On 08/12/2019 09:14, tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 23:53:02 on Sat, 7 Dec
2019, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got swept
up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate the
economyÂ* due to the construction jobs created.

And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the
constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded them
out about taking on the risk of the tolling

The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a
rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively have
a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could never have
been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford Crossing.

AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have through
traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled.

And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct it so
that it is fair to local traffic without having a non-negligible volume
of through traffic trying to become local traffic and clogging up the
local route, whilst leaving the through route underused".


Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 09:14:48 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 23:53:02 on Sat, 7 Dec
2019, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got swept
up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate
the economy due to the construction jobs created.

And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the
constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded them
out about taking on the risk of the tolling

The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a
rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively
have a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could never
have been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford Crossing.

AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have through
traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled.

That's why I said "effectively". The local traffic routes, while
un-tolled, are largely single carriageway and only suitable for a small
percentage of the through traffic deciding it need to rat-run. And
likely to add half an hour to a ten minute trip.

And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct it
so that it is fair to local traffic without having a non-negligible
volume of through traffic trying to become local traffic and clogging
up the local route, whilst leaving the through route underused".

The half an hour I mention above, mainly. Few people would endure that
twice.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:37:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked:
As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got
swept up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to
stimulate the economy* due to the construction jobs created.

And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the
constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded
them out about taking on the risk of the tolling

The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a
rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively
have a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could never
have been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford Crossing.
AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have
through traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled.
And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct
it so that it is fair to local traffic without having a
non-negligible volume of through traffic trying to become local
traffic and clogging up the local route, whilst leaving the through
route underused".

Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes.

Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec
2019, remarked:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:49:26 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:54:39 on Wed, 19 Jun
2019, tim... remarked:

[route for the M25]

The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is
diverted to the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic
will be moved first, with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required
while they connect the new to the old carriageways, then an
overnight closure for the final switch to be made. The same
procedure would then be followed a few months later to divert the
southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars
belief.

I disagree.

Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there
is, adjust description accordingly).

Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.

Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.

Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Yes, that's what I'm expecting.

I have never in my life seen construction companies do this

For once I agree with Tim.

While it's not quite the M25, the A14 is one of the busiest dual
carriageways in the country.

They've recently finished (ahead of schedule) building the green-fields
bypass round the southwest of Huntingdon, and now just need to splice it
onto the old road towards Cambridge and the M11.

And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a
village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road
from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the
accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from
all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from
Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be.

Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars
caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV
container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local
urban myths.

When I say negligible, I mean you can count the number you see in
fifteen minutes on that extremely busy dual carriageway, on the fingers
of one hand.

Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the
majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a
"refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer,
and we don't put those onto trains.

Meanwhile the container trains trundling through the Fens parallel to
the A14 are very rarely full (and frequently almost completely empty),
so there's plenty of spare capacity.
--
Roland Perry

On 09/12/2019 11:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:37:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked:
As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got
sweptÂ* up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to
stimulate theÂ* economyÂ* due to the construction jobs created.

And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the
constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded
themÂ* out about taking on the risk of the tolling

The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a
rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively
haveÂ* a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could
never haveÂ* been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford
Crossing.
Â*AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have
throughÂ* traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled.
Â*And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct
it soÂ* that it is fair to local traffic without having a
non-negligible volumeÂ* of through traffic trying to become local
traffic and clogging up theÂ* local route, whilst leaving the through
route underused".

Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes.

Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing.

Don't recall a rat-run being available to avoid the Dartford crossing.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 12:21:14 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked:
As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got
swept* up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to
stimulate the* economy* due to the construction jobs created.

And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the
constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded
them* out about taking on the risk of the tolling

The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always
a rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would
effectively have* a monopoly on that particular flow, something
which could never have* been said about the M6T. Think more like
the Dartford Crossing.

*AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have
through* traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled. *And the
insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct it so*
that it is fair to local traffic without having a non-negligible
volume* of through traffic trying to become local traffic and
clogging up the* local route, whilst leaving the through route underused".

Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes.

Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing.

Don't recall a rat-run being available to avoid the Dartford crossing.

It's called the Rotherhithe Tunnel.
--
Roland Perry

On 09/12/2019 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:21:14 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked:
As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got
sweptÂ* up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to
stimulate theÂ* economyÂ* due to the construction jobs created.

