A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

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
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by Stevie D »

Conekicker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 20:11 The only problem with a footbridge these days is it would need ramps as well as stairs, which would bump the cost up a fair amount.
Would that be the case for, eg, a bridge that is needed to connect a footpath that is not wheelchair accessible? It would seem a bit pointless to spend twice the money on building a bridge with ramps that lead straight to a stile or kissing gate!
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by Debaser »

Stevie D wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 06:38
Conekicker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 20:11 The only problem with a footbridge these days is it would need ramps as well as stairs, which would bump the cost up a fair amount.
Would that be the case for, eg, a bridge that is needed to connect a footpath that is not wheelchair accessible? It would seem a bit pointless to spend twice the money on building a bridge with ramps that lead straight to a stile or kissing gate!
Hopefully a Walking, Cycling and Horse-Riding (WCHR) Assessment would have been carried out previous to any highways scheme these days and it should identify any shortfalls in the accessibility or connectivity of the public rights of way within the vicinity of the scheme and make suggestions that they were removed and replaced with accessible alternatives. Nothing is forever, and a timber stile or kissing gate are not the most expensive items to replace.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7545
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by jackal »

the cheesecake man wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 22:24 A reasonable comparison might be A1 Red House - Darrington.
...
I've never seen anyone crossing. Perhaps part of the reason for the incidents on the A64 is that traffic is a bit less than on the A1 so people are tempted to cross where the A1 is so busy they wouldn't be?
The difference is marginal. This section of the A64 has 60k AADT.

It's just inherently unsafe to have people crossing a road like this that's functionally equivalent to a motorway. It's as busy as the M54 or M65 and about as safe for pedestrians.

Psychologically the A64 feels like it's a bit off the beaten path compared to something like the A1. HE have themselves said it's of regional rather than national importance. Hence the neglect.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 10:25
the cheesecake man wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 22:24 A reasonable comparison might be A1 Red House - Darrington.
...
I've never seen anyone crossing. Perhaps part of the reason for the incidents on the A64 is that traffic is a bit less than on the A1 so people are tempted to cross where the A1 is so busy they wouldn't be?
The difference is marginal. This section of the A64 has 60k AADT.

It's just inherently unsafe to have people crossing a road like this that's functionally equivalent to a motorway. It's as busy as the M54 or M65 and about as safe for pedestrians.

Psychologically the A64 feels like it's a bit off the beaten path compared to something like the A1. HE have themselves said it's of regional rather than national importance. Hence the neglect.
That's the other problem we face - if a road is worthy of trunk status, it automatically should be "national importance" no matter what. I'm not saying detrunk the A64 by any stretch, but it's quite clear HE don't really want it. They have a thing about not wanting single carriageway A roads as well.
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
thomas417
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 21:13

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by thomas417 »

Seems to me the solution is to move towards Expressway standards on this stretch of road, safety grounds make the case for this alone.

This would see removal of businesses/buildings that require direct access from the road, pedestrian subways/bridges installed where required and a dedicated separate cycle track and footpath constructed. The road will still be overloaded but removing these conflicts is the only way to improve safety in the short to medium term given a complete rebuild isn't going to happen anytime soon.
User avatar
skiddaw05
Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 21:33
Location: Norwich

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by skiddaw05 »

What's the road surface like? If it's lost a lot of texture and becomes a bit slippery this can increase the accident rate with increased stopping distances and drivers losing control of their vehicles. I've seen announcements referring to resurfacing schemes being done 'for safety reasons' before, though this can be seen by some as a bit of a cop-out
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by the cheesecake man »

Stevie D wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 06:38
Conekicker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 20:11 The only problem with a footbridge these days is it would need ramps as well as stairs, which would bump the cost up a fair amount.
Would that be the case for, eg, a bridge that is needed to connect a footpath that is not wheelchair accessible? It would seem a bit pointless to spend twice the money on building a bridge with ramps that lead straight to a stile or kissing gate!
Sadly that is exactly the sort of stupid political correctness we get regularly. :rant: Network Rail wanted to remove a dangerous footpath crossing here near Market Harborough so they built a footbridge. So they had to put a fully wheelchair accessible bridge in the middle of fields. I fully agree that wheelchair accessibility is a good thing but how many wheelchair users will actually benefit from this shiny new accessible bridge they can't get to?

Similarly legislation requires that if a train has one or more toilets then at least one (doesn't need to be all of them) must have wheelchair access. This is an excellent idea. However if a train only has non-accessible toilets, the simplest way to comply is to remove those toilets. This certainly complies with the letter of the law as wheelchair users are not disadvantaged compared to others but it doesn't comply with the spirit of it ie actually improving things for the disabled.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19201
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by KeithW »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 10:58 That's the other problem we face - if a road is worthy of trunk status, it automatically should be "national importance" no matter what. I'm not saying detrunk the A64 by any stretch, but it's quite clear HE don't really want it. They have a thing about not wanting single carriageway A roads as well.
Given that most of the traffic on the A64 east of York consists of cars heading for the Yorkshire coastal resorts I can see why HE are not keen on it. It doesnt serve any major ports or industrial areas and that part of Yorkshire is relatively lightly populated if you discount the day trippers and holiday makers.

