Road Investment Strategy 2

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

delinquentwoody
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 07:32

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by delinquentwoody »

Page 74, it says "Improving the A46 ‘Trans-Midlands Trade
Corridor’ between the M5 and the
Humber Ports. Work in RP2 will create a
continuous dual carriageway from Lincoln
to Warwick, delivering one of Midlands
Connect’s key priorities."
Except the improvement works to the Humber Ports aren't going to happen north of Lincoln.. elsewhere it mentions this traffic "from the Humber Ports" has to go through a 3 mile single carriageway on the A46 at Newark... what about the 18 mile stretch of A15 above Lincoln!
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Debaser »

jackal wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 18:18
Herned wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 17:35
jackal wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 17:25 The document is very clear about the sequencing:
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they won't push back the start of the other schemes until after Stonehenge is finished, which is my point. Lots of the RIS1 schemes still haven't started and now we are nearly in RIS2
Stonehenge doesn't start construction until next year and is expected to open in 2026 (https://highwaysengland.co.uk/wp-conten ... 019-vi.pdf). Hence the follow on schemes they are talking about are RIS3, not RIS2.

Furthermore the contract for Sparkford to Ilchester is already awarded to Galliford Try and construction should start in the next couple of months.
I think the 'sequencing' mentioned above is simply listing the schemes from east to west. I can assure everyone that HE is currently spending a lot of money having the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester detail designed. Now, it's not above HE to suddenly turn off those money taps, but, given the programme, it is highly unlikely.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by jackal »

^ I just meant sequence as in the three RIS2 schemes first, then the RIS3 ones, rather than the order among the RIS2 schemes. I know that seems obvious but it is disputed above! As you say, Sparkford will certainly start first.
User avatar
ChrisH
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by ChrisH »

I realised why the RIS2 investment schemes list looks a bit shorter than expected. Previously the Lower Thames Crossing and Stonehenge Tunnel were to be funded / financed through PFI, but that was pulled in 2018. So now the capital cost of these two big-ticket items makes up about £8bn of the £27bn investment in RIS2.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Herned »

jackal wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 08:28 ^ I just meant sequence as in the three RIS2 schemes first, then the RIS3 ones, rather than the order among the RIS2 schemes. I know that seems obvious but it is disputed above! As you say, Sparkford will certainly start first.
I am not disputing anything. I'm simply pointing out that the way HE have worded that paragraph jumps out as being cover for something. Government statements have a habit of doing similar things, making innocuous sounding phrases that actually mean far more. If lots is being spent on detailed design for Sparkford then great - it just seems strange that the A30 scheme was authorised before this even though it was submitted earlier
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by jackal »

The 'new' schemes in the RIS3 pipeline:

NORTH
A19 North of Newcastle Junctions
M1 Leeds Eastern Gateway
M6 Junctions 19-21A Knutsford to Croft extra capacity
Manchester South East Junction improvements

MIDLANDS
M6 Junction 15 Potteries Southern Access
A483 Pant-Llanymynech Bypass (in cooperation with the Welsh Government)
A5 Hinckley to Tamworth

EAST
A47/A1101 Elm Road Junction
A11 Fiveways Junction
M11 Junction 13 Cambridge West
A12/A14 Copdock Interchange
A120 Braintree to A12
A404/M40 Junction 4 High Wycombe
Tilbury Link Road

THE SOUTH AND WEST
Severn Resilience Package
A2 Brenley Corner
A303 Phase 2 upgrade
A3/A247 Ripley South
A21 safety package
A27 Lewes to Polegate [not to be confused with RIS2's A27 East of Lewes Package]
M27 Southampton Access [not to be confused with RIS2's M27 Junction 8]
A38 Trerulefoot-Carkeel safety package
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by jackal »

ChrisH wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 09:01 I realised why the RIS2 investment schemes list looks a bit shorter than expected. Previously the Lower Thames Crossing and Stonehenge Tunnel were to be funded / financed through PFI, but that was pulled in 2018. So now the capital cost of these two big-ticket items makes up about £8bn of the £27bn investment in RIS2.
Yes this is a factor. Actually only about half of the RIS2 budget goes on capital enhancements, though the cost of the LTC and Stonehenge will be spread between RIS2 and RIS3 (hence why the list of RIS3 schemes is quite modest).
Glom
Member
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 17:05
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Glom »

What are they planning at High Wycombe?
User avatar
haymansafc
Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 16:52
Location: Ellesmere Port, Cheshire

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by haymansafc »

It's disappointing to see the M56 junctions 6-8, M62 Junctions 20 – 25 and M6 Junctions 21a-26 'upgrade' to Smart Motorway remain on the cards. I honestly thought recent coverage of Smart Motorways overall would have been enough for this to be at least reconsidered.

On a more positive note, it's good to see the remaining S2 sections of the A66 across the Pennines getting dualled. It's been a long time coming, that…

I'll be astonished if anything actually comes to fruition on an M65 to A1(M) link.
The journey is never over until the arrival.
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Debaser »

Herned wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 09:05
jackal wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 08:28 ^ I just meant sequence as in the three RIS2 schemes first, then the RIS3 ones, rather than the order among the RIS2 schemes. I know that seems obvious but it is disputed above! As you say, Sparkford will certainly start first.
I am not disputing anything. I'm simply pointing out that the way HE have worded that paragraph jumps out as being cover for something. Government statements have a habit of doing similar things, making innocuous sounding phrases that actually mean far more. If lots is being spent on detailed design for Sparkford then great - it just seems strange that the A30 scheme was authorised before this even though it was submitted earlier
Note that a lot of RIS 2 schemes have had to be redesigned value engineered due to the initial cost estimates being absurdly low and not covering the costs of even the basic items initially required of the schemes (e.g. full GSJs made compact, free-flow links removed, cross-sections reduced, etc.).
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by RichardA35 »

