I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size

It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
and Portugal has more motorway per capita.

So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
"concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
ruined countryside.

Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
about time?

"Carlos"  wrote in message 
news:e58a8a67-af90-4c67-804b-eafbea75698e@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> ruined countryside.
>
> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
> about time?

I certainley think so, or at least widening some of them in the worst areas.

Mike P

Carlos wrote:
> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> ruined countryside.
>
> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
> about time?

Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?

Carlos  wrote:

> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
> about time?

It seems to be because the government is scared of public opinion. Or
rather that it is scared of the morons with the loud voices.

There is a desperate need for a decent road infrastructure in the East
of the country and none exists. There are lots of areas where new
motorways would make sense, such as the south coast from Dover to
Plymouth, Southampton to Oxford, Northampton to Norwich, Cambridge to
Norwich, Norwich to Peterborough and Peterborough to Hull. I suspect
London to Norwich via Colchester wouldn't go amiss either. Biting the
bullet and making the entire A1 a motorrway wouldn't hurt either.

However the government prefers to piss away your taxes on wars.

Carlos wrote:
> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> ruined countryside.
>
> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
> about time?

Grade separated dual carriageways such as the A14 have taken over. If you 
include those in the equation, Britain might do a lot better.

On 2008-07-02, Carlos  wrote:
> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> least amounts of motorway per capita 

I'm afraid most of us were well aware of this. Also, and I'm afraid I have no
cite, the British get back the least proportion of taxes as transport spending
of any Western nation.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Hey, Carlos you have the same user agent and posting style as Doug.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008052906 
Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

Roger Thorpe

John Rowland  wrote:

> Grade separated dual carriageways such as the A14 have taken over. If you
> include those in the equation, Britain might do a lot better. 

Because at the moment, the hyaenas don't protest about dual carriageways
quite as much as they do about motorways. Although Newbury showed that
the twats will protest about *anything*.

"John Rowland"  wrote in message 
news:g4fmvq$h8l$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Grade separated dual carriageways such as the A14 have taken over. If you 
> include those in the equation, Britain might do a lot better.

Might but in reality wouldn't.

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:gOmdne8IRqU_w_bVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@bt.com...
>
> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?

Catford, we could also do with more "diagonal" motorways, it may be possible 
to get from just about any major city to another on the motorway network but 
via not especially efficient routes.

"Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message 
news:FdqdnZHDa-Td8fbVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:gOmdne8IRqU_w_bVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?
>
> Catford,

needs a bulldozer, not a motorway..

Mike P

> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?


> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?

I would suggest:

An "outer London Orbital" connecting Portsmouth, Southampton, Oxford,
Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge.

An continuous East coast motorway from London to Edinburgh (by
extending the M11 and converting the A1 to a motorway)

A motorway from Bristol to Southampton.

On Jul 2, 1:19 pm, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> Hey, Carlos you have the same user agent and posting style as Doug.
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008052906
> Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> Roger Thorpe

Yeah, I use Firefox 3 like about a million other people in the UK.
What's your point?

Carlos wrote:
>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>> motorways?
>
>
>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>> motorways?
>
> I would suggest:
>
> An "outer London Orbital" connecting Portsmouth, Southampton, Oxford,

There is already a high grade, i.e. near motorway standard, dual carriageway 
and motorway connecting those place and giving access to the M40 for traffic 
going further north. What additional benefit would a motorway bring?

> Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge.

Is there sufficient traffic between those places to justify the expense?

> An continuous East coast motorway from London to Edinburgh (by
> extending the M11 and converting the A1 to a motorway)

Which is currently underway.

> A motorway from Bristol to Southampton.

I would agree that from the point of view of traffic travelling between 
those places a better road is needed, but does it have to be a motorway? 
What would the external effects of building such a road be? Have you 
considered the practicalities of driving a motorway from Bristol through the 
Mendips and across to So'ton?

Carlos wrote:
> On Jul 2, 1:19 pm, Roger Thorpe 
> wrote:
> 
>>Hey, Carlos you have the same user agent and posting style as Doug.
>>
>>Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008052906
>>Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>>
>>Roger Thorpe
> 
> 
> Yeah, I use Firefox 3 like about a million other people in the UK.
> What's your point?

Sorry, I thought it a curious coincidence. It looked to me as if you 
were both using a version of NT which would be less common. It seems to 
me, after a little research that NT 5.1 means some other flavour of Windows.
A Doug that posts stuff he believes in I can live with, but one who 
posts in bad faith would be much worse.
My apologies.
Roger Thorpe

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Carlos wrote:
>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>> motorways?
>>
>>
>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>> motorways?
>>


Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and linking it 
to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off the A404 and M25. I 
know quite a few people who work off the M3 and they still find it quicker 
to come up the M3, round the M25 and up the M40, when a direct route would 
be so much quicker.

That's about the only one I can think of

MIke P

"Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message 
news:g4fskq$n9u$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> Carlos wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 1:19 pm, Roger Thorpe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hey, Carlos you have the same user agent and posting style as Doug.
>>>
>>>Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008052906
>>>Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>>>
>>>Roger Thorpe
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I use Firefox 3 like about a million other people in the UK.
>> What's your point?
>
> Sorry, I thought it a curious coincidence. It looked to me as if you were 
> both using a version of NT which would be less common. It seems to me, 
> after a little research that NT 5.1 means some other flavour of Windows.

Yes, Windows XP... ;-)

Mike P

Mike P wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Carlos wrote:
>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>> motorways?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>> motorways?
>>>
>
>
> Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and
> linking it to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off the
> A404 and M25. I know quite a few people who work off the M3 and they
> still find it quicker to come up the M3, round the M25 and up the
> M40, when a direct route would be so much quicker.

A34?

