Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

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

User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by RichardA35 »

SteveA30 wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2020 21:59 What does anyone make of this? Move cursor to Aerial and, click on Road and some sheds/units come up which have clearly been demolished for this.
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=69cf99af ... orm=S00027
That is part of the £19M M5 J25 improvements scheme promoted by Somerset CC that is under construction.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Vierwielen »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 07:41 ...; snip ...
Footnotes:
  1. Of course, with the A3095 closed at Bracknell for three months that route is not an option, directly, although local-knowledge does provide viable bypasses
  2. Why the A331 morphs into the A3095, I'll never understand, even allowing for the mile of A321 in between... likewise, why the A331 is the A331 and not A321 (which it superseded) is another of those conundrums. It reeks of "typo".
  3. ETA: Actually, it's more north than east but it just feels wrong :roll:
The reason that the A331 morphs into the A3095 is quite simple - The A3095 was there first and it asppears to me that in the UK, roads are numbered, rather than routes. It is just that there is a 90% correspondence between routes and roads.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Vierwielen wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 22:49 The reason that the A331 morphs into the A3095 is quite simple - The A3095 was there first and it asppears to me that in the UK, roads are numbered, rather than routes. It is just that there is a 90% correspondence between routes and roads.
So why was the BVR not just the A3095?

To be honest, I'm convinced the BVR is A331 (rather than A321 which it replaced) by virtue of a typo...
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6016
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by SteveA30 »

https://somersetnewsroom.com/2018/03/08 ... nction-25/

The plan nicely illustrates the designed chaos, as this will clearly be the new A358, forced to go through an extra local rbt for local people, before entering J25, with its extra signals. How they expect A303 users to go through this obstacle course, I don't know. Far worse for eastbound A303ers, who have to traverse the whole shebang. Even westbound/southbound don't have a freeflow lane to the M5. As for A358 to M5 north, no change from the present chaos. Swapping the P'n'R signals for a new P'n'R rbt.

My rat run of going via Creech St Michael to the A38 to Bridgwater is now ruined by the same extra signals chaos at the link to J24, plus a new set for housing and an older 'new' set for a warehousing park. In peak summer there, chaos is not overstating it. Trying to reach Bridgwater MSA is very stressful as I have witnessed, with locals blasting their horns at holidaymakers unfamiliar with the layout, so naturally I don't go there any more, same as Exeter which is equally inaccessible/unpleasant to get to.

What is the point of building motorways only to make access at some junctions, more and more difficult and unpleasant?
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Richardf »

SteveA30 wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:48 https://somersetnewsroom.com/2018/03/08 ... nction-25/

The plan nicely illustrates the designed chaos, as this will clearly be the new A358, forced to go through an extra local rbt for local people, before entering J25, with its extra signals. How they expect A303 users to go through this obstacle course, I don't know. Far worse for eastbound A303ers, who have to traverse the whole shebang. Even westbound/southbound don't have a freeflow lane to the M5. As for A358 to M5 north, no change from the present chaos. Swapping the P'n'R signals for a new P'n'R rbt.

My rat run of going via Creech St Michael to the A38 to Bridgwater is now ruined by the same extra signals chaos at the link to J24, plus a new set for housing and an older 'new' set for a warehousing park. In peak summer there, chaos is not overstating it. Trying to reach Bridgwater MSA is very stressful as I have witnessed, with locals blasting their horns at holidaymakers unfamiliar with the layout, so naturally I don't go there any more, same as Exeter which is equally inaccessible/unpleasant to get to.

What is the point of building motorways only to make access at some junctions, more and more difficult and unpleasant?
Certainly seems as if the junction 25 scheme is planned with the DC upgrade of the A358 in mind. But what happens if this goes ahead and built but the DC upgrade beyond isnt? Make things worse for A358 traffic i should think!
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by jackal »

My beef with it is the new roundabout. An expressway is supposed to have fewer at-grade junctions, not more.

The reason for the roundabout is to let the westbound A358 turn the corner towards J25 while providing development access. But if the A358 is coming in there on a new alignment there's no need for it to turn the corner and no reason for a roundabout - it should just be a bridge to the development so the A358 can flow through unimpeded.

So actually the problem is really the opposite of it being designed for the new road. It's more like it was designed for the existing road and development site with the new road an afterthought that could be bodged on if necessary.

Really there should have been no local authority scheme at all with J25 sorted out as part of the HE scheme. Instead we have a £18m scheme salting the earth for a £400m scheme.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by ManomayLR »

What’s so repulsive about making junctions GSJ?
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Herned »

jackal wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:15 So actually the problem is really the opposite of it being designed for the new road. It's more like it was designed for the existing road and development site with the new road an afterthought that could be bodged on if necessary.
It was designed when all proposed routes for the A358 to the M5 westbound were not via J25. Although it would still impact all the other journeys obviously
User avatar
StockburyRoundabout
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 19:06
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by StockburyRoundabout »

Highways England have said that if the tunnel doesn’t get built, the rest may not.
And, of course, Stonehenge is an awkward area to build new, modern roads like this with the nature of the area. Items of archeological interest are always being found and will, no doubt, be continued to be found which may halt any work that any start. There’s just so much there.
Now with added Grade Separation!
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by ManomayLR »

