End of the M48?

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
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8261
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: End of the M48?

Post by orudge »

DB617 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:46 One other point that I had not realised before. If the problem is junction standards requirements, is it really simpler to declassify the entire M48 across two jurisdictions than it is to be granted a departure from standards, considering the body making the proposal is also in control of the one that decides the standards? Is this all bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy? :roll:
This seems the more sensible approach, I'd have thought.

If they do insist on removing motorway status, they could surely keep it as a Special Road with the same restrictions as at present (to prevent unwanted developments and unsuitable traffic using the road), build their compact GSJ, and stick up green signs instead. Seems rather a lot of hassle and an unnecessary waste of money though.
User avatar
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Re: End of the M48?

Post by danfw194 »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:53 What you're arguing here is inducing demand and making a quiet road a congested and dangerous conflict riddled one? The existing local roads are bad so let's turn the strategic road into another local road?

If access onto the M48 towards further points away is an issue, build a new junction at Crick, which is where traffic would logically want to join such the M48 and as a proper motorway junction. If people driving into Newport and causing congestion and safety issues on the A48 is the problem, then make driving harder and all the alternatives better because we don't need more cars in cities and we definitely don't need a development riddled ribbon route leading out of them, we said this was a bad idea in 1935 and seem to have run back to it to line developer pockets instead of creating a liveable country.

The question remains; do we have any actual transport experts in decision making roles now are is every office populated by people with the IQ of dried leaves?
It's not just me arguing it, the article demonstrates that's where the thinking is going. And that's just an assumption that it will become congested and dangerous, the truth is that neither you nor I know exactly how it would all fall into place.

And sure, I have no problem with the idea of retaining it as the M48 and building a junction or two, and Crick as you say is a logical place. But it appears from the article that is not path they feel they can go down for the reasons of the land usage, and planning difficulties. Ultimately, the article is pointing the future towards either declassification + junctions, or leave completely as is. And I personally think the former option is the best.
User avatar
haymansafc
Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 16:52
Location: Ellesmere Port, Cheshire

Re: End of the M48?

Post by haymansafc »

I'm struggling to understand the reasoning behind a possible downgrade for the M48. The fact that it's quieter than the M4 makes it appeal more to me.

By all means add the odd motorway-spec GSJ or two if necessary, but surely maintaining the road as a motorway would be the sensible solution to help ease any congestion nearby - keeping the likes of tractors e.t.c on local routes and other traffic on the M48. I'd have no objection to that.

The last thing I'd want to see happen to the M48 would it to be chopped up with roundabouts, empty industrial units and predictable housing estates. It would turn it from a once long-distance route into more of a laborious urban-style dual carriageway crawl. I'm still someone who uses it as part of a long distance route because it's more convenient to me than the newer M4 bridge.

I also agree that as it serves as a 'backup' for the new bridge whenever it's been closed (and vice-versa), it really does need to be kept as a motorway otherwise you'd end up seeing motorway traffic facing a downgraded dual carriageway with at-grade junctions e.t.c... That's far from ideal considering what's there now has no such issues.

If it was downgraded, what would happen to Severn View Services? I assume that would be a motorway-spec service area on what would then be a 'A' road? I'd imagine the lack of motorway status could see the potential loss of longer-distance traffic not familiar with the area, resulting in a loss of business.

In short - retain the M48.
The journey is never over until the arrival.
User avatar
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Re: End of the M48?

Post by danfw194 »

haymansafc wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:03 I'm still someone who uses it as part of a long distance route because it's more convenient to me than the newer M4 bridge.
I don't see how that works out? Unless you have a penchant for stopping at the Severn View services or Chepstow.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: End of the M48?

Post by Bryn666 »

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:03
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:53 What you're arguing here is inducing demand and making a quiet road a congested and dangerous conflict riddled one? The existing local roads are bad so let's turn the strategic road into another local road?

