Copied from Ananova today: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0> [tr] <TD height=13>[img]http://www.ananova.com/images/blank.gif"%20width=1>[/td][/tr][/table]%20<TABLE%20cellSpacing=0%20cellPadding=0%20width="80%[/img] The M25 has been voted the country's least attractive location in a survey of Seven Horrors of Britain.
London's 115-mile ring road narrowly beat places such as Sellafield and Manchester's Arndale Centre to top the poll.
It came two weeks after the British public named the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben and the London Eye among the Seven Wonders of Britain.
The capital's ill-fated Millennium Dome was rated the second-worst place to visit in Britain in the poll by the BBC.
Blackpool promenade was voted third, followed by Heathrow airport in fourth place and Birmingham's New Street station at number five.
The North West provided the last two entries in the list, with Manchester's Arndale shopping centre entering at number six and Cumbria's Sellafield plant at seven.
Ken Kelling, a spokesman for the English Tourism Council, said: "What stands out is that three of the seven places listed here are transport-related.
"Transport is a big issue for tourism in Britain, both for people who live here and those visiting Britain."
Story filed: 11:15 Monday 12th August 2002
M25
Moderator: Site Management Team
Paul: << Copied from Ananova today: The M25 has been voted the country's least attractive location in a survey of Seven Horrors of Britain. >>
Well I'd certainly hate to live there...
Honestly. How can the M25 be classed as a "location", for heaven's sake? It's as bad as that programme on the UK's Worst Roads, where one of the runners-up was apparently "Edinburgh".
Do you think some of these reporters need some elementary geography lessons?
Guy
Well I'd certainly hate to live there...
Honestly. How can the M25 be classed as a "location", for heaven's sake? It's as bad as that programme on the UK's Worst Roads, where one of the runners-up was apparently "Edinburgh".
Do you think some of these reporters need some elementary geography lessons?
Guy
<<The M25 has been voted the country's least attractive location in a survey of Seven Horrors of Britain.>>
Time for a rant.
Is the M25 a location? I think not. It's a strip of land about 50 yards wide and about 115 miles long, it's hardly one place.
Is it unattractive? Well, yes, it probably is. But if we're talking attractive, does it look any better or any worse than any other motorway? If shown a photo of a random bit of M25, how many of the people questioned would be able to spot it as less attractive than, say, a photo of the M4 or M876?
Is it generally such a bad thing? I think its reputation is far worse than what it actually is. "The government announced today they might be tolling motorways, ha ha, except the M25, which will be pay-and-display, ha ha ha". The truth is that yes, it's congested, but it's hardly 115 miles of stationary traffic every minute of the day. I might not have any wish to spend great periods of my life there and I'd hardly describe it as "attractive", but is it really the very worst place in Britain to be? I think not.
Rant over!
Chris
Time for a rant.
Is the M25 a location? I think not. It's a strip of land about 50 yards wide and about 115 miles long, it's hardly one place.
Is it unattractive? Well, yes, it probably is. But if we're talking attractive, does it look any better or any worse than any other motorway? If shown a photo of a random bit of M25, how many of the people questioned would be able to spot it as less attractive than, say, a photo of the M4 or M876?
Is it generally such a bad thing? I think its reputation is far worse than what it actually is. "The government announced today they might be tolling motorways, ha ha, except the M25, which will be pay-and-display, ha ha ha". The truth is that yes, it's congested, but it's hardly 115 miles of stationary traffic every minute of the day. I might not have any wish to spend great periods of my life there and I'd hardly describe it as "attractive", but is it really the very worst place in Britain to be? I think not.
Rant over!
Chris
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
The noise barriers that are along a high proportion of its length make it less attractive than most other motorways both from a car driving along it, and from anywhere else.
Not that I'm suggesting the noise barriers aren't essential, and I'd hate to live anywhere near the M25 without them, but they are ugly.
The gantries every few hundred yards with the variable speed limit signs and cameras aren't exactly attractive either.
The M25 also for the most part lacks any impressive engineering that might make up for it not being conventionally attractive.
Not that I'm suggesting the noise barriers aren't essential, and I'd hate to live anywhere near the M25 without them, but they are ugly.
The gantries every few hundred yards with the variable speed limit signs and cameras aren't exactly attractive either.
The M25 also for the most part lacks any impressive engineering that might make up for it not being conventionally attractive.
-
RichardA35
- Elected Committee Member
- Posts: 5720
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
- Location: Dorset
As a generalisation more recent motorways, say those built since 1980 tend to be less attractive to drive as ironically their design brief is to make sure the surrounding environment remains as attractive as possible.
