A55 Special Road: Was it ever intended to be a motorway?

[jnty]

Sustrans is the group who should be leading that charge.

Don't get me started on Sustrans! I find it deeply odd that the body for national cycle infrastructure provision is constituted as a charity. If it was a clever and successful model we'd use it for other infrastructure and bodies like local councils would have copied it widely. But we don't, and they haven't. So why do we persist in doing it this way for cycle infrastructure?

If the motorway network rollout had been led by Sustans (Motrans?) then every junction would have very nice murals alongside (but not be grade separated), there would be special gates to keep pedestrians out (which would also make the entire network inaccessible to lorries) and there would be a big debate about whether surfacing non-urban motorways with tarmac destroyed their 'rural charm'.

Actually some local councils have gone down the line of designating and building cycle routes
https://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/sites/ ... %20map.pdf
https://cambridge.cyclestreets.net/
https://www.itravelyork.info/downloads/ ... -route-map

I know - but not one of them has gone down the route of creating an arms-length charity to do it. They've just built it in roughly the same way they build all other roads infrastructure. Wonder why!

[KeithW]

For instance, consider this M6 countpoint, with pedal cycle traffic. Because, at the time, it was the A74.

Not so, the M6 never went into Scotland, the A74(M)/M6 change is in England at J45, in fact for a long time it ended at J44 for Carlisle

The old A7 then as now started in Carlisle and crossed the River Eden here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.90012 ... 8192?hl=en

The A74 started in Kingstown here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.92620 ... 6656?hl=en

and headed NW to Gretna. Been there done that.

[owen b]

Sure, signpost the route for cyclists, that should be vastly better value for money and I agree would be a reasonable use of public funds.

I don't accept the idea that three cyclists daily might choose to use the A1(M) for want of a parallel cyclepath. I've been driving since 1986 and I don't recall ever seeing a single cyclist on a motorway ever, let alone three just on one short stretch of the A1(M). The three cyclists per day who used that stretch of A1 have a perfectly reasonable alternative route and they are legally obliged not to use the motorway. Any attempt to justify or excuse cyclists using the A1(M) is defending the indefensible in my opinion, on both legal and safety grounds.

Nor do I accept the idea that there's a high level of cyclists who would use a cycleway on that stretch if one was provided. Sure, it might be more than three daily. It might even get into double figures, but I doubt it would be much higher. In which case it's very hard to justify spending hundreds of thousands of pounds - it's simply not value for money for the amount of usage it would get. The rights of way argument also fails in my opinion as there are reasonable alternative rights of way already in existence for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Seriously, I'm all in favour of good cycling provision, but in the real world of limited public money I think the sort of militant attitude that says I want a shiny cycle path for three cyclists per day at considerable expense despite there being a reasonable existing alternative and if I don't get it I'll threaten to cycle on the motorway is to say the least unhelpful and more likely to give the cycling community a bad name.

A reasonable alternative route is worthless if you don't have confidence that you won't get lost.

But cyclists won't get lost if the cycle route is properly signposted, and we both agree on the need for adequate signposting. Problem solved, much, much more cost effectively for the taxpayer .

I think you're looking at the raw numbers without considering other factors. The main benefit of the motorway scheme was reducing travel time, probably by a matter of seconds. Meanwhile the 1.2 mile diversion easily adds 4-5 minutes to a bike ride at a reasonable pace, slower if you've come a long way!

And the safety improvement for cyclists would be very substantial when compared to the old A1.

So the benefits to cyclists of building a cycleway as part of the scheme would be far, far, greater than the benefit to motorists of the same scheme, and should be weighted accordingly. And add in the reduction of the risk that someone does decide to go up the A1(M).

J49-50 is what, 60,000 AADF? Time saving let's say 20 seconds (generally free flow 70mph on new route compared to variable 50-70mph over approx. 2 miles on old congested route), so aggregate time saving 20,000 minutes per day. AADF for cyclists on old A1 = 3 (your number), time saving 5 minutes (your number), aggregate time saving 15 minutes. So that's still less than 0.1% of the time benefit for the cyclists for more than 0.1% of the investment. The numbers still don't stack up.