If access onto the M48 towards further points away is an issue, build a new junction at Crick, which is where traffic would logically want to join such the M48 and as a proper motorway junction. If people driving into Newport and causing congestion and safety issues on the A48 is the problem, then make driving harder and all the alternatives better because we don't need more cars in cities and we definitely don't need a development riddled ribbon route leading out of them, we said this was a bad idea in 1935 and seem to have run back to it to line developer pockets instead of creating a liveable country.

The question remains; do we have any actual transport experts in decision making roles now are is every office populated by people with the IQ of dried leaves?
It's not just me arguing it, the article demonstrates that's where the thinking is going. And that's just an assumption that it will become congested and dangerous, the truth is that neither you nor I know exactly how it would all fall into place.

And sure, I have no problem with the idea of retaining it as the M48 and building a junction or two, and Crick as you say is a logical place. But it appears from the article that is not path they feel they can go down for the reasons of the land usage, and planning difficulties. Ultimately, the article is pointing the future towards either declassification + junctions, or leave completely as is. And I personally think the former option is the best.
I spent the best part of 2 years arguing against an absolutely moronic proposal to remove the dual carriageways along the A6119 north of Blackburn as part of a housing development - apparently they wanted to build 200 houses or so, but the dual carriageway (the town's original bypass) was "ugly" and needed to be a boulevard. They used the same nonsense arguments that "it's not a strategic road", despite being busy enough ALREADY to warrant the dual carriageways, and they wanted to replace it with a 30 limit S2 with houses directly onto it. Bearing in mind there's little to no rail or bus provision, so everyone would drive from these new houses... :roll:

They relented, it'll be given enhancements and plantings to make it a 40 limit suburban road instead of a 50 limit bypass, but by God what a dumb idea. The same rationale is being used here as far as I can tell. Developers want a nice empty road to ruin at low cost to themselves and incompetent local planners are queuing up to facilitate it.
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
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Re: End of the M48?

Post by danfw194 »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 14:32 I spent the best part of 2 years arguing against an absolutely moronic proposal to remove the dual carriageways along the A6119 north of Blackburn as part of a housing development - apparently they wanted to build 200 houses or so, but the dual carriageway (the town's original bypass) was "ugly" and needed to be a boulevard. They used the same nonsense arguments that "it's not a strategic road", despite being busy enough ALREADY to warrant the dual carriageways, and they wanted to replace it with a 30 limit S2 with houses directly onto it. Bearing in mind there's little to no rail or bus provision, so everyone would drive from these new houses... :roll:

They relented, it'll be given enhancements and plantings to make it a 40 limit suburban road instead of a 50 limit bypass, but by God what a dumb idea. The same rationale is being used here as far as I can tell. Developers want a nice empty road to ruin at low cost to themselves and incompetent local planners are queuing up to facilitate it.
Hmmm, I interpret the rationale here differently to yourself. I completely get your scepticism and maybe I am too naive and giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I'm still sticking with my original reaction in that I think the overarching idea here is logical. But of course, devil will be in the detail.

Also I'm still minded to argue that the M48 has next to no strategic value, other than it being a handy backup for when/if the M4 has big problems (but how often does this happen? genuine question, I have no idea). After all, at both ends it's signed for Chepstow. And as the article states, the anecdotal evidence is that the local B-road is handling more traffic than the M48. None of it screams 'strategic' to me.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like roads having developments attached to them and the inevitable at-grade roundabouts and traffic lights dropped in, but when the road (in my personal opinion) is going to be used by 99% local traffic and barely any through traffic, I'm less minded to be concerned about it.
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: End of the M48?

Post by trickstat »

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:08
haymansafc wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:03 I'm still someone who uses it as part of a long distance route because it's more convenient to me than the newer M4 bridge.
I don't see how that works out? Unless you have a penchant for stopping at the Severn View services or Chepstow.
If your intended destination is Chepstow or the Wye Valley then it makes sense.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: End of the M48?

