Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 16:02, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 12:47, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:20:35 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:57:29 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001


well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or
no
business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption?
It's
more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from
the
way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)

how can that not cause major disruption?


You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see
it
(You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article
included
a
link)

or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

If you now read the thread, I pointed out that the buried/bridged
motorway will be built on a new alignment, to the west of the current
M25, so building it won't disrupt the existing motorway or flights.

The plans that I can see show the new road so close that the idea that
it
wont disrupt the current M25 is fiction.

Only the short period of linking the old carriageways and new
diversion will cause any disruption, and that should be short (mainly
a few days or weeks of lane closures, then a few hours of complete
closure while the traffic is switched to the new route).

If you think that they can link a new route into a current motorways by
only
diverting traffic for a few weeks then you have never seen how they do
this

IME they narrow the road where the connection is to be made for the
full
term of the works. They do this because they need access to the new
road
for construction vehicles - how else are they going to build it?

They won't need access to the existing M25 to build the new structures
to
the west — why would they?

because they don't helicopter all the construction stuff in, do they


Of course not.

Why don't you at least look at a map before posting an inane question like
that?

I've looked at the map

there will be no easy access to the site of this new road except via the
current motorway or by building a road specifically to access it

Huh? What about the A4 Colnbrook By-pass and Bath Road?

There's also rail access, which will probably play a big role.

They are talking about using the rail line for bringing materials in.

Looking at the more detailed plans they have problems with not only J15
(M4) but J14A (T5). There isn't space between the latter and the
proposed tunnel mouth for the appropriate weaving space and the Highways
Agency don't want weaving in the tunnel itself. Any major work on J14A
is A) going to cost a lot and B) cause major disruption on the M25. A
cursory read through the documentation doesn't really show how they are
going to square that circle.

The map we've been referring to is variation 3B, v1 being just lower the
motorway or raise the runway keeping the present alignment. Non-starter
for many reasons. 3B has around 7 subvariants depending on various
tweaks to the two interchanges, J14A and J15.

Anyone hunting out the documentation it's Structure Plan Vol2 Ch1,
there's around a dozen volumes on ecological impact first. I couldn't
find a proper index to the contents, the full colour A3 executive
summary is not actually very helpful. I get the impression it is just
there to look pretty for those who can't face 30 odd white A4 ring binders.


Looking further into the future, the new runway is likely to cause a big
increase of traffic to T5, as it (and its extensions) will serve the new
runway.

So, even if the long-discussed two new western rail links are built, there
will still probably be a significant increase in road traffic to J14A. I
wonder if it might make sense for T5 to have direct links to the M4 that
don't briefly share the M25?


Where are they going to go with the new runway between the two? You can
get from the M4 to T5 without going on the M25 already: M4 Spur - A4 -
Stanwell Moor Rod and Western Perimeter road.


It's currently a fairly minor road with very limited capacity, that will
probably be lost under the new taxiways between the runways (along with the
northern car parks).

In message , at 21:59:12 on Wed, 19 Jun
2019, Clive D.W. Feather remarked:
In article , Roland Perry
writes
I have never in my life seen construction companies do this
even when the new road is well away from the old route
It costs millions extra to do it that way

Come and look at the A14 rebuild between Girton and Swavesey. It's being
done in a similar way.

And there's only disruption to the through traffic for two isolated
overnight periods (while they switch some virtual points)?

You have got-to-be-joking.

Let's see when it happens.

At the moment, the next disruption is a closure this weekend to demolish
what's left of the old Bar Hill flyover. Closures for this sort of
thing, or installing gantries, seem to be more disruptive than switching
the alignment.

Today I had the [dis]pleasure of driving the Girton to Milton section
again, and it's not noticeably further on than six months ago. Lots of
weaving contra-flow lanes, single in places, through traffic down to
30mph, and masses of work to do to even restore the original alignment -
let alone switch people from one free-flowing dual carriageway to
another with a set of overnight 'points'.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:27:09 on Wed, 19 Jun
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:09:11 on Wed, 19 Jun
2019, Basil Jet remarked:
I currently do have sight problems but that diagram clearly shows
the slip roads from the new alignment being foul of the existing
layout. I'm hoping to go and see the actual documents in the library
tomorrow so may get a better idea then.