> That's about the only one I can think of
>
> MIke P

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:OM2dnWlhPpXy5vbVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com...
> Mike P wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>> news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Carlos wrote:
>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>> motorways?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>> motorways?
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and
>> linking it to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off the
>> A404 and M25. I know quite a few people who work off the M3 and they
>> still find it quicker to come up the M3, round the M25 and up the
>> M40, when a direct route would be so much quicker.
>
> A34?
>

I get your point, but the A34 is hardly motorway spec though is it? Last 
time I took that route from Banbury to Soton, it took me over 2 hours, and 
it's only about 95 miles. The A34 is nice on a quiet Sunday morning IME, not 
at other times

Mike P

Mike P wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:OM2dnWlhPpXy5vbVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com...
>> Mike P wrote:
>>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>>> news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> Carlos wrote:
>>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>>> motorways?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>>> motorways?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and
>>> linking it to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off the
>>> A404 and M25. I know quite a few people who work off the M3 and they
>>> still find it quicker to come up the M3, round the M25 and up the
>>> M40, when a direct route would be so much quicker.
>>
>> A34?
>>
>
> I get your point, but the A34 is hardly motorway spec though is it?
> Last time I took that route from Banbury to Soton, it took me over 2
> hours, and it's only about 95 miles. The A34 is nice on a quiet
> Sunday morning IME, not at other times
>

Depending on traffic and precise start point and destination,  that sounds 
about right. About 25 of that 95 miles is already full motorway and IIRC the 
Winchester and Newbury bypasses are almost motorway spec. What difference do 
you think it would make if the rest were a motorway, the speed limit would 
be the same?

Mike P  wrote:

> > A34?
> >
> 
> I get your point, 

Only to the extent that the A34 runs from Winchester to Bicester as a
dual carriageway.

> but the A34 is hardly motorway spec though is it? Last time I took that
> route from Banbury to Soton, it took me over 2 hours, and it's only about
> 95 miles.

The A34 is one lane short of being useful. It also carries a huge load
of freight from the Midlands to Soton, much of which is export of
manufactured goods. Things get slightly worse at Newbury as the M4 adds
goods traffic from both west and east heading for the port. The absence
of a third lane means the route is effectively tied to a 56mph limit
from end to end.

> The A34 is nice on a quiet Sunday morning IME, not 
> at other times

A quiet Sunday morning on the A34? Presumably you mean about 3AM to 6AM?
Because the A34 on Sunday is, if anything, even busier than a weekday.

And if the route is from the Midlands to the south coast then life
becomes more hellish because of the roundabout at Winnall. That
location, really, really needs a proper interchange.

On 2 Jul, 11:55, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Carlos wrote:
> > I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> > International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> > It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> > among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> > least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> > Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> > and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> > So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> > "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> > denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> > unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> > more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> > ruined countryside.
>
> > Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
> > about time?
>
> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lewisham to Bromley, you may have to knock a few houses down, but hey
it's for the greater good.

Francis

"Mike P"  wrote in message 
news:6d18kaFalvfU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message 
> news:FdqdnZHDa-Td8fbVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
>> news:gOmdne8IRqU_w_bVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?
>>
>> Catford,
>
> needs a bulldozer, not a motorway..

First one, then t'other.

francis wrote:
> On 2 Jul, 11:55, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Carlos wrote:
>>> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
>>> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>>
>>> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway
>>> networks among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have
>>> some of the least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60
>>> mm, while each Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their
>>> own). Even Slovenia and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>>
>>> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
>>> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
>>> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even
>>> "car unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands
>>> have far more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw
>>> no sign of a ruined countryside.
>>
>>> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
>>> about time?
>>
>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>> motorways?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Lewisham to Bromley, you may have to knock a few houses down, but hey
> it's for the greater good.
>
Depending on the exact starting and ending points and what gets obliterated 
in between that sounds like a good'un.

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:CI2dnQetd_pEF_bVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Mike P wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>> news:OM2dnWlhPpXy5vbVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Mike P wrote:
>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>>>> news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> Carlos wrote:
>>>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>>>> motorways?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>>>> motorways?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and
>>>> linking it to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off the
>>>> A404 and M25. I know quite a few people who work off the M3 and they
>>>> still find it quicker to come up the M3, round the M25 and up the
>>>> M40, when a direct route would be so much quicker.
>>>
>>> A34?
>>>
>>
>> I get your point, but the A34 is hardly motorway spec though is it?
>> Last time I took that route from Banbury to Soton, it took me over 2
>> hours, and it's only about 95 miles. The A34 is nice on a quiet
>> Sunday morning IME, not at other times
>>
>
> Depending on traffic and precise start point and destination,  that sounds 
> about right. About 25 of that 95 miles is already full motorway and IIRC 
> the Winchester and Newbury bypasses are almost motorway spec. What 
> difference do you think it would make if the rest were a motorway, the 
> speed limit would be the same?
>
I can drive from my brother's house in BB4 9x to BB1 5x on A and B roads, 
the majority of that is NSL, but single carriageway. It takes 30-40 mins as 
the trucks tend to go over that route as it's shorter.

I can turn the opposite way out of his drive, add 4 miles to my journey and 
be there in no more than 20 mins every time if I go down the M65 without 
breaking any speed limits as I can pass all the trucks in the 3rd lane.

Mike P

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ijghs8.472e5m1d9ribrN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Mike P  wrote:
>
>> > A34?
>> >
>>
>> I get your point,
>
> Only to the extent that the A34 runs from Winchester to Bicester as a
> dual carriageway.
>
>> but the A34 is hardly motorway spec though is it? Last time I took that
>> route from Banbury to Soton, it took me over 2 hours, and it's only about
>> 95 miles.
>
> The A34 is one lane short of being useful. It also carries a huge load
> of freight from the Midlands to Soton, much of which is export of
> manufactured goods. Things get slightly worse at Newbury as the M4 adds
> goods traffic from both west and east heading for the port. The absence
> of a third lane means the route is effectively tied to a 56mph limit
> from end to end.
>
>> The A34 is nice on a quiet Sunday morning IME, not
>> at other times
>
> A quiet Sunday morning on the A34? Presumably you mean about 3AM to 6AM?
> Because the A34 on Sunday is, if anything, even busier than a weekday.
>

Yes, that's about the time I mean! Use to go up there early on weekend 
mornings on the bike.

