delayed, hard to tell whether it is procedural due to Covid related issues, or whether they can be afforded.

My suspicion is that they will both get approved and advance to construction, particularly as a contract has been awarded for Sparkford, or they both get canned. If the latter, it’s game over for the A303 for a generation probably.

This is actually the first official update on this scheme since its original deadline of 12th December.
Makes sense read today in the weekly construction news that the government is looking to fast track infrastructure projects for construction to help the industry after the pandemic. The projects will be announced in June and JUly.

I can not see it being dropped, I suppose the government do not want to be seen publishing schemes in the current situation, where they could be accused of trying to announce them on the sly. Dammed if they do dammed if they dont
The Chancellor already expressed his willingness to fund this project and even after the unprecedented spending due to the pandemic, this may still help stimulate the economy - improved road connections are proven to do that. I don’t think the SoS will cancel it.
Now with added Grade Separation!
Herned
Member
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by Herned »

This was due to be decided on today, but nothing seems to have happened. No mention of it in the press release about the delay to Stonehenge either
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by A303Chris »

Decision put back another 4 months to November according to this press release from the SoS.

It states
The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 20 November 2020 (an extension of 4 months) to enable further information to be provided by the applicant and interested parties on outstanding concerns raised by the Examining Authority and consideration of that provided information before determination of the application by the Secretary of State.
That will be over a year since the Inspectors report came out. Obviously reading between the lines there is something the Inspector does not fundamentally like, which the HE are desperate to resolve. My experience of the National Infrastructure Scheme Inquiries, were they were a tick box exercise and Inspectors very rarely say no.

Any news on Stonehenge
The M25 - The road to nowhere
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6006
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by SteveA30 »

They couldn't use archaeological finds here so, came up with something else. HE thinking may be that if they can't get Stonehenge done, the rest of the A303 will be binned. A fly on the wall cam would be useful here.
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by Scratchwood »

But this plan isn't just about the A303 and traffic from London heading to Exeter, it's as much about improving the A358 which is an important regional road, so would still be needed even if the Stonehenge plans were canned.

Indeed the plans seemed designed to be suboptimal for through A303/M5 traffic.
User avatar
thatapanydude
Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by thatapanydude »

SteveA30 wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:11 They couldn't use archaeological finds here so, came up with something else. HE thinking may be that if they can't get Stonehenge done, the rest of the A303 will be binned. A fly on the wall cam would be useful here.
Though this is such as small scheme that regardless of Stonehenge going ahead - it would still connect 2 decent length DC's and be of use in my opinion.
A1/A1(M) >>> M1
DavidBrown
Member
Posts: 8397
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 00:35

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by DavidBrown »

thatapanydude wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 16:41Though this is such as small scheme that regardless of Stonehenge going ahead - it would still connect 2 decent length DC's and be of use in my opinion.
Couldn't agree more, but I just have this nasty feeling that the whole lot is going to get canned, and the best we end up with is a single carriageway bypass of Henlade on the A358 or something like that. It would be such a huge 'screw you' to the whole region from the government, but something I can absolutely see happening.
TimM3-A55
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 02:09
Location: Fleet, Hants

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by TimM3-A55 »

thatapanydude wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 16:41
SteveA30 wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:11 They couldn't use archaeological finds here so, came up with something else. HE thinking may be that if they can't get Stonehenge done, the rest of the A303 will be binned. A fly on the wall cam would be useful here.
Though this is such as small scheme that regardless of Stonehenge going ahead - it would still connect 2 decent length DC's and be of use in my opinion.
Upgrading the A303 and either the A358 or A30 to reach the M5 has always been an all or nothing proposal. Without the tunnel at Stonehenge upgrading the other sections of the "expressway to the southwest" aren't seen as worthwhile. I expect to see the tunnel and other A303/A358 schemes kicked into the long grass as part of the fall out from covid19.
Scratchwood wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 14:50 But this plan isn't just about the A303 and traffic from London heading to Exeter, it's as much about improving the A358 which is an important regional road, so would still be needed even if the Stonehenge plans were canned.

