A30 Carland Cross Chiverton Cross

[RichardEvans67]

I'd add that just grade separating Chiverton Junction as a scheme on it's own may be justifiable. As well as the A30 traffic, have you considered how much of an advantage it would be for Truro traffic ?

[Berk]

Without a doubt, yes.

[Norfolktolancashire]

I'd add that just grade separating Chiverton Junction as a scheme on it's own may be justifiable. As well as the A30 traffic, have you considered how much of an advantage it would be for Truro traffic ?

There is a lot of traffic using the A39 from Carland Cross A30 towards Truro, traffic bound for Falmouth also tends to go that way, its the main route to those areas from out of Cornwall (upcountry as locals say).

[A320Driver]

by Phil » Sat Nov 23, 2019 19:10

Hmm, so you want a GSJ but have the road immediately turn to S1 straight after?

Well ermm. No I want the whole scheme , but if it has to be cut back then what is the least bad option ? You may have a point with using much bigger roundabouts, perhaps also using traffic signals at the junctions they could make that work. I'd add that unlike the A303, there is the added issue of the traffic going to and from Truro.

Thinking more about my idea. How about a providing new bits of single to bypass spots where there could be holdups. The new bits would be less prone to tractors etc. so at least the traffic would be more likely to keep moving.

At the eastern end I was thinking a new single from Carland bypassing everything to the Zalah bypass (and then tie in with the existing bypass). The exiting A30 from Boxheater could tie into Henver Lane which has a junction with the existing bypass.

At the Western end, after Chiverton junction, the new road would tie into the existing A30 somewhere before Chybucca. A section of the existing A30 would become a local access coming to a dead end. Some traffic signals could be used if necessary at Chybucca junction.

In between, depending on the money, a new bit might help by bypassing Little Tresaswen and Marazanvose.

Hopefully, the bridges could be built to allow duelling at a later date.

Well, thinking about your option but with traffic signals, I'm not sure whether your option or mine is better. Of course the full HA scheme would be preferable.

A new SC bypass? Sorry but that would solve very few of the existing problems between Carland and Chivvy. The main issue is slow-moving vehicles, poor alignment, and congestion at the bigger junctions (Chybucca and Boxheater). It would also I feel be poor value for money, and would have to be revisited in the years to come.

Traffic lights?? Well that will surely create a new massive bottleneck, yes, great idea.

Two things I don’t get is with the HE scheme:

1. they are obsessed with relocating Chivvy X to a new location, when the existing roundabout could support a new DC underpass, tying in with the terrain west of the junction to create a nice gradient.
2. Why not use the existing Zelah bypass and just widen it? Fair enough there would be a small increase to traffic through Zelah but minimal I suspect.

Let’s just hope that the Tories win on December 12th and rubber stamp the scheme (along with the A303 at Sparkford, which would represent the first improvement to the A303 in 28 years since Zeals bypass)

[nowster]

Let’s just hope that the Tories win on December 12th and rubber stamp the scheme...

The actions of an incoming government are never ever a given, even if expressed in their manifesto.

[DavidBrown]

Let’s just hope that the Tories win on December 12th and rubber stamp the scheme...

The actions of an incoming government are never ever a given, even if expressed in their manifesto.

Indeed, and one road scheme shouldn't on its own be a deciding factor in who you vote for. However, I think the Tories have to win if this scheme has even half a chance of being constructed. A Labour or Lib Dem government/coalition would mean absolutely zero chance of work starting - indeed it'll be one of the very first casualties. Labour don't know Cornwall exists, and now the Lib Dems are trying to cash in on this climate emergency fad, they'll desperately want to see pretty much every road scheme going canned.

[RichardEvans67]

by A320Driver » Sun Nov 24, 2019 15:05
A new SC bypass? Sorry but that would solve very few of the existing problems between Carland and Chivvy. The main issue is slow-moving vehicles, poor alignment, and congestion at the bigger junctions (Chybucca and Boxheater). It would also I feel be poor value for money, and would have to be revisited in the years to come.

I would hope most of the slow moving vehicles would be using the exiting road rather than the new one, because all the local accesses would be on the old route. The new road would not be built with poor alignment, that would be stupid. My suggestion did bypass the Boxheater junction, as for Chybucca, I'm not sure. I don't see how to grade separate it without spending a lot of money, and I wouldn't have thought the traffic would be anywhere near the scale of Chiverton Cross. So I assumed it wouldn't be worth it, but I could easily be wrong, it's just my thoughts.