Post by Bryn666 »

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 14:59
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 14:32 I spent the best part of 2 years arguing against an absolutely moronic proposal to remove the dual carriageways along the A6119 north of Blackburn as part of a housing development - apparently they wanted to build 200 houses or so, but the dual carriageway (the town's original bypass) was "ugly" and needed to be a boulevard. They used the same nonsense arguments that "it's not a strategic road", despite being busy enough ALREADY to warrant the dual carriageways, and they wanted to replace it with a 30 limit S2 with houses directly onto it. Bearing in mind there's little to no rail or bus provision, so everyone would drive from these new houses... :roll:

They relented, it'll be given enhancements and plantings to make it a 40 limit suburban road instead of a 50 limit bypass, but by God what a dumb idea. The same rationale is being used here as far as I can tell. Developers want a nice empty road to ruin at low cost to themselves and incompetent local planners are queuing up to facilitate it.
Hmmm, I interpret the rationale here differently to yourself. I completely get your scepticism and maybe I am too naive and giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I'm still sticking with my original reaction in that I think the overarching idea here is logical. But of course, devil will be in the detail.

Also I'm still minded to argue that the M48 has next to no strategic value, other than it being a handy backup for when/if the M4 has big problems (but how often does this happen? genuine question, I have no idea). After all, at both ends it's signed for Chepstow. And as the article states, the anecdotal evidence is that the local B-road is handling more traffic than the M48. None of it screams 'strategic' to me.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like roads having developments attached to them and the inevitable at-grade roundabouts and traffic lights dropped in, but when the road (in my personal opinion) is going to be used by 99% local traffic and barely any through traffic, I'm less minded to be concerned about it.
I just think when press releases say "doing what we know is right is too expensive" that a fudge and massive expensive cock-up is inevitable. It's got Great Ancoats Street written all over it, where they spaffed £10,000,000 to remove the only cycle infrastructure this area had and introduced a left turn slip road at signals to "help" pedestrians (by forcing them to have an additional crossing stage where they didn't before). But on the upside, they planted ten trees instead. https://greatancoats2020.weebly.com/
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
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 19171
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: End of the M48?

Post by Steven »

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 14:59 And as the article states, the anecdotal evidence is that the local B-road is handling more traffic than the M48. None of it screams 'strategic' to me.
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all...

Traffic counts are available on SABRE Maps by clicking on the "Traffic Counts" button, and they show that the M48 has counts of around 15 - 20k AADT, which is more than three times that of the A48 in the local area and in the same ballpark as the A465 Heads of the Valleys road. Not huge numbers, but it shows that the statement is false.

It's also busier than some other D2M motorways - for example, M45, A66(M) and M180.

For comparison, the M4 in the area is about 60k.
Steven
Motorway Historian

Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

User avatar
haymansafc
Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 16:52
Location: Ellesmere Port, Cheshire

Re: End of the M48?

Post by haymansafc »

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:08
haymansafc wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:03 I'm still someone who uses it as part of a long distance route because it's more convenient to me than the newer M4 bridge.
I don't see how that works out? Unless you have a penchant for stopping at the Severn View services or Chepstow.
As part of a long distance drive I do and have done for many years, this is more pleasant (and shorter) to do than this.

Chepstow is also very roughly the 'half way point' and the first stop is often in that area - anywhere between Monmouth and Severn View Services, depending on mood and time.
The journey is never over until the arrival.
User avatar
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Re: End of the M48?

Post by danfw194 »

Steven wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 15:35
danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 14:59 And as the article states, the anecdotal evidence is that the local B-road is handling more traffic than the M48. None of it screams 'strategic' to me.
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all...

Traffic counts are available on SABRE Maps by clicking on the "Traffic Counts" button, and they show that the M48 has counts of around 15 - 20k AADT, which is more than three times that of the A48 in the local area and in the same ballpark as the A465 Heads of the Valleys road. Not huge numbers, but it shows that the statement is false.

It's also busier than some other D2M motorways - for example, M45, A66(M) and M180.