Therefore modern motorways are more likely to be hidden in trenches to reduce noise and visual impact. As a good example of the contrasts between the two styles is the M40 which is extremely tedious as a driving experience north of Oxford whereas the original (attractive ?) section with it's manmade valleys through hills etc shows that the environment was certainly not given priority at this time.
The M6 between 37 and 38 has been given of an example of how a motorway blends into it's surroundings, weaving round the hill and through the valley. Could this be described as attractive - well certainly not to the environment.. If this section had been designed in 2002 a tunnel would probably been demanded and rightly so in my opinion !
Therefore modern motorways are more likely to be hidden in trenches to reduce noise and visual impact. As a good example of the contrasts between the two styles is the M40 which is extremely tedious as a driving experience north of Oxford whereas the original (attractive ?) section with it's manmade valleys through hills etc shows that the environment was certainly not given priority at this time.
The M6 between 37 and 38 has been given of an example of how a motorway blends into it's surroundings, weaving round the hill and through the valley. Could this be described as attractive - well certainly not to the environment.. If this section had been designed in 2002 a tunnel would probably been demanded and rightly so in my opinion !
AKA M5 Driver
<The M6 between 37 and 38 has been given of an example of how a motorway blends into it's surroundings, weaving round the hill and through the valley. Could this be described as attractive - well certainly not to the environment.. If this section had been designed in 2002 a tunnel would probably been demanded and rightly so in my opinion !>
No, I won't have that - this is one of the best bits of motorway in the country, nay, the world. In a tunnel you'd never see the fantastic, rounded Howgill Fells, the stunning Lune Valley, the bleak contrast as you move up towards Tebay and Shap Summit.
If you stand on top of the Howgills and look towards the motorway, it's surprisingly unobstrusive to the surrounding environment. I've spent many a pleasant hour watching little specs oftraffic serenely moving up the valley.
No, I won't have that - this is one of the best bits of motorway in the country, nay, the world. In a tunnel you'd never see the fantastic, rounded Howgill Fells, the stunning Lune Valley, the bleak contrast as you move up towards Tebay and Shap Summit.
If you stand on top of the Howgills and look towards the motorway, it's surprisingly unobstrusive to the surrounding environment. I've spent many a pleasant hour watching little specs oftraffic serenely moving up the valley.
<<Yes, but would it have been built like that today ?>>
Possibly, possibly not - the A74(M) also goes through some splended scenery - and alot of that construction is very new.
The M6 from Preston to Carlisle is my favourite piece of motorway in the UK - particularly the sections between 37 and 38 . The scenery is beautiful, and I think the road actually compliments it.
Chris.
Possibly, possibly not - the A74(M) also goes through some splended scenery - and alot of that construction is very new.
The M6 from Preston to Carlisle is my favourite piece of motorway in the UK - particularly the sections between 37 and 38 . The scenery is beautiful, and I think the road actually compliments it.
Chris.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Oh yeah, and about the original subject itself, the M25....
The criticism is, I feel, a little unfair - the M25 provides a good job of removing vast amounts of traffic from London - no international traveller in their right mind coming from the continent and wanting to go to Wales, Scotland, or the West would drive up the A2 or A20 into London, and then navigate the North or South Circular Roads (or even attempt travelling down the Victoria Embankment itself) instead of using the M25.
If the M25 were suddenly not to exist, think of all the extra traffic travelling through London itself, swelling Red Ken's coffers with fivers charged... The big problem with the M25 is that when it was constructed, the demand for it's use was far underestimated - especially in terms of the local traffic - so I believe whatreally needs to happen with the M25 is having the local traffic split from the long-distance traffic (like by having an "inner" set of three lanes each way with links just onto the Motorway network directed out of London. This will allow the long-distance traffic to flow freely, without being caught in the rush-hour bottlenecks of commuters.
Chris
The criticism is, I feel, a little unfair - the M25 provides a good job of removing vast amounts of traffic from London - no international traveller in their right mind coming from the continent and wanting to go to Wales, Scotland, or the West would drive up the A2 or A20 into London, and then navigate the North or South Circular Roads (or even attempt travelling down the Victoria Embankment itself) instead of using the M25.