The bridges are all in the centres of the junctions, and the roads in
those area are unchanged, unlike the roads on the southern part of the
M4 junction or the northern part of the T5 junction. (I'm not counting
gantries as bridges.)

Talking of gantries; along with lamp-posts, central reservation
barriers, and all the other street furniture, they'd have to be removed
along the affected stretches to make the "set of points, with road cones
swapping the flow overnight" operation postulated up-thread.

Yes, that's true. There would need to be some overnight closures leading up
to the actual switch. Some items could be removed well in advance, during
other works. Removal of overhead gantries would obviously require overnight
closures, but could be done well in advance. Presumably there won't be more
than one overhead gantry in each of the shirt connection zones.

But quite a lot could be done with just lane closures. For example, the
central reservation won't be affected while the northbound carriageway is
moved across in two stages. Later, when it's time to move the southbound
traffic, much of the structure removal and connection work will be done
during closures of the fast lane. The final switchover will require an
overnight closure while the 'points are switched'.

This is all so far removed from current practice (even if it were
possible) that discussing the detail is like rearranging the deckchairs
on the Titanic.
--
Roland Perry

On 20/06/2019 16:40, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 16:02, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 12:47, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:20:35 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:57:29 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001


well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or
no
business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption?
It's
more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from
the
way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)

how can that not cause major disruption?


You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see
it
(You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article
included
a
link)

or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

If you now read the thread, I pointed out that the buried/bridged
motorway will be built on a new alignment, to the west of the current
M25, so building it won't disrupt the existing motorway or flights.

The plans that I can see show the new road so close that the idea that
it
wont disrupt the current M25 is fiction.

Only the short period of linking the old carriageways and new
diversion will cause any disruption, and that should be short (mainly
a few days or weeks of lane closures, then a few hours of complete
closure while the traffic is switched to the new route).

If you think that they can link a new route into a current motorways by
only
diverting traffic for a few weeks then you have never seen how they do
this

IME they narrow the road where the connection is to be made for the
full
term of the works. They do this because they need access to the new
road
for construction vehicles - how else are they going to build it?

They won't need access to the existing M25 to build the new structures
to
the west — why would they?

because they don't helicopter all the construction stuff in, do they


Of course not.

Why don't you at least look at a map before posting an inane question like
that?

I've looked at the map

there will be no easy access to the site of this new road except via the
current motorway or by building a road specifically to access it

Huh? What about the A4 Colnbrook By-pass and Bath Road?

There's also rail access, which will probably play a big role.

They are talking about using the rail line for bringing materials in.

Looking at the more detailed plans they have problems with not only J15
(M4) but J14A (T5). There isn't space between the latter and the
proposed tunnel mouth for the appropriate weaving space and the Highways
Agency don't want weaving in the tunnel itself. Any major work on J14A
is A) going to cost a lot and B) cause major disruption on the M25. A
cursory read through the documentation doesn't really show how they are
going to square that circle.

The map we've been referring to is variation 3B, v1 being just lower the
motorway or raise the runway keeping the present alignment. Non-starter
for many reasons. 3B has around 7 subvariants depending on various
tweaks to the two interchanges, J14A and J15.

Anyone hunting out the documentation it's Structure Plan Vol2 Ch1,
there's around a dozen volumes on ecological impact first. I couldn't
find a proper index to the contents, the full colour A3 executive
summary is not actually very helpful. I get the impression it is just
there to look pretty for those who can't face 30 odd white A4 ring binders.


Looking further into the future, the new runway is likely to cause a big
increase of traffic to T5, as it (and its extensions) will serve the new
runway.

So, even if the long-discussed two new western rail links are built, there
will still probably be a significant increase in road traffic to J14A. I
wonder if it might make sense for T5 to have direct links to the M4 that
don't briefly share the M25?


Where are they going to go with the new runway between the two? You can
get from the M4 to T5 without going on the M25 already: M4 Spur - A4 -
Stanwell Moor Rod and Western Perimeter road.


It's currently a fairly minor road with very limited capacity, that will
probably be lost under the new taxiways between the runways (along with the
northern car parks).