Mike P

Steve Firth wrote:

> Carlos  wrote:

>> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
>> about time?

> It seems to be because the government is scared of public opinion. Or
> rather that it is scared of the morons with the loud voices.

> There is a desperate need for a decent road infrastructure in the East
> of the country and none exists. There are lots of areas where new
> motorways would make sense, such as the south coast from Dover to
> Plymouth,

Agreed. The London Orbital should not be the official route for such 
journeys; the motorway and highway network should not be centred on 
London at all.

> Southampton to Oxford,

That's already catered for by the A34 route (including the Winchester 
and Newbury bypass sections), but it may well be substandard for the 
route's requirements.

> Northampton to Norwich,  Cambridge to
> Norwich, Norwich to Peterborough and Peterborough to Hull. I suspect
> London to Norwich via Colchester wouldn't go amiss either. Biting the
> bullet and making the entire A1 a motorrway wouldn't hurt either.

> However the government prefers to piss away your taxes on wars.

How about Portsmouth/Southampton to Bath and Bristol, avoiding the 
current A36 including Salisbury and Warminster (and also avoiding 
A34/M4/A46/M32)?

And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!) without 
having to travel east into England?

JNugent wrote:
> And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!) without
> having to travel east into England?

Where would you put it and would the amount of traffic available to use it 
justify the expenditure of building a high specifaction road through such 
difficult topography?

Mike P wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:CI2dnQetd_pEF_bVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Mike P wrote:
>>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>>> news:OM2dnWlhPpXy5vbVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> Mike P wrote:
>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>> Carlos wrote:
>>>>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>>>>> motorways?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>>>>> motorways?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and
>>>>> linking it to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off
>>>>> the A404 and M25. I know quite a few people who work off the M3
>>>>> and they still find it quicker to come up the M3, round the M25
>>>>> and up the M40, when a direct route would be so much quicker.
>>>>
>>>> A34?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I get your point, but the A34 is hardly motorway spec though is it?
>>> Last time I took that route from Banbury to Soton, it took me over 2
>>> hours, and it's only about 95 miles. The A34 is nice on a quiet
>>> Sunday morning IME, not at other times
>>>
>>
>> Depending on traffic and precise start point and destination,  that
>> sounds about right. About 25 of that 95 miles is already full
>> motorway and IIRC the Winchester and Newbury bypasses are almost
>> motorway spec. What difference do you think it would make if the
>> rest were a motorway, the speed limit would be the same?
>>
> I can drive from my brother's house in BB4 9x to BB1 5x on A and B
> roads, the majority of that is NSL, but single carriageway. It takes
> 30-40 mins as the trucks tend to go over that route as it's shorter.
>
> I can turn the opposite way out of his drive, add 4 miles to my
> journey and be there in no more than 20 mins every time if I go down
> the M65 without breaking any speed limits as I can pass all the
> trucks in the 3rd lane.
I'd agree that the A34 would benefit from an additional lane, but how much 
difference do you think that would make to the journey time?

On 2 Jul, 15:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> goods traffic from both west and east heading for the port. The absence
> of a third lane means the route is effectively tied to a 56mph limit
> from end to end.

You're surely not trying to imply that the truckers pull that old
favourite 1 mph difference overtaking/mobile-road-block-for-2-miles
routine on that road are you? :o)

Thats not the only dual carraigeway that suffers from those muppets
doing that pointless manouver.

B2003

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!) without
>> having to travel east into England?

> Where would you put it

Wherever it needed to go.

Look at Italian autostrada (eg, the A1 Parma - Firenze, or the A12 at 
Genoa), built for tens of miles at a time through mountainous topography 
- it's all do-able.

> and would the amount of traffic available to use it 
> justify the expenditure of building a high specifaction road through such 
> difficult topography?

It doesn't seem to give other countries any problem to build parts of 
the motorway network that are not necessarily going to be as 
heavily-trafficked as the M25 and M6.

JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!)
>>> without having to travel east into England?
>
>> Where would you put it
>
> Wherever it needed to go.

Which would be where, in your opinion?

> Look at Italian autostrada (eg, the A1 Parma - Firenze, or the A12 at
> Genoa), built for tens of miles at a time through mountainous
> topography - it's all do-able.

No one has said otherwise. The Swiss also "do" mountainous roads.

>> and would the amount of traffic available to use it
>> justify the expenditure of building a high specifaction road through
>> such difficult topography?
>
> It doesn't seem to give other countries any problem to build parts of
> the motorway network that are not necessarily going to be as
> heavily-trafficked as the M25 and M6.

If this were to be part of a longer through route I would agree, but a 
motorway going from somewhere on or near the north Wales coast to somewhere 
on or near the south Wales coast does seem a tad extravagant. Upgrading the 
road along the west coast to a dual carriageway (roughly A55 at Bangor, 
Caernarvon, Harlech, Aberystwyth, Fishguard and joining the end of the M4) 
would make much more sense I suggest. Mainly 'cause there's bugger all in 
the middle except lots of sheep and cattle.

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:>>
>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>> And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!)
>>>> without having to travel east into England?

>>> Where would you put it

>> Wherever it needed to go.

> Which would be where, in your opinion?