Indeed the plans seemed designed to be suboptimal for through A303/M5 traffic.
No the A358 upgrade is all for the London - Exeter route. All the original proposals, this time at least, completely neglected the A358 into Taunton and A358 to/from the M5(N). Trying to force the A358 into being part of the M3-M5 link is another reason the A303/A358 upgrades are likely to get binned again.
A9Dan
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 22:07

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by A9Dan »

Probably worth noting that pushing the decision date back to mid-November will likely mean that it will not be made until after the budget.

There is also another pending issue in the form of an application for a judicial review against RIS2 (by the group who successfully challenged the third runway at Heathrow) so maybe there is some concern that should a judicial review is granted then the order would be suspended while the case was heard with the possibility of having the order quashed if the ruling went against the government.
A9Dan
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 22:07

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by A9Dan »

Looks like my speculation above was way off the mark, the National Infrastructure Planning website now says that the Secretary of State is minded to refuse the application subject to further evidence. Looking at the letter linked, there seem to be four issues. The report from the Planning Inspectorate is available here, recommending that the Order not be made.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by Micro The Maniac »

A9Dan wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 21:45 Looks like my speculation above was way off the mark, the National Infrastructure Planning website now says that the Secretary of State is minded to refuse the application subject to further evidence. Looking at the letter linked, there seem to be four issues. The report from the Planning Inspectorate is available here, recommending that the Order not be made.
Based on the relative minutiae that is apparently able to block such strategic investment, HS2 is totally stuffed.

The "Do nothing" option is far worse that this "Do something"
Herned
Member
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by Herned »

A9Dan wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 21:45 Looks like my speculation above was way off the mark, the National Infrastructure Planning website now says that the Secretary of State is minded to refuse the application subject to further evidence. Looking at the letter linked, there seem to be four issues. The report from the Planning Inspectorate is available here, recommending that the Order not be made.
Thanks for sharing that. Seems to me some quite serious issues, especially the bird strike problem. I'm fairly astonished that HE hadn't put forward a plan that was acceptable to the MOD prior to submitting the DCO
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by RichardA35 »

Herned wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 09:44
A9Dan wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 21:45 Looks like my speculation above was way off the mark, the National Infrastructure Planning website now says that the Secretary of State is minded to refuse the application subject to further evidence. Looking at the letter linked, there seem to be four issues. The report from the Planning Inspectorate is available here, recommending that the Order not be made.
Thanks for sharing that. Seems to me some quite serious issues, especially the bird strike problem. I'm fairly astonished that HE hadn't put forward a plan that was acceptable to the MOD prior to submitting the DCO
Reading the HE response to these issues on the PINS site the answer was broadly "we're right, you're wrong - we'll sort it later" and now they've been pulled up on it.
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by A303Chris »

A9Dan wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 21:45 Looks like my speculation above was way off the mark, the National Infrastructure Planning website now says that the Secretary of State is minded to refuse the application subject to further evidence. Looking at the letter linked, there seem to be four issues. The report from the Planning Inspectorate is available here, recommending that the Order not be made.
Reading this through someone at the HE or there consultants needs a bit of a kick up the bottom. The Non Motorised Users (NMU), not providing a crossing point (bridge / underpass), involving a 5km (3 mile) diversion walk to get round was always going to be a problem given the importance of this in the new DMRB. In fact as a cyclist, if on a long ride that is quite a diversion. At Liss on the A3, the signed cycle route is 2 miles longer than going across the roundabout, and while the HE have tried to put at grade cycle crossing points on the southern approach, they are not the best. That was designed in the 80's, 30 years on though they would have learnt.

The loss of business to Mattia Diner and the Texaco Petrol station is an interesting one as one of the downsides to new roads is old roads lose business. The inspectors at PINS seem to be worried about the social economic issues on the business and the fact they are not signed. If this is now an issue, all new road schemes are screwed and would the A30 between Exeter and Launceston and across Goss Moor ever been upgraded given how much traffic was taken off the old road. The inspectors seem to say that the garage and diner will not be signed from the new road, which is understandable as the approved services are signed from the Sparkford Roundabout, with approach signs westbound. You don't need two services close by and however reading between the lines the SoS does seem to indicate that if they were signed this objection would be overcome.