If the M25 were suddenly not to exist, think of all the extra traffic travelling through London itself, swelling Red Ken's coffers with fivers charged... The big problem with the M25 is that when it was constructed, the demand for it's use was far underestimated - especially in terms of the local traffic - so I believe whatreally needs to happen with the M25 is having the local traffic split from the long-distance traffic (like by having an "inner" set of three lanes each way with links just onto the Motorway network directed out of London. This will allow the long-distance traffic to flow freely, without being caught in the rush-hour bottlenecks of commuters.
Chris
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
c2R: << The criticism is, I feel, a little unfair - the M25 provides a good job of removing vast amounts of traffic from London - no international traveller in their right mind coming from the continent and wanting to go to Wales, Scotland, or the West would drive up the A2 or A20 into London, and then navigate the North or South Circular Roads (or even attempt travelling down the Victoria Embankment itself) instead of using the M25.>>
Indeed not, but why go via London at all? You can get from Folkestone to Bristol using the A259/A27/M27/A36/A4, for instance. If some of those roads were improved (notably the A36) there'd be far less reason for using the M25.
Guy
Indeed not, but why go via London at all? You can get from Folkestone to Bristol using the A259/A27/M27/A36/A4, for instance. If some of those roads were improved (notably the A36) there'd be far less reason for using the M25.
Guy
<<why go via London at all? You can get from Folkestone to Bristol using the A259/A27/M27/A36/A4>>
Most people will go via London because that's where all the motorways lead - it's the hub of our motorway network. I've driven the South Coast road before, and it takes ages - even with all the traffic on the M25 it's still quicker to go via London, most of the time.
I guess the bottom line is whether it's worth constructing new link roads (like the A34, or A14 to relieve pressure on the M25, or whether the environmental impact is considered by the government at the time to be politically damaging...)
Chris.
Most people will go via London because that's where all the motorways lead - it's the hub of our motorway network. I've driven the South Coast road before, and it takes ages - even with all the traffic on the M25 it's still quicker to go via London, most of the time.
I guess the bottom line is whether it's worth constructing new link roads (like the A34, or A14 to relieve pressure on the M25, or whether the environmental impact is considered by the government at the time to be politically damaging...)
Chris.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
<If the M25 were suddenly not to exist, think of all the extra traffic travelling through London itself>
Lest we forget, until 1986, this was pretty much the position. London was pretty much impossible to avoid if you lived in the north and were heading to the continent via Dover. I have a vague childhood memory of our first family holiday in France in 1980-ish, and the traumatic journey to Dover which involved the North/South Circular, Blackwall Tunnel etc resulting in missed ferry and my dad ageing about 10 years. The next couple of times we went to France, we went via Portsmouth as it was far less hassle. No doubt London proved to be a similar nightmare for Johnny Foreigner as well.
Lest we forget, until 1986, this was pretty much the position. London was pretty much impossible to avoid if you lived in the north and were heading to the continent via Dover. I have a vague childhood memory of our first family holiday in France in 1980-ish, and the traumatic journey to Dover which involved the North/South Circular, Blackwall Tunnel etc resulting in missed ferry and my dad ageing about 10 years. The next couple of times we went to France, we went via Portsmouth as it was far less hassle. No doubt London proved to be a similar nightmare for Johnny Foreigner as well.
c2R: <<If the M25 were suddenly not to exist, think of all the extra traffic travelling through London itself>>
bobsykes: <<Lest we forget, until 1986, this was pretty much the position>>
Something that I know only too well - many years ago I used to live in London, just off the North Circular near the Crooked Billet. These were the days before the M25, and long before the north-eastern section of the North Circular is as it is now (with all it's underpasses and junctions separated by grade). The traffic was heavy, to say the least... Returning down that way now and you find only local traffic on the local streets - the international traffic is safely running around London on the M25, and the regional commuting traffic runs underground on the North Circular - much more pleasant a place to live now than it was when we were there in the early eighties!
Chris.
bobsykes: <<Lest we forget, until 1986, this was pretty much the position>>
Something that I know only too well - many years ago I used to live in London, just off the North Circular near the Crooked Billet. These were the days before the M25, and long before the north-eastern section of the North Circular is as it is now (with all it's underpasses and junctions separated by grade). The traffic was heavy, to say the least... Returning down that way now and you find only local traffic on the local streets - the international traffic is safely running around London on the M25, and the regional commuting traffic runs underground on the North Circular - much more pleasant a place to live now than it was when we were there in the early eighties!
