A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon "news"

[FosseWay]

The LGV speed limit is 56mph, on both motorways and dual carriageways

LGV = light goods vehicles up to 7.5T.

Under UK law Heavy Goods Vehicles (above 7.5T) are actually permitted to travel at 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways. They're only restricted to 56mph (90kph) because of EU law. 7.5T is classed as a light goods vehicle and they used to be able to travel at 60mph on dual carriageways and 70mph on motorways until the EU extended the speed limiters to all goods vehicles over 3.5T.

56mph is extremely slow for a motorway and that EU law should be revised and scrapped.
Traffic will flow better if HGVs can do 60 or even 70.

Richard mentioned some social and safety counterarguments to this, but I'd be interested to know if any studies have been done regarding the assertion about traffic flow.

My gut feeling - and that is all it is - is that *some* speed differential between different classes of traffic is desirable for good flow in the real world, where vehicles are piloted by humans and not all subject to some kind of automatic convoy system that controls both speed and distance to the next vehicle. I drove to and fro through the Netherlands this summer, where there is a blanket 100 km/h speed limit for pollution reasons. I found that where the traffic was light, it was both easy and relaxing to sit at 100 km/h, only needing to overtake the occasional HGV doing 90. However, where traffic was heavier, but not so heavy that it caused general speeds to fall significantly below 100, it became more stressful because you'd get bunching round HGVs (much as you do on UK 70 mph motorways when lorries overtake each other, but basically with all overtaking manoeuvres). The time spent alongside an HGV is longer, meaning the likelihood of that HGV forgetting you're there is higher and the likelihood of someone in a brand of car to which the speed limit does not apply climbing into your boot is also higher.

[Keiji]

Yeah, let's not raise the HGV speed limit please and thank you.

Firstly I agree with all of RichardA35's points:

I'm sure you'll remember that energy of a moving object at 70mph is nearly 50% greater than at 56mph (proportional to the square of the velocity).
The impact requirements for typical parapets over most railways (H4a) is to withstand a 30t HGV at 65kph at a 20 degree angle (~40mph allowing for some deceleration from 56mph).
It's clear there would have to be a programme of indentification and intervention into possibly deficient parapets throughout the country if the speed of HGVs were to be raised and this would include all parapets installed to the most recent standards on the most recent schemes.

On a social level, faster HGVs allow more services to be pulled back further away from rural populations.
For instance the nearest Parcelforce depot to Holyhead and most of North Wales is in Queensferry, Deeside, fully 80 miles away.
For Penzance it is Bodmin over 50 miles away.
Both of which are a long way to go if you're not in when the driver rings the bell and leaves a card (and yes I know alternative delivery options are available but it's the principle of logistics and centralisation that are the issue)

Additionally:
- Building on the first point there about an HGV traveling at higher speed being more of a danger to railway infrastructure, let's not forget that (like any vehicle) every HGV on the roads poses a danger to every other road user. An HGV driver who's fallen asleep on a motorway can cause tragedies for instance. The faster that HGV is going the worse the consequences of an incident will become.
- Building on the second point about the indirect effects of allowing HGVs to travel faster, I would add that not only would it encourage companies to centralise even more, but it also further incentivises road transport over rail. We already need more freight to shift from road to rail for a million reasons, so let's not make that any harder.
- Back when that 80mph motorway limit idea was bandied about, it was pointed out that the faster you go, the worse your fuel efficiency (was this one of the reasons why the idea was scrapped?). If 70->80 for cars is bad, I can only imagine that 56->70 for HGVs is much worse. Plus, many drivers drive over 70 (and some over 80) on the motorway already, so one would not expect the actual average speed to increase by as much as 10mph, while if a 56->70 increase for HGVs actually happened, the real increase would probably be much closer to this 14mph. All this at a time when we're increasingly concerned about the environment.
- While I don't wish to derail this thread with a debate about whether speed differentials are a good thing or a bad thing (since I've heard opinions on both sides) I personally believe a good speed differential does lead to better road safety. In other words, a motorway running with lane speeds 56 - 68 - 80 is safer, imo, than a motorway running with lane speeds 67 - 68 - 69. (I don't consider ASL 50's to cause an issue by removing the speed differential, but that's purely because they reduce the speeds as well as equalising them - 50 in all lanes is safer than 56 - 68 - 80 or 56 - 70 - 70 or whatnot). Since HGVs are pretty commonly encountered on motorways, the 56mph limit for HGVs provides a natural source of speed differential, so upping it to 70 would remove that differential.

