Road Building Plans to be Halted?

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
Glenn A
Member
Posts: 9751
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 19:31
Location: Cumbria

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by Glenn A »

trickstat wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:45
Glenn A wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:10
Big Nick wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:39

A66(M) Whitby to Whitehaven? :D
Interesting, but I don't think the Lake DIstrict National Park would be happy.
The North Yorkshire Moors NP might not be too chuffed either!
Exactly, but an A66(M) from Penrith to Scotch Corner would have been a good idea decades ago, as this is the busiest part of the road. As for dear old Whitehaven, we should have had a D2 by pass during the THORP project at Sellafield.
User avatar
DavidNW9
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 18:16
Location: London NW9
Contact:

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by DavidNW9 »

It appears the UN is more powerful than any national government. They want an end to personal transport under Agenda 2030 and that appears what they are now working on. But knowledge is power. There are parties out there who would not do this and we must collectively let them take over through the political system. Otherwise we will be back on horses or needing travel passes. It's all on official record.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9851
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by owen b »

DavidNW9 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:35 It appears the UN is more powerful than any national government. They want an end to personal transport under Agenda 2030 and that appears what they are now working on. But knowledge is power. There are parties out there who would not do this and we must collectively let them take over through the political system. Otherwise we will be back on horses or needing travel passes. It's all on official record.
And your source for this unsubstantiated claim is what exactly?

Here's the relevant UN transport page which refers to the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" but makes no reference to ending personal transport (whatever that means) : https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/t ... etransport
Owen
fras
Member
Posts: 3583
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by fras »

owen b wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:43
DavidNW9 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:35 It appears the UN is more powerful than any national government. They want an end to personal transport under Agenda 2030 and that appears what they are now working on. But knowledge is power. There are parties out there who would not do this and we must collectively let them take over through the political system. Otherwise we will be back on horses or needing travel passes. It's all on official record.
And your source for this unsubstantiated claim is what exactly?

Here's the relevant UN transport page which refers to the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" but makes no reference to ending personal transport (whatever that means) : https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/t ... etransport
Well of course it doesn't ! This would cause an almighty row. Far better to make a word mean more than it normally would. So for "sustainable", they really mean "hugely expensive" so as to remove its attainment by people of average income. Its the same as using the word "affordable" when talking about down-market housing. They really mean "cheap and small" All houses are affordable to somebody. It's classic euphemism useage.

euphemism
/ˈjuːfəmɪz(ə)m/
noun
a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
"the jargon has given us ‘downsizing’ as a euphemism for cuts"
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9851
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by owen b »

fras wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:49
owen b wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:43
DavidNW9 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:35 It appears the UN is more powerful than any national government. They want an end to personal transport under Agenda 2030 and that appears what they are now working on. But knowledge is power. There are parties out there who would not do this and we must collectively let them take over through the political system. Otherwise we will be back on horses or needing travel passes. It's all on official record.
And your source for this unsubstantiated claim is what exactly?

Here's the relevant UN transport page which refers to the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" but makes no reference to ending personal transport (whatever that means) : https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/t ... etransport
Well of course it doesn't ! This would cause an almighty row. Far better to make a word mean more than it normally would. So for "sustainable", they really mean "hugely expensive" so as to remove its attainment by people of average income. Its the same as using the word "affordable" when talking about down-market housing. All houses are affordable to somebody. It's classic euphemism useage.

euphemism
/ˈjuːfəmɪz(ə)m/
noun
a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
"the jargon has given us ‘downsizing’ as a euphemism for cuts"
DavidNW9 makes the unsubstantiated claim that the UN want to end personal transport and it's all on "official record". All I'm asking for is the official record. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...... or in this case merely the official record which is said to support the claim.
Owen
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by Bryn666 »

fras wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:49
owen b wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:43
DavidNW9 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:35 It appears the UN is more powerful than any national government. They want an end to personal transport under Agenda 2030 and that appears what they are now working on. But knowledge is power. There are parties out there who would not do this and we must collectively let them take over through the political system. Otherwise we will be back on horses or needing travel passes. It's all on official record.
And your source for this unsubstantiated claim is what exactly?

Here's the relevant UN transport page which refers to the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" but makes no reference to ending personal transport (whatever that means) : https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/t ... etransport
Well of course it doesn't ! This would cause an almighty row. Far better to make a word mean more than it normally would. So for "sustainable", they really mean "hugely expensive" so as to remove its attainment by people of average income. Its the same as using the word "affordable" when talking about down-market housing. They really mean "cheap and small" All houses are affordable to somebody. It's classic euphemism useage.

euphemism
/ˈjuːfəmɪz(ə)m/
noun
a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
"the jargon has given us ‘downsizing’ as a euphemism for cuts"
Is this sort of paranoia really becoming of grown men?
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
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by Chris5156 »

owen b wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:53DavidNW9 makes the unsubstantiated claim that the UN want to end personal transport and it's all on "official record". All I'm asking for is the official record. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...... or in this case merely the official record which is said to support the claim.
"Personal transport" includes bicycles. Are the UN set to abolish bicycles?
fras
Member
Posts: 3583
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by fras »

Bryn666 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:54
fras wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:49
owen b wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:43
And your source for this unsubstantiated claim is what exactly?