For comparison, the M4 in the area is about 60k.
Unless you have an AADT for the B-road referenced, then you cannot say it's false. I get the point that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, but you don't actually know it's a false statement. I accept that you cannot say it's true either without figures, but the word anecdotal provides the caveat.
haymansafc wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 15:50
danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:08
haymansafc wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:03 I'm still someone who uses it as part of a long distance route because it's more convenient to me than the newer M4 bridge.
I don't see how that works out? Unless you have a penchant for stopping at the Severn View services or Chepstow.
As part of a long distance drive I do and have done for many years, this is more pleasant (and shorter) to do than this.

Chepstow is also very roughly the 'half way point' and the first stop is often in that area - anywhere between Monmouth and Severn View Services, depending on mood and time.
Fair enough, chances are I'd possibly do a similar thing for a nice drive. But the two things I'd say in response are that 1) this idea wouldn't impact on that route at all really, in fact you might find Chepstow has one less bottleneck than currently, 2) it's so niche that it wouldn't give any justification to the 'M48 is strategic' argument.
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: End of the M48?

Post by JohnnyMo »

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:08
haymansafc wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:03 I'm still someone who uses it as part of a long distance route because it's more convenient to me than the newer M4 bridge.
I don't see how that works out? Unless you have a penchant for stopping at the Severn View services or Chepstow.
My wife enjoyed a few minutes of calm, I am sure a few other drivers do as well.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: End of the M48?

Post by JohnnyMo »

So what is the minimum spec for a motorway junction ? Dumbbell have been used on the A1(M), possibly a diamond would be cheaper I can't see traffic volumes being too high.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: End of the M48?

Post by Bryn666 »

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 15:59
Steven wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 15:35
danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 14:59 And as the article states, the anecdotal evidence is that the local B-road is handling more traffic than the M48. None of it screams 'strategic' to me.
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all...

Traffic counts are available on SABRE Maps by clicking on the "Traffic Counts" button, and they show that the M48 has counts of around 15 - 20k AADT, which is more than three times that of the A48 in the local area and in the same ballpark as the A465 Heads of the Valleys road. Not huge numbers, but it shows that the statement is false.

It's also busier than some other D2M motorways - for example, M45, A66(M) and M180.

For comparison, the M4 in the area is about 60k.
Unless you have an AADT for the B-road referenced, then you cannot say it's false. I get the point that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, but you don't actually know it's a false statement. I accept that you cannot say it's true either without figures, but the word anecdotal provides the caveat.
https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/#14/51.6 ... ountpoints there is no count for the B road through Caldicot. For it to have an AADT exceeding 20k though would mean it would be solid congested 24/7 because a B road that size cannot withstand that volume and not break.
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
Beardy5632
Member
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 16:45
Location: Forest of Dean

Re: End of the M48?

Post by Beardy5632 »

Yeah I can't see that happening myself. Needs to be left as it is as it would be a nightmare whenever the new bridge would be closed.

Also I see Wales Online got their B road mixed up as the B4252 is in the Rhymney Valley which is definitely not parallel to the M48! :lol:
British & Irish cities driven in - 48/75
England - 36/52, Scotland - 7/7, Wales - 5/6, NI - 0/5, RoI - 0/5
crb11
Member
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:35
Location: Cambridge

Re: End of the M48?

Post by crb11 »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 17:11 https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/#14/51.6 ... ountpoints there is no count for the B road through Caldicot. For it to have an AADT exceeding 20k though would mean it would be solid congested 24/7 because a B road that size cannot withstand that volume and not break.
My brother lives on the road in question in Caldicot, so I could ask him to do a traffic count. ;) I can confirm it's not congested 24/7, and I've never seen queuing traffic past his house. FWIW, I'd estimate between a third and and a half of westbound A48 traffic turns off onto the B4245, which would give an AADT of around 3k east of Caldicot (given the remainder stays on the A48 with an AADT of about 4.5k). It feels noticeably busier to the west, so could be up to 5k. This doesn't detract from the point that the area is poorly served by road access and there's frequently congestion both at the A48/A466 junction and the approaches to M4 J23a.
[real name Colin]
User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26209
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: End of the M48?

