Roads building vs holistic transport policy

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
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3202
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Patrick Harper »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:29
Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:23Is this not the same sort of confidence that is expected from motorists? What's the sense in the notion that cyclists should be exempt from this?
The casualty stats for cyclists at roundabouts
...would be lower if 1) cyclists could negotiate roundabouts in a way so that potential accidents become easier to spot and avoid, and if we didn't have
stupid engineering standards [that] insist it's perfectly safe to stick a cyclist in the blind spot of a HGV negotiating a multi-lane roundabout.
It's been proven for years that roundabouts and cyclists do not mix
I think what you mean is motorists fail to see cyclists a lot at roundabouts. Maybe the solution is to train them to spot cyclists? Is that not already happening?
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Chris Bertram »

marconaf wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:49 The roads provide c.50Bn income, but <10Bn is spent on the roads.
Can we try to break this down, since we have Bryn up above telling us that road users don't come close to covering these costs. There's VED, there's Fuel Duty, there's the VAT on fuel, there are tolls on a few roads and bridges, what else would you include?
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Chris5156 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 09:17 That's not just an answer to traffic congestion, it's also an answer (as Richard says) to improving the health of the general population over the long term, and it's an answer to spiking air pollution levels.
Cynically, I would suggest that permanently closing every branch of McDonalds, Burger King, Greggs and KFC (etc) would have a much more positive effect on improving the health of the general population over the long term.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Herned »

marconaf wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:49 The roads provide c.50Bn income, but <10Bn is spent on the roads.
No, to meaningfully compare the two in this way you need to include the cost of every vehicle, every service and every litre of fuel, and all the rest of the costs of the road network, because that is what the £22bn rail number includes
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by FosseWay »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:29
Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:23
FosseWay wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:47Regarding the route down the old A6 - yes, I think your assessment as good for 15-20 mph average is fair - *on the roadway*. But as I said, there is quite a lot of traffic on that road despite the bypass, and there are roundabouts that require a degree of confidence in your interaction with other users.
Is this not the same sort of confidence that is expected from motorists? What's the sense in the notion that cyclists should be exempt from this?
The casualty stats for cyclists at roundabouts perhaps?

It's been proven for years that roundabouts and cyclists do not mix, hence why the Dutch build their variation that sends everyone onto a parallel cycle track. It's only this country where stupid engineering standards insist it's perfectly safe to stick a cyclist in the blind spot of a HGV negotiating a multi-lane roundabout.

Continental roundabouts have left our designs stuck in 1973. It's time we caught up.
Basically I agree with Bryn, certainly regarding roundabouts (I'd also add normal junctions, light-controlled or not, where the cyclist has to get into a right-hand lane in order to go right or straight on). It isn't the same sort of confidence as is expected of motorists, because the situations are different. You can argue that a motorcyclist (by which I mean a proper one, not a two-wheel Trabi merchant) should be confident and skilful enough to hold their own on the carriageway in the same way as a car driver. Motorcycles are capable of maintaining the same speed as traffic in general, and are equipped with brakes whose performance takes those speeds into account. That's not true of cyclists. You simply can't be expected to hold your own in traffic when you're doing a fraction of the speed of everyone else; passing vehicles create turbulence that you need to deal with as a cyclist but not a car driver, and so on.

However, Patrick Harper has a point regarding cyclists' confidence/training in other contexts. There is no earthly need for a cycle path alongside a residential road with a 30 or 40 km/h limit, and such "cycle paths" are positively injurious when they are in fact just the pavement with a sign. I live just off this road. It is an S1 with passing places, with a 30 km/h limit and speed humps that take your sump out if you do more than 20 over them. Alongside is a pavement that is just about wide enough for two people to walk abreast. There is no way on God's earth that a competent cyclist needs separate provision here, and certainly not at the expense of pedestrians. I don't think I've ever been overtaken by a driver when I've cycled there, because on a bike I can take the humps faster than most drivers are happy with, and because of the width. As a driver I've never either overtaken a cyclist or felt I would like to but can't. No-one is going very far in this context; a cyclist need not feel hassled by following traffic and the following traffic really doesn't need to shorten their journey by 5 seconds. This is a classic place where a low speed limit and natural traffic calming in the form of the road width and limited visibility make the roadway perfect for shared motor/cycle use, leaving pedestrians in peace on the pavement. But no, we have to cater for the terminally dumb minority among cyclists who cannot possibly share the roadway with a car however slow it's driving.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
marconaf
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 14:42

