SW M25 Relief

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

Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Peter Freeman »

Gareth Thomas wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 22:36 Although, using the M25 today Junction 11 seemed to be the hot spot. Queues in both directions leading to it and clearer roads afterwards. Who knew Woking was the place to be? 😄
I realise that your comment was a light-hearted one, but it does raise an important point to bear in mind about motorway congestion.

Observed queuing is easy to misinterpret. Owing to driver and vehicle behaviour amplifying a trivial defect in the normal flow, and the resultant compression wave travelling upstream from the trigger point, queueing locations are quite dynamic. The disturbance usually originates near an interchange (either a merge or diverge), but it can propagate far upstream and so obscure the real cause. You may encounter severe queuing, even standstill, which soon evaporates; and then you unknowingly sail freely through the location that actually caused it. We've all experienced that.

Regardless, it's also true that one pinch-point can cause queues that encompass up to three junctions upstream. I've been monitoring the congestion at M25 J9-J16 for a few days (from afar, using google maps' live and typical traffic settings - but I do have real M25 familiarity too). There appear to be two probably-independent lengthy clockwise queues at the worst time (17h00 Friday), though the two can join up.

One queue runs from just before J13 to just after J15. I'm sure (from watching it build up) that its root cause is the too-short weaving length between J14A and J15, and the 3-lane pinch through J15. A braided re-modelling from J14 to just north of the stack, might cure it. There's easily sufficient space.

The other clockwise queue begins at the Cobham Services on-ramp and dissipates shortly before J12. The main cause is J11 lane drop. Time for ALR, including over the bridge?
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Chris5156 »

Peter Freeman wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 08:43The other clockwise queue begins at the Cobham Services on-ramp and dissipates shortly before J12. The main cause is J11 lane drop. Time for ALR, including over the bridge?
The Department of National England Highways Agency for Transport have a scheme in the works for a fourth lane through J11, and also through several other junctions, which should alleviate some of the problems caused by lane drops on the western side of the M25. It's work that is about two decades overdue but welcome nonetheless!
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by JammyDodge »

I don't know whether this data exists already:
Wouldn't it be a good idea to do an extensive traffic study with the M25, using ANPR cameras
Placing them at all entrances and exits to the M25 as well as along each stretch between junctions, over 12-24 months, you could figure out exactly where traffic is coming from and going on the M25.
This data would probably be of great use for planning future expansions for Express and Local lanes and would be more detailed than just traffic counts along sections of the M25
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by jackal »

Chris5156 wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 09:53
Peter Freeman wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 08:43The other clockwise queue begins at the Cobham Services on-ramp and dissipates shortly before J12. The main cause is J11 lane drop. Time for ALR, including over the bridge?
The Department of National England Highways Agency for Transport have a scheme in the works for a fourth lane through J11, and also through several other junctions, which should alleviate some of the problems caused by lane drops on the western side of the M25. It's work that is about two decades overdue but welcome nonetheless!
Volumes on J11-12 are astonishingly high - 200,854 in 2019, the second highest (after J14-15) on the entire strategic network. Yet there are no plans for D5ALR even though the hard shoulder is continuous, and D5ALR is planned for J15-16.

Indeed, given that volumes for J11-12 are 30k higher than J10-11, it's reasonable to suppose that at least 40k (and quite possibly 50k) of the 200,000 is coming to/from J11. So the lane drop/gain is not really disproportionate to the turning volume. It's just that capacity is exceeded both within the junction and north of it. The lane drop should be retained southbound but it should go from five lanes to four rather than four to three (and similar for the lane gain northbound).
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:46
Chris5156 wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 09:53
Peter Freeman wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 08:43The other clockwise queue begins at the Cobham Services on-ramp and dissipates shortly before J12. The main cause is J11 lane drop. Time for ALR, including over the bridge?
The Department of National England Highways Agency for Transport have a scheme in the works for a fourth lane through J11, and also through several other junctions, which should alleviate some of the problems caused by lane drops on the western side of the M25. It's work that is about two decades overdue but welcome nonetheless!
Volumes on J11-12 are astonishingly high - 200,854 in 2019, the second highest (after J14-15) on the entire strategic network. Yet there are no plans for D5ALR even though the hard shoulder is continuous, and D5ALR is planned for J15-16.

