Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

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
XC70
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 23:22

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by XC70 »

KeithW wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 15:06
Debaser wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 13:47 Turning into a side road from one direction and cresting a rise from the other and running between a public park and a primary school, with, as you say a zebra crossing in front on a carriageway looking to be less than 6m wide? I'd hope drivers would certainly be driving to those conditions and be prepared for anything to happen.
Indeed but cyclists riding at speed across the road from a blind spot on your left can be a challenge to say the least. Remember a driver is is sitting rather lower than the camera of a Google Street View car. This is why the barriers were put across the shared cycle/foot path before the crossing. They have 2 functions, 1) Alerting the cyclists to crossing traffic and 2) the sight of the barriers alerts drivers to the risk. The road has a 20 mph speed limit. In that part of Coulby Newham most footways and shared use routes are actually grade separated for NMU's

This is how pedestrians and cyclists from that primary school cross Stainton Way.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.52146 ... 8192?hl=en
We are going slightly off topic here, but in Scunthorpe they have made the main road giveway to the cycle track which has priority crossing over the humped section. Problem is I am not convinced that any of the drivers realise that they have to give way to any approaching bikes from left or right. The road looks like it is going straight on so I assume most drivers just think they have priority. I have not seen such a solution anywhere else apart from Scunny.
XC70
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 23:22

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by XC70 »

Sorry forgot the link. Here is GSV of one of them:-

93 Ferry Rd
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9ovDKiMetfaJsANV6
User avatar
Bertiebus
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 15:12
Location: The land of haggis bothering, NE division

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by Bertiebus »

trickstat wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 13:49 Probably the scariest of all there's a footpath about 3 miles from where I live that used to cross all 4 lines of the East Coast Main Line. About 20 years ago, my parents did a walk that included it. Thankfully they have now put in a footbridge.

I've just checked and the footpath is actually the Icknield Way which is several hundred years older than the ECML.
I don't see why that would be the 'scariest' - there tend to be rather longer gaps between trains than cars. As long as you look carefully both ways, you won't be expecting the next train to come along on one line immediately behind the previous one, as you would vehicles on a busy road. A car or lorry at 70mph will kill you every bit as readily as a train will.

That said, the general public undoubtedly engage no more common sense when using level crossings than they do when crossing the road.
Rambo
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 19:56
Contact:

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by Rambo »

Bertiebus wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 19:38
trickstat wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 13:49 Probably the scariest of all there's a footpath about 3 miles from where I live that used to cross all 4 lines of the East Coast Main Line. About 20 years ago, my parents did a walk that included it. Thankfully they have now put in a footbridge.

I've just checked and the footpath is actually the Icknield Way which is several hundred years older than the ECML.
I don't see why that would be the 'scariest' - there tend to be rather longer gaps between trains than cars. As long as you look carefully both ways, you won't be expecting the next train to come along on one line immediately behind the previous one, as you would vehicles on a busy road. A car or lorry at 70mph will kill you every bit as readily as a train will.

That said, the general public undoubtedly engage no more common sense when using level crossings than they do when crossing the road.
Perhaps not ‘scary’ but an unusual experience. There are a few foot crossings on the east coast mainline which are across four tracks and the line speed is a max of 125mph. Which i’d say could be just as daunting as crossing a NSl dual carriageway where at least you can refuge in the middle. Still quite dangerous obviously.
User avatar
Helvellyn
Member
Posts: 24664
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:31
Location: High Peak

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by Helvellyn »

An electric train travelling at 125 mph can be on you before you know it. I wouldn't fancy crossing 4 fast lines on foot.
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by trickstat »

Bertiebus wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 19:38
trickstat wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 13:49 Probably the scariest of all there's a footpath about 3 miles from where I live that used to cross all 4 lines of the East Coast Main Line. About 20 years ago, my parents did a walk that included it. Thankfully they have now put in a footbridge.

I've just checked and the footpath is actually the Icknield Way which is several hundred years older than the ECML.
I don't see why that would be the 'scariest' - there tend to be rather longer gaps between trains than cars. As long as you look carefully both ways, you won't be expecting the next train to come along on one line immediately behind the previous one, as you would vehicles on a busy road. A car or lorry at 70mph will kill you every bit as readily as a train will.