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by marconaf »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:03
marconaf wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:49 The roads provide c.50Bn income, but <10Bn is spent on the roads.
Can we try to break this down, since we have Bryn up above telling us that road users don't come close to covering these costs. There's VED, there's Fuel Duty, there's the VAT on fuel, there are tolls on a few roads and bridges, what else would you include?
I’ve noted an awful lot of assertions which rarely seem to match with facts, let alone are provided with them...


Expectations (IFS report arguing for road pricing) 20-21 are 28Bn fuel tax, 6Bn VAT on top of that and 6Bn VED. Tolls are relatively small beer in comparison but roughly getting to 50Bn total.

Against that:
Emissions are expected to cost c4Bn per year from the roads.
Accidents c.12Bn per year - although unknown what that cost is (ie long term impact upon people and damage is of course covered by insurance which has vast direct costs) and whether it is directly attributable.
Congestion is estimated in the region of 10s of Billions - and this is what the “anti car” lunatics pin their “cost of motoring” mantra on yet unlike the other costs this isn’t real, and could of course be resolved with more roads. It reflects a lot of assumptions on people’s time but fundamentally is actually a crtique of the system as it is vs what it could/should be and if more of the income from motorists was spent on more roads - this would reduce.

No equivalent figures for rail exist noting little of rail is much greener than the road whilst rail massively suppresses demand through high marginal costs of fares so the “lost cost” of people not taking journeys aka congestion cost is hard (noting the railway would also take a heavy cost here if missed trains as rammed full etc was calculated similarly).

All in all a minefield. It doesn’t really matter however as fundamentally we know what we should do:
1) maintain mass private vehicles for most if not all (autonomy giving this to those currently excluded) and associsted road improvements - focussing on freeflowing options between and around urban areas, in urban areas seek to eliminate through traffic.
2) develop mass transit on large flows (rail) and smaller local ones (buses) where that is a practicable alternative using subsidy to balance fares and costs.
3) support local cycling/pedestrian travel where that is a practicable alternative. Emphasis here really can only be within urban areas or between closely spaced ones with notable flows. This to be tied in with (1).

Any ideology to focus on one to the exclusion of others is stupid, and “anti car” zealotry and associated assertions are best ignored.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Herned wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:09 No, to meaningfully compare the two in this way you need to include the cost of every vehicle, every service and every litre of fuel, and all the rest of the costs of the road network, because that is what the £22bn rail number includes
OK... compare and contrast:
  • the entire UK road building budget for RIS2 [2020-2025] £27 bn
  • one railway line (HS2) £100 bn
Or Crossrail... approx £20 bn spent, but not yet open
marconaf
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 14:42

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by marconaf »

Herned wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:09
marconaf wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:49 The roads provide c.50Bn income, but <10Bn is spent on the roads.
No, to meaningfully compare the two in this way you need to include the cost of every vehicle, every service and every litre of fuel, and all the rest of the costs of the road network, because that is what the £22bn rail number includes
Nope.

All those costs are borne by the people directly.

The Govt provides 7Bn of a 22Bn industry. That is direct subsidy.

In comparison on the roads, the Govt provides about 10? Bn yet takes in near to 50 Bn in tax which pays for that 4-5 times over. The industry as a whole is probably 100s of Bns including vehicles, consumables, insurance and so on.

So we have the railways where 1/3rd of all costs are direct subsidy, and the roads where that equivalent proportion is not only just a few %, but is actually negative - the Govt profits from the roads enormously.

And again, 10% of traffic is on rail, c80% on the roads.

So the comparison is very valid in showing how we subsidise rail and the implications of what might be if that was adopted with roads.