There's an alternative route from the M4 via the Colnbrook by-pass. One
of the options for the M25 is to remove the southern slip roads from J15
and route all the interchange traffic to the south via the Colnbrook
interchange to the west.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 16:40, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 16:02, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 12:47, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:20:35 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:57:29 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001


well I don't know about the rest,

but I for one think that the idea that people who have little or
no
business
at the airport are going to have to suffer 5 years of disruption
whilst
they
rebuild the M25 to create this Hub airport entirely unreasonable

Why do you think M25 users will suffer five years of disruption?
It's
more
likely to be a few night time closures or lane restrictions.

they are going to put the whole road in a tunnel (presumably from
the
way
it's described not by building a raft on top of it)

how can that not cause major disruption?


You've obviously not looked at the map,

what is "The Map" - I guess there is one, but no I didn't get to see
it
(You
can blame that on my out of date browser if the original article
included
a
link)

or read this thread.

as one of the first to reply, that would have been difficult

If you now read the thread, I pointed out that the buried/bridged
motorway will be built on a new alignment, to the west of the current
M25, so building it won't disrupt the existing motorway or flights.

The plans that I can see show the new road so close that the idea that
it
wont disrupt the current M25 is fiction.

Only the short period of linking the old carriageways and new
diversion will cause any disruption, and that should be short (mainly
a few days or weeks of lane closures, then a few hours of complete
closure while the traffic is switched to the new route).

If you think that they can link a new route into a current motorways by
only
diverting traffic for a few weeks then you have never seen how they do
this

IME they narrow the road where the connection is to be made for the
full
term of the works. They do this because they need access to the new
road
for construction vehicles - how else are they going to build it?

They won't need access to the existing M25 to build the new structures
to
the west — why would they?

because they don't helicopter all the construction stuff in, do they


Of course not.

Why don't you at least look at a map before posting an inane question like
that?

I've looked at the map

there will be no easy access to the site of this new road except via the
current motorway or by building a road specifically to access it

Huh? What about the A4 Colnbrook By-pass and Bath Road?

There's also rail access, which will probably play a big role.

They are talking about using the rail line for bringing materials in.

Looking at the more detailed plans they have problems with not only J15
(M4) but J14A (T5). There isn't space between the latter and the
proposed tunnel mouth for the appropriate weaving space and the Highways
Agency don't want weaving in the tunnel itself. Any major work on J14A
is A) going to cost a lot and B) cause major disruption on the M25. A
cursory read through the documentation doesn't really show how they are
going to square that circle.

The map we've been referring to is variation 3B, v1 being just lower the
motorway or raise the runway keeping the present alignment. Non-starter
for many reasons. 3B has around 7 subvariants depending on various
tweaks to the two interchanges, J14A and J15.

Anyone hunting out the documentation it's Structure Plan Vol2 Ch1,
there's around a dozen volumes on ecological impact first. I couldn't
find a proper index to the contents, the full colour A3 executive
summary is not actually very helpful. I get the impression it is just
there to look pretty for those who can't face 30 odd white A4 ring binders.


Looking further into the future, the new runway is likely to cause a big
increase of traffic to T5, as it (and its extensions) will serve the new
runway.

So, even if the long-discussed two new western rail links are built, there
will still probably be a significant increase in road traffic to J14A. I
wonder if it might make sense for T5 to have direct links to the M4 that
don't briefly share the M25?


Where are they going to go with the new runway between the two? You can
get from the M4 to T5 without going on the M25 already: M4 Spur - A4 -
Stanwell Moor Rod and Western Perimeter road.


It's currently a fairly minor road with very limited capacity, that will
probably be lost under the new taxiways between the runways (along with the
northern car parks).


There's an alternative route from the M4 via the Colnbrook by-pass. One
of the options for the M25 is to remove the southern slip roads from J15
and route all the interchange traffic to the south via the Colnbrook
interchange to the west.


Or at least an enhanced version of that road could be the signposted route
between T5 and the M4 to the west.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 10:48, David Cantrell wrote:
A 50mph limit? Horrors! Why, that's the same speed that that part of the
motorway normally runs at!
In your dreams!

No, in my fairly regular experience.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

For every vengeance, there is an equal and opposite revengeance.
-- Cartoon Law XI

On 21/06/2019 16:23, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/06/2019 10:48, David Cantrell wrote:
A 50mph limit? Horrors! Why, that's the same speed that that part of the
motorway normally runs at!
In your dreams!