StockburyRoundabout wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 13:14 Highways England have said that if the tunnel doesn’t get built, the rest may not.
And, of course, Stonehenge is an awkward area to build new, modern roads like this with the nature of the area. Items of archeological interest are always being found and will, no doubt, be continued to be found which may halt any work that any start. There’s just so much there.
Doing cut and cover tunnels will assist the recovery of artefacts - any excavated earth can be thoroughly sorted through for any artefacts or fragments.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Phil »

EpicChef wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 14:18
StockburyRoundabout wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 13:14 Highways England have said that if the tunnel doesn’t get built, the rest may not.
And, of course, Stonehenge is an awkward area to build new, modern roads like this with the nature of the area. Items of archeological interest are always being found and will, no doubt, be continued to be found which may halt any work that any start. There’s just so much there.
Doing cut and cover tunnels will assist the recovery of artefacts - any excavated earth can be thoroughly sorted through for any artefacts or fragments.
These days Archaeologists prefer NOT to dig up artefacts and stuff them in museums - it is generally considered preferable to them in situ, particularly when the artefacts are earthworks or burial chambers. Much of the archaeology around Stonehenge / Salisbury Plain is not individual items - its the landscape, the 'lumps and bumps' to use a phrase often quoted on Time Team which lose any significance if removed. Many of the so called Victorian / Edwardian 'Archaeologists' are the subject of significant criticism because of the way they effectively ransacked sites, removing the most attractive finds without fully documenting their excavations or indeed leaving the site as preserved as possible for future generations to explore later on.

You also need to remember that these days the use of Geophysics (Ground penetrating radar etc.) means you don't necessarily have to disturb the ground surface to see whats there - and if you do really want to dig then Geophysics technology can facilitate small 'test pits' the results of which can then be extrapolated to the wider area. This has produced some outstanding results in recent decades with the advantage that if future generations come along with better technology or theories / understandings then they can be verified by the original remains being left undisturbed.

Thats why all tunnel schemes at Stonehenge have required bored tunnels NOT cut and cover! Boring the tunnel by TBM means you can go underneath the archaeology and leave the surface untouched. The downside is that bored road tunnels are very expensive and the A303 is not excessively congested outside of holiday periods, thus the BCR calculation get poor very quickly as the amount of tunnelling increases.

The biggest problem Stonehenge faces is nothing to do with archaeology - its more the way the British (and the people they send to Parliament) idolise Money! Yes building a long bored tunnel at Stonehenge might well have a poor BCR according to the Been counters but there is more to human existence than money. Stonehenge and Salisbury plain gives a valuable insight into the development of human society and its one of those situations where we as taxpayers should be effectively saying we will pay a bit more tax to keep it intact (via a longer tunnel).
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Herned »

Phil wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 19:13 Yes building a long bored tunnel at Stonehenge might well have a poor BCR according to the Been counters but there is more to human existence than money. Stonehenge and Salisbury plain gives a valuable insight into the development of human society and its one of those situations where we as taxpayers should be effectively saying we will pay a bit more tax to keep it intact (via a longer tunnel).
It's not quite that simple, obviously money is important but also the length chosen is the longest it can be without needing intermediate ventilation access, or significantly larger ventilation at each end, both of which would impact the WHS
matt-thepie
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 16:03
Location: Portsmouth

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by matt-thepie »

The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that the A303 should be left as it is. If it becomes an expressway it will just fill up with traffic as it's far shorter than the M4/5 trip from London.

If we are going to spend an enormous amount of money it would be better spent improving rail links to the South West - the West of England main line (not the GWR route) and a Dawlish avoiding line. Another area to improve is Exeter to Penzance, which takes 3 hours on the train and less than 2 in the car.

I know it's not a popular opinion on here but there you go.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Phil »

Herned wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 19:33
Phil wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 19:13 Yes building a long bored tunnel at Stonehenge might well have a poor BCR according to the Been counters but there is more to human existence than money. Stonehenge and Salisbury plain gives a valuable insight into the development of human society and its one of those situations where we as taxpayers should be effectively saying we will pay a bit more tax to keep it intact (via a longer tunnel).
It's not quite that simple, obviously money is important but also the length chosen is the longest it can be without needing intermediate ventilation access, or significantly larger ventilation at each end, both of which would impact the WHS
Thats not a reason why a longer tunnel cannot be built though. You could for example consider a 3 tunnel setup like the channel tunnel where fresh air is pumped into the middle from remote air pumping stations via a service tunnel and fumes extracted in a similar way. It would of course push up costs still further - which exposes the REAL reason the Government are saying that they can do no more.

The favoured solution (i.e. a basic tunnel) is the only one which comes out with a positive BCR case and doing anything else, although perfectly feasible technically is seen as 'unaffordable' by been counters. While I am all for getting value for money, there are occasions when its necessary put monetary costs aside to do things because its the right thing to do regardless of how poor it looks to the money men / women. Stonehenge is not just special on a domestic level - it has long been recognised globally as a extremely important WHS far above anything else in the UK and that should be recognised in the sense that BCR concerns come right at the bottom of the list!
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by ManomayLR »

matt-thepie wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 19:38 The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that the A303 should be left as it is. If it becomes an expressway it will just fill up with traffic as it's far shorter than the M4/5 trip from London.