That said, the general public undoubtedly engage no more common sense when using level crossings than they do when crossing the road.
I can think of a few reasons:

1. A train takes much longer to slow down or stop than a car or even a lorry.
2. A train cannot take evasive action to miss you.
3. A tarmacked road is a much better surface for when you realise that you need to speed up or even run than what is likely to be a wooden boardwalk with gaps in it for the rails.
4. Inter-city trains on the ECML travel at 125mph which is faster than approximately 99.99% of vehicles on a typical dual carriageway.
5. There is no central reservation to act as a refuge.

Yes, you will probably have to wait longer at the side of the road but I would find setting off across the railway more daunting.
someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by someone »

4b. Faster trains produce much greater aerodynamic forces than road traffic.

Whilst there is an enforced gap safety between trains, that is only useful to know when it is safe to cross if in a given location you see a train pass on each track in a short period of time.
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by trickstat »

someone wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 22:15 4b. Faster trains produce much greater aerodynamic forces than road traffic.

Whilst there is an enforced gap safety between trains, that is only useful to know when it is safe to cross if in a given location you see a train pass on each track in a short period of time.
Good point - it is more dangerous to be just missed by a train.

If you have 4 tracks having a train pass on each of them within a short time is pretty rare. The commuter trains on the ECML near me may get up to about 80 mph.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by KeithW »

trickstat wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 21:21
I can think of a few reasons:

1. A train takes much longer to slow down or stop than a car or even a lorry.
2. A train cannot take evasive action to miss you.
3. A tarmacked road is a much better surface for when you realise that you need to speed up or even run than what is likely to be a wooden boardwalk with gaps in it for the rails.
4. Inter-city trains on the ECML travel at 125mph which is faster than approximately 99.99% of vehicles on a typical dual carriageway.
5. There is no central reservation to act as a refuge.

Yes, you will probably have to wait longer at the side of the road but I would find setting off across the railway more daunting.
Well yes but there are positives to the situation with the ECML

1) Most of it is straight as an arrow so in good visibility you can see a very long way.
2) High Speed Trains have to be spaced so if one has to stop the next behind has to be able to stop safely, this is not the case on the A1.

Compare and contrast the ECML at Tempsford
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.15742 ... 6656?hl=en

and the A1
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.15708 ... 6656?hl=en

In addition there is CCTV coverage of the ECML crossing.

I would be very cautious crossing the ECML at Tempsford on foot but I would not attempt to do so on the A1.
someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by someone »

KeithW wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 09:18Well yes but there are positives to the situation with the ECML

1) Most of it is straight as an arrow so in good visibility you can see a very long way.
It is much more difficult to judge speed of something coming head-on than for something running across your field of vision. The worst place to cross a road or railway is where it is only a flat straight line.

It is very easy to watch something coming towards you for a few seconds and it seem like it has barely moved and is still far away. This can give a false sense of security as to how much time you have to cross, as it can then suddenly reach you very quickly.

This causes accidents on straight roads, where people attempt overtakes without appreciating how much space they actually have.

Unless someone regularly crosses railway lines, they will also have no ability to judge the time it will take for a train travelling at 100 mph or more to reach them. 70 mph roads are common and, generally, more heavily trafficked so people are more easily able to learn how much time to cross they have and need.
KeithW wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 09:18I would be very cautious crossing the ECML at Tempsford on foot but I would not attempt to do so on the A1.
The railway example is a controlled level crossing making it akin to using a pelican crossing. So I am not even sure why you would need to be cautious there, unless you have reason to suspect the barriers and lights are faulty.

The road example contains no crossing facility for pedestrians that you would even need to climb over two crash barriers to cross it. This is more akin to trespassing on the railway

I am not sure what those examples were meant to illustrate.

