New section of A30 to be an 'Expressway'

[ChrisF]

I attended a local consultation meeting yesterday , about the planned dualling of one of the few remaining single-lane bits of the A30. Apart from more local matters, it came as a surprise to all of the cycling-interest attendees that the new section (about 8 miles long) is to designed as an 'Expressway' : a new designation by Highways England which will prohibit cycling.
The presenters of the consultation couldn't give us any examples of such a road type; the cyclists amongst us had never heard of it. In this case, it appears that most of the old road will be left as a local route that cyclists can continue using, and there will be continuity along the route (which is used by many LeJog and JogLe riders).
But looking up the term today, I find that there are other sections of Expressway planned in England, including possibly all the A303 from Basingstoke to Exeter.
So I'm just wondering if anyone here has an existing Expressway locally, and if so is there an adequate cycling alternative?

[Bonefishblues]

All I can find, note the info on single carriageways that could carry that designation:

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... Expressway

ETA
Reading again, it's not explicit, I'd assumed that they were single carriageways - perhaps someone could confirm?

[landsurfer]

I assume we are talking Carland Cross to Chiverton Cross ?
Any dual carriageway, expressway or any other roadway that separates traffic in this congested area would be welcome.
The Scorrier to Blackwater road acts as a feed to Chiverton Cross and there other routes via St Allen and Indian Queens to escape the A30 .
But if an "Expressway" reduces traffic on cycle friendly roads then it gets my vote .....

[Cunobelin]

I assume we are talking Carland Cross to Chiverton Cross ?
Any dual carriageway, expressway or any other roadway that separates traffic in this congested area would be welcome.
The Scorrier to Blackwater road acts as a feed to Chiverton Cross and there other routes via St Allen and Indian Queens to escape the A30 .
But if an "Expressway" reduces traffic on cycle friendly roads then it gets my vote .....

There are a couple of tricks that can bet tried.

One, IIRC used in Thanet was that the funding was European and the choice given that either the bike ban was revoked or that the funding would be cancelled.


The other is "amenity" where if something is removed than a similar facility has to replace it. We used that fairly successfully which the LRT system where cycle provision was forced back onto agenda

What always annoys me is that it would be perfectly possible to build a proper cycle route adjacent to all these new roads

[landsurfer]

What always annoys me is that it would be perfectly possible to build a proper cycle route adjacent to all these new roads

But what if this new route is a featureless steep sloped nightmare of a route suited to motor vehicles, like so much of the A30, and the old quiet route is a joy to ride ..... still want to insist on a cycle route along the new route or have money spent on improvements to the old route ....

[thirdcrank]

They are designed to be capable of providing motorway standard journeys that are reliable and resilient to delay. They are also designed to be as safe as motorways, but are generally built where a motorway is not needed, normally because the traffic demand isn't there to fill one.

From that link. A quasi-motorway from that description, but also a lot of ill-defined variations, which could be sign of mission creep. If it's not a "special road" then the status of prohibited users might be unclear. If these were all new roads, then that might not be a big deal IF existing routes remained available for cyclists. But, it seems that either the title is being retrospectively applied to historic routes which have been "improved," or else the term has been applied privately among highwaymen and the like.

A Queen of Hearts situation.

eg I see that the A64 between the A1 and York is on the list. It's news to me that it's an Expressway. It has some half-baked cycle tracks alongside most of this stretch and things like the closure of gaps in the central reservation have recently been carried out.

[CJ]

There's quite a number of non-motorway roads on which cycling is banned, which would be no bad thing (these roads are not a place were anyone with a thought for their own safety would want to ride a bike) if only there were some statutory duty to provide and maintain an alternative route of undiminished convenience for all excluded road users. But unlike when a road is 'upgraded' to a proper motorway, there isn't any such duty, so it seems.

Whilst other European countries built comprehensive motorway networks, the British way has been to make piecemeal 'improvements' to existing main roads. Result: Britain has less than half as many miles of actual motorway compared to anywhere comparable, and a whole lot of 'improved' roads that are ripe for the banning of cycling - with nowhere else for cyclists to go. And because of the piecemeal way in which this road has been 'improved', at least cost, making as much use as possible of its existing alignment, any cycling alternative must now duck and dive, under, over and zig-zag around the structures now blocking the historic and geographical line of least resistance.

At least we now have a name for what I've been calling motorways-on-the-cheap and on the sly. For in addition to saving the costs of providing hard shoulders and a way for non-motorway traffic, perhaps the most compelling reason NOT to build a motorway but instead to 'improve' an existing general purpose road, bit by bit, must be the lack of objections. Far from objecting, inhabitants of the towns and villages campaign vigorously FOR their individual bypasses. And then campaign to dual the remaining single carriageway bottlenecks and shut off the side-road accident blackspots in-between!

As for cycling - who cares?

Does Cycling UK care? Or do they only care about urban cycling these days?

[PRL]

. . . the British way has been to make piecemeal 'improvements' to existing main roads. Result: Britain has less than half as many miles of actual motorway compared to anywhere comparable, and a whole lot of 'improved' roads that are ripe for the banning of cycling - with nowhere else for cyclists to go. And because of the piecemeal way in which this road has been 'improved', at least cost, making as much use as possible of its existing alignment, any cycling alternative must now duck and dive, under, over and zig-zag around the structures now blocking the historic and geographical line of least resistance. . . . .