Its interesting that some holiday routes such as the A64 are considered Trunk while others such as the A299 Thanet Way are not, especially given that the latter is a rather decent road passing close to Manston Airport and leads to what used to be a Channel Port.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19201
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by KeithW »

thomas417 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:10 Seems to me the solution is to move towards Expressway standards on this stretch of road, safety grounds make the case for this alone.

This would see removal of businesses/buildings that require direct access from the road, pedestrian subways/bridges installed where required and a dedicated separate cycle track and footpath constructed. The road will still be overloaded but removing these conflicts is the only way to improve safety in the short to medium term given a complete rebuild isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Overloading is more common on summer weekends, for the most part. There is a footpath on either side of the road and that crosses the road on an overpass but the growth of vegetation and poor signage is such that unless you know the area you would be hard put to find it. Its also a fair walk from the service area.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.90758 ... 6656?hl=en

Putting up adequate signage and clearing some of the undergrowth would be a good start but I would favour a wheelchair accessible ramp with shared access for cyclists. It neednt be that expensive and there are plenty of mums with buggies as well as the disabled who would find it useful.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by Micro The Maniac »

thomas417 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:10 Seems to me the solution is to move towards Expressway standards on this stretch of road, safety grounds make the case for this alone.
I get the distinct impression that Expressways are dead?
z2x4c6
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 02:24

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by z2x4c6 »

the cheesecake man wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 12:32
Stevie D wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 06:38
Conekicker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 20:11 The only problem with a footbridge these days is it would need ramps as well as stairs, which would bump the cost up a fair amount.
Would that be the case for, eg, a bridge that is needed to connect a footpath that is not wheelchair accessible? It would seem a bit pointless to spend twice the money on building a bridge with ramps that lead straight to a stile or kissing gate!
Sadly that is exactly the sort of stupid political correctness we get regularly. :rant: Network Rail wanted to remove a dangerous footpath crossing here near Market Harborough so they built a footbridge. So they had to put a fully wheelchair accessible bridge in the middle of fields. I fully agree that wheelchair accessibility is a good thing but how many wheelchair users will actually benefit from this shiny new accessible bridge they can't get to?

Similarly legislation requires that if a train has one or more toilets then at least one (doesn't need to be all of them) must have wheelchair access. This is an excellent idea. However if a train only has non-accessible toilets, the simplest way to comply is to remove those toilets. This certainly complies with the letter of the law as wheelchair users are not disadvantaged compared to others but it doesn't comply with the spirit of it ie actually improving things for the disabled.
It’s a bridleway.
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by the cheesecake man »

z2x4c6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 16:27
the cheesecake man wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 12:32 I fully agree that wheelchair accessibility is a good thing but how many wheelchair users will actually benefit from this shiny new accessible bridge they can't get to?
It’s a bridleway.
In the middle of a field. Here's the start of it. Would installing an accessible bridge elsewhere have been a better use of finite Network Rail funds? At a railway station for example.
KeithW wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 13:03 Given that most of the traffic on the A64 east of York consists of cars heading for the Yorkshire coastal resorts ...
The sort of long-distance journey that deserves a decent trunk road...
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by Herned »

the cheesecake man wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 20:01
z2x4c6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 16:27 It’s a bridleway.
In the middle of a field.
If it's legally a bridleway then the bridge has to be accessible to horses, which don't handle stairs well, hence the ramps
Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by Hdeng16 »

the cheesecake man wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 20:01
z2x4c6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 16:27
the cheesecake man wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 12:32 I fully agree that wheelchair accessibility is a good thing but how many wheelchair users will actually benefit from this shiny new accessible bridge they can't get to?
It’s a bridleway.
In the middle of a field. Here's the start of it. Would installing an accessible bridge elsewhere have been a better use of finite Network Rail funds? At a railway station for example.
KeithW wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 13:03 Given that most of the traffic on the A64 east of York consists of cars heading for the Yorkshire coastal resorts ...
The sort of long-distance journey that deserves a decent trunk road...
To repeat… it’s a bridleway - it needs to be accessible to horses and cyclists. Seems a perfectly legitimate use of funds both legally and in the spirit. I really *really* don’t see why you have a problem with this specific scheme.
Glenn A
Member
Posts: 9776
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 19:31
Location: Cumbria

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by Glenn A »

Out of tourist season, I'd imagine the A64 east of York to have modest amounts of traffic, which explains why large parts of it are S2. Scarborough only has a population of 40,000 and has little in the way of industry that would attract HGVs.
mark3evo
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 19:21

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by mark3evo »

i remember back in 1985, i saw in my rear view mirror a 3 wheeled reliant Robin doing 70mph, wind caught it front lifted and rolled over. It was some distance behind in traffic - i always wondered if there were serious injuries or worse. :(
User avatar
jgharston
Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by jgharston »

skiddaw05 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:53 What's the road surface like? If it's lost a lot of texture and becomes a bit slippery this can increase the accident rate with increased stopping distances and drivers losing control of their vehicles. I've seen announcements referring to resurfacing schemes being done 'for safety reasons' before, though this can be seen by some as a bit of a cop-out
I'm sure the whole A64 was resurfaced and the centre barrier replaced just a year or so ago. There were several months where roadworks restrictions chugged their way along the road, and a handful of overnight convey working.
CallumParry
Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 13:38