If we for instance treated roads as railways, the Govt paying 1/3rd of the cost of the entire industry (after income from the people using it has been accounted for) - imagine what that would mean in terms of no taxes, subsidised fuel/vehicles/insurance and road spending 10x what it is!
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Micro The Maniac »

marconaf wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:36 If we for instance treated roads as railways, the Govt paying 1/3rd of the cost of the entire industry (after income from the people using it has been accounted for) - imagine what that would mean in terms of no taxes, subsidised fuel/vehicles/insurance and road spending 10x what it is!
Yebbut... imagine everything else that we WOULDN'T have, if £lots of billions were not available. Or imagine the other taxes that would be raised instead?
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Herned »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:28 OK... compare and contrast:
  • the entire UK road building budget for RIS2 [2020-2025] £27 bn
  • one railway line (HS2) £100 bn
But the comparison would be the cost of the entire M1 and the M6 as far as Wigan, which I would hazard a guess would be somewhat higher than the cost of Hs2
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Bryn666 »

Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:54
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:29
Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:23Is this not the same sort of confidence that is expected from motorists? What's the sense in the notion that cyclists should be exempt from this?
The casualty stats for cyclists at roundabouts
...would be lower if 1) cyclists could negotiate roundabouts in a way so that potential accidents become easier to spot and avoid, and if we didn't have
stupid engineering standards [that] insist it's perfectly safe to stick a cyclist in the blind spot of a HGV negotiating a multi-lane roundabout.
It's been proven for years that roundabouts and cyclists do not mix
I think what you mean is motorists fail to see cyclists a lot at roundabouts. Maybe the solution is to train them to spot cyclists? Is that not already happening?
You are not aware of the principles of hazard reduction then?

The safest answer to these conflicts is to remove one of them out of the equation - hence segregated cycle routes at roundabouts. Hence the CYCLOPS, hence every cycle signal junction in the Netherlands.

Nobody has managed to get this "share the road" thing to work at junctions. That is why we have one of the lowest rates of cycling in Europe, because engineers think "share the road" work when KSIs demonstrably show it does not.
Last edited by Bryn666 on Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:51, edited 1 time in total.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Bryn666 »

Herned wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:42
Micro The Maniac wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:28 OK... compare and contrast:
  • the entire UK road building budget for RIS2 [2020-2025] £27 bn
  • one railway line (HS2) £100 bn
But the comparison would be the cost of the entire M1 and the M6 as far as Wigan, which I would hazard a guess would be somewhat higher than the cost of Hs2
At least £130m per mile, so the M6 alone at today's prices would be £30bn. But then you factor in the Lake District and West Midlands sections which had extreme technical challenges - mountains and building through an urban area - so I'd put the price tag closer to £40bn.

But this is still not apples with apples is it - railway engineering is completely different to road engineering in terms of materials and structural content.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Herned wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:42 But the comparison would be the cost of the entire M1 and the M6 as far as Wigan, which I would hazard a guess would be somewhat higher than the cost of Hs2
You will forgive me for not trawling back through 60+ years of records to work out the historical costs :-)

But the biggest current new road project (the Lower Thames Crossing) is budgeted at approx £7bn for a 14-odd mile challenge. So the costs per mile are comparable, just on a different scale.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Herned »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:50 You will forgive me for not trawling back through 60+ years of records to work out the historical costs :-)
That's a bit slack!

You would also have to account for the capacity: Hs2 will have capacity for ~17,000 people per hour in each direction when it opens. Which is about 8 motorway lanes
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3202
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Patrick Harper »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:44
Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:54I think what you mean is motorists fail to see cyclists a lot at roundabouts. Maybe the solution is to train them to spot cyclists? Is that not already happening?
The safest answer to these conflicts is to remove one of them out of the equation - hence segregated cycle routes at roundabouts. Hence the CYCLOPS, hence every cycle signal junction in the Netherlands.
Or convert them to traffic light-controlled crossroads? That would be more of an inconvenience to motorists.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Bryn666 »

Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 14:27
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:44
Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:54I think what you mean is motorists fail to see cyclists a lot at roundabouts. Maybe the solution is to train them to spot cyclists? Is that not already happening?
The safest answer to these conflicts is to remove one of them out of the equation - hence segregated cycle routes at roundabouts. Hence the CYCLOPS, hence every cycle signal junction in the Netherlands.
Or convert them to traffic light-controlled crossroads? That would be more of an inconvenience to motorists.
It isn't about inconveniencing motorists, it's about improving safety. And signal junctions have more conflict points than roundabouts, so are more dangerous for cyclists unless you build all the segregated infrastructure already mentioned.