I'd say the main population centres of the N and S need to be connected, 
with access to the larger towns in mid-Wales along the way - and even a 
link to Shrewsbury for access to the A5 (and thence M54/M6/A50/M1/A14).

The easterly route would be Cardiff/M4, Abergavenny (and a link to the 
Heads Of The Valleys road), Knighton, Newtown, Welshpool, Wrexham and 
Ewloe (for connection to A55 expressway for access to the coastal strip 
which is where the N Wales population mainly is).

A more westerly route would have to pass through the Brecon Beacons and 
so would probably be unacceptable to too many people.

>> Look at Italian autostrada (eg, the A1 Parma - Firenze, or the A12 at
>> Genoa), built for tens of miles at a time through mountainous
>> topography - it's all do-able.

> No one has said otherwise. The Swiss also "do" mountainous roads.

Good.

>>> and would the amount of traffic available to use it
>>> justify the expenditure of building a high specifaction road through
>>> such difficult topography?

>> It doesn't seem to give other countries any problem to build parts of
>> the motorway network that are not necessarily going to be as
>> heavily-trafficked as the M25 and M6.

> If this were to be part of a longer through route I would agree, but a 
> motorway going from somewhere on or near the north Wales coast to somewhere 
> on or near the south Wales coast does seem a tad extravagant. Upgrading the 
> road along the west coast to a dual carriageway (roughly A55 at Bangor, 
> Caernarvon, Harlech, Aberystwyth, Fishguard and joining the end of the M4) 
> would make much more sense I suggest. Mainly 'cause there's bugger all in 
> the middle except lots of sheep and cattle. 

That's more or less what I am suggesting - though it's best to keep it 
as a (dual 2 lane?) motorway in order to prevent hay-wagons, milk-floats 
and cyclists from hogging it. And ban lorries from the offside lane 
netween 6 am and 9 pm.

JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>> And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!)
>>>>> without having to travel east into England?
>
>>>> Where would you put it
>
>>> Wherever it needed to go.
>
>> Which would be where, in your opinion?
>
> I'd say the main population centres of the N and S need to be
> connected, with access to the larger towns in mid-Wales along the way
> - and even a link to Shrewsbury for access to the A5 (and thence
> M54/M6/A50/M1/A14).

I wouldn't disagree with the road from Aberystwyth to Welspool and on to 
Shrewsbury being upgraded.

> The easterly route would be Cardiff/M4, Abergavenny (and a link to the
> Heads Of The Valleys road), Knighton, Newtown, Welshpool, Wrexham and
> Ewloe (for connection to A55 expressway for access to the coastal
> strip which is where the N Wales population mainly is).
>
> A more westerly route would have to pass through the Brecon Beacons
> and so would probably be unacceptable to too many people.
>
>>> Look at Italian autostrada (eg, the A1 Parma - Firenze, or the A12
>>> at Genoa), built for tens of miles at a time through mountainous
>>> topography - it's all do-able.
>
>> No one has said otherwise. The Swiss also "do" mountainous roads.
>
> Good.
>
>>>> and would the amount of traffic available to use it
>>>> justify the expenditure of building a high specifaction road
>>>> through such difficult topography?
>
>>> It doesn't seem to give other countries any problem to build parts
>>> of the motorway network that are not necessarily going to be as
>>> heavily-trafficked as the M25 and M6.
>
>> If this were to be part of a longer through route I would agree, but
>> a motorway going from somewhere on or near the north Wales coast to
>> somewhere on or near the south Wales coast does seem a tad
>> extravagant. Upgrading the road along the west coast to a dual
>> carriageway (roughly A55 at Bangor, Caernarvon, Harlech,
>> Aberystwyth, Fishguard and joining the end of the M4) would make
>> much more sense I suggest. Mainly 'cause there's bugger all in the
>> middle except lots of sheep and cattle.
>
> That's more or less what I am suggesting - though it's best to keep it
> as a (dual 2 lane?) motorway in order to prevent hay-wagons,
> milk-floats and cyclists from hogging it. And ban lorries from the
> offside lane netween 6 am and 9 pm.

Where roads is the displaced traffic supposed to use, or are you suggesting 
an additional road (rather than an upgrade) to what's already there?

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:RsGdnXUZpK-ENvbVnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@pipex.net...
> Steve Firth wrote:
>
>> Carlos  wrote:
>
>> Southampton to Oxford,
>
> That's already catered for by the A34 route (including the Winchester and 
> Newbury bypass sections), but it may well be substandard for the route's 
> requirements.

The A34 (like other dual carriageways, I'm sure) suffers very badly at some 
times of day from leapfrogging lorries which reduce both lanes to 56 mph in 
order that one lorry can overtake another doing 1 mph less. I've sometimes 
travelled from Didcot to Newbury and never been above 56 because lorry A 
overtakes lorry B, then once it pulls back in, lorry C tries to overtake one 
or both of them, then B will overtake C - and so on ad nauseum. It doesn't 
help that when there is an occasional time that there is no lorry in Lane 2 
ahead of me, the cars in front take ages to accelerate to 70 - there seems 
to be a breed of motorist which passes HGVs at about 57 mph and only 
accelerates once it's got past ;-)

The hilly section over the Ridgeway is a killer for lorries, but that 
doesn't stop them trying to overtake even on the steep gradient (well, step 
for HGVs) of Gore Hill.

It's a shame that some of the goods being carted up and down the A34 between 
Southampton Dock and the M40 can't go by train - but that was scuppered when 
the direct Didcot, Newbury and Southampton line was closed in the 1960s. 
This would have provided an alterntive to the fairly crowded and much longer 
route via Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading and Oxford.

As a "selfish car driver" I'd really like to see the Highway Code changed to 
ban lorries from Lane 2 on a 2-lane road (maybe with an exemption to allow 
them to overtake something going slower than 40, but forbidding 56 
overtaking 55 mph). However that would be very unpopular with HGV drivers 
who do a vital job in transporting things that we rely on in the 
supermarkets.