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by CallumParry »

After reading up about this stretch from here I just had to drive along it today I drive both direction from the A19 to the A1(M)

During the day I see how the sharp entrances and exits can be a challenge with traffic flow on the mainline being "full" I guess at night it's quieter however as people have pointed out in the previous responses humans sometimes can't judge distance/speed in the dark very well. I personally didn't find it any more tighter than usual dual carriageways I just stuck to a speed between 60-70mph and traversed the section with no concerns. In regards to the surface it does look like it's has been extensively resurfaced within the last 18 months / 2 years with many cats eyes (stimsonites in a cast iron shoe) are present and functional as well as the road markings/white lining still at a high standard. I do think however if traffic volumes increase in the areas of York, Malton and Scarborough then Highway England should look at closing off side access roads unless your property is directly accessible from the A64 only.

Overall It's a road that demands attention from the driver and definately one that needs to be taken with care not speeding, tired, high or drunk and unconfident.
NICK 647063
Member
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 17:48
Location: Leeds

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by NICK 647063 »

The difference is marginal. This section of the A64 has 60k AADT.

It's just inherently unsafe to have people crossing a road like this that's functionally equivalent to a motorway. It's as busy as the M54 or M65 and about as safe for pedestrians.

Psychologically the A64 feels like it's a bit off the beaten path compared to something like the A1. HE have themselves said it's of regional rather than national importance. Hence the neglect.
I think it best compared to the A1 around Darrington the A64 AADT is 67k and A1 Darrington 75k (2019 data) although the A1 has a larger amount of HGV's so that can make that feel much more cramped.

As for surfacing its very smooth good quality and all road studs are replaced often, as mentioned by others the barriers were fully replaced a few years ago and actual central crossing points added see here https://goo.gl/maps/YV71ouvjBSGs4VLw5

Most of the accidents are not locals, pedestrians are usually workers at the hotels at Bilbrough Top or walkers visiting the area using public footpaths and not familiar with the road, only one local pedestrian was killed and that was a man and his dog crossed after getting off the bus, it was dark and very busy at the time so it thought he just misjudged the gap in the headlights or possibly fell who knows.
Out of tourist season, I'd imagine the A64 east of York to have modest amounts of traffic, which explains why large parts of it are S2. Scarborough only has a population of 40,000 and has little in the way of industry that would attract HGVs.

I guess the A64 east of Malton could be compared to the A47 east of Norwich, A64 links to Scarborough population 61k and A47 to Great Yarmouth population 58k, but both places triple in size with tourists and also remember Scarborough borough is the most visited UK location outside London, with is incredible considering the poor road access , as for industry it got quite a bit the A64 HGV flow between Malton and Scarborough is 1,415 AADT which isn't bad if you compare to the A47 approach to Great Yarmouth has 1,000......
Given that most of the traffic on the A64 east of York consists of cars heading for the Yorkshire coastal resorts I can see why HE are not keen on it. It doesnt serve any major ports or industrial areas and that part of Yorkshire is relatively lightly populated if you discount the day trippers and holiday makers.

Its interesting that some holiday routes such as the A64 are considered Trunk while others such as the A299 Thanet Way are not, especially given that the latter is a rather decent road passing close to Manston Airport and leads to what used to be a Channel Port.


I'm not sure what the rules are with trunk roads, if each area has to have some form of trunk road access, the A64 is the only trunk road in the area from Middlesbrough down to Hull and carries mostly long distance traffic visiting the east coast with far less local movements, if say you compare to the A170 non trunk in that area which carries mainly local traffic between the towns on route, its good the A64 is trunk as it gets maintained to a much higher standard if you compare to former trunk roads in the area like the A19 with its poor surface dressing, poor white lining and missing road studs between York and Thirsk.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19201
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: A64 Tadcaster to York accident issues

Post by KeithW »

NICK 647063 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 09:26 I'm not sure what the rules are with trunk roads, if each area has to have some form of trunk road access, the A64 is the only trunk road in the area from Middlesbrough down to Hull and carries mostly long distance traffic visiting the east coast with far less local movements, if say you compare to the A170 non trunk in that area which carries mainly local traffic between the towns on route, its good the A64 is trunk as it gets maintained to a much higher standard if you compare to former trunk roads in the area like the A19 with its poor surface dressing, poor white lining and missing road studs between York and Thirsk.
The issue is about how important the route is, Lincolnshire is a large county with very few trunk roads.

There is no way I would travel from Middlesbrough to Hull via the A64 , that route simply makes no sense.

The fastest route and the most usable by HGV's and LGV's is A19/A168/A1(M)/M62 which is trunk all the way.
Second choice is A19 to York and A1079
If I wanted a nice drive it would be A172 to Stokesley, B1257 to Hemsley and possibly the back roads around Castle Howard to York and then pick up the A1079
Post Reply