Maybe there are none left on the ECML, but there are uncontrolled pedestrian crossings across the railway network. Were people have to judge for themselves when it is safe to cross, just like they have to do when crossing a road where no specific amends have been made.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by RichardA35 »

KeithW wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 09:18I would be very cautious crossing the ECML at Tempsford on foot but I would not attempt to do so on the A1.
But several years ago the HA spent a deal of money linking the parts of Tempsford village together with a monster footbridge so why would it even cross anyone's mind as a possibility to try it on foot unless they were terminally reckless?
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by trickstat »

RichardA35 wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:29
KeithW wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 09:18I would be very cautious crossing the ECML at Tempsford on foot but I would not attempt to do so on the A1.
But several years ago the HA spent a deal of money linking the parts of Tempsford village together with a monster footbridge so why would it even cross anyone's mind as a possibility to try it on foot unless they were terminally reckless?
The ECML is just to the east of the easternmost extremity of the village and is probably about half a mile east of the A1 so crossing it is not relevant to a walk within the village itself. The crossing would be considered a limiting factor for those wishing to go for a walk towards areas east of the village.
User avatar
rhyds
Member
Posts: 13724
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 15:51
Location: Beautiful North Wales

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by rhyds »

Debaser wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 16:43
rhyds wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 16:16 Do statutory wildlife requirements count against such investment? What I mean is the wildlife mitigation (bat bridges etc.) having statutory requriements behind it mean that "has" to have money spent on it, while NMU provision is a "best effort" (i.e. "not much effort")?
The DMRB (supposedly the Bible of trunk road design) has required decent NMU provision to be included in scheme designs since at least 2005;
TA 91/05: Provision for Non-motorised Users wrote: “1.6 All NMUs have a legal right to use the public highway, unless specifically prohibited.

1.7 Encouraging modal shift, particularly to walking and cycling, has a very important role to play in creating a more integrated and sustainable transport system.

1.8 All-purpose trunk roads typically carry high flows of fast-moving traffic and are generally unattractive for NMUs to travel along or across. However, trunk roads often provide important links or routes for NMUs, representing the quickest, most direct route between key destinations, and are often used because of the lack of more convenient alternatives. As such there is a need to ensure that scheme designs take full account of NMU requirements, and that opportunities are taken to encourage safer and more attractive provision wherever possible.

3.16 A basic principle in scheme design is that the existing rights of way network should be preserved as far as possible, even where usage levels are low. A low level of usage may be as a result of severance and could disguise the fact that a particular path is an essential link for certain local journeys. Preserving the network should save considerable resources, as any diversion will require legal orders, which are normally opposed by user groups. In extreme cases, such a proposed diversion could threaten the delivery of the whole scheme.

3.19 Provision of adequate pedestrian facilities should be considered within every scheme. This may include footpaths (pedestrian rights of way) or footways including appropriate surfaces, kerbs, signing and crossing facilities. The level of provision should also be appropriate to the expected number of users.

3.20 Footways should normally be provided within the highway boundary or in another location in the form of an OCR [Off-Carriageway Route]. In urban situations, footways should normally be provided on both sides of the carriageway, while in rural situations footways should normally be provided on at least one side of the carriageway, to connect to most key destinations.

3.22 Where off-carriageway [cycling] facilities are proposed, it is recommended that they are provided on both sides of the road. Where space is limited, it may be acceptable to provide a two-way facility on one side of the road. However, in unlit areas, cyclists with headlights may cause confusion when heading directly towards motorists. It is therefore recommended that where routes are provided on one side of the road only, a high degree of separation between the carriageway and cycle route should be provided, or street lighting at an appropriate level as agreed with the Overseeing Organisation. Where lighting is required, consideration should be given to light intrusion.

3.26 In exceptional circumstances, it may be acceptable not to provide NMU facilities, for example highways adjacent to tunnels or other route sections that have or will have an NMU prohibition. In such cases Design Organisations should provide explicit justification, with agreement from the Overseeing Organisation, for not providing NMU facilities.

3.27 Where no provision for NMUs is made as part of a scheme, it will be important to ensure that appropriate alternative NMU routes and suitable linkages are provided and signed.

4.5 All OCR types can be financed, designed and implemented by the Overseeing Organisation as long as they are included as part of published statutory orders and receive the appropriate statutory approvals. However, wherever possible the Overseeing Organisation should aim to provide a scheme that links into local networks
Why engineers chose to ignore this pretty explicit advice one might well ask - perhaps because it was classed as 'advice' rather than being in the directives. Whatever, it's been a multi-generational failure by us to properly consider people who choose to use transport modes other than motor vehicles.
Thanks for sharing the official guidance. Out of interest, is there any measure/survey taken of the usage levels of footpaths that are affected by a road scheme? I'd imagine its possible to find a happy medium between providing nothing at all and providing full bridges (with DDA compliant access) at every old footpath.
Built for comfort, not speed.
User avatar
Gav
Member
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 17:44

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by Gav »

https://goo.gl/maps/QGjscxrHrgHBTdXR8

This is the A1 just south of Wallyford…

The A1 here is a special road with the no pedestrian signs etc at all point of entrance.
Piatkow
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 13:59

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by Piatkow »

someone wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:05 SNIP

It is much more difficult to judge speed of something coming head-on than for something running across your field of vision. The worst place to cross a road or railway is where it is only a flat straight line.