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Brimstone wrote:>>
>>>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>>>> And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!)
>>>>>> without having to travel east into England?

>>>>> Where would you put it

>>>> Wherever it needed to go.

>>> Which would be where, in your opinion?

>> I'd say the main population centres of the N and S need to be
>> connected, with access to the larger towns in mid-Wales along the way
>> - and even a link to Shrewsbury for access to the A5 (and thence
>> M54/M6/A50/M1/A14).

> I wouldn't disagree with the road from Aberystwyth to Welspool and on to 
> Shrewsbury being upgraded.

>> The easterly route would be Cardiff/M4, Abergavenny (and a link to the
>> Heads Of The Valleys road), Knighton, Newtown, Welshpool, Wrexham and
>> Ewloe (for connection to A55 expressway for access to the coastal
>> strip which is where the N Wales population mainly is).

>> A more westerly route would have to pass through the Brecon Beacons
>> and so would probably be unacceptable to too many people.

>>>> Look at Italian autostrada (eg, the A1 Parma - Firenze, or the A12
>>>> at Genoa), built for tens of miles at a time through mountainous
>>>> topography - it's all do-able.

>>> No one has said otherwise. The Swiss also "do" mountainous roads.

>> Good.

>>>>> and would the amount of traffic available to use it
>>>>> justify the expenditure of building a high specifaction road
>>>>> through such difficult topography?

>>>> It doesn't seem to give other countries any problem to build parts
>>>> of the motorway network that are not necessarily going to be as
>>>> heavily-trafficked as the M25 and M6.

>>> If this were to be part of a longer through route I would agree, but
>>> a motorway going from somewhere on or near the north Wales coast to
>>> somewhere on or near the south Wales coast does seem a tad
>>> extravagant. Upgrading the road along the west coast to a dual
>>> carriageway (roughly A55 at Bangor, Caernarvon, Harlech,
>>> Aberystwyth, Fishguard and joining the end of the M4) would make
>>> much more sense I suggest. Mainly 'cause there's bugger all in the
>>> middle except lots of sheep and cattle.

>> That's more or less what I am suggesting - though it's best to keep it
>> as a (dual 2 lane?) motorway in order to prevent hay-wagons,
>> milk-floats and cyclists from hogging it. And ban lorries from the
>> offside lane netween 6 am and 9 pm.

> Where roads is the displaced traffic supposed to use, or are you suggesting 
> an additional road (rather than an upgrade) to what's already there? 

There would be no displaced traffic - there would be relief to current 
routes. A motorway is almost always an additional route. I can think of 
an example or two where (the A1 apart) an A-road has been changed into a 
motorway, but even they had been new-build bypasses from the 1950s or 
1960s and were not the original ancient routes (which still exist).

Examples include the "Vauxhall access road" in Cheshire (originally an 
A-road, then M531 or M532, now part of M53), and the former A6 north 
orbital road between South Mimms and London Colney (the stretch was 
incorporated into M25 between the A1 and the St Albans turn to the north 
west). I don't think anything like that needs to be done in Wales.

On 2 Jul, 18:17, "Mortimer"  wrote:
> order that one lorry can overtake another doing 1 mph less. I've sometimes
> travelled from Didcot to Newbury and never been above 56 because lorry A
> overtakes lorry B, then once it pulls back in, lorry C tries to overtake one
> or both of them, then B will overtake C - and so on ad nauseum. It doesn

Next time it happens to me (probably on the A1) I'm going to pull in
front of said truck that delayed me and delay HIM by gradually slowing
down to 20mph beneath HIS speed and see how he likes it. Then when
he's finished playing with his horn and tries to overtake me I'll
floor it and leave him with a taste of his own medicine.

> As a "selfish car driver" I'd really like to see the Highway Code changed to
> ban lorries from Lane 2 on a 2-lane road (maybe with an exemption to allow

Agreed.

> them to overtake something going slower than 40, but forbidding 56
> overtaking 55 mph). However that would be very unpopular with HGV drivers
> who do a vital job in transporting things that we rely on in the
> supermarkets.

Many people do vital jobs. That doesn't give them the right to
adversely affect others also trying to do their jobs for no good
reason, which while perhaps they might not be vital to the country are
rather vital for their companies and families.

B2993

wrote in message 
news:97fd7f40-75de-4fc3-bc02-c38be54a6139@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On 2 Jul, 15:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> goods traffic from both west and east heading for the port. The absence
>> of a third lane means the route is effectively tied to a 56mph limit
>> from end to end.
>
> You're surely not trying to imply that the truckers pull that old
> favourite 1 mph difference overtaking/mobile-road-block-for-2-miles
> routine on that road are you? :o)

My record for one that I bothered to measure was 7 miles for one truck to 
overtake one other truck

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT), thagor2008@googlemail.com put
finger to keyboard and typed:

>On 2 Jul, 15:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> goods traffic from both west and east heading for the port. The absence
>> of a third lane means the route is effectively tied to a 56mph limit
>> from end to end.
>
>You're surely not trying to imply that the truckers pull that old
>favourite 1 mph difference overtaking/mobile-road-block-for-2-miles
>routine on that road are you? :o)
>
>Thats not the only dual carraigeway that suffers from those muppets
>doing that pointless manouver.

They wouldn't need to do it if it wasn't for the daft rules requiring
them to be hard-limited to a speed below the legal maximum.

Mark

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:69Odnf927spbK_bVnZ2dnUVZ8qTinZ2d@pipex.net...
>. And ban lorries from the offside lane netween 6 am and 9 pm.

The problem is getting lorry drivers to stick to it.