Post by Owain »

DB617 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:27 Huh. I'm really in two minds about this.

The M48 and M49 have never been that busy because they mostly form link roads between areas also covered by other motorways. The M49 has already been flagged as having extra strategic value that has no yet been tapped, but it cost an absolute fortune to build a massive junction - though I would argue in that case it was justified as the idea was that it would handle a lot of articulated traffic.

There is definitely value in relieving congestion in Chepstow and Monmouthshire by adding extra accesses on the long, otherwise uninterrupted M48. If they were to be compact GSJs this could be done without damaging the road's chances of acting as a night-time or emergency diversion route for the M4. Also if they were to be GSJs, the use of the land off the motorway for tin sheds or houses wouldn't actually damage the strategic value of the road that much given the colossal amount of capacity overhead. I can see why the Welsh Government is not a big fan of the M48 sucking down trunk road maintenance money just for it to be used for almost nothing, but then, that will stay the case unless it's detrunked which is a whole other level of controversy.

On the other hand, I'm concerned that every single proposal the Welsh Government has made regarding southeast Wales has involved in some way compromising the M48's ability to act as a diversion route, in favour of slowly degrading its status as an arterial, strategic road. My largest objection to the M4 Relief Road plans as they stood was the ludicrous M5 J11A style roundabout just plopped in the middle of the new M4/M48 complex outside Undy, which would have diverted all traffic on a PWB night-time closure through a small roundabout instead of a large interchange. There is definitely something very fishy about it, and knowing what I know about the state of the WG, I would not trust them.

So on the surface, this seems like not a terrible plan. But it could well be a slippery slope.
An extra junction might benefit places like Caldicot and Crick, but it would make little difference to Chepstow.

As Chepstow lies east of the A466, it therefore lies to the north-east of the existing junction. There is nowhere to put in a new junction that would help Chepstow, but there is a possible solution (see below).

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:06
Steven wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:57
As it stands the motorway is absolutely of no benefit to anyone who lives in that area. This road needs to cater for local needs, not for long-distance through traffic that has long since been using the M4, as it should.
That's not true - it allows for five lanes of long-distance traffic across the Severn, and allows for journey reliability. Just because the UK is generally terrible at offering alternative parallel provisions (unlike most of the rest of Europe), doesn't mean where it does exist that it should be removed.

The same argument extended somewhat could be used against any restricted access road - for example, the M26 is of no benefit to anyone who lives in the area, and long distance traffic should be using M20/M25 instead. And besides, it is of use for local traffic - that's why there's a junction serving Chepstow! Other than that, there's no town of significant size along that stretch.

Why does that matter when the road serves no other purpose other than for the locals (who would be the ones using those developments)?
This is demonstrably untrue, as it clearly does serve a long-distance purpose.
None of those answers sufficiently address the point that this road ought to cater for local needs now, not long distance traffic which has abandoned it. If it does serve a long-distance purpose, why does barely any long-distance traffic use it nowadays? It's basically just a back-up road for the M4 - which in an ideal world is lovely, it would be wonderful to have back-up roads for all major routes, but it's a waste when the road could be doing much more for the local situation, which as the article points out is a nightmare. It has the potential to unclog local roads, which for me is a far better use of it than just simply keeping it as it is as a useful backup for when the M4 gets stuck.

Plus, we don't actually know what the plans would end up being, the most likely scenario is that it would not have any at-grade junctions added, hence it wouldn't really compromise it much anyway. Assumptions are being made, quite probably wrongly, on how this would all turn out.

EDIT: The one junction you mention of for Chepstow is not enough, as the article discusses.
That one junction for Chepstow is all Chepstow is going to get! As Chepstow lies immediately to the east of the A466, and the Rivers Wye and Severn lie immediately to the east of the junction, there is nowhere else to put a junction that will alleviate the A48 through the town. There is no way anybody is going to propose sticking another junction in between the Wye and Severn Bridges - it would be easier to build that bridge to Northern Ireland than put a junction in at Beachley!