Traffic lights?? Well that will surely create a new massive bottleneck, yes, great idea.

I was suggesting traffic lights, partly to address safety issues, and partly because of issues with vehicles no being able to move because of a constant stream of traffic. If they are used on the main A30, then they would be phased, to allow much more traffic to flow on the main road, with only much shorter green lights to allow vehicles to pull out from side roads. They are not an ideal solution, but can be better than nothing.

The improvements may well need revisiting later, but if all the bridges etc. were built to accommodate a duel, a lot of future upgrading would just mean building another carriageway to get duel.

It would be better to build the whole scheme in the 1st place. I was just considering what could be done if the money was no available.

Two things I don’t get is with the HE scheme:

1. they are obsessed with relocating Chivvy X to a new location, when the existing roundabout could support a new DC underpass, tying in with the terrain west of the junction to create a nice gradient.
2. Why not use the existing Zelah bypass and just widen it? Fair enough there would be a small increase to traffic through Zelah but minimal I suspect.

They said building the junction at it's existing location would be too disruptive. I would think a big problem would be where would the traffic go while they were building it. I can't see how it could be done without major disruption for long periods while they were building it. I'm not actually sure there is enough space. When you consider not just the carriageways, but also the slip roads and the embankments, it needs a lot more space that an at grade junction.

As for the Zelah bypass. Even the local traffic is too much for the village, so if they just had one bypass, it would need junctions for local traffic to be able to use it. The junctions would presumably cost money, which would negate the saving from just providing a separate local route instead. Also more junctions affects the flow of long distance traffic. So perhaps this option would be less value for money, as well as not so good.

Let’s just hope that the Tories win on December 12th

God forbid. Although I would like the roads program to continue, I don't consider it worth a majority Tory government, and a hard BrExit to get it.

[RichardEvans67]

by DavidBrown » Sun Nov 24, 2019 16:31

Indeed, and one road scheme shouldn't on its own be a deciding factor in who you vote for. However, I think the Tories have to win if this scheme has even half a chance of being constructed. A Labour or Lib Dem government/coalition would mean absolutely zero chance of work starting - indeed it'll be one of the very first casualties. Labour don't know Cornwall exists, and now the Lib Dems are trying to cash in on this climate emergency fad, they'll desperately want to see pretty much every road scheme going canned.

Well, I'd agree that this scheme is more likely under the Tories.

However I looked at the LidDem manifesto hoping for some clarity, and there didn't seem to be anything about road schemes. Their green policies seem to be things like 80% green power in 10 years.

I haven't looked at the Labour manifesto, although I haven't heard anything about them being against road schemes.

I fully agree that one road scheme shouldn't decide who you vote for, but I'd go further in not deciding my vote because of road schemes in general. Although I agree with the Tories on investing in roads, there are far more areas where I disagree with them.

I particularity think that a Johnson majority government would be a disaster, so I hope that does not happen. I suppose the road schemes would just be a possible consolation if this happens, but not necessarily. If the Tories don't win, I would see it as a relief and then see whether this affects the road schemes. I'd actually be reasonably hopeful that it wouldn't make a huge difference.

[tompatt]

Let’s just hope that the Tories win on December 12th and rubber stamp the scheme...

The actions of an incoming government are never ever a given, even if expressed in their manifesto.

Indeed, and one road scheme shouldn't on its own be a deciding factor in who you vote for. However, I think the Tories have to win if this scheme has even half a chance of being constructed. A Labour or Lib Dem government/coalition would mean absolutely zero chance of work starting - indeed it'll be one of the very first casualties. Labour don't know Cornwall exists, and now the Lib Dems are trying to cash in on this climate emergency fad, they'll desperately want to see pretty much every road scheme going canned.

Labour have a strong chance chance of winning in Camborne/Redruth and a reasonable Truro/Falmouth

[Bryn666]

If a road scheme supports the aims of the strategic road network it will be funded.

If it's in a corner of the country where the main economic driver is tourism, and we end up with a hostile UK to foreigners under a hard B word, then this definitely will be a casualty of the inevitable funding cuts to support the B word.

If anything voting Tory on the basis of 'they promise to build roads' is the same as voting for them on the basis 'they promise more nurses'. It's cobblers.