Here's the relevant UN transport page which refers to the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" but makes no reference to ending personal transport (whatever that means) : https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/t ... etransport
Well of course it doesn't ! This would cause an almighty row. Far better to make a word mean more than it normally would. So for "sustainable", they really mean "hugely expensive" so as to remove its attainment by people of average income. Its the same as using the word "affordable" when talking about down-market housing. They really mean "cheap and small" All houses are affordable to somebody. It's classic euphemism useage.

euphemism
/ˈjuːfəmɪz(ə)m/
noun
a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
"the jargon has given us ‘downsizing’ as a euphemism for cuts"
Is this sort of paranoia really becoming of grown men?
So what does "sustainable" mean, then, Mr Expert !
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by Bryn666 »

fras wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 23:35
Bryn666 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:54
fras wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:49
Well of course it doesn't ! This would cause an almighty row. Far better to make a word mean more than it normally would. So for "sustainable", they really mean "hugely expensive" so as to remove its attainment by people of average income. Its the same as using the word "affordable" when talking about down-market housing. They really mean "cheap and small" All houses are affordable to somebody. It's classic euphemism useage.

euphemism
/ˈjuːfəmɪz(ə)m/
noun
a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
"the jargon has given us ‘downsizing’ as a euphemism for cuts"
Is this sort of paranoia really becoming of grown men?
So what does "sustainable" mean, then, Mr Expert !
Not damaging to the continued survival of the eco-system, not a system of using finite materials that cannot be replaced for millions of years, etc etc.

If you think "sustainable transport" somehow means the UN are going to personally crush your car, well, frankly you're either paranoid or an idiot. What's it to be, Mr "Expert"?
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
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by KeithW »

DavidNW9 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:35 It appears the UN is more powerful than any national government. They want an end to personal transport under Agenda 2030 and that appears what they are now working on. But knowledge is power. There are parties out there who would not do this and we must collectively let them take over through the political system. Otherwise we will be back on horses or needing travel passes. It's all on official record.
The UN is essentially powerless, the only group that can actually do anything is the security council and we have a veto there. I have read agenda 2030 and its little more than a wish list that boils down to all we need is a bit of peace love and understanding oh and we should abolish disease, poverty, inequality, racism and intolerlance while we are at it. It says nothing about personal transport which for most of the world means a bicycle.

What it actually says about transport is
11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3321
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by ManomayLR »

SMT / FORUM MODERATORS NOTICE

We have had reports come in about things getting heated on this thread.

Making sarcastic/snide comments towards other users is against the Posting Guidelines, so this needs to stop.

As with any thread where things are getting heated, the SMT will be keeping a close eye.

In accordance with the Moderation policy, this post also serves as a reminder that we reserve the right to take further action if this becomes necessary.

Please take a deep breath before posting, and ensure you abide by the Posting Guidelines.

All the best, stay safe.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
fras
Member
Posts: 3583
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by fras »

As I see it, the sustainability of human activities comes down to "combustion", the combination of a fuel with oxygen. I well remember this being one of the ways in which CO2 enters the atmosphere in the Carbon Cycle. The other ways are (1) respiration by animals (breathing) which is essentially the same as combustion with food as the fuel, (2) earth generated CO2 from volcanoes etc (3) decay of organic material.

Clearly, with humans on the planet burning fossil fuel for numerous activities, the CO2 input has become rather too large for plants to absorb this extra input via photosynthesis. However, plants are making a pretty good fist at absorbing CO2. It remains a trace gas in the atmosphere, whereas oxygen, the "by-product" of photosynthesis is 20% of the atmosphere's composition. The problem is that even though a trace gas, atmospheric CO2 has increased in percentage terms, quite markedly since the Industrial Revolution and the increase in the World population, all using fossil fuel. So this additional CO2 "burden" needs to be addressed by cutting down and eventually eliminating the need for fossil fuel. However, what the implications of this are on our civilisation are only now being realised.

It seems to me that we are well on the way to eliminating combustion for generating electricity, assuming nuclear-generated heat is accepted as well as wind/sea energy. Electricity storage remains an issue.