And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the
constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded
themÂ* out about taking on the risk of the tolling

The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always
aÂ* rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would
effectivelyÂ* haveÂ* a monopoly on that particular flow, something
which couldÂ* never haveÂ* been said about the M6T. Think more like
the DartfordÂ* Crossing.

Â*AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have
throughÂ* traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled.Â* Â*And the
insurmountable problem with that was "how do you constructÂ* it so
that it is fair to local traffic without having aÂ* non-negligible
volumeÂ* of through traffic trying to become localÂ* traffic and
clogging up theÂ* local route, whilst leaving the throughÂ* route
underused".

Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes.

Â*Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing.

Don't recall a rat-run being available to avoid the Dartford crossing.

It's called the Rotherhithe Tunnel.

Which is a major detour through very congested streets for some miles,
not a case of using a parallel minor road to a main route.

As an example of what I refer to, the A33, mostly single carriageway,
runs parallel to the M3 between Basingstoke and Winchester. Road
pricing on the motorway would, inevitably, led to traffic using the A33
instead.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 13:57:02 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked:
On 09/12/2019 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:21:14 on Mon, 9 Dec
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got
swept* up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to
stimulate the* economy* due to the construction jobs created.

And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of
the constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they
sounded them* out about taking on the risk of the tolling

The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was
always a* rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would
effectively* have* a monopoly on that particular flow, something
which could* never have* been said about the M6T. Think more like


*AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have
through* traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled.* *And the
insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct* it so
that it is fair to local traffic without having a* non-negligible
volume* of through traffic trying to become local* traffic and
clogging up the* local route, whilst leaving the through* route underused".

Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes.

*Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing.

Don't recall a rat-run being available to avoid the Dartford crossing.
It's called the Rotherhithe Tunnel.

Which is a major detour through very congested streets for some miles,
not a case of using a parallel minor road to a main route.

Precisely. And the new A14 is just the same. There is no parallel minor
road for the green fields 8 miles they opened today.

As an example of what I refer to, the A33, mostly single carriageway,
runs parallel to the M3 between Basingstoke and Winchester. Road
pricing on the motorway would, inevitably, led to traffic using the A33
instead.

I'm discussing the A14.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019,
remarked:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:49:26 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:54:39 on Wed, 19 Jun
2019, tim... remarked:

[route for the M25]

The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is
diverted to the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic
will be moved first, with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required
while they connect the new to the old carriageways, then an
overnight closure for the final switch to be made. The same
procedure would then be followed a few months later to divert the
southbound carriageway to the new alignment.

The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight"
beggars
belief.

I disagree.

Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close
to
the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if
there
is, adjust description accordingly).

Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow
gap between the old and new northbounds at each end.

Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all
the cones.

Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4).

Yes, that's what I'm expecting.

I have never in my life seen construction companies do this

For once I agree with Tim.

While it's not quite the M25, the A14 is one of the busiest dual
carriageways in the country.

They've recently finished (ahead of schedule) building the green-fields
bypass round the southwest of Huntingdon, and now just need to splice it
onto the old road towards Cambridge and the M11.

And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a
village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road
from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the
accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on
from
all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way
from
Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should
be.

Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars
caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container
traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths.

When I say negligible, I mean you can count the number you see in fifteen
minutes on that extremely busy dual carriageway, on the fingers of one
hand.

Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the
majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a
"refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer,
and we don't put those onto trains.

you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds
with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road
users

don't see that distinction myself

they are equally annoying to have surrounding you as you drive down a road

and they are equally significant to freight haulage when it comes to time
saving

tim

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:13:38 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec
2019, remarked:
And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a
village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road
from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the
accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from
all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from
Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be.

Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars
caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV
container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local
urban myths.

Whatever the governmental reason for it, no one in the area wanted the damn
bypass. Its just more countryside carved up and more farmland disappeared under
concrete to make a few minutes savings in journey times.

Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the
majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a
"refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer,
and we don't put those onto trains.

Only because of our daft loading gauge. They do it in other countries.

Meanwhile the container trains trundling through the Fens parallel to
the A14 are very rarely full (and frequently almost completely empty),
so there's plenty of spare capacity.

Which should be used. If companies don't want to use it then slap a massive
tax on every truck coming out of the port with a container which is going to
a destination that could be reached part or whole of the way by rail.