Indeed, given that volumes for J11-12 are 30k higher than J10-11, it's reasonable to suppose that at least 40k (and quite possibly 50k) of the 200,000 is coming to/from J11. So the lane drop/gain is not really disproportionate to the turning volume. It's just that capacity is exceeded both within the junction and north of it. The lane drop should be retained southbound but it should go from five lanes to four rather than four to three (and similar for the lane gain northbound).
The big problem with this is we know they want to get on to the M25, we don't know where they want to go beyond that.

If they want to go into London, then the answer is we should be discouraging that by building a London equivalent of the RER, which is what Crossrail is supposed to be the start of but is too little too late if we're going to continue with glacial construction times.

If they want to go further afield, e.g. Hampshire or Buckinghamshire, then we're looking at should we bring back the M31 and M404. Local traffic from Chertsey, even if it's 40,000 vehicles worth of local traffic, really shouldn't be clogging up the M25 which has to be strategic first, commuter second.
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: 19201
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by KeithW »

The RAC published just such an survey in 2020.
https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/who-uses-the-m25 wrote: Only a small proportion (14%) of car and taxi trips on the M25 – one of the longest and busiest ring roads in the world – bypass London completely and are made by people travelling from one part of the country to another.

The vast majority (74%) of car and taxi trips that include the M25 actually start or end in London.

The remaining proportion (12%) of car and van trips are so-called intra-London movements, meaning the journeys both start and end in the capital but use the 117-mile-long orbital motorway as part of the route.
I would wager that the largest percentage of bypassing traffic is on either the route from the Channel ports to the North and Midlands, hence the need for the LTC or from the M4/M40 to the M1, A41 or M11. You can see this effect easily, traffic on the M1 south of the M25 is around 90k, north of the M25 its nearer 160k.

This should come as no surprise, while radial journeys into the centre of London from the suburbs are pretty well catered for by public transport and roads getting between different parts of London is a real pain. I lived in Edgware and the only practical method of getting to Chingford was this route

A1 to South Mimms
M25 to J26
J26 to A112

Journey time in light traffic 35-40 minutes.

By public transport it was well over an hour with multiple changes. South of the river it is even worse as in north London there is an alternative in the North Circular. Perhaps we really did need both Ringways 3 and 4 instead of just the M25 cobbled together from bits of both.

If you want a really radical solution consider a modern urban rail system such as the French Réseau Express Régional that was built in Paris between the 1960's and 1970's. In combination with the Metro it makes cross city travel by public transport much more usable. The London Overground is a valiant attempt cobbled together from underused lines and is not a patch on its continental equivalents.
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Peter Freeman »

jackal wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:46
Peter Freeman wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 08:43The other clockwise queue begins at the Cobham Services on-ramp and dissipates shortly before J12. The main cause is J11 lane drop. Time for ALR, including over the bridge?
Volumes on J11-12 are astonishingly high - 200,854 in 2019, the second highest (after J14-15) on the entire strategic network. Yet there are no plans for D5ALR even though the hard shoulder is continuous, and D5ALR is planned for J15-16.
Considering the busy pipeline of new ALR schemes, plus the re-working (DHSR to ALR conversion, SVD, etc) of existing Smart lengths, the absence of J10-J15 ALR is perhaps not surprising. Is there a network-wide moratorium on new starts?

Although there are plans for Smart but not for ALR, let's hope that the Smart works are designed such that they don't impede a later ALR upgrade. It will be needed, as you say.
Last edited by Peter Freeman on Tue Sep 07, 2021 03:23, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by jackal »

Peter Freeman wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 16:34
jackal wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:46
Peter Freeman wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 08:43The other clockwise queue begins at the Cobham Services on-ramp and dissipates shortly before J12. The main cause is J11 lane drop. Time for ALR, including over the bridge?
Volumes on J11-12 are astonishingly high - 200,854 in 2019, the second highest (after J14-15) on the entire strategic network. Yet there are no plans for D5ALR even though the hard shoulder is continuous, and D5ALR is planned for J15-16.
Considering the busy pipeline of new ALR schemes, plus the re-working (DHSR to ALR conversion, SVD, etc) of existing Smart lengths, the absence of J10-J15 ALR is perhaps not surprising. Is there a network-wide moratorium on new starts?