For vehicle movement, I think we will be with ICE vehicles for some time if not on a very small scale for ever. However, once ICE useage becomes very small, it can be converted to use sustainably made fuels. Will hydrogen be an option ? For me the energy input needed is just too great and hence costly, and the costs of storing and transporting are daunting. However we should not forget that the old Town Gas consisted partly of hydrogen !

Sorry to ramble on, but I do find it all a bit overwhelming to be honest.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by AndyB »

I think that we rather lost sight of several key points in the OP.
First of all, the case being argued is that Grant Shapps failed to comply with the law by properly assessing the environmental impact of the programme. Now, call me a bit cynical, but even if the judicial review is upheld and the relevant assessments carried out, is there going to be a significant impact on the programme? Not so much a box ticking exercise as the necessity to line up one’s ducks.

If I were being really cynical, I could suggest that perhaps it was set up to be subject to JR, with one of two aims: either promoting primary legislation to stop the courts interfering, or putting off the day when the commitments made in the plan would have to be met.

Secondly, the wider issue.

The need for a given scheme needs to be reassessed anyway in the light of the reduced demand for driving created by working from home. There will be plenty of schemes which are objectively required anyway for safety reasons, but the reduced demand for road space we saw in the autumn after the schools went back should lead us to reconsider what road schemes are actually necessary, but not allowing ourselves to be led down the old alley of doing something cheap now when something better is needed tomorrow.
marconaf
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 14:42

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by marconaf »

AndyB wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 14:05 I think that we rather lost sight of several key points in the OP.
First of all, the case being argued is that Grant Shapps failed to comply with the law by properly assessing the environmental impact of the programme. Now, call me a bit cynical, but even if the judicial review is upheld and the relevant assessments carried out, is there going to be a significant impact on the programme? Not so much a box ticking exercise as the necessity to line up one’s ducks.

If I were being really cynical, I could suggest that perhaps it was set up to be subject to JR, with one of two aims: either promoting primary legislation to stop the courts interfering, or putting off the day when the commitments made in the plan would have to be met.

Secondly, the wider issue.

The need for a given scheme needs to be reassessed anyway in the light of the reduced demand for driving created by working from home. There will be plenty of schemes which are objectively required anyway for safety reasons, but the reduced demand for road space we saw in the autumn after the schools went back should lead us to reconsider what road schemes are actually necessary, but not allowing ourselves to be led down the old alley of doing something cheap now when something better is needed tomorrow.
This working from home thing needs to be actually tested - as yet we have not left a covid situation and even in the autumn the lag factor for most companies, given the feeling was the Govt were closing their eyes to an obviously ongoing and growing issue - was no change in working policies from the spring and summer.

Longer term nobody I know (dozens) wants to work like this and all had some form of flexible working anyway so this has not been a change in direction just intensity. I think the media’s desperate desire for stories and their equally desperate desire to over egg them has massivley over hyped the culture change here.

I genuinely doubt that 12 months after the last covid rule is deleted, there will be much difference in travel and life to 12 months before the first. What most of us have as flexibility now may be near universal but other than that limited change.

Roads wise we are decades behind where inprovements should be which further drives (hah!) that the plans need to continue.

Of course money may dictate otherwise and this is a great excuse for them to hype up, as with cuts to rail plans.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by Bryn666 »

People you know might not want it but plenty of employers are considering downsizing if not outright selling office space. My own included.

They've realised people are just as productive, in fact some are more productive because they're not losing 3 hours a day travelling, by sheer virtue of being able to work in their own house.

Yeah, some might like sitting in traffic jams every morning but I suspect a lot more do not.
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
cb a1
Member
Posts: 5361
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 07:30

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by cb a1 »

IIRC my NTS and ONS stats:
Commute to Work accounts for less than 20% of car miles. Business mileage is less than 5%.
Approximately 40% of the working population are able to work from home.

I reckon that if say half the car mileage from those who are able to work from home doesn't come back, it would reduce car miles by about 7%.

That said, I think a potentially important change that we could see even in those who regularly commute into the office is to blend their working day. For example, your first meeting is at 11:00 so you start working at home at 07:30, then head to work at 10:00, etc.

The vast majority* of roads only experience a reduction in free-flow speed for a relatively short period of time typically around the AM and PM peaks.

*Note the qualifier - this does not apply to all roads.
Education makes the wise slightly wiser, but it makes the fool vastly more dangerous. N. Taleb
We tend to demand impossible standards of proof from our opponents but accept any old rubbish to support our beliefs.
The human paradox that is common sense
The Backfire Effect
2 Sheds
Member
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 19:32

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by 2 Sheds »

Bryn666 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 23:40
fras wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 23:35
Bryn666 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 22:54

Is this sort of paranoia really becoming of grown men?
So what does "sustainable" mean, then, Mr Expert !
Not damaging to the continued survival of the eco-system, not a system of using finite materials that cannot be replaced for millions of years, etc etc.