Have you read the CROW manual? It's worth a look. Compare it with what we had before LTN 1/20 (inspired by much of it) and see what you make of it.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3202
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Patrick Harper »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 14:48
Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 14:27
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:44 The safest answer to these conflicts is to remove one of them out of the equation - hence segregated cycle routes at roundabouts. Hence the CYCLOPS, hence every cycle signal junction in the Netherlands.
Or convert them to traffic light-controlled crossroads? That would be more of an inconvenience to motorists.
It isn't about inconveniencing motorists, it's about improving safety. And signal junctions have more conflict points than roundabouts, so are more dangerous for cyclists unless you build all the segregated infrastructure already mentioned.

Have you read the CROW manual? It's worth a look. Compare it with what we had before LTN 1/20 (inspired by much of it) and see what you make of it.
The CROW manual is like over €120...err, no thanks.
crb11
Member
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:35
Location: Cambridge

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by crb11 »

FosseWay wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:47
I broadly agree with that, though I'm not sure what the objection to cycle paths alongside NSL dual carriageways is specifically - I'm taking it as read that there are adequate barriers between vehicles and cyclists for safety not to be an issue.
From my point of view the downsides are the constant noise of traffic, plus being pushed sideways from the pressure around lorries, plus psychologically having vehicles come up behind you at a much higher speed, and the scenery is predominantly road. Not anything unsafe, but makes the journey more stressful and less pleasant.

It's not just NSL dual carriageways as the same things apply to other roads to a lesser degree, but it's at that point where it tips over from something I'm not keen on but can live with, to something that I think I'd want to actively avoid.
[real name Colin]
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Phil »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:47
But this is still not apples with apples is it - railway engineering is completely different to road engineering in terms of materials and structural content.
Yes and no. In other threads you have been keen to make out there is some sort of absolute separation between the disciplines when the reality is somewhat different.

There is 'railway engineering' as in things like track, traction power and signalling systems and there is 'railway engineering' as in things like bridges, embankments, tunnels, drainage, etc

Basically when it comes to the underlying groundworks, things like embankments, cuttings, draingae need to be built to the same standards regardless of whether you are building a motorway or a railway. The tragic derailment at Stonehaven shows what happens if you try and economise (as the Victorians did) in a time with ever more frequent storms / extreme rainfall events.

Also because it is now a requirement to have decent track side access paths (so as staff are not forced to walk on the tracks for fear of falling down a steep embankment for example), plus wider track spacing to ease the aerodynamic issues at higher speeds etc, your average new build double track railway now needs the same footprint as a S2 road.

Consequently until it comes to lay the track, HS2 is basically being built in the same way as a high quality S2 road and thus no more expensive or technically challenging than any other new build road project would be (assuming that NIMBYS demanded said road be put in lots of long tunnels so it doesn't lower their house price)

Thus the main difference between road and rail construction is simply the volume of work - i.e. because a dual carriageway is wider than a railway more earth needs to be moved, bridges need to be wider, etc.

Now I know it could be said that earthworks / bridgeworks etc are actually civil engineering rather than specifically road or railway engineering disciplines, but its interesting to consider how as the roads are getting more congested, several principles (if not the technology as such) that started out on the railways have migrated over to the road network.

For example a 'Smart' motorway requires hundreds of vehicle sensors (think track circuits on railways) to help the system determine what speeds need to be set. You have MS4s (think signals on the railways) at frequent intervals to set speed limits, Cameras to enforce them (think TPWS on railways). You have a network of emergency phones (think signal post / level crossing phones) linked to a 24/7 control room (think signal box on the railway). Finally you have the Highways agencies looking at developing stalled vehicle technology for its ALR motorway schemes (think obstacle detection at level crossings on the railways).
Uncle Buck
Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 23:33

Re: Roads building vs holistic transport policy

Post by Uncle Buck »

Herned wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 14:15
Micro The Maniac wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 13:50 You will forgive me for not trawling back through 60+ years of records to work out the historical costs :-)
That's a bit slack!

You would also have to account for the capacity: Hs2 will have capacity for ~17,000 people per hour in each direction when it opens. Which is about 8 motorway lanes
I’m surprised nobody else is saying this! One train full of people takes several hundred cars off the road, assuming that most cars are single-occupancy. A functioning road network needs good public transport.
Post Reply