Although there are plans for Smart here, but not for ALR, let's hope that the Smart works are designed such that they don't impede a later ALR upgrade. It will be needed, as you say.
There's not a moratorium - M6 J21a to 26 started this year, for instance. But there are also not many ALR schemes left in the programme after all the recent work - just M25 J15-16 and M62 J20-25 I believe.

Anyway, converting 2km of HS is a tiny cost in the grand scheme of things, and what better time could there be than when they're converting the HS through the junctions either side and redesigning the merges/diverges accordingly?

In fact the J11 through lane running doesn't even make any sense if they're not widening J11-J12 as you obviously have at least a lane of traffic turning to the M3.
User avatar
ChrisH
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by ChrisH »

There was a very useful presentation given to stakeholders back in 2018 - slides are online here.

It has a good level of detail on the origins and destinations of trips using the section of M25, and the length of journeys. A mixture of shorter and longer journeys, with around two-thirds either passing through the area or starting/finishing outside the area.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Micro The Maniac »

ChrisH wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 09:03 There was a very useful presentation given to stakeholders back in 2018 - slides are online here.
Interesting (Slide 10):
Conclusions of study to date:
 Directly adding capacity to the M25 SWQ not feasible

Recommendation:
 Instead of widening the existing M25, attention should be given to reducing traffic demand and providing parallel capacity to relieve the pressure on the M25.
Yet the only plan of action to convert the existing road to ALR J15-J16 and faff about with the junctions
https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... -motorway/
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Peter Freeman »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 06:54 I've long held the view that the clockwise M25 should split before J11 into a three (??) lane C/D with the three (??) lane mainline having no access to J11-J15 - the two combining at the J15 (M4) merge. Yes, this makes probably J15 quite complicated... Likewise, anticlockwise should split before J15 and recombine at the J12 merge. This is arguably the most congested 10 miles on the motorway network - and having five junctions (including M3, M4 and LHR) really doesn't help.
C/D lanes are not the answer in this case. They suit a situation where a motorway has major interchanges (eg. with other motorways) separated by a few minor interchanges. The inner express lanes omit the minor junctions, providing smooth journeys with no weaving. The outer local lanes run at a lower level of service, acceptable for local short-distance users.

The M25, and especially its SW quadrant, is not that type of road. It has frequent major interchanges. Your proposed express lanes would bypass the M3 and the airport access, which are high flows that can't be left to struggle along C/D lanes with the locals.

The solutions here, in my view, are widening to the maximum extent possible, and braiding. Braiding is the gold-standard 'congestion buster' where junctions are closely spaced. Here it would apply between J11 & J12, and at J13-14-14A-15. J14-14A is already braided, but the main problem arises between j14A & 15. The implementation would be quite simple by extending the 14A slips into/under/past J15.

I know some of this length will be in tunnel if the Heathrow plans proceed, but that doesn't rule it out. I haven't looked at those plans recently - perhaps they address this? (if runway three ever happens).
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by jackal »

Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:55
Micro The Maniac wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 06:54 I've long held the view that the clockwise M25 should split before J11 into a three (??) lane C/D with the three (??) lane mainline having no access to J11-J15 - the two combining at the J15 (M4) merge. Yes, this makes probably J15 quite complicated... Likewise, anticlockwise should split before J15 and recombine at the J12 merge. This is arguably the most congested 10 miles on the motorway network - and having five junctions (including M3, M4 and LHR) really doesn't help.
C/D lanes are not the answer in this case. They suit a situation where a motorway has major interchanges (eg. with other motorways) separated by a few minor interchanges. The inner express lanes omit the minor junctions, providing smooth journeys with no weaving. The outer local lanes run at a lower level of service, acceptable for local short-distance users.

The M25, and especially its SW quadrant, is not that type of road. It has frequent major interchanges. Your proposed express lanes would bypass the M3 and the airport access, which are high flows that can't be left to struggle along C/D lanes with the locals.