It is very easy to watch something coming towards you for a few seconds and it seem like it has barely moved and is still far away. This can give a false sense of security as to how much time you have to cross, as it can then suddenly reach you very quickly.

This causes accidents on straight roads, where people attempt overtakes without appreciating how much space they actually have.

Unless someone regularly crosses railway lines, they will also have no ability to judge the time it will take for a train travelling at 100 mph or more to reach them. 70 mph roads are common and, generally, more heavily trafficked so people are more easily able to learn how much time to cross they have and need.
/SNIP
I can think of one junction where I have cursed how hesitant drivers in front of me seem to be but when I get to the white line it is much more difficult to judge the gap. Without any paralax effect I agree that speed can be very difficult to judge.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by KeithW »

someone wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:05 It is much more difficult to judge speed of something coming head-on than for something running across your field of vision. The worst place to cross a road or railway is where it is only a flat straight line.

It is very easy to watch something coming towards you for a few seconds and it seem like it has barely moved and is still far away. This can give a false sense of security as to how much time you have to cross, as it can then suddenly reach you very quickly.

This causes accidents on straight roads, where people attempt overtakes without appreciating how much space they actually have.

Unless someone regularly crosses railway lines, they will also have no ability to judge the time it will take for a train travelling at 100 mph or more to reach them. 70 mph roads are common and, generally, more heavily trafficked so people are more easily able to learn how much time to cross they have and need.
Not really, at max speed an HST on the ECML covers 2 miles a minute. At Tempsford you can see for at least 3 miles so that if there is nothing in sight you have 90 seconds to walk approx 30 metres. Tempsford was picked simply because the GSV gives a good idea of the visibility you have.
someone wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:05The railway example is a controlled level crossing making it akin to using a pelican crossing. So I am not even sure why you would need to be cautious there, unless you have reason to suspect the barriers and lights are faulty.

The road example contains no crossing facility for pedestrians that you would even need to climb over two crash barriers to cross it. This is more akin to trespassing on the railway

I am not sure what those examples were meant to illustrate.

Maybe there are none left on the ECML, but there are uncontrolled pedestrian crossings across the railway network. Were people have to judge for themselves when it is safe to cross, just like they have to do when crossing a road where no specific amends have been made.
There are a number of uncontrolled crossings on the ECML including this one just north of Biggleswade. There is a green light to indicate when its safe to cross but the gate is not locked. There used to be many more. There are also a number of other ungated crossings on farm access roads etc. In fact Network Rail wants to close the level crossings (there are 2 at Tempsford) but so far nobody wants to pay for it to be done.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.09879 ... 4352?hl=en

When crossing a high speed dual carriageway you definitely do need to be aware of just how much ground a car doing 70 mph covers as its closing at a rate of over 30 metres per second. I picked the A1 at Tempsford to illustrate the fact that the sightlines are more restricted as the road curves and has trees and bushes alongside so there are few places where you have sufficient visibility to ever cross safely.
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by JohnnyMo »

Gav wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 13:00 https://goo.gl/maps/QGjscxrHrgHBTdXR8

This is the A1 just south of Wallyford…

The A1 here is a special road with the no pedestrian signs etc at all point of entrance.
I can see how pedestrians can cross there, I can't see why. There does not seem to be a foot path either side of the road.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5675
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by Vierwielen »

Bertiebus wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 19:38
trickstat wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 13:49 Probably the scariest of all there's a footpath about 3 miles from where I live that used to cross all 4 lines of the East Coast Main Line. About 20 years ago, my parents did a walk that included it. Thankfully they have now put in a footbridge.