When I was a kid and the A48 bypass opened (in the form of a bypass for Tutshill rather than Chepstow), there was talk of the new road following the route of the railway line down the Welsh side of the Wye to meet the existing junction. But instead, they just plugged the new bit of the A48 into the existing road that heads up a steep climb out of the town, and built a brand new Tesco near the meeting point which immediately clogged the new road up with traffic!

If the new road had completely bypassed Chepstow rather than simply bypassing Tutshill and the old Wye Bridge, it would have done far more for the town than any reclassification of the M48, as the queues from the A48/A466 roundabout can stretch all the way to England during rush hour. It is not the motorway status of the M48 that is a problem for Chepstow; it the absence of a proper bypass for the A48.

trickstat wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 15:18
danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:08
haymansafc wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 13:03I'm still someone who uses it as part of a long distance route because it's more convenient to me than the newer M4 bridge.
I don't see how that works out? Unless you have a penchant for stopping at the Severn View services or Chepstow.
If your intended destination is Chepstow or the Wye Valley then it makes sense.
The Forest of Dean and Wye Valley are tourist destinations of some significance. Okay, they're not on the same scale as Venice or Niagara Falls, but they still attract tourist traffic. If you're coming from the Netherlands or Germany (as many of the tourists do), or from anywhere in the south of England, you will use the M48 to get there. The M48 doesn't only serve Chepstow.
haymansafc wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 15:50Chepstow is also very roughly the 'half way point' and the first stop is often in that area - anywhere between Monmouth and Severn View Services, depending on mood and time.
If you ever fancy an alternative to the A466, try the B4228. :driving:

EDITED TYPO
Last edited by Owain on Tue Oct 19, 2021 22:05, edited 1 time in total.
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
User avatar
danfw194
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 23:26
Location: Leicester

Re: End of the M48?

Post by danfw194 »

crb11 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 17:52 This doesn't detract from the point that the area is poorly served by road access and there's frequently congestion both at the A48/A466 junction and the approaches to M4 J23a.
This is the nub of the point ^. It's all very well people dismissing this idea as nonsense, but the reason why this is even being floated as an idea is because there is a problem in the area. It's not just some 'change for the sake of change' vanity project.

If the M48 is sacred and to be left untouched, then let's hear some alternative suggestions (taking into consideration that there is not much desire to add junctions to the road if it remains the M48).
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: End of the M48?

Post by JohnnyMo »

JohnnyMo wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 17:06 So what is the minimum spec for a motorway junction ? Dumbbell have been used on the A1(M), possibly a diamond would be cheaper I can't see traffic volumes being too high.
As Cadicot seems to be the only sizable settlement in the area, how much would two slip roads facing west off Dewstow Road and two east facing sliproads off Church Road or Crick Road ( in the residence of the "Church Road Estate" refuse to have the extra traffic) cost.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26209
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: End of the M48?

Post by Owain »

danfw194 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 18:30If the M48 is sacred and to be left untouched, then let's hear some alternative suggestions (taking into consideration that there is not much desire to add junctions to the road if it remains the M48).
1. Build a Chepstow bypass, taking the A48 from the new bridge over the River Wye down to M48 J2. This was a fundamentally good idea. The only problem is that since people were talking about it in the late '80s, somebody has gone and built a Tesco at one end and a small trading estate at the other! But, given the alignment of Conway Drive (which looks like it might have derived from those older plans, apparently even being future-proofed), this would not be insurmountable.

2. Stick some slip roads in to connect the M48 to the currently unclassified Crick Road here. Not only would this provide access to the M48 from Caldicot and Caerwent (with the military base), but - with a little upgrading to the unclassified road - it would also hook it up to the A48 at Crick.
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
Post Reply