I've been saying this for years. Govt needs to give an incentive for companies to have their staff home work a lot. Would help distribute money around the country too as people could take their city money to the provinces.
Money
Well
Spent
Whilst they are at it they can widen the M3 to 3 lanes al the way down, take off that 50mph limit near the M25/M3 junction, take away the sodding bus lanes and take away the white line coardend off area reducing 3 lanes into 2 (for no reason)
Then,
Widen the A1 all the way to 3 lanes, widen the M11 to 3 lanes all the way to the A1.
Stick another lane on the M62 and M40 and M42, and M6.
I ain t finished yet…listen..
Ban all truck from anything other than the inside lane, yup that means no overtaking, anywhere. Then make truck drive through the night so they are not on public roads between the hours 0630 – 2030 (trucks over 7.5tons)
Wait..
Ban caravans from overtaking.
Then..
Lengthen all entry and exits to motorways by at least ¼ of a mile so there is enough room to decelerate/accelerate onto/off motorways.
And..
Let road users use the hard shoulder.
Ahhh...
[img] 
[/img]
Less users on the motorways?
Fewer!
Managed Motorways are being implemented all over the motorway network at the moment. The M1, M6 and M62 are all mid way through implementing this just to name a few. There is a lot more of it in the pipeline too. Haven't seen people moaning about money being spent on these but then maybe that's because they're not the south east.
It's the most cost effective solution the the capacity issues on the countries roads.
M25 isn't the only congested motorway so it's not as simple as just saying "move businesses out of the South East" loads of places have capacity problems.
Only a matter of time until all the m25 is managed motorways as well as most other bits of urban motorway.
Ohh and the M23 needs extra lanes all the way to the end..
And M20..
And the A3 needs three lanes..
And the A27..
And the A35...
It's really quite pathetic that we are using roads made from concrete and built in the 50's.
The simple solution would be to divert the container trucks onto the rail system
A good solution based on this is possible IMO. But not simple. ISO containers don't fit our railway lines. The cost of upgrading is great enough to put people off the idea.
IK Brunel advocated and built broad gauge lines (7ft with proportionally larger tunnels) but the government of the day standardised on 4ft 8" for cheapness. We are paying the price for ignoring Brunel now, I think.
Some excellent responces, pity our elected governmnet didnt apply any of them to real life.
More home working, flexible hours,more freight on rail, and freight asnd coach only lanes on motorways.
A blanket 50 mph speed limit on the M25 and all other motorways near big cities would do much more in terms of congestion than more lanes, but the Clarksons of the world would froth...
Extra lanes seem like a nice idea, but in practice people just change their journeys to take account of the faster timing. That has been proved time and time again.
I used the M25 every day when the Heathrow section opened, it was better, for about a week.
Anyone done any research and modelling as to what would happen if trucks were restricted to the inside lane?
If trucks were restricted to the inside lane with no exceptions it would be a nightmare for HGV's.
Things like abnormal loads, really bad drivers or big hills would bring the whole inside lane to a virtual standstill at any time of day!
ISO containers don't fit our railway lines.
Lines from the Southern ports and the channel tunnel to the wcml have W10 loading gauge, as do all new lines and the wcml itself, so can take containers. Problem is the wcml is full, so we're pretty much stuck until HS2 is built.
Ye cannae build your way out of congestion anyway...
I always think when on the M25 that a massive amount of congestion could be solved simply by educating people about the knock on effect of sitting in the middle and outside lanes when not overtaking. So much of the time you see these lanes full as everyone tries to get past, while the inner lanes are almost empty. Certain areas that have already been widened just move the problem across a lane or two to the right and leave more inside lanes empty.
I think we just need a good old Govt. information film. Or higher actual policing in terms of motorway patrols rather than cameras or the 'faux-police ' in the black and yellow chequered Discoverys. Or legalise undertaking....