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:OZ-dnco3y4RnKvbVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> Where roads is the displaced traffic supposed to use,

Tammy? That you posting as Brim?

Depresion wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:OZ-dnco3y4RnKvbVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> Where roads is the displaced traffic supposed to use,
>
> Tammy? That you posting as Brim?

There's no need to be *that* rude!! :-)

Mike P wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:OM2dnWlhPpXy5vbVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com...
>> Mike P wrote:
>>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>>> news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> Carlos wrote:
>>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>>> motorways?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>>>> motorways?
>>>
>>> Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and
>>> linking it to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off the
>>> A404 and M25. I know quite a few people who work off the M3 and they
>>> still find it quicker to come up the M3, round the M25 and up the
>>> M40, when a direct route would be so much quicker.
>> A34?
>>
> 
> I get your point, but the A34 is hardly motorway spec though is it? Last 
> time I took that route from Banbury to Soton, it took me over 2 hours, and 
> it's only about 95 miles. The A34 is nice on a quiet Sunday morning IME, not 
> at other times

Re-open the Didcot Newbury and Southampton railway and chuck some of 
these cyclists and pedestrians of the trackbed :-)

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

JNugent  wrote:

> Look at Italian autostrada (eg, the A1 Parma - Firenze, or the A12 at
> Genoa), built for tens of miles at a time through mountainous topography
> - it's all do-able.

The A14 from Bologna to Bari was built in less than ten years. That's
about 400 miles of motorway. Although 40 miles a year doesn't sound that
startling, the route involved the construction of a huge number of
tunnels and viaducts. It is currently being improved to three lane
standard, the schedule for that is three years and it looks like it will
finish on time.

Compare that with the time that it's going to take to add a lane to a
short section of the M1.

wrote:

> On 2 Jul, 15:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > goods traffic from both west and east heading for the port. The absence
> > of a third lane means the route is effectively tied to a 56mph limit
> > from end to end.
> 
> You're surely not trying to imply that the truckers pull that old
> favourite 1 mph difference overtaking/mobile-road-block-for-2-miles
> routine on that road are you? :o)

Good heavens no! For a start it takes most of them from Newbury to
Abingdon to achive an overtake. About 16 miles.

Brimstone wrote:
> Depresion wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>> news:OZ-dnco3y4RnKvbVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Where roads is the displaced traffic supposed to use,
>> Tammy? That you posting as Brim?
> 
> There's no need to be *that* rude!! :-)

You were less coherent than normal...

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:

> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:OZ-dnco3y4RnKvbVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> >
> > Where roads is the displaced traffic supposed to use,
> 
> Tammy? That you posting as Brim? 

Or is Brimstone channeling Toomy? And if he was, how would we know the
difference?

John Wright  wrote:

> Re-open the Didcot Newbury and Southampton railway and chuck some of 
> these cyclists and pedestrians of the trackbed :-)

I wish. A huge amount of the traffic on the A34 is vehicle transporters
travelling full of Jags, Land Rovers, Toyotas and Hondas to Southampton
and returning empty. It's traffic that really should go by rail.

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:hkin645doeir9o8bpmikt9b8kukpv71gq7@news.markshouse.net...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT), thagor2008@googlemail.com put
> finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>On 2 Jul, 15:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>> goods traffic from both west and east heading for the port. The absence
>>> of a third lane means the route is effectively tied to a 56mph limit
>>> from end to end.
>>
>>You're surely not trying to imply that the truckers pull that old
>>favourite 1 mph difference overtaking/mobile-road-block-for-2-miles
>>routine on that road are you? :o)
>>
>>Thats not the only dual carraigeway that suffers from those muppets
>>doing that pointless manouver.
>
> They wouldn't need to do it if it wasn't for the daft rules requiring
> them to be hard-limited to a speed below the legal maximum.

So if they haven't got the ability to go significantly faster than the 
vehicle they are attempting to overtake (either because of lack of power or 
because of the speed limiter) they should stay put. It's not worth pissing 
off everyone else for the sake of 1 or 2 mph increase in speed which will 
make bugger-all difference to their journey time. If there's a significantly 
slower vehicle then they should be allowed to overtake it: a) because the 
difference between 40 and 56 will make a noticeable difference to the 
journey time; b) they'll complete the manoeuvre fairly quickly with a speed 
differential of 15 mph.

When I used to travel on the A34 regularly between J13 and Milton, I used to 
see police cars parked on the over-bridges near East Isley and they'd set 
off, lights flashing and sirens blaring, and flag down lorries who were 
doing the "*not* overtaking manoeuvre".

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:21:46 +0100, JNugent  wrote:


>
>And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!) without 
>having to travel east into England?

A single carriageway road would suffice - nobody from south Wales
would want to go to north Wales, therefore the only traffic would be
from people, who, upon realising their mistake, wanted to return south
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:55:39 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>Carlos wrote:
>> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
>> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>>
>> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
>> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
>> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
>> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
>> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>>
>> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
>> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
>> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
>> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
>> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
>> ruined countryside.
>>
>> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
>> about time?
>
>Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways? 
>

M4 junction 49 west to Fishguard & Milford Haven/Pembroke Dock.

M4 junction 43 north to meet up with the M50
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:37:39 +0100, "Mike P" 
wrote:

>
>"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
>news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Carlos wrote:
>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>> motorways?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
>>>> motorways?
>>>
>
>
>Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and linking it 
>to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off the A404 and M25. I 
>know quite a few people who work off the M3 and they still find it quicker 
>to come up the M3, round the M25 and up the M40, when a direct route would 
>be so much quicker.
>
>That's about the only one I can think of
>
>MIke P 
>

How about a "releif" motorway from M4 junction 10 to, I think, the M3
- it's the way i go, via Bracknell, to get to gatwick or Brighton
without having to pick up the M25 near Heathrow
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

In article <aLCdnTg-E5lwR_bVnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Mortimer 
says...