The solutions here, in my view, are widening to the maximum extent possible, and braiding. Braiding is the gold-standard 'congestion buster' where junctions are closely spaced. Here it would apply between J11 & J12, and at J13-14-14A-15. J14-14A is already braided, but the main problem arises between j14A & 15. The implementation would be quite simple by extending the 14A slips into/under/past J15.

I know some of this length will be in tunnel if the Heathrow plans proceed, but that doesn't rule it out. I haven't looked at those plans recently - perhaps they address this? (if runway three ever happens).
The last version was a C/D lane set up. There would be no weaving on the M25 mainline as there is at present. To me that's enough. The split at J15 is more than 2 to 1 in favour of the M25 - 146,054 AADF carrying on along the M25, 70,054 to/from the M4. Yes, ideally you would not have a 1km weaving space on the 70k AADT outercarriageways, but it's vastly better than the current situation where it's on a 216k mainline. It would be madly complicated to add outercarriageway braiding on top of the existing braiding, as you then need to have an explosion of link roads joining the elements of each braid to each other in order to maintain full access. Even the proposed 'basic' C/D lane proposal is still very complicated!

Heathrow 2019 - Copy.jpg

(Click to expand.)
Last edited by jackal on Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:21, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Bryn666 »

Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:55
Micro The Maniac wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 06:54 I've long held the view that the clockwise M25 should split before J11 into a three (??) lane C/D with the three (??) lane mainline having no access to J11-J15 - the two combining at the J15 (M4) merge. Yes, this makes probably J15 quite complicated... Likewise, anticlockwise should split before J15 and recombine at the J12 merge. This is arguably the most congested 10 miles on the motorway network - and having five junctions (including M3, M4 and LHR) really doesn't help.
C/D lanes are not the answer in this case. They suit a situation where a motorway has major interchanges (eg. with other motorways) separated by a few minor interchanges. The inner express lanes omit the minor junctions, providing smooth journeys with no weaving. The outer local lanes run at a lower level of service, acceptable for local short-distance users.

The M25, and especially its SW quadrant, is not that type of road. It has frequent major interchanges. Your proposed express lanes would bypass the M3 and the airport access, which are high flows that can't be left to struggle along C/D lanes with the locals.

The solutions here, in my view, are widening to the maximum extent possible, and braiding. Braiding is the gold-standard 'congestion buster' where junctions are closely spaced. Here it would apply between J11 & J12, and at J13-14-14A-15. J14-14A is already braided, but the main problem arises between j14A & 15. The implementation would be quite simple by extending the 14A slips into/under/past J15.

I know some of this length will be in tunnel if the Heathrow plans proceed, but that doesn't rule it out. I haven't looked at those plans recently - perhaps they address this? (if runway three ever happens).
The HAL plans are a bin fire from memory. I can't divulge the details of the Arora alternative plans I helped with, but we took the M25 a lot more seriously and tried to untangle the 14-14A-15 knot.

The problem we ran straight into? Highways England didn't give a flying fudge. They wanted to retain J14A at all costs, hence why the HAL plans have it, whereas we dug in and said it needed to be removed.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/the-fu ... 1-05-2020/ - this is a very stylised map, but you can see the directional-T above J14 which we came up with to replace 14A. I cited the M50/M1 junction in Dublin as inspiration.
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
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by jackal »

From what I recall HAL were quite keen to remove J14a if it meant they didn't need the C/D lanes. HE insisted on the C/D lanes regardless, which pushed HAL towards retaining J14a as the options with J14a and C/D lanes were pretty complex (ignore the first one):

Heathrow prior to M3a - Copy.PNG

Not sure if something similar was going on with Aurora, but HE would be right to call out any option that doesn't offer C/D lanes even if it does remove J14a.

PS - I went back to the HAL docs and it seems as well as cost/complexity of works these are the reasons J14a was retained:

1.7.42 Consultation One feedback was received from International Airlines Group that
removing J14a would create a single point of failure and that it should be retained
for capacity and resilience. Slough Borough Council also favoured not having to
expand J14 and the additional land-take that would result. Retaining J14a and J14
would, however, impact the size and configuration of the western apron. The
single M25 junction option JD6 was replaced with dual-junction option JB17 (and
subsequently be JB18).

and in 1.7.43:

JD6 was not taken forward as it was replaced with dual-junction
option JB18 which provided additional airport access resilience and
was less costly due to the retained J14 and J14a.