LenHankie - Member
I always think when on the M25 that a massive amount of congestion could be solved simply by educating people about the knock on effect of sitting in the middle and outside lanes when not overtaking. So much of the time you see these lanes full as everyone tries to get past, while the inner lanes are almost empty. Certain areas that have already been widened just move the problem across a lane or two to the right and leave more inside lanes empty.I think we just need a good old Govt. information film. Or higher actual policing in terms of motorway patrols rather than cameras or the 'faux-police ' in the black and yellow chequered Discoverys. Or legalise undertaking....
indeed and also keeping a decent gap from the car in front , reduce accidents and that annoying 'stopping for no reason' thing
If trucks take up two lanes, or someone sits in the middle lane doing 60, the worst thing that'll do is reduce traffic to 60mph.
I don't much care about that, I'm more concerned about when it gets reduced to 0mph.
Quite impressed no one's mentioned what flavour biscuits they want on this thread..........
Trying to move (more) haulage on to the railways would be great for uniform shipments (i.e containers) but how many of these do you actually see on the road compared to the overall volume of trucks?
I very much doubt the £250mill mentioned would even make a dent in the cost to upgrade rail freight heads to cater for all shapes and sizes of shipments.
Oh and as a Sussex southerner, the only time I use the 'London' M25 is when I'm going to A N Other part of the country, i.e pretty much all of it north of the M4 route.
Trying to move (more) haulage on to the railways would be great for uniform shipments (i.e containers) but how many of these do you actually see on the road compared to the overall volume of trucks?
Why is that?
To be honest, it would be a lot easier for trucking companies to load stuff into a container on a lorry rather than into a lorry itself, wouldn't it?
molgrips
To be honest, it would be a lot easier for trucking companies to load stuff into a container on a lorry rather than into a lorry itself, wouldn't it?
I'm not even going to pretend I know the full picture but I strongly suspect ease of loading odd shaped product and Just In Time deliveries would negate a lot the convenience of containers. - Aren't containers primarily designed for ships and long distance transportation?
Train deliveries of goods to shops at Euston station are starting soon, also Stobart has its own inland port at Widnes and own trains and containers, as does Malcolm another big freight and logistics mover.
I'm not even going to pretend I know the full picture but I strongly suspect ease of loading odd shaped product and Just In Time deliveries would negate a lot the convenience of containers. - Aren't containers primarily designed for ships and long distance transportation?
but thats why roll cages are used, cages with wheels underneath as used in supermarkets all fiit into a container, that is almost the same size as a lorry trailer, or curtain sider.
""benefits from less diesel emissions"
Do you mean because the diesel trains + container hub construction/operation would make less emissions than all the door-door trucks? Rather than electric freight trains? AFAIK there aren't a lot of electric freighters in use, nor more importantly many electric routes for freight trains to use? Also requires more complex container hubs as overhead eclectrics cant go under cranes/container fork trucks
"Ban all truck from anything other than the inside lane, yup that means no overtaking, anywhere
..
Ban caravans from overtaking"
Eeven with your 1/4 mile slip roads, at busy periods will the car traffic actually be able to get on/off the motorway? Or will they be using the lorries braking space they ought to leaving between one another?
When people go slower than 56mph (lorry speed), ie cars with trailers/caravans who dont realise they can do 60mph* on the motorway, 40mph cranes, the army at 50mph, heavily loaded lorries uphill, are not going to be able to be overtaken
given the way UK drivers dont seem to be able to work out/second guess how fast other vehicles are travelling (try following a tractor) its likley you're going to have a stop/start or slow down/speed up brake effect whenever the train of lorries hit anything slower? Which would make getting on/off the sliproads harder?
"Then make truck drive through the night so they are not on public roads between the hours 0630 – 2030 (trucks over 7.5tons)"
So all trucks will have to parked up for 14hours on private land/laybys? as they're not allowed on public roads whatsoever. So industry will have to somehow make space for all lorries to be parked up for these 14hours
For anything on continuous short runs and/or time sensitive loads (eg concrete)
have to run at night and so too the to and from sites?
eg cement mixers to building sites? Building projects have to be at night? Tarmac and other loads thbat 'go off'?
eg grain lorries doing runs from nearish farms to ports have to loaded at night?
many more egs, not coming to the too of my head atm
Recovery lorries cant recover lorries that break down at 6am? nor busses in the day time?