And on the question of "should we allow everyone to drive a 7.5 tonner on a car license?"... I incidentally saw this question out of context on an industry news website in an anonymous poll, and I voted no straight away. It hadn't even occurred to me that the Govt was debating whether to actually implement this... Come on, if you want to drive a 7.5 tonner go take a test for one. There is already enough atrocious driving happening in cars and small vans, we really don't need that suddenly happening in any sort of larger vehicle from people on a basic car license.

[Keiji]

My gut feeling - and that is all it is - is that *some* speed differential between different classes of traffic is desirable for good flow in the real world, where vehicles are piloted by humans and not all subject to some kind of automatic convoy system that controls both speed and distance to the next vehicle. I drove to and fro through the Netherlands this summer, where there is a blanket 100 km/h speed limit for pollution reasons. I found that where the traffic was light, it was both easy and relaxing to sit at 100 km/h, only needing to overtake the occasional HGV doing 90. However, where traffic was heavier, but not so heavy that it caused general speeds to fall significantly below 100, it became more stressful because you'd get bunching round HGVs (much as you do on UK 70 mph motorways when lorries overtake each other, but basically with all overtaking manoeuvres). The time spent alongside an HGV is longer, meaning the likelihood of that HGV forgetting you're there is higher and the likelihood of someone in a brand of car to which the speed limit does not apply climbing into your boot is also higher.

I agree 100% and I believe I can say I had a similar experience - not in the Netherlands but right here in the UK on a fairly long stretch of 4-lane VSL 60, I think it may have been on the M6 a bit north of the M6 Toll merge.

Namely, I spent a fair while attempting to actually do 60mph in various lanes and situations but it was just not possible to do so in a way that felt safe. I ended up sitting behind an HGV at 56 for a bit - and then decided even that felt too unsafe, so dropped down to 50 in lane 1 and let all the HGVs overtake me.

That ended up being so much more comfortable that my policy now when it's a motorway is to do 70 in a 70, 50 in a 50, and 50 in a 60 as well (unless it's a fixed 60 with light traffic of course - but those are far rarer than VSL 60s with heavy traffic). I did have a number of other VSL 60s later on during that trip where I then took the same approach I'd learned of slowing to 50 during the 60 and it was a consistently pleasant experience.

[TomJ]

Drove this for the first time in a while today, couple of bits I noticed:

- Seemingly random 60 limit, only appearing on a select few MS4s for the entire way from Brampton Hut to the Cambridge/M11 TOTSO. No rhyme or reason as to which displays it showed up on, sometimes going for a couple miles with no sign of it.

- Saw a HADECS flash for the first time on this section on the opposite carriageway. No variable speed limit in place on that side, and a sign under the camera saying "CAMERA NOT IN USE". Curious.

[Keiji]

Could that have been they were testing the equipment?

Not sure how stringent any relevant rules are on not confusing drivers during a test. I think a flashing camera by a "CAMERA NOT IN USE" sign might be acceptable, but a random 60 roundel, probably not...

[B1040]

As far as I know, the speed cameras on the A1 bit have never been activated.

[TomJ]

Could that have been they were testing the equipment?

Not sure how stringent any relevant rules are on not confusing drivers during a test. I think a flashing camera by a "CAMERA NOT IN USE" sign might be acceptable, but a random 60 roundel, probably not...

It's possible. But given how long that camera and sign have been there, I'd be surprised if they'd only just got around to doing it.

[roadtester]

I’ve just been on the old road (now A1307) between the A1198 and Cambridge Services and I was surprised how busy it was. I suppose drivers are increasingly working out where it fits in to the much altered new scheme of things and finding more ways to use it.

[Ruperts Trooper]

The LGV speed limit is 56mph, on both motorways and dual carriageways

LGV = light goods vehicles up to 7.5T.

Under UK law Heavy Goods Vehicles (above 7.5T) are actually permitted to travel at 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways. They're only restricted to 56mph (90kph) because of EU law. 7.5T is classed as a light goods vehicle and they used to be able to travel at 60mph on dual carriageways and 70mph on motorways until the EU extended the speed limiters to all goods vehicles over 3.5T.

The terms "heavy goods vehicle" and "light goods vehicle" are no longer used - the term "large goods vehicle" applies to all over 3500 kg

[B1040]

I’ve just been on the old road (now A1307) between the A1198 and Cambridge Services and I was surprised how busy it was. I suppose drivers are increasingly working out where it fits in to the much altered new scheme of things and finding more ways to use it.