Debaser wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:56
Herned wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 09:05
jackal wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 08:28 ^ I just meant sequence as in the three RIS2 schemes first, then the RIS3 ones, rather than the order among the RIS2 schemes. I know that seems obvious but it is disputed above! As you say, Sparkford will certainly start first.
I am not disputing anything. I'm simply pointing out that the way HE have worded that paragraph jumps out as being cover for something. Government statements have a habit of doing similar things, making innocuous sounding phrases that actually mean far more. If lots is being spent on detailed design for Sparkford then great - it just seems strange that the A30 scheme was authorised before this even though it was submitted earlier
Note that a lot of RIS 2 schemes have had to be redesigned value engineered due to the initial cost estimates being absurdly low and not covering the costs of even the basic items initially required of the schemes (e.g. full GSJs made compact, free-flow links removed, cross-sections reduced, etc.).
We've covered this at Chichester for instance in the past, but it might make a bit more sense for DfT/HE to develop more schemes a little bit further so that a sensible estimate can be developed. Assess competing schemes and value for money so we can have a meaningful preparation pool rather than just using "marker pens on a map" every 5 years and a guess at the RIS budget.
Noted that we don't yet appear to have any expressway retrofit/conversion level 2-3-4 schemes.
User avatar
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31459
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by roadtester »

I'm just working my way through the document now. Interesting that on P26/7 they address the possibility that traffic may increase due to electrification, which, because it is much cheaper per mile, could encourage people to drive. I've been saying this for several years!
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Glom
Member
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 17:05
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Glom »

With regenerative braking, stop start traffic isn't as wasteful. Still wasteful, but not as wasteful.
NICK 647063
Member
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 17:48
Location: Leeds

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by NICK 647063 »

It's disappointing to see the M56 junctions 6-8, M62 Junctions 20 – 25 and M6 Junctions 21a-26 'upgrade' to Smart Motorway remain on the cards. I honestly thought recent coverage of Smart Motorways overall would have been enough for this to be at least reconsidered.
Was a good feature on BBC Yorkshire tonight saying that the government have reviewed smart motorways and will continue the roll out, emergency refuges will be every 3 quarters of a mile, these will be signed distance wise between, radar will be fitted and emergency response time will be maximum 10 minutes, the M1 accident cluster sites will be look at for improvements and it also said the M62 south west of Leeds will have the current hard shoulder running converted into a permanent running lane as it’s simply too confusing and often for technical reasons it cannot be opened and traffic is queued miles.
User avatar
Achmelvic
Member
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 21:50
Location: Castleford, Yorkshire

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Achmelvic »

Does anyone know what they have in mind for the ‘M1 Leeds Eastern Gateway’? Junction change at J46 or something bigger?

Disappointed Lofthouse improvements have been kicked further into the future, another 5 yrs of accidents, near misses and daily jams to live with....
Glenn A
Member
Posts: 9751
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 19:31
Location: Cumbria

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Glenn A »

I did read the last section of S2 on the A30 is to be upgraded. This is vital for Cornwall as the congestion in holiday time is terrible and also holds back the county's economy.
Closer to home, I notice a consultation is to be held on dualling the remaining S2 sections A66 from Penrith to Scotch Corner. I should hope this is dealt with as a priority as one in three vehicles on this road is an HGV, some moving quite slowly, and also any accident can close the road for hours.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by RichardA35 »

jackal wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 17:17 Full list of schemes identified as 'Developed for next road period' (i.e. RIS2) in 2014, with their current status:

A64 Hopgrove Junction - RIS3
M1/M62 Lofthouse Interchange - RIS3
A1 Redhouse to Darrington - RIS3 (now part of A1 Doncaster to Darrington)
A1(M) Doncaster Bypass - RIS3 (now part of A1 Doncaster to Darrington)
M1 Junctions 35A-39 - RIS3
M60 Simister Island Interchange - RIS2
A46 Newark Northern Bypass - RIS2
M1 Junctions 19-23A - RIS3
M5/M42 Birmingham Box Phase 4 - cancelled?
A45 Stanwick to Thrapston - cancelled?
A12 Colchester Bypass widening - cancelled?
A12 M25 to Chelmsford - cancelled?
Lower Thames Crossing - RIS2
A417 'Missing link' at Air Balloon - RIS2

The government didn't commit to building these schemes in 2014 so it's not surprising that many haven't made it into RIS2, especially given unanticipated cost increases across the programme.
Simister Island tender documents issued recently, apparently..
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Debaser »

jackal wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 16:25
Berk wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 16:09 In view of recent remarks and court action, is this now a first draft?? Or will a revised version, or implementation plan be available shortly??
This is the final version. There's been a lot of nonsense in the press (RIS2 gutted, delayed until the summer or scrapped altogether), all now disproven.
Looks like there may be a challenge to RIS2.
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by SouthWest Philip »

Glom wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 09:59 What are they planning at High Wycombe?
I don't know but would hope that it would be provision of or third lane through jnc 4 of the M40, presumably by removing the hard shoulders, and extending the merges from the slip roads either side to compensate for loss of lane drops/gains. This is well overdue.
User avatar
Arcuarius
Member
Posts: 4664
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 17:14
Location: Sherwood

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Arcuarius »

haymansafc wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:20 It's disappointing to see the M56 junctions 6-8, M62 Junctions 20 – 25 and M6 Junctions 21a-26 'upgrade' to Smart Motorway remain on the cards. I honestly thought recent coverage of Smart Motorways overall would have been enough for this to be at least reconsidered.
Good. They're much needed. Nothing to reconsider here.
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."
- some extreme-right nutcase


1973-2007 Never forgotten
Post Reply