If you think "sustainable transport" somehow means the UN are going to personally crush your car, well, frankly you're either paranoid or an idiot. What's it to be, Mr "Expert"?
I recall a correspondence argument with a fellow civil engineer about this when the A46 dualling southwards from Newark towards Leicester opened about 9 years ago. He claimed it was unsustainable to build all those bridges and long slip roads when 'at grade' would suffice. I said quite the contrary. Future proofing is very sustainable. The original single carriageway tortuous Newark by pass built in the early 1990s is a classic example of not spending enough being very unsustainable. They are about to start again now with the junctions scheme and dig up what was built only 30 years ago. You could say the same about removal of 5 A1 roundabouts through the east midlands not that many years ago, where the new bridges are not long enough to accommodate 3rd lanes when they become necessary.
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8715
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by trickstat »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 18:26 People you know might not want it but plenty of employers are considering downsizing if not outright selling office space. My own included.

They've realised people are just as productive, in fact some are more productive because they're not losing 3 hours a day travelling, by sheer virtue of being able to work in their own house.

Yeah, some might like sitting in traffic jams every morning but I suspect a lot more do not.
The amount of change will vary between employers.

At the start of the original lockdown, only 12% of those who worked for my employer had the equipment needed to be able to work from home. Now, the vast majority of staff are working from home, and most of those who are in offices have no home internet or lack a suitable working space at home. When things get back to 'normal', staff will be able, if they wish, to work from home, either partly or wholly (the latter may be required to attend the office for certain things). In fact, we have recruited more people at my office than there are desks if everybody returned to the office.
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by AndyB »

2 Sheds wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 19:42 I recall a correspondence argument with a fellow civil engineer about this when the A46 dualling southwards from Newark towards Leicester opened about 9 years ago. He claimed it was unsustainable to build all those bridges and long slip roads when 'at grade' would suffice. I said quite the contrary. Future proofing is very sustainable. The original single carriageway tortuous Newark by pass built in the early 1990s is a classic example of not spending enough being very unsustainable. They are about to start again now with the junctions scheme and dig up what was built only 30 years ago. You could say the same about removal of 5 A1 roundabouts through the east midlands not that many years ago, where the new bridges are not long enough to accommodate 3rd lanes when they become necessary.
Exactly. Far too much money has been wasted doing things on the cheap (such as Westlink, the York Street Interchange, and the Dargan Bridge beside the M3) which either cannot be fixed or costs nearly as much (adjusted for inflation) to remove the cheapness as it cost to put it in in the first place.

Example: the A5 in NI. Do I think it's necessary? I'm still not convinced because it smells too much of paying off those who whinge about serious congestion in the east of NI getting fixed instead of their roads in the west, when their biggest problem is a few tractors and bad driving, but if it's going to be done, do it as a proper D2 with GSJs, not some half-baked waste of money that just has to be fixed later.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9851
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: Road Building Plans to be Halted?

Post by owen b »

cb a1 wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 18:47 IIRC my NTS and ONS stats:
Commute to Work accounts for less than 20% of car miles. Business mileage is less than 5%.
Approximately 40% of the working population are able to work from home.

I reckon that if say half the car mileage from those who are able to work from home doesn't come back, it would reduce car miles by about 7%.

That said, I think a potentially important change that we could see even in those who regularly commute into the office is to blend their working day. For example, your first meeting is at 11:00 so you start working at home at 07:30, then head to work at 10:00, etc.

The vast majority* of roads only experience a reduction in free-flow speed for a relatively short period of time typically around the AM and PM peaks.

*Note the qualifier - this does not apply to all roads.
Yes, but I dare say that commuting by car accounts for a good deal more than 20% of the time people spend in cars, more than 20% of congestion, more than 20% of urban pollution generated by cars and affecting people's health etc. etc. So that potential permanent 7% reduction in car traffic could have a disproportionate effect on congestion, health and people's use of time. Speaking personally, pre-pandemic, commuting by car was probably around 15-20% of my car mileage, but probably 80-90% of the road congestion I endured. Now that I am permanently working full time from home, that's gone.

Also I expect that a significant proportion of shopping and high street services activity has permanently gone over to the internet, further reducing urban transport needs.

Once things have settled down it will be interesting to see what the longer term impact on transport demand turns out to be, given that demand for so much of commuter, business and retail traffic has been demonstrated to be more elastic than was perhaps previously imagined.

Plus as you imply the reduction in demand is mostly at the peaks, which opens up possibilities for encouraging modal shift on roads which are currently congested at peak times but in future are less likely to be overloaded even at peak times.
Owen
Post Reply