No, in my fairly regular experience.


It moves that fast?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In article , Roland Perry
writes
Today I had the [dis]pleasure of driving the Girton to Milton section
again, and it's not noticeably further on than six months ago. Lots of
weaving contra-flow lanes, single in places, through traffic down to
30mph, and masses of work to do to even restore the original alignment -
let alone switch people from one free-flowing dual carriageway to
another with a set of overnight 'points'.

That's a completely different situation.

From Histon to Milton they're widening from 2+2 to 3+3 on the same
alignment in a narrow space. It's not surprising that they need to
narrow the lanes and have disruption.

I have no idea what is going on between Girton and Histon and nobody
seems to be able to tell me. We went through years of chaos while they
widened it from 2+2 to 3+3 *before* the A14 work started. So I can't see
what needs to be done now.

As for the Girton interchange itself, given how much is being altered
it's not surprising.

None of this is remotely similar to a new alignment being built out of
the way and connected up when ready.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

In message , at 09:02:34 on Sat, 22 Jun
2019, Clive D.W. Feather remarked:
In article , Roland Perry
writes
Today I had the [dis]pleasure of driving the Girton to Milton section
again, and it's not noticeably further on than six months ago. Lots of
weaving contra-flow lanes, single in places, through traffic down to
30mph, and masses of work to do to even restore the original alignment -
let alone switch people from one free-flowing dual carriageway to
another with a set of overnight 'points'.

That's a completely different situation.

From Histon to Milton they're widening from 2+2 to 3+3 on the same
alignment in a narrow space. It's not surprising that they need to
narrow the lanes and have disruption.

I have no idea what is going on between Girton and Histon and nobody
seems to be able to tell me. We went through years of chaos while they
widened it from 2+2 to 3+3 *before* the A14 work started. So I can't see
what needs to be done now.

The 'new' disruption is indeed very disappointing, especially as there's
not much happening on a day to day basis. Must be something to do with
building the new intersection at Histon.

As for the Girton interchange itself, given how much is being altered
it's not surprising.

None of this is remotely similar to a new alignment being built out of
the way and connected up when ready.

On the contrary, the majority of the new Girton interchange is being
built "out of the way", but they are making no attempt whatsoever to get
it finished first, with the existing roads operating normally, and then
"throwing the points" in the manner that's been advocated for the M25.

It's quite clear they simply don't care how much they disrupt the
traffic, for years on end.

Exactly the same happened at the new A14/M1 junction, which they again
did incrementally with several years of disruption, when the new
east-west route was a completely new alignment.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 10:22:58 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:02:34 on Sat, 22 Jun
2019, Clive D.W. Feather remarked:
In article , Roland Perry
writes
Today I had the [dis]pleasure of driving the Girton to Milton section
again, and it's not noticeably further on than six months ago. Lots of
weaving contra-flow lanes, single in places, through traffic down to
30mph, and masses of work to do to even restore the original alignment -
let alone switch people from one free-flowing dual carriageway to
another with a set of overnight 'points'.

That's a completely different situation.

From Histon to Milton they're widening from 2+2 to 3+3 on the same
alignment in a narrow space. It's not surprising that they need to
narrow the lanes and have disruption.

I have no idea what is going on between Girton and Histon and nobody
seems to be able to tell me. We went through years of chaos while they
widened it from 2+2 to 3+3 *before* the A14 work started. So I can't see
what needs to be done now.

The 'new' disruption is indeed very disappointing, especially as there's
not much happening on a day to day basis. Must be something to do with
building the new intersection at Histon.

As for the Girton interchange itself, given how much is being altered
it's not surprising.

None of this is remotely similar to a new alignment being built out of
the way and connected up when ready.

On the contrary, the majority of the new Girton interchange is being
built "out of the way", but they are making no attempt whatsoever to get
it finished first, with the existing roads operating normally, and then
"throwing the points" in the manner that's been advocated for the M25.

It's quite clear they simply don't care how much they disrupt the
traffic, for years on end.

That probably wouldn't be a permitted option with the M25 at Heathrow.


Exactly the same happened at the new A14/M1 junction, which they again
did incrementally with several years of disruption, when the new
east-west route was a completely new alignment.