[RichardEvans67]

by Bryn666 » Tue Nov 26, 2019 13:29
If it's in a corner of the country where the main economic driver is tourism, and we end up with a hostile UK to foreigners under a hard B word, then this definitely will be a casualty of the inevitable funding cuts to support the B word.

If anything voting Tory on the basis of 'they promise to build roads' is the same as voting for them on the basis 'they promise more nurses'. It's cobblers.

I hadn't thought of that one. Well anyway, there are far more important reasons than road schemes to chose who to vote for. We seem to agree on B meaning less money available, not more.

I'd add that in 1994 I was made redundant as a result of the government slashing their roads program. I'm pretty sure this was under the Tories. 20 years later we have RIS1. My point is that parties can change their minds on road investment. So the the fact that the last Labour government spent hardly anything on roads is not really an indication of whether they would invest in roads now. Likewise it not certain that a Tory government would definitely not stop road spending.

[RichardA35]

by Bryn666 » Tue Nov 26, 2019 13:29
If it's in a corner of the country where the main economic driver is tourism, and we end up with a hostile UK to foreigners under a hard B word, then this definitely will be a casualty of the inevitable funding cuts to support the B word.

If anything voting Tory on the basis of 'they promise to build roads' is the same as voting for them on the basis 'they promise more nurses'. It's cobblers.

I hadn't thought of that one. Well anyway, there are far more important reasons than road schemes to chose who to vote for. We seem to agree on B meaning less money available, not more.

I'd add that in 1994 I was made redundant as a result of the government slashing their roads program. I'm pretty sure this was under the Tories. 20 years later we have RIS1. My point is that parties can change their minds on road investment. So the the fact that the last Labour government spent hardly anything on roads is not really an indication of whether they would invest in roads now. Likewise it not certain that a Tory government would definitely not stop road spending.

Without expanding into party political or other territory I will just link to the post that I made previously where I discussed the likely spending plans post event.

[Berk]

In addition, a lot of players seem to assume government will follow established patterns of behaviour (such as cancelling schemes for quick spending reductions), when the landscape they are making these decisions in has changed considerably.

Not being in Europe will not only look strange, but will feel it too. If infrastructure projects need building, that will be the time to get on with them.

[crowntown100]

Decision due on this tomorrow from the Secretary of State.

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... n=overview

[RichardA35]

Funding statement para 3.1.4:
"In addition to the funding stated above, £20 million has been allocated to the scheme through the European Regional Development Fund. The funding is currently allocated as £8 million to support the development phase of the scheme, with a further £12 million contribution to the construction phase. This funding for the scheme was committed in the European Regional Development Fund Operational Programme 2014 to 2020 published in 2015."

So that will be the last scheme built in Cornwall for quite a time then....

[crowntown100]

Funding statement para 3.1.4:
"In addition to the funding stated above, £20 million has been allocated to the scheme through the European Regional Development Fund. The funding is currently allocated as £8 million to support the development phase of the scheme, with a further £12 million contribution to the construction phase. This funding for the scheme was committed in the European Regional Development Fund Operational Programme 2014 to 2020 published in 2015."

So that will be the last scheme built in Cornwall for quite a time then....

On this scale, quite possibly. But then £20m in a scheme costing ~£280m (although Highways England's website now says up to £436.3m!!!) isn't massive, relatively speaking.

We do have a few other new road schemes in the pipeline at this time, though (Camelford Bypass, St Austell - A30 Link Road).

[RichardEvans67]

Talking of new schemes.
Anyone have any idea when RIS2 will be announced ?

[A320Driver]

The HE project pages have been updated in the last week with a detailed timeline of pre-construction activities including appointment of contractor. Main construction works scheduled to start in August.

Funding to be confirmed in March, my guess is as part of the Budget when RIS2 will also be announced.

[IAN]

From a personal point of view, I'll be pleased to see this project go ahead as the current road is constantly congested.

However, looking it objectively, with the major project to move utilities taking place last summer and with HE updating their site to show a construction timetable in advance of the report even being published, I should think that anyone objecting to the project will be thinking that the consultation process is a travesty as the evidence strongly suggests that the decision was secretly agreed a long time ago!

Ian (M5 Driver)

[IAN]

Approval now confirmed.

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... RANTED.pdf

Ian (M5 Driver)