The parallel access road is also interesting as the argument seems to be without one if an accident occurs there is no diversion route. Not uncommon on other sections of the A303, (Blackford to Chapel Cross, between Wincanton and Sparkford and the A338 to Amesbury come to mind). This seems to have been stirred up by the parish councils worried about traffic Queen Camel and West Camel to the south, if there is an accident. But this is no different to the current position if the A303 is closed here, the advantage being if DC it is more likely to be on one direction. Again are we going to need parallel roads for all new schemes, A30 Chiverton Cross to Carland does not have one for the full length and that was approved by PINS and the SOS last year.

Now here is the problem, it all depends who the Inspector is and what there actual profession is. I have worked on enough public inquiries over the last 20 years for both local authorities and the private sector to know half the battle is the Inspector you get. The lead inspector was Lesley Coffey who is a chartered planner and not an engineer, transport planner etc. I have come across Lesley and she is well known for throwing appeals out on sustainable grounds and is not very roads friendly, so I am not surprised this is the case.

However, the full report does say that the SOS should withhold consent but if minded to approve than the order should be in the form off, so there is wriggle room.

The PM only stated last month that the government would dual the A303 and build a tunnel under Stonehenge in his bid to rebuild the economy after Covid, so I would presume behind the scenes a lot is going on. I would assume that as the PINS letter is 2019, HE have requested the extensions so they can be assured all the issues are addressed. And with the parallel road given it requires MOD land, I am sure that Mr Cummings will ensure that a deal is reached between the civil servants.
The M25 - The road to nowhere
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by Scratchwood »

A303Chris wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:43
A9Dan wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 21:45 Looks like my speculation above was way off the mark, the National Infrastructure Planning website now says that the Secretary of State is minded to refuse the application subject to further evidence. Looking at the letter linked, there seem to be four issues. The report from the Planning Inspectorate is available here, recommending that the Order not be made.
The loss of business to Mattia Diner and the Texaco Petrol station is an interesting one as one of the downsides to new roads is old roads lose business. The inspectors at PINS seem to be worried about the social economic issues on the business and the fact they are not signed. If this is now an issue, all new road schemes are screwed and would the A30 between Exeter and Launceston and across Goss Moor ever been upgraded given how much traffic was taken off the old road. The inspectors seem to say that the garage and diner will not be signed from the new road, which is understandable as the approved services are signed from the Sparkford Roundabout, with approach signs westbound. You don't need two services close by and however reading between the lines the SoS does seem to indicate that if they were signed this objection would be overcome.
I'm baffled that trivial local issues are being given such a disproportionate amount of importance!

It would be like stopping HS2 because by serving a new station in Birmingham (Curzon Street) instead of New Street, a sandwich bar outside New Street station would suffer...
A320Driver
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
Location: Leatherhead

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by A320Driver »

A303Chris wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:43
A9Dan wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 21:45 Looks like my speculation above was way off the mark, the National Infrastructure Planning website now says that the Secretary of State is minded to refuse the application subject to further evidence. Looking at the letter linked, there seem to be four issues. The report from the Planning Inspectorate is available here, recommending that the Order not be made.
Reading this through someone at the HE or there consultants needs a bit of a kick up the bottom. The Non Motorised Users (NMU), not providing a crossing point (bridge / underpass), involving a 5km (3 mile) diversion walk to get round was always going to be a problem given the importance of this in the new DMRB. In fact as a cyclist, if on a long ride that is quite a diversion. At Liss on the A3, the signed cycle route is 2 miles longer than going across the roundabout, and while the HE have tried to put at grade cycle crossing points on the southern approach, they are not the best. That was designed in the 80's, 30 years on though they would have learnt.

The loss of business to Mattia Diner and the Texaco Petrol station is an interesting one as one of the downsides to new roads is old roads lose business. The inspectors at PINS seem to be worried about the social economic issues on the business and the fact they are not signed. If this is now an issue, all new road schemes are screwed and would the A30 between Exeter and Launceston and across Goss Moor ever been upgraded given how much traffic was taken off the old road. The inspectors seem to say that the garage and diner will not be signed from the new road, which is understandable as the approved services are signed from the Sparkford Roundabout, with approach signs westbound. You don't need two services close by and however reading between the lines the SoS does seem to indicate that if they were signed this objection would be overcome.