Cyclists get the safety benefit by using the existing rights of way. I have cycled long distances and I wouldn't dream of illegally cycling on an out of bounds road for both legal and safety reasons, and I wouldn't dream of not having the maps and map reading ability to navigate if the signposting turns out to be inadequate.

Good luck crowd funding a cycle path for the missing link J49-50 .

[solocle]

For instance, consider this M6 countpoint, with pedal cycle traffic. Because, at the time, it was the A74.

Not so, the M6 never went into Scotland, the A74(M)/M6 change is in England at J45, in fact for a long time it ended at J44 for Carlisle

The old A7 then as now started in Carlisle and crossed the River Eden here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.90012 ... 8192?hl=en

The A74 started in Kingstown here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.92620 ... 6656?hl=en

and headed NW to Gretna. Been there done that.

That section of the M6 between Carlisle and Gretna used to be the A74, at that point of its alignment. So much so that the count point has been continued.

[the cheesecake man]

Don't get me started on Sustrans! I find it deeply odd that the body for national cycle infrastructure provision is constituted as a quasi-independent charity. If it was a clever and successful model we'd use it for other infrastructure and bodies like local councils would have copied it widely. But we don't, and they haven't.

We do and they have eg:

Canal & River Trust: a quasi-independent charity maintaining inland waterways previously owned by the public British Waterways
Network Rail: a quasi-independent non-profit corporation maintaining railways once owned by the public British Rail
Sheffield International Venues: a quasi-independent non-profit company operating sports facilities previously owned by Sheffield City Council

[solocle]

But cyclists won't get lost if the cycle route is properly signposted, and we both agree on the need for adequate signposting. Problem solved, much, much more cost effectively for the taxpayer .

I think you're looking at the raw numbers without considering other factors. The main benefit of the motorway scheme was reducing travel time, probably by a matter of seconds. Meanwhile the 1.2 mile diversion easily adds 4-5 minutes to a bike ride at a reasonable pace, slower if you've come a long way!

And the safety improvement for cyclists would be very substantial when compared to the old A1.

So the benefits to cyclists of building a cycleway as part of the scheme would be far, far, greater than the benefit to motorists of the same scheme, and should be weighted accordingly. And add in the reduction of the risk that someone does decide to go up the A1(M).

J49-50 is what, 60,000 AADF? Time saving let's say 20 seconds (generally free flow 70mph on new route compared to variable 50-70mph over approx. 2 miles on old congested route), so aggregate time saving 20,000 minutes per day. AADF for cyclists on old A1 = 3 (your number), time saving 5 minutes (your number), aggregate time saving 15 minutes. So that's still less than 0.1% of the time benefit for the cyclists for more than 0.1% of the investment. The numbers still don't stack up.

Cyclists get the safety benefit by using the existing rights of way. I have cycled long distances and I wouldn't dream of illegally cycling on an out of bounds road for both legal and safety reasons, and I wouldn't dream of not having the maps and map reading ability to navigate if the signposting turns out to be inadequate.

Good luck crowd funding a cycle path for the missing link J49-50 .

I think the first time I ever cycled on a dual carriageway was "out of bounds".
[
There's a cycle path alongside, signed from Iffley Road. But, at the time, I was new to Oxford, I'd gone down Iffley Road instead of Cowley Road by mistake, and I didn't know where on Earth "Littlemore" was! I'm not even sure I saw the cycling restriction sign, being night time, but certainly if I did it was too late to do anything about it, being in a left-only lane.

GPS runs out of charge, paper maps can get soaked. The last long ride I did was to London, and I was able to do the route off the top of my head, with the help of some signposts. The A30 is nice and easy to remember, after all. I did get a bit mixed up by signs for Chertsey and ended up on the Staines Bypass, but other than that, it went swimmingly.

[KeithW]

Actually some local councils have gone down the line of designating and building cycle routes
https://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/sites/ ... %20map.pdf
https://cambridge.cyclestreets.net/
https://www.itravelyork.info/downloads/ ... -route-map

I know - but not one of them has gone down the route of creating an arms-length charity to do it. They've just built it in roughly the same way they build all other roads infrastructure. Wonder why!