If we are going to spend an enormous amount of money it would be better spent improving rail links to the South West - the West of England main line (not the GWR route) and a Dawlish avoiding line. Another area to improve is Exeter to Penzance, which takes 3 hours on the train and less than 2 in the car.

I know it's not a popular opinion on here but there you go.
I’d go for dualing and widening of the A303 to D3ALR standards with GSJ only between M3 and A30. That way, the entire journey is a 3 lane motorway, M303 or M30
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Phil »

matt-thepie wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 19:38 The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that the A303 should be left as it is. If it becomes an expressway it will just fill up with traffic as it's far shorter than the M4/5 trip from London.

If we are going to spend an enormous amount of money it would be better spent improving rail links to the South West - the West of England main line (not the GWR route) and a Dawlish avoiding line. Another area to improve is Exeter to Penzance, which takes 3 hours on the train and less than 2 in the car.

I know it's not a popular opinion on here but there you go.
Can we stop this nonsense that railways are the solution to all ills - because they are NOT!

Its worth stopping and asking yourself why exactly railways took off in the way they did in the 18th Century. It wasn't because they reduced congestion on the roads was it? The reason was quite simply speed - in an age when rival transport options were a riding a horse, walking, a stagecoach / horse + cart, a canal boat, etc then the inherent disadvantages of getting to and from a station at each end (or transshipping goods) was massively outweighed by the speed it took for the station to station leg of the journey. In other words if cars and half decent roads had existed back then , railways would NEVER have been needed!

Fast forward to today and cars can take you door to door just as fast (if not faster) than trains (once the hassle of getting to / from stations is factored in) with no need to change on route or swap modes (i.e. get a bus to access the station). Cars are also in relative terms the cheapest they have ever been while hybrid / electric models are dealing with the exhaust emission problems caused by the internal combustion engine.

Railways have a place, but that is where:-

(i) Very high speeds can be achieved such that you negate the downsides caused by the need to access the station at each end (in other words repeat the 18th century Horse alternative, i.e. 200mph train versus 70mph car)

(ii) Large numbers of people are wanting to go to the same place (e.g. commuting into major cities) and providing enough road infrastructure at the destination is not viable.

Away from those two categories, rail transport is inherently inefficient plus costly - we chose to keep it via taxpayer subsidy because society considers it worthwhile - not because its far superior to the alternatives as was the case when the railway network was built by private companies seeking to make money!

When it comes to freight the same two things as passengers apply, for example:-

(i) An Intermodal freight train running at higher speeds than HGVs thus beating road transit times by enough to offset transshipment plus onward transport to the final destination by road.

(ii) A load of aggregates heading from a quarry to building sites where the sheer number of HGVs needed to haul the same load is extremely costly.

Thus its foolish and naive to pretend that any railway upgrade is going to remove the need for a high quality road along the A303 corridor, particularly as the way globalisation / economic trends have meant that life is forcing individuals to travel further / more frequently than ever during their lifetimes.
Last edited by Phil on Thu Jul 30, 2020 20:35, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by RichardA35 »

..and to add onto this, most of the primary aggregate used in construction in London and the South East already comes into the area by train from the Mendips or the Midlands or from Scotland or sea dredged by ship. The pathing of these freight trains along the GW main line mixing with 125mph passenger traffic is already difficult.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by Phil »

RichardA35 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 20:33 ..and to add onto this, most of the primary aggregate used in construction in London and the South East already comes into the area by train from the Mendips or the Midlands or from Scotland or sea dredged by ship. The pathing of these freight trains along the GW main line mixing with 125mph passenger traffic is already difficult.
Which is why its better to build NEW railways for high speed passenger operations, not upgrade existing routes beyond the current max of 125mph.
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by trickstat »

Phil wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 20:18 Railways have a place, but that is where:-

(i) Very high speeds can be achieved such that you negate the downsides caused by the need to access the station at each end (in other words repeat the 18th century Horse alternative, i.e. 200mph train versus 70mph car)

(ii) Large numbers of people are wanting to go to the same place (e.g. commuting into major cities) and providing enough road infrastructure at the destination is not viable.
I'll add (iii) For a journey where the starting and end points are close enough to stations (probably on the same service) that the faster speed of the train (e.g 100mph vs 70mph) is not negated by the distance travelled at each end. For instance, from where I live, places like Edinburgh, Newcastle, Durham and York are for more feasible as a day trip by train than by road. Of course, you need to book early or else you'll almost need a mortgage for the ticket!
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6016
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: Why the A303 will probably never become a motorway and won't be fully dualled for a long time

Post by SteveA30 »

Friday August 7 2020 on the A303 at Sparkford, Ham Hill in the Blackdowns and the A30 near Monkton. Gives a taste of what they are like on a summers day.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtd-Pm ... subscriber
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
Post Reply