Agreed that this is disastrous. In more civilised countries a new road is built in a position that does not mean sharp bends etc and the old road narrowed and dedicated to active travel.

[mjr]

There are two major problems with the outlined approach:

Firstly, they say the old route can be used for cycling, but they do nothing to encourage it. All too often, they hand it over to a county council that does the bare minimum and basically leaves it as a parallel route for local motorists and motor traffic levels increase to fill available space along it, replicating the hostile cycling environment of today. We've seen it repeatedly on the A11 and I think we're about to see it again on the A14 Huntingdon bypass bypass.

Secondly, destinations along the new route need cycle access else it encourages motoring. They may claim there won't be any, but junctions were even added to motorways, resulting in development near them that can only be reached by a motorway or a dodgy A road, not easily by cycling. They argue against initial provision by saying no one currently rides over the fields and they're not intending any development beside it. When a junction and development occurs, they plead that there's no space left in the highway corridor.

Guard against them and you will be doing well, although there's plenty of devil in the details too.

[drossall]

But what if this new route is a featureless steep sloped nightmare of a route suited to motor vehicles, like so much of the A30, and the old quiet route is a joy to ride ..... still want to insist on a cycle route along the new route or have money spent on improvements to the old route ....

Probably not, but the A14 from Mildenhall to Thetford is another good example of why folk here are so cautious about such roads. It was upgraded recently. To be honest, it wasn't attractive for cyclists before, and it's less so now. However, it was done as a strategic road.

If you take a strategic approach and zoom out, any other route into Norwich from that side is quite a diversion, and to be honest the A1065 into Brandon isn't that much fun either. And it leads you onto sandy paths that aren't easy on a loaded touring bike. Somehow the Highways Agency got fixated on getting cyclists across the road at a couple of crossing points, and entirely forgot about getting tourists along the line of the road into north-east Norfolk, which is hardly a strategic approach. To make it even worse, they made cycle provision for the Thetford to Elveden bit, but it stops dead.

If I were Cambridgeshire County Council, I'd be hopping mad, because they've got routes from Cambridge towards Mildenhall that are effectively cut off. Then suitable back roads start again beyond Thetford.

In a few years' time, we'll probably get some dirt-track, winding paths along the broad line of the A11, that cross it three times, turn back on themselves and do all sorts of other non-strategic-road-like things between Mildenhall and Thetford.

[horizon]

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/a38-devon

[foxyrider]

Sounds very much like what I see in Holland and Germany.

Except of course they generally have a signposted cycle route and they aren't so fixed on taking motor traffic by the shortest direct route at the expense of other road users.

The best way to reduce motorised traffic is to make it more difficult to get from a to b, not easier. Locally the policy used to be to exclude cars from the city centre with very restricted, expensive parking. It worked until a change in policy allowed several large multistories to be built - end result, overnight doubling of motorised commute traffic resulting in unreliable public transport, which puts more people in cars etc.etc.

I have no problem with the idea of Expressways but they must be part of a wider plan for the corridor they serve ensuring all road users can access homes, businesses and facilities.

[Richard Fairhurst]

To be fair (not that I'm particularly inclined to be fair to organisations seeking to induce yet more car demand), the new Highways England cycle design strategy and guidance are pretty good:

Where Non-Motorised Users (NMU) are prohibited from the Strategic Road Network, out of corridor cycle routes may be created as part of the legal process of creation of new highway, or through the adoption or conversion of rights of way, such as disused railway lines, with the potential to link to national cycle routes. Highways England and designers shall plan to acquire land to create the space to accommodate cycle traffic as part of new scheme designs (see Section 1.3) or when enhancing cycling provision for existing routes with NMU prohibitions.
Where all-purpose trunk roads are upgraded with new routes being provided, the original route corridor and adjoining local road network can provide a suitable opportunity for compensatory cycle route provision. In such instances, designers shall liaise with the appropriate local highway authority responsible for the original route once reclassified.
Where alternative cycle routes away from the SRN cannot be provided, designers shall ensure that cycle networks allow for segregated cycle trips within the corridor of all-purpose trunk roads with speed limits of 40mph or greater. Cycle networks shall also allow for trips crossing the SRN corridor. Cross-corridor schemes, such as those crossing motorways or where NMUs are prohibited, can reduce or eliminate severance which may have otherwise suppressed demand for cycle traffic.

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/h ... ian195.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... rategy.pdf

That said, there's many a slip twixt strategy and implementation, and I suspect a lot of feet-holding-to-fire will be required to get them to provide a good quality route parallel to the A30 Expressway. Even schemes that seemed promising in recent years have been fouled up unnecessarily - such as the alternative route alongside the new A46, which could have been really good had they paved it...

[Cyril Haearn]

What about Stonehenge and the tunnel?

[Mick F]

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/a38-devon

You beat me to it.
It's been called Devon Expressway for some years.
You can cycle legally on it though.

When we lived in Scotland last, we often drove into Glasgow along the Clydeside Express Way. This was back in 1982-85, so it's an old term .......... not a new one.