Chris.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Chris: <<The truth is that yes, it's congested, but it's hardly 115 miles of stationary traffic every minute of the day.>>
Quite -- a look at the real-time traffic information for the western section of the M25 during the day shows that average speeds are usually 60-70mph in the off-peak periods.
mark: <<The M25 also for the most part lacks any impressive engineering that might make up for it not being conventionally attractive.>>
Hmm -- I don't know. I like the bit just after J16 northbound, when the two carriageways were threaded into the two arches of the (already existing) Chalfont railway viaduct. I think the view northbound including this bridge isprobably one of the most picturesque on the motorway. It features in lots of picture sequences for travel news (including the BBC I think).
The views when you come down the North Downs are quite good too (J4-5 clockwise; J8-7 anticlockwise)
c2R: <<I guess the bottom line is whether it's worth constructing new link roads (like the A34, or A14 to relieve pressure on the M25, or whether the environmental impact is considered by the government at the time to be politically damaging...)>>
I think that the necessary roads are already in place, by and large, as I think I've said before. A new signing policy (plus a few junction upgrades, eg M4/A34) could go a long way to helping things out: direct M4-East Anglia traffic via A34, A43, A14 for example.
Quite -- a look at the real-time traffic information for the western section of the M25 during the day shows that average speeds are usually 60-70mph in the off-peak periods.
mark: <<The M25 also for the most part lacks any impressive engineering that might make up for it not being conventionally attractive.>>
Hmm -- I don't know. I like the bit just after J16 northbound, when the two carriageways were threaded into the two arches of the (already existing) Chalfont railway viaduct. I think the view northbound including this bridge isprobably one of the most picturesque on the motorway. It features in lots of picture sequences for travel news (including the BBC I think).
The views when you come down the North Downs are quite good too (J4-5 clockwise; J8-7 anticlockwise)
c2R: <<I guess the bottom line is whether it's worth constructing new link roads (like the A34, or A14 to relieve pressure on the M25, or whether the environmental impact is considered by the government at the time to be politically damaging...)>>
I think that the necessary roads are already in place, by and large, as I think I've said before. A new signing policy (plus a few junction upgrades, eg M4/A34) could go a long way to helping things out: direct M4-East Anglia traffic via A34, A43, A14 for example.
Tom: <<Quite -- a look at the real-time traffic information for the western section of the M25 during the day shows that average speeds are usually 60-70mph in the off-peak periods.>>
I did, the other day, and I couldn't find any congestion. Indeed, for the last two years I have travelled regularly (about once a fortnight on average)between the A1(M) and the A2. Whilst I have had the luxury of choosing my travel time on most occasions, I can only think of four occasions when I have been very badly delayed and been late for important meetings. Two of them happened within a wekk at the end of July and one of those was when the motorway was closed in Surrey because of an accident so much traffic went 'the other way round'.
mark: <<The M25 also for the most part lacks any impressive engineering that might make up for it not being conventionally attractive.>>
The Holmsdale and Bell Common tunnels, whilst not necessarily 'attractive' in the way that the viaduct near the M40 is attractive, certainly add interest to the motorway. In my opinion they are better than many of the creations which have won the Turner prize.
I think the M25 suffers from being a ring road, rather than a motorway that leads anywhere. Say you are travelling from Dover to Birmingham. You might spend an hour or so travelling up either the M20 or the A2/M2 to the M25. You are now near London. You then spend another hour driving round the M25 to the M1 or M40. So two hours into your journey, you are still "near" London - you've spent an hour apparently not getting anywhere. Another hour on the road will get you to the Midlands - another half hour should see you safely to your destination. (All timings very approximate).
As a consequence of that hour spent "not getting anywhere", I think people see the M25 as being less interesting - a long time spent making little apparent progress. People perceive that most of their progress on their journey is made on the radial motorways. The reality is that a journey round half the M25 (approx 60 miles) will take around an hour during most of the day - travelling through central London will probably take nearer two hours.
Simon
I did, the other day, and I couldn't find any congestion. Indeed, for the last two years I have travelled regularly (about once a fortnight on average)between the A1(M) and the A2. Whilst I have had the luxury of choosing my travel time on most occasions, I can only think of four occasions when I have been very badly delayed and been late for important meetings. Two of them happened within a wekk at the end of July and one of those was when the motorway was closed in Surrey because of an accident so much traffic went 'the other way round'.
mark: <<The M25 also for the most part lacks any impressive engineering that might make up for it not being conventionally attractive.>>
The Holmsdale and Bell Common tunnels, whilst not necessarily 'attractive' in the way that the viaduct near the M40 is attractive, certainly add interest to the motorway. In my opinion they are better than many of the creations which have won the Turner prize.