Because its not their job, councils are responsible for local roads, streets and footpaths. Acklam Road is council managed while the A66 and A19 are the responsibility of National Highways. Pathways along the River Tees are the responsibility of the Canal and River Trust which is a charity. Charitable Trusts have tax advantages, properly managed they dont pay pay taxes on income. That said there is one Sustrans route along the Tees, the Tees Barrage Ride from Stockton to Middlesbrough.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.56560 ... 2688?hl=en

By all means campaign for better management and financial support of Sustrans but handing over the responsibility to National Highways is not an option.

[KeithW]

That section of the M6 between Carlisle and Gretna used to be the A74, at that point of its alignment. So much so that the count point has been continued.

The M6 was extended to meet the A74(M) in 2008, 38 years after it reached J44 at Carlisle and of course the old road still exists as the B7076. No need to use the M6 there.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.97417 ... 8192?hl=en

[jnty]

Don't get me started on Sustrans! I find it deeply odd that the body for national cycle infrastructure provision is constituted as a quasi-independent charity. If it was a clever and successful model we'd use it for other infrastructure and bodies like local councils would have copied it widely. But we don't, and they haven't.

We do and they have eg:

Canal & River Trust: a quasi-independent charity maintaining inland waterways previously owned by the public British Waterways
Network Rail: a quasi-independent non-profit corporation maintaining railways once owned by the public British Rail
Sheffield International Venues: a quasi-independent non-profit company operating sports facilities previously owned by Sheffield City Council

The second two aren't registered charities - creating separate organisations to run infrastructure is a perfectly reasonable strategy. I will take your point on Canal & River Trust though, while noting the model of a caretaker organisation designed to look after a largely fixed asset base of infrastructure which was obsolescent in 1900 is not one I would choose for critical infrastructure you allegedly intend to grow and improve significantly over the coming decades.

[jnty]

By all means campaign for better management and financial support of Sustrans but handing over the responsibility to National Highways is not an option.

I'm not sure I understand why it's Not An Option - in fact I'm fairly sure NH routinely build cycle infrastructure alongside roads - though I accept it may not be the optimal alternative. However, as the body responsible for motor vehicle infrastructure, the National Highways website does not have a Donate Here page because that would be absurd and globally embarrassing. Yet this is somehow seen as entirely normal for the equivalent body for cycle routes? It suggests a complete gulf in how seriously we take each mode.

[KeithW]

The second two aren't registered charities - creating separate organisations to run infrastructure is a perfectly reasonable strategy. I will take your point on Canal & River Trust though, while noting the model of a caretaker organisation designed to look after a largely fixed asset base of infrastructure which was obsolescent in 1900 is not one I would choose for critical infrastructure you allegedly intend to grow and improve significantly over the coming decades.

So campaign for a reformation of Sustrans or the creation of a new authority. National Highways are the wrong organisation to task with this and frankly as an ex cyclist and motorcyclist a motorway is the last place on earth I would want to be.

My route to Redcar was along the Black Path, which seems to have been renamed the Teesdale Way, not the Trunk Road which then didn't have a cycleway.
https://steverabone.com/EastCoasttoWest ... brough.htm

Getting to Seaton Carew and Hartlepool was not a nice ride. Seal Sands is bleak at the best of times.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.62690 ... 8192?hl=en

Whitby meant the Moors Road and the climb up Birk Brow.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.52425 ... 8192?hl=en

Darlington wasnt bad if you used Darlington Back Lane
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.55961 ... 6656?hl=en

[jnty]

The second two aren't registered charities - creating separate organisations to run infrastructure is a perfectly reasonable strategy. I will take your point on Canal & River Trust though, while noting the model of a caretaker organisation designed to look after a largely fixed asset base of infrastructure which was obsolescent in 1900 is not one I would choose for critical infrastructure you allegedly intend to grow and improve significantly over the coming decades.

So campaign for a reformation of Sustrans or the creation of a new authority. National Highways are the wrong organisation to task with this and frankly as an ex cyclist and motorcyclist a motorway is the last place on earth I would want to be.

I don't think there's any requirement that anything NH builds has to be on a motorway. In fact they seem to be actively allergic to motorways at the moment...

More seriously, scenic routes are all well and good but sometimes you need to get from A to B. There is room for both as the combination of discussion on this forum about trunk roads and 'scenic back roads' aptly shows.