> So if they haven't got the ability to go significantly faster than the 
> vehicle they are attempting to overtake (either because of lack of power or 
> because of the speed limiter) they should stay put. It's not worth pissing 
> off everyone else for the sake of 1 or 2 mph increase in speed which will 
> make bugger-all difference to their journey time. If there's a significantly 
> slower vehicle then they should be allowed to overtake it: a) because the 
> difference between 40 and 56 will make a noticeable difference to the 
> journey time; b) they'll complete the manoeuvre fairly quickly with a speed 
> differential of 15 mph.
> 
Yawn...


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Steve Firth wrote:
> John Wright  wrote:
> 
>> Re-open the Didcot Newbury and Southampton railway and chuck some of 
>> these cyclists and pedestrians of the trackbed :-)
> 
> I wish. A huge amount of the traffic on the A34 is vehicle transporters
> travelling full of Jags, Land Rovers, Toyotas and Hondas to Southampton
> and returning empty. It's traffic that really should go by rail.

Indeed, and trains arriving from Southampton in Didcot could go just 
about anywhere in the UK from there.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 2 Jul, 10:45, Carlos  wrote:
> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> ruined countryside.
>
> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
> about time?

Actually it is not one of the least dense. Its twice as dense as USA,
nine times as dense as Canada and Ireland and 24 times as dense as New
Zealand and Norway. How do you think those countries manage with so
few motorways?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:02:24 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:


>
>Actually it is not one of the least dense. Its twice as dense as USA,
>nine times as dense as Canada and Ireland and 24 times as dense as New
>Zealand and Norway. 

Evidence?
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

On 3 Jul, 07:11, Peter Thomas  wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:02:24 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Actually it is not one of the least dense. Its twice as dense as USA,
> >nine times as dense as Canada and Ireland and 24 times as dense as New
> >Zealand and Norway.
>
> Evidence?

Try reading the source quoted at the start of this thread.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 2008-07-02, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> John Wright  wrote:
>
>> Re-open the Didcot Newbury and Southampton railway and chuck some of 
>> these cyclists and pedestrians of the trackbed :-)
>
> I wish. A huge amount of the traffic on the A34 is vehicle transporters
> travelling full of Jags, Land Rovers, Toyotas and Hondas to Southampton
> and returning empty. It's traffic that really should go by rail.

The car companies gave up using the railways because of the amount of damage
that resulted to the cars.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
> On 2 Jul, 10:45, Carlos  wrote:
>> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
>> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>>
>> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
>> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
>> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
>> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
>> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>>
>> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
>> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
>> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
>> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
>> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
>> ruined countryside.
>>
>> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
>> about time?
>
> Actually it is not one of the least dense. Its twice as dense as USA,
> nine times as dense as Canada

Huh? That directly contradicts the original posting.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g4i32k$2cl$2@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>> On 2 Jul, 10:45, Carlos  wrote:
>>> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
>>> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>>>
>>> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
>>> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
>>> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
>>> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
>>> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>>>
>>> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
>>> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
>>> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
>>> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
>>> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
>>> ruined countryside.
>>>
>>> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
>>> about time?
>>
>> Actually it is not one of the least dense. Its twice as dense as USA,
>> nine times as dense as Canada
>
> Huh? That directly contradicts the original posting.

Just don't expect Doug to back it up.

On Jul 2, 9:10 pm, Conor  wrote:
> In article <aLCdnTg-E5lwR_bVnZ2dnUVZ8vudn...@posted.plusnet>, Mortimer
> says...
>
> > So if they haven't got the ability to go significantly faster than the
> > vehicle they are attempting to overtake (either because of lack of power or
> > because of the speed limiter) they should stay put. It's not worth pissing
> > off everyone else for the sake of 1 or 2 mph increase in speed which will
> > make bugger-all difference to their journey time. If there's a significantly
> > slower vehicle then they should be allowed to overtake it: a) because the
> > difference between 40 and 56 will make a noticeable difference to the
> > journey time; b) they'll complete the manoeuvre fairly quickly with a speed
> > differential of 15 mph.
>
> Yawn...

Bet you wouldn't be yawning if a couple of tractors trying to pass
each other at 30mph for a couple of miles was holding you up. But
hey , we all know truckers are special and the rules of considerate
driving don't apply to you right?

B2003

On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-07-02, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > John Wright  wrote:
>
> >> Re-open the Didcot Newbury and Southampton railway and chuck some of
> >> these cyclists and pedestrians of the trackbed :-)
>
> > I wish. A huge amount of the traffic on the A34 is vehicle transporters
> > travelling full of Jags, Land Rovers, Toyotas and Hondas to Southampton
> > and returning empty. It's traffic that really should go by rail.
>
> The car companies gave up using the railways because of the amount of damage
> that resulted to the cars.

Not true on the continent. I've saw car transporter trains going
through bruges a few months back , one of them carrying nothing but
right hand drive corsas , presumably bound for zebrugger.

B2003

On 2008-07-03, Depresion <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g4i32k$2cl$2@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>>> On 2 Jul, 10:45, Carlos  wrote:
>>>> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
>>>> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
>>>> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
>>>> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
>>>> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
>>>> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>>>>
>>>> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
>>>> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
>>>> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
>>>> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
>>>> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
>>>> ruined countryside.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
>>>> about time?
>>>
>>> Actually it is not one of the least dense. Its twice as dense as USA,
>>> nine times as dense as Canada
>>
>> Huh? That directly contradicts the original posting.
>
> Just don't expect Doug to back it up. 