The parallel access road is also interesting as the argument seems to be without one if an accident occurs there is no diversion route. Not uncommon on other sections of the A303, (Blackford to Chapel Cross, between Wincanton and Sparkford and the A338 to Amesbury come to mind). This seems to have been stirred up by the parish councils worried about traffic Queen Camel and West Camel to the south, if there is an accident. But this is no different to the current position if the A303 is closed here, the advantage being if DC it is more likely to be on one direction. Again are we going to need parallel roads for all new schemes, A30 Chiverton Cross to Carland does not have one for the full length and that was approved by PINS and the SOS last year.

Now here is the problem, it all depends who the Inspector is and what there actual profession is. I have worked on enough public inquiries over the last 20 years for both local authorities and the private sector to know half the battle is the Inspector you get. The lead inspector was Lesley Coffey who is a chartered planner and not an engineer, transport planner etc. I have come across Lesley and she is well known for throwing appeals out on sustainable grounds and is not very roads friendly, so I am not surprised this is the case.

However, the full report does say that the SOS should withhold consent but if minded to approve than the order should be in the form off, so there is wriggle room.

The PM only stated last month that the government would dual the A303 and build a tunnel under Stonehenge in his bid to rebuild the economy after Covid, so I would presume behind the scenes a lot is going on. I would assume that as the PINS letter is 2019, HE have requested the extensions so they can be assured all the issues are addressed. And with the parallel road given it requires MOD land, I am sure that Mr Cummings will ensure that a deal is reached between the civil servants.
Nice summary of the 493 page report.

It’s interesting that the ExA’s report has been disclosed before the SoS has made his decision, I didn’t believe this to be usual practice.

To be honest I am surprised that we manage to get anything built in this country. The government want the scheme done, HE is effectively an arm of the government yet the two sides appear to be fighting each other, because an equestrian wanting to cross the A303 (highly unlikely) or someone might want a burger or some Texaco points, might take offence. Here we have a short, rural, uncomplicated D2 scheme, but it seems that either HE have been somewhat complacent with their attitude, or the ExA is focusing on trivia to block the scheme.

It does sound like HE are going to have to provide a new bridge and tidy up the LAR to satisfy the ExA. The daft thing is that the wriggle room is there for the SoS to override them anyway, I guess time will tell; let’s remember that a contract has already been tendered for this scheme so will there will be financial penalties for withdrawing the scheme now?
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by Debaser »

A303Chris wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:43 Reading this through someone at the HE or there consultants needs a bit of a kick up the bottom. The Non Motorised Users (NMU), not providing a crossing point (bridge / underpass), involving a 5km (3 mile) diversion walk to get round was always going to be a problem given the importance of this in the new DMRB. In fact as a cyclist, if on a long ride that is quite a diversion. At Liss on the A3, the signed cycle route is 2 miles longer than going across the roundabout, and while the HE have tried to put at grade cycle crossing points on the southern approach, they are not the best. That was designed in the 80's, 30 years on though they would have learnt.
To be fair, I believe development started before even the early changes to the DMRB and the changes to the preferred treatment of NMUs/WCHRs. No HEPM is going to say adopt new standards if they even suggest higher costs. To be not quite as fair, the NMU provision could be much better.
A303Chris wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:43 You don't need two services close by and however reading between the lines the SoS does seem to indicate that if they were signed this objection would be overcome.
From previous experience of similar situations, HE seem to have spoken to the owners of these types of business as soon as the problem of being left landlocked became apparent. I don't know why nothing seems to have been done in this case.
A303Chris wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:43 The parallel access road is also interesting as the argument seems to be without one if an accident occurs there is no diversion route. Not uncommon on other sections of the A303, (Blackford to Chapel Cross, between Wincanton and Sparkford and the A338 to Amesbury come to mind). This seems to have been stirred up by the parish councils worried about traffic Queen Camel and West Camel to the south, if there is an accident. But this is no different to the current position if the A303 is closed here, the advantage being if DC it is more likely to be on one direction. Again are we going to need parallel roads for all new schemes, A30 Chiverton Cross to Carland does not have one for the full length and that was approved by PINS and the SOS last year.
I think part of this problem is HE/government kept going on describing it as an expressway or future expressway (with all the traffic restrictions that would entail), when it isn't designed as one nor is it even future-proofed to become one, in terms of allowing for extra space for ERAs, comm.s, etc., which I understand was decided against somewhere near the start of the project.
User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by solocle »