I think the M25 suffers from being a ring road, rather than a motorway that leads anywhere. Say you are travelling from Dover to Birmingham. You might spend an hour or so travelling up either the M20 or the A2/M2 to the M25. You are now near London. You then spend another hour driving round the M25 to the M1 or M40. So two hours into your journey, you are still "near" London - you've spent an hour apparently not getting anywhere. Another hour on the road will get you to the Midlands - another half hour should see you safely to your destination. (All timings very approximate).
As a consequence of that hour spent "not getting anywhere", I think people see the M25 as being less interesting - a long time spent making little apparent progress. People perceive that most of their progress on their journey is made on the radial motorways. The reality is that a journey round half the M25 (approx 60 miles) will take around an hour during most of the day - travelling through central London will probably take nearer two hours.
Simon
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!
Please contact me if you want to know more
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Please contact me if you want to know more
Tom wrote;
I think that the necessary roads are already in place, by and large, as I think I've said before. A new signing policy (plus a few junction upgrades, eg M4/A34) could go a long way to helping things out: direct M4-East Anglia traffic via A34, A43, A14 for example.
-------------------------------
Not so sure about the necessary roads being in place. How would you do e.g.Reading - Luton, Brighton - Southend, Maidstone - Milton Keynes or Gatwick - Bracknell without using the M25 at some point during the journey? I still firmly believe that either a huge amount of road and rail construction is needed in the South East or a major dispersal of population to other parts of the country needs to occur.
Graham.
I think that the necessary roads are already in place, by and large, as I think I've said before. A new signing policy (plus a few junction upgrades, eg M4/A34) could go a long way to helping things out: direct M4-East Anglia traffic via A34, A43, A14 for example.
-------------------------------
Not so sure about the necessary roads being in place. How would you do e.g.Reading - Luton, Brighton - Southend, Maidstone - Milton Keynes or Gatwick - Bracknell without using the M25 at some point during the journey? I still firmly believe that either a huge amount of road and rail construction is needed in the South East or a major dispersal of population to other parts of the country needs to occur.
Graham.
Hmmm the M25 Ugly ?
Guess you really need to think on necessity here and equate that into the equation, it was never created to be something of beauty, if was designed as a ring road and designed to try and relieve the need to drive through London, this it achieves very well, can you imagine driving from say Lakeside to Heathrow without the M25 ? How long would that take to complete......... It was built to serve a need and was designed back in a time that traffic density was not as much an issue as what it is now. Back then there was no where near the amount of cars as what there is on the roads now. Yes it is very busy and yes there are delays abound but it still works out to be a quicker route than driving through London.
I like the southern section with its expansion to four lanes either way, pretty neat and well executed what with land constraints in effect in the area. Add a new shoulder and turn the old shoulder into a new lane, add in some concrete protection at bridge supports just to prevent any truck hitting the bridge and knocking it down. Very neat way of doing it without having to replace every bridge on the road.
Building some relief to the M25 equation would be difficult the Thames for a start limits what can be done in the east, but the west, north, and south have space to allow the building of a relief road. The M40 was opened to provide relief to the M1 and this can be built upon a parallel motorway to the M25 say 10-15 miles outside of the existing alignment, it doesnt even need to be a motorway either say a good quality dual carriageway, or even follow on from the American idea of building a parkway for cars only. This would provide a relief of sorts to the M25. It couldn't be built any further away than 15 mile as the road would need to still serve the needs of Londonaswell as providing some relief to the M25. Building a car only style road would allow weight limits to be reduced, widths to be reduced and allow the use of say concrete dividers between the opposing traffic flows, two tons being a hell of a lot lighter to hold back that 40 tons !
If it was me then I would build the road from Standstead airport following the rough route of the A414 to the North curving down over the M1 M40 M4 and M3 keeping about 10miles from the M25. These motorways would be provided with fulldirectional access.I think that asthe road came down the south side ofLondon I would bring the road down further to the south coast and then run it in a direct line over to the M20. The A27 would be upgraded and run along the southcoast to the end of the M20. This would provide some relief to the M25and take awaysome of the traffic from the road.
The south east has a huge problem with traffic and particulaly London mainly due to the all roads lead to London situation that exists just now.If this could be changed then I think that we would be looking at a better situation in London as a whole. Id also look to getting some new road projects sorted out in London, say using some old railway ground where possible to provide some land to allow roads to be built. Id try and keep these roads to the standard of the access road built in Blackpool from the end of the M55. This being created to allow some fast traffic flows between points. Reducing points of access and such to remove restrictions to traffic flows. The A10 relief road from the M25 to the A406 being an example of this, this road removed quite a bit of through traffic from the A10.