The only thing I 'expect' when talking to Duhg is to have to stand far enough
back to avoid being hit by the spittle.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2008-07-03, thagor2008@googlemail.com  wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2008-07-02, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > John Wright  wrote:
>>
>> >> Re-open the Didcot Newbury and Southampton railway and chuck some of
>> >> these cyclists and pedestrians of the trackbed :-)
>>
>> > I wish. A huge amount of the traffic on the A34 is vehicle transporters
>> > travelling full of Jags, Land Rovers, Toyotas and Hondas to Southampton
>> > and returning empty. It's traffic that really should go by rail.
>>
>> The car companies gave up using the railways because of the amount of damage
>> that resulted to the cars.
>
> Not true on the continent. 

How long's Southampton been on the continent?


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

JNugent  wrote:

> Brimstone wrote:
> 
> > JNugent wrote:
> >> Brimstone wrote:>>
> >>> JNugent wrote:
> 
> >>>> And what about a route from North to South Wales (and return!)
> >>>> without having to travel east into England?
> 
> >>> Where would you put it
> 
> >> Wherever it needed to go.
> 
> > Which would be where, in your opinion?
> 
> I'd say the main population centres of the N and S need to be connected,
> with access to the larger towns in mid-Wales along the way - and even a
> link to Shrewsbury for access to the A5 (and thence M54/M6/A50/M1/A14).
> 
> The easterly route would be Cardiff/M4, Abergavenny (and a link to the
> Heads Of The Valleys road), Knighton, Newtown, Welshpool, Wrexham and
> Ewloe (for connection to A55 expressway for access to the coastal strip
> which is where the N Wales population mainly is).
> 
> A more westerly route would have to pass through the Brecon Beacons and
> so would probably be unacceptable to too many people.
> 
considering the rather under used dual carrage ways in the area, one
would need to convice people that it was needed. note the traffic from
the heads, with the depopulating valleys.

note that quite a number of said roads in the area look like some thing
like the empty shots of the first motorways.

> >> Look at Italian autostrada (eg, the A1 Parma - Firenze, or the A12 at
> >> Genoa), built for tens of miles at a time through mountainous
> >> topography - it's all do-able.
> 
> > No one has said otherwise. The Swiss also "do" mountainous roads.
> 
> Good.
> 
> >>> and would the amount of traffic available to use it
> >>> justify the expenditure of building a high specifaction road through
> >>> such difficult topography?
> 
> >> It doesn't seem to give other countries any problem to build parts of
> >> the motorway network that are not necessarily going to be as
> >> heavily-trafficked as the M25 and M6.
> 
> > If this were to be part of a longer through route I would agree, but a
> > motorway going from somewhere on or near the north Wales coast to somewhere
> > on or near the south Wales coast does seem a tad extravagant. Upgrading the
> > road along the west coast to a dual carriageway (roughly A55 at Bangor,
> > Caernarvon, Harlech, Aberystwyth, Fishguard and joining the end of the M4)
> > would make much more sense I suggest. Mainly 'cause there's bugger all in
> > the middle except lots of sheep and cattle. 
> 
> That's more or less what I am suggesting - though it's best to keep it
> as a (dual 2 lane?) motorway in order to prevent hay-wagons, milk-floats
> and cyclists from hogging it. And ban lorries from the offside lane 
> netween 6 am and 9 pm.

since the big dual carrage way to monmouth/abergavenny doesn't have any
problems i don't see why you think such a road would.

to be honest i can't see the need, traffic north to south is not great
and a east route, you might as well just M50/M5 etc

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Peter Thomas  wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:37:39 +0100, "Mike P" 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> >news:JJSdne84BK486PbVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
> >> Carlos wrote:
> >>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
> >>>> motorways?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need
> >>>> motorways?
> >>>
> >
> >
> >Some way of getting from the M40 to the M4 West of Reading , and linking it
> >to the M3 would be nice, thus taking some traffic off the A404 and M25. I
> >know quite a few people who work off the M3 and they still find it quicker
> >to come up the M3, round the M25 and up the M40, when a direct route would
> >be so much quicker.
> >
> >That's about the only one I can think of
> >
> >MIke P 
> >
> 
> How about a "releif" motorway from M4 junction 10 to, I think, the M3
> - it's the way i go, via Bracknell, to get to gatwick or Brighton
> without having to pick up the M25 near Heathrow

it's a fast route any way not sure it would help that much, it's the way
go as well, as the M25/early bits of the M4 tend to be sticky.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On 3 Jul, 09:36, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 Jul, 10:45, Carlos  wrote:
> >> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> >> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> >> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> >> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> >> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> >> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> >> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> >> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> >> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> >> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> >> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> >> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> >> ruined countryside.
>
> >> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
> >> about time?
>
> > Actually it is not one of the least dense. Its twice as dense as USA,
> > nine times as dense as Canada
>
> Huh? That directly contradicts the original posting.
>
Haven't you read the source cited in the original posting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size

Also GB has more motorway per capita than Hungary, Ireland, Japan, New
Zealand, Norway and Poland. Far from being the one of the least GB
seem to be fairly average.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-07-02, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > John Wright  wrote:
> >
> >> Re-open the Didcot Newbury and Southampton railway and chuck some of
> >> these cyclists and pedestrians of the trackbed :-)
> >
> > I wish. A huge amount of the traffic on the A34 is vehicle transporters
> > travelling full of Jags, Land Rovers, Toyotas and Hondas to Southampton
> > and returning empty. It's traffic that really should go by rail.
> 
> The car companies gave up using the railways because of the amount of damage
> that resulted to the cars.

The conditions in which cars are carried on railways are little
different to the conditions in which they are carried on road or indeed
on car transporters at sea. The damage must therefore have related to
the requirement for railway staff to load trains, and the lack of care
exercised by the same. Under present conditions it would seem reasonable
for the trains to be operated by private companies, just as the road car
transporters are operated, with improved QA for operations.

I certainly don't want to