[KeithW]

I'm not sure I understand why it's Not An Option - in fact I'm fairly sure NH routinely build cycle infrastructure alongside roads - though I accept it may not be the optimal alternative. However, as the body responsible for motor vehicle infrastructure, the National Highways website does not have a Donate Here page because that would be absurd and globally embarrassing. Yet this is somehow seen as entirely normal for the equivalent body for cycle routes? It suggests a complete gulf in how seriously we take each mode.

They build cycle infrastructure when their new roads block existing routes, the new A14 was a classic example. The local cycling groups in Cambridge were very effective in lobbying when the route was proposed, starting after aroad is approved or built is a different issue.

The business of National Highways is to build and manage roads of national strategic importance. As such they are financed by grants from the English and Scottish Governments. Do you really want a bureaucrat in London deciding where a cycle route in Solihull should be built ?

As I said campaign for a new model for Sustrans by all means but I dont see a better way to finance it myself unless you start an equivalent of Road Tax for bicycles. The treasury isn't likely to pony up especially given the size of the current deficit.

[jnty]

The business of National Highways is to build and manage roads of national strategic importance. As such they are financed by grants from the English and Scottish Governments. Do you really want a bureaucrat in London deciding where a cycle route in Solihull should be built ?

As I said campaign for a new model for Sustrans by all means but I dont see a better way to finance it myself unless you start an equivalent of Road Tax for bicycles. The treasury isn't likely to pony up especially given the size of the current deficit.

If that cycle route is part of a nationally managed network then I think that makes perfect sense. You might as well say the same with NH - 'do you really want bureaucrats in London deciding on upgrades to roads in Solihull? Well, yes, for trunk roads that is how it works. Local councils can deal with local routes, applying for grant funding if appropriate, just as they already do.

The money can come from the same place it does already.

[KeithW]

If that cycle route is part of a nationally managed network then I think that makes perfect sense. You might as well say the same with NH - 'do you really want bureaucrats in London deciding on upgrades to roads in Solihull? Well, yes, for trunk roads that is how it works. Local councils can deal with local routes, applying for grant funding if appropriate, just as they already do.

The money can come from the same place it does already.

Cycle routes are NOT part of a nationally managed network beyond avoiding severing existing routes and even that is relatively new. National Highways are responsible for those routes designated as strategic (trunk roads). Their sole duty as to cycle ways is defined thus in the Highways Act 1980.

The power to direct that a highway or proposed highway become a trunk road includes the power to direct that a strategic highways company is the highway authority for that trunk road.

Section 10

2 a) The power under this section to direct that a proposed highway]shall become a trunk road may be exercised in relation to any cycle track or footpath proposed to be constructed on land separated by intervening land from the trunk road in connection with which it is to be used.

The map of those roads is here.
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/media/qe ... 5-copy.pdf

NH paid for the cycling route from Middlesbrough to Billingham as the A19 was one of those roads. They did NOT do so for the A174 because the old A174 (now B1380) was considered adequate. The A1053 was new build so no cycleway was built.

In the last decade or two central government funding for local authorities has declined sharply.

Councils’ grant funding from central government has fallen from £83.1 billion in 2015/16 to £69.9 billion in 2018/19 – a decrease of 15.8 per cent over four years. This includes steep decreases in both revenue and capital funding.

My local authority has already raised the council tax by the max permitted (3%)

[solocle]

That section of the M6 between Carlisle and Gretna used to be the A74, at that point of its alignment. So much so that the count point has been continued.

The M6 was extended to meet the A74(M) in 2008, 38 years after it reached J44 at Carlisle and of course the old road still exists as the B7076. No need to use the M6 there.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.97417 ... 8192?hl=en

I don't think you've understood what I'm saying.

Until 2008, there was the M6 to Carlisle, the A74 to Gretna, and then the A74(M)/B7076.

There is now, instead of the A74, the M6, and the C1022 (Cumbria), thus closing the Cumberland Gap. Before that scheme, it was the A74, or a sizeable detour via the A7.

The count point I used, 16612, is an M6 counter, on a section of the M6 that used to be part of the alignment of the A74. So, we have a motorway count point that, before 2008, shows pedal cycle traffic.