I've just checked and the footpath is actually the Icknield Way which is several hundred years older than the ECML.
I don't see why that would be the 'scariest' - there tend to be rather longer gaps between trains than cars. As long as you look carefully both ways, you won't be expecting the next train to come along on one line immediately behind the previous one, as you would vehicles on a busy road. A car or lorry at 70mph will kill you every bit as readily as a train will.

That said, the general public undoubtedly engage no more common sense when using level crossings than they do when crossing the road.
A number of years ago there was a fatal accident on one such crossing (I think that it had five railway lines). I wrote a letter to The Times (which was published), showing that in the time taken to cross those lines by foot, a HST will travel half a mile!
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by Debaser »

rhyds wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:46 Thanks for sharing the official guidance. Out of interest, is there any measure/survey taken of the usage levels of footpaths that are affected by a road scheme? I'd imagine its possible to find a happy medium between providing nothing at all and providing full bridges (with DDA compliant access) at every old footpath.
Traffic counts should be carried out on PRoWs as part of the route selection process; ideally on both a normal working week (to include the weekends) and also during holiday times for example on a Bank Holiday, to see if there's a background commuter-type use and/or a peak leisure use.

Unfortunately, the damage has been done if a route is already severed. We won't know how well that route may have been used in the past (obviously enough that it became regarded as a Right of Way) and it's likely that the severance in the intervening period has changed people's behaviour.

For example, a PRoW which historically linked two small villages, say one with a pub, the other with a post office, may have seen a relatively high level of use. If it's previously been severed by a dual carriageway, with no direct crossing and a major detour it is likely villagers on both sides will take the car to visit each business or, worse, decide that if they are going to use the car then going to the nearest town or city is now just as convenient. A traffic count is going to show no use of a PRoW which is a dead end (apart, perhaps, from the odd dog walker). However, would a new - direct - link via a footbridge encourage people back to use the old route? Given our experience of road building we know all about suppressed demand and induced demand why shouldnt these characteristics equally apply to people who walk, cycle or ride a horse? The success of the separated cycle infrastructure on the Embankment in London and elsewhere already suggests that the "Build it and they will come" mantra is true.

And finally, to quote Brent Toderian, a Canadian planner; "You don't decide where to build a bridge based on the number of people swimming across a river."
qwertyK
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 19:16

Re: Public footpaths that cross dual carriageways

Post by qwertyK »

Piatkow wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 08:29
multiraider2 wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 16:01
qwertyK wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 13:26 Hi there,

I think I may have posted about this a few years ago but never got any definitive answers, so I'm posting again as I've now discovered two public footpaths - one of them is even signed - that cross the A12 Brentwood Bypass.

First is here - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6372647 ... 312!8i6656

Second is here - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6432454 ... 312!8i6656

As you can see, there are clearly provisions made for someone to cross the road, as they have allowed space in the central reservation and with a barrier alongside the road.

The first footpath is publicly signed alongside the road, but the second isn't, even from the A1023 where it begins, and isn't shown on OS maps apart from this one https://footpathmap.co.uk/map/?zoom=16& ... 5722766904

I saw someone actually cross the first one the other day. Has anyone else had experience of crossing such busy, and usually dangerous roads? Surely they should have been decomissioned, as I presume these footpaths predate the bypass that was built in '66?
Not only can I say I have experience of crossing such busy roads, I can say I have experience of using the very footpath to cross the A12 as used in your first example. I'm from Pilgrims Hatch originally and the footpath starts at the edge of that settlement. I crossed there with two friends, probably about 1979. We didn't do it for a lark or a dare, we were using the footpath to get somewhere and I remember waiting until it was very clear. We did cross at more than walking pace though. Traffic levels have increased since 1979 and I'm not sure I'd fancy it today. You do get platooning though and an elephant race further up the road could easily create a sizeable gap on one side at a time.
I used to cross the A12 near Romford Golf Course twice a day on my way to and from school in the 60s. I had occasion to walk in that direction when visiting my parents early in the century. Even with lights at the Pettits Lane junction the heavier traffic frightened the life out of me.

Some footpaths have been diverted. Where the A12 runs next to the railway at Mountnessing there was a path which crossed the railway on a rather substantial bridge, probably for farm traffic to the fields under the A12, and then at grade across the bypass. Streetmap shows this abolished a new right of way parallel to both to the nearest road bridges.
Is this bridge still there?
Post Reply