This was the single junction option that made it furthest. It's quite similar to the Arora sketch (though not sure if latter had C/D lanes):

Heathrow JD6 - Copy.JPG

From Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 3 of 5 (June 2019)
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Peter Freeman »

jackal wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:13 The last version was a C/D lane set up. There would be no weaving on the M25 mainline as there is at present. To me that's enough. The split at J15 is more than 2 to 1 in favour of the M25 - 146,054 AADF carrying on along the M25, 70,054 to/from the M4. Yes, ideally you would not have a 1km weaving space on the 70k AADT outer carriageways, but it's vastly better than the current situation where it's on a 216k mainline.

It would be madly complicated to add outer carriageway braiding on top of the existing braiding, as you then need to have an explosion of link roads joining the elements of each braid to each other in order to maintain full access. Even the proposed 'basic' C/D lane proposal is still very complicated!
That's quite a clever design, though I don't like the weird extended J14 roundabout, with its internal shortcut. I suppose it will be signalised too :( .

The design is, effectively, braided, with all the crossovers pushed southwards to be close to J14 -

1. The existing northbound braid between J14 and J14A, just west of the M25 mainline, remains in use unaltered.

2. On the eastern side, the off-ramp from the anti-clockwise inner carriageway reaches the J14 roundabout by flying over the outer carriageway and the J14A southbound on-ramp. You can see it halfway between the two roundabouts. That's a braid.

3. On the western side, the clockwise outer carriageway diverges from the M25 mainline well before the J14 off-ramp diverges. Quite inventive! It goes over three bridges before it is joined by J14 and 14A traffic and becomes a fully-fledged C/D outer carriageway. That's a disguised braid.

The problem is that this upgrade, or whatever else might come from the 3rd runway designers, might not happen for years, or at all. So how many years do we wait? It might seem that it could be built now, and roofed over later. That would be disruptive. Or roofed over now, ready for the runway later. The annoying thing though, is that, if not for the Heathrow issue, we'd design it differently, and better.

Ideally, I'd like to see a really good J14, with no J14A and no roundabouts. Design from scratch. There really is quite a lot of usable space there, especially if there's no airport expansion.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by jackal »

Yes, of course there's a lot of braiding. But my point was that you would need a lot more braiding still to remove weaving on the outercarriageways as well, which seemed to be the thrust of your previous post. I really like the HAL design but it has tight weaving spaces on the outercarriageways.

Even with the pandemic delays I don't think the airport will actually hold up M25 investment. National Highways (as is) have a hundred places on the network that are in equal or greater need. J14-15 had a major upgrade (from 4 to 6 lanes as well as the new junction) only 15 years ago and I doubt they'd have come back to it for at least another 15. If anything the airport plans might speed things up a bit by forcing changes to the M25 before its 'turn' on the glacial improvement rota.
User avatar
ChrisH
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by ChrisH »

Before work on Heathrow expansion was frozen in Feb 2020, the plans were largely as Jackal has posted. HAL were insistent on having the resilience of two access points on the west, to the extent that j14 and j14a largely duplicate each other.

The additional braiding introduced as part of their plan would allow Heathrow access to and from the M4 slips as well as the M25 mainline. And the tunnels beneath the runway would have space for several more lanes at the insistence of HE, to future proof any foreseeable upgrades in the future.
User avatar
chaseracer
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 15:46
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by chaseracer »

Herned wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 00:01
Gareth Thomas wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 22:36 Who knew Woking was the place to be? 😄
Prince Andrew?
No sweat...
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Chris Bertram »

chaseracer wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 20:13
Herned wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 00:01
Gareth Thomas wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 22:36 Who knew Woking was the place to be? 😄
Prince Andrew?
No sweat...
"The grand old Duke of York ..."
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: SW M25 Relief

Post by Vierwielen »

jackal wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 16:55 I don't think the airport will actually hold up M25 investment. National Highways (as is) have a hundred places on the network that are in equal or greater need.
... but will National Highways actually pay for the Heathrow changes, or will it be paid fro by Heathrow. If the latter, then other places on the network that might be of greater need will not get preference. The only difference is that Heathrow will use contractors who could be used elsewhere.
Post Reply