It's a lot quieter than it was. Still a useful route from Cambridge (and points East and South) to Huntingdon and St Ives.

[doebag]

I’ve just been on the old road (now A1307) between the A1198 and Cambridge Services and I was surprised how busy it was. I suppose drivers are increasingly working out where it fits in to the much altered new scheme of things and finding more ways to use it.

It's a lot quieter than it was. Still a useful route from Cambridge (and points East and South) to Huntingdon and St Ives.

Also, whenever I have used it lately, the Huntingdon ring road seems to be a bit quieter and smoother running.

[AAndy]

The interesting side story from a skeleton found during the excavations : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67755415

[roadtester]

The interesting side story from a skeleton found during the excavations : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67755415

Fascinating story.

A reminder that we’ve always had immigration…

[Bryn666]

I’ve just been on the old road (now A1307) between the A1198 and Cambridge Services and I was surprised how busy it was. I suppose drivers are increasingly working out where it fits in to the much altered new scheme of things and finding more ways to use it.

It's a lot quieter than it was. Still a useful route from Cambridge (and points East and South) to Huntingdon and St Ives.

Rather depends what development horrors spring up alongside it. Most of the A14 benefits will be undone rapidly if the A1307 becomes a commuter road surrounded by box sheds and Barratt shoeboxes.

[RichardA35]

I’ve just been on the old road (now A1307) between the A1198 and Cambridge Services and I was surprised how busy it was. I suppose drivers are increasingly working out where it fits in to the much altered new scheme of things and finding more ways to use it.

It's a lot quieter than it was. Still a useful route from Cambridge (and points East and South) to Huntingdon and St Ives.

Rather depends what development horrors spring up alongside it. Most of the A14 benefits will be undone rapidly if the A1307 becomes a commuter road surrounded by box sheds and Barratt shoeboxes.

It's now a local road for local people...

[roadtester]

Michael Gove’s Cambridge 2040 plan foresees perhaps 150,000 new homes in the Cambridge area. Even the less ambitious existing plans of the local council are looking at perhaps 50,000.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-67764346

An already existing under-used dual carriageway feeding into Cambridge would seem to represent an obvious axis of development but I haven’t seen any reporting that this is one of the main areas earmarked to take the strain.

IMHO this scale of development is probably inevitable and necessary in Cambridge if it is to fulfil its massive potential as a high-tech centre in the interests of the future of the British economy, which is why it is essential that it is properly planned and the infrastructure is up to scratch. One much discussed aspect is whether water supply can be scaled up to the required extent.

[FosseWay]

The posts discussing water supply have been moved to their own thread >>here<<.

[AAndy]

Michael Gove’s Cambridge 2040 plan foresees perhaps 150,000 new homes in the Cambridge area. Even the less ambitious existing plans of the local council are looking at perhaps 50,000.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-67764346

An already existing under-used dual carriageway feeding into Cambridge would seem to represent an obvious axis of development but I haven’t seen any reporting that this is one of the main areas earmarked to take the strain.

IMHO this scale of development is probably inevitable and necessary in Cambridge if it is to fulfil its massive potential as a high-tech centre in the interests of the future of the British economy, which is why it is essential that it is properly planned and the infrastructure is up to scratch. One much discussed aspect is whether water supply can be scaled up to the required extent.

I expect you are well aware of a 'new town' being built at the moment between St Neots and Cambridge, but if you haven't driven the A428 lately the sheer scale of the house building is staggering....which links into the A14 new road nicely and explains the link somewhat!

[B1040]

Two new towns actually.
Cambourne just off the A428 and Northstowe just North of the A14 and Bar Hill.
Huge numbers of houses. Northstowe has no facilities built apart from schools and a nice park round the flood mitigation lakes. (Not even a Tesco metro).

[roadtester]

The pent up pressure for development in the area seems to be enormous. I've always taken the view that it's better to plan for it and embrace the idea that tens or even hundreds of thousands of houses are going to be built, rather than hoping it will go away or just saying no. That way we can make sure all of the correct infrastructure, green space etc. is included and the development is arranged in a coherent way, rather than emerging haphazardly, which would be disastrous given the building is probably going to happen anyway.

I actually quite like Cambourne but it doesn't set a very good example in terms of town centre facilities - I'm always surprised how few places it's got where you can go for a drink or something to eat, or get a takeaway.