A303Chris wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:43
A9Dan wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 21:45 Looks like my speculation above was way off the mark, the National Infrastructure Planning website now says that the Secretary of State is minded to refuse the application subject to further evidence. Looking at the letter linked, there seem to be four issues. The report from the Planning Inspectorate is available here, recommending that the Order not be made.
Reading this through someone at the HE or there consultants needs a bit of a kick up the bottom. The Non Motorised Users (NMU), not providing a crossing point (bridge / underpass), involving a 5km (3 mile) diversion walk to get round was always going to be a problem given the importance of this in the new DMRB. In fact as a cyclist, if on a long ride that is quite a diversion. At Liss on the A3, the signed cycle route is 2 miles longer than going across the roundabout, and while the HE have tried to put at grade cycle crossing points on the southern approach, they are not the best. That was designed in the 80's, 30 years on though they would have learnt.

The loss of business to Mattia Diner and the Texaco Petrol station is an interesting one as one of the downsides to new roads is old roads lose business. The inspectors at PINS seem to be worried about the social economic issues on the business and the fact they are not signed. If this is now an issue, all new road schemes are screwed and would the A30 between Exeter and Launceston and across Goss Moor ever been upgraded given how much traffic was taken off the old road. The inspectors seem to say that the garage and diner will not be signed from the new road, which is understandable as the approved services are signed from the Sparkford Roundabout, with approach signs westbound. You don't need two services close by and however reading between the lines the SoS does seem to indicate that if they were signed this objection would be overcome.

The parallel access road is also interesting as the argument seems to be without one if an accident occurs there is no diversion route. Not uncommon on other sections of the A303, (Blackford to Chapel Cross, between Wincanton and Sparkford and the A338 to Amesbury come to mind). This seems to have been stirred up by the parish councils worried about traffic Queen Camel and West Camel to the south, if there is an accident. But this is no different to the current position if the A303 is closed here, the advantage being if DC it is more likely to be on one direction. Again are we going to need parallel roads for all new schemes, A30 Chiverton Cross to Carland does not have one for the full length and that was approved by PINS and the SOS last year.

Now here is the problem, it all depends who the Inspector is and what there actual profession is. I have worked on enough public inquiries over the last 20 years for both local authorities and the private sector to know half the battle is the Inspector you get. The lead inspector was Lesley Coffey who is a chartered planner and not an engineer, transport planner etc. I have come across Lesley and she is well known for throwing appeals out on sustainable grounds and is not very roads friendly, so I am not surprised this is the case.

However, the full report does say that the SOS should withhold consent but if minded to approve than the order should be in the form off, so there is wriggle room.

The PM only stated last month that the government would dual the A303 and build a tunnel under Stonehenge in his bid to rebuild the economy after Covid, so I would presume behind the scenes a lot is going on. I would assume that as the PINS letter is 2019, HE have requested the extensions so they can be assured all the issues are addressed. And with the parallel road given it requires MOD land, I am sure that Mr Cummings will ensure that a deal is reached between the civil servants.
That is really quite ridiculous. One of the advantages I see of such a dualing scheme is the advantage to NMUs with a parallel road - the existing sections of "Old A303" are generally a quite pleasant cycle ride. The A303 generally is not - indeed, when I ventured onto it at the start of lockdown, the one unpleasant bit was the SC from the A350 to Mere Bypass!

Of course, wider dualling would increase traffic (if by no other means than removing bottlenecks, let alone induced demand). So if it was a "future expressway", then you'd face problems on stretches without an old route (e.g. Ilchester to Ilminster, part of which currently forms part of a Yeovil CC 10 mile Time Trail course).

Really, the A303 is a long way off expressway standard (not to mention at-grade junctions). The Stonehenge Tunnel makes sense to restrict NMUs, but wider, incomplete, restrictions would just I think be confusing, especially since the lack of "end" signs could mean motorists seeing a "No Cycling" sign, followed by cycles.
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

Post by JammyDodge »

solocle wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 20:15 Really, the A303 is a long way off expressway standard (not to mention at-grade junctions). The Stonehenge Tunnel makes sense to restrict NMUs, but wider, incomplete, restrictions would just I think be confusing, especially since the lack of "end" signs could mean motorists seeing a "No Cycling" sign, followed by cycles.
I think the only part of the A303 that is of excellent quality is the Andover Bypass section, opened in 1969 I think.
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
Post Reply