Gavin
Guess you really need to think on necessity here and equate that into the equation, it was never created to be something of beauty, if was designed as a ring road and designed to try and relieve the need to drive through London, this it achieves very well, can you imagine driving from say Lakeside to Heathrow without the M25 ? How long would that take to complete......... It was built to serve a need and was designed back in a time that traffic density was not as much an issue as what it is now. Back then there was no where near the amount of cars as what there is on the roads now. Yes it is very busy and yes there are delays abound but it still works out to be a quicker route than driving through London.
I like the southern section with its expansion to four lanes either way, pretty neat and well executed what with land constraints in effect in the area. Add a new shoulder and turn the old shoulder into a new lane, add in some concrete protection at bridge supports just to prevent any truck hitting the bridge and knocking it down. Very neat way of doing it without having to replace every bridge on the road.
Building some relief to the M25 equation would be difficult the Thames for a start limits what can be done in the east, but the west, north, and south have space to allow the building of a relief road. The M40 was opened to provide relief to the M1 and this can be built upon a parallel motorway to the M25 say 10-15 miles outside of the existing alignment, it doesnt even need to be a motorway either say a good quality dual carriageway, or even follow on from the American idea of building a parkway for cars only. This would provide a relief of sorts to the M25. It couldn't be built any further away than 15 mile as the road would need to still serve the needs of Londonaswell as providing some relief to the M25. Building a car only style road would allow weight limits to be reduced, widths to be reduced and allow the use of say concrete dividers between the opposing traffic flows, two tons being a hell of a lot lighter to hold back that 40 tons !
If it was me then I would build the road from Standstead airport following the rough route of the A414 to the North curving down over the M1 M40 M4 and M3 keeping about 10miles from the M25. These motorways would be provided with fulldirectional access.I think that asthe road came down the south side ofLondon I would bring the road down further to the south coast and then run it in a direct line over to the M20. The A27 would be upgraded and run along the southcoast to the end of the M20. This would provide some relief to the M25and take awaysome of the traffic from the road.
The south east has a huge problem with traffic and particulaly London mainly due to the all roads lead to London situation that exists just now.If this could be changed then I think that we would be looking at a better situation in London as a whole. Id also look to getting some new road projects sorted out in London, say using some old railway ground where possible to provide some land to allow roads to be built. Id try and keep these roads to the standard of the access road built in Blackpool from the end of the M55. This being created to allow some fast traffic flows between points. Reducing points of access and such to remove restrictions to traffic flows. The A10 relief road from the M25 to the A406 being an example of this, this road removed quite a bit of through traffic from the A10.
Gavin
Gavin wrote;
I'd also look to getting some new road projects sorted out in London, say using some old railway ground where possible to provide some land to allow roads to be built.
------------------
Yes to new road projects, but broadly no to using existing rail alignments for them.In general, the disused railways in theLondon area should be developed and reopened, rather than being left to gently fall apart.A prime example is the line that passes right underneath Thorney interchange(M4/M25).Why has no park and ride facility ever been developed at this location.A fast train could get into Paddington in less than 20 minutes from there and enormous car parks could be built right under the junction, involving no further land take whatsoever.12 coach trains, every 10 minutes, could transport 6000 people an hour into, andIF Crossrail were built, acrosscentral London.Total cost would probably be about ?150-200 million, based on the price of 100 new coaches, a new station and associated car parks, as well as a couple of miles of new electrification. Would it be worth it in cost/benefit terms?
Any thoughts,
Graham.
I'd also look to getting some new road projects sorted out in London, say using some old railway ground where possible to provide some land to allow roads to be built.
------------------
Yes to new road projects, but broadly no to using existing rail alignments for them.In general, the disused railways in theLondon area should be developed and reopened, rather than being left to gently fall apart.A prime example is the line that passes right underneath Thorney interchange(M4/M25).Why has no park and ride facility ever been developed at this location.A fast train could get into Paddington in less than 20 minutes from there and enormous car parks could be built right under the junction, involving no further land take whatsoever.12 coach trains, every 10 minutes, could transport 6000 people an hour into, andIF Crossrail were built, acrosscentral London.Total cost would probably be about ?150-200 million, based on the price of 100 new coaches, a new station and associated car parks, as well as a couple of miles of new electrification. Would it be worth it in cost/benefit terms?
Any thoughts,
Graham.