Essentially either industry either has to then work at night, or you require loads more lorries and lorry parking while they get to load OR unload once in the day and drive onto the next place in the nght?"
Pretty simple really - keep left unless overtaking! Prohibit trucks from overtaking at peak times as they do in many european countries. then the roads we have would be both safer and less conjested.
My father used to work for a cargo airline.
They were contacted by Lego for a shipment to another country.
They asked what size the containers where - they were told "We can build it to size..."
Transport spend : £2700 per head per annum spent on Londoners.........£5 spent per head per annum for people in the North East. The OP's point about the M25, HS2, the new rail link currently being tunnelled under London (not sure what its called) are all vastly expensive projects that benefit Londoners. Where are equivalent projects for the rest of the population? I live in Pembs, but cannot get to Aberystwyth by rail (65 miles away)without going to Cardiff and then Shrewsbury first. How can i travel by public transport? As soon as the budget was announced, all large capital spend projects in Wales were scrapped by the uk govt, yet its OK to keep upping the £2700 that Londoners receive. But then again, Wales isn't a conservative stronghold, so they couldn't give a %^&* whether they lose the Welsh vote.
We all pay equal tax, but the majority get a very raw deal when it comes to equal spend.
Rant over
Very naive teenrat. Public transport is only financially feasible without huge subsidies in areas of high population density. Otherwise there aren't enough fares to cover the costs.
The reason London gets so much spent on it is the sheer scale of the problem and the amount of business that goes on. The London transport network moves maybe twice the population of your entire country in and out of an area a few miles across every single day.
Why not compare transport spend per square km to gdp per square km instead. Since that is the real reason we invest in infrastructure. He reason we use the term "invest".
Subsidy or not, it is my view that the government has a responsibility that all people living within the UK have the ability to travel, be it to work, hospital or outside of work. I agree that infrastructure is important in areas of high gdp, but the skew towards London seems disproportional. Why is £250 million being spent on the M25 as well as improved public transport links. Surely the HS2 and crossrail is sufficient to improve the current situation? Will another £250 million be spent when the M25 is full again in a few years time, which would mean that the previous money made no difference at all.
As Jeremy Clarkson said why was the M4 narrowed to improve traffic flow yet the M25 was widened?
teenrat - Its not only the M25 that is having money spent on managed motorways being implemented.
Im not sure on the full details, but I know one company alone are delivering close to £500million worth of motorway schemes in the north starting next year. These are managed motorways on the M1 from J28-35, an improvement scheme on the A556 from the M56 to M6south and a new link road around lancaster from the M6 to Heysham.
Add this to current managed motorway works on the M62, the huge job that has been going on on the A1 near Leeming Bar kind of show you that it is not just the M25 that gets money spent on it as you would like to think.
[quote=molgrips ]Public transport is only financially feasible [b]without huge subsidies[/b] in areas of high population density. And only feasible in London due to the high level of subsidy provided by the Treasury in the way of new infrastructure. What would the real cost of public transport in London be if the UK Government wasn't paying for, e.g. Crossrail?
And what would be the cost of congestion and lost investment without it?
Subsidy or not, it is my view that the government has a responsibility that all people living within the UK have the ability to travel, be it to work, hospital or outside of work
Me too, but that's impossible within the current social, economic and political climate. The amount of money it'd cost would be enormous.
but the skew towards London seems disproportional. Why is £250 million being spent on the M25
The M25 isn't for London, it's for the rest of the country to get AROUND London to go elsewhere. Bad as the M25 is it would be a nightmare trying to get across the country without it.
[quote=molgrips ]
The M25 isn't for London, it's for [b]the rest of the country[/b] to get AROUND London to go elsewhere. Bad as the M25 is it would be a nightmare trying to get across the country without it.
A casual look at a map of the UK will show that [i]"the rest of the country"[/i] can get to most of the country without going anywhere near London. Even given cross-channel links, I can't believe so many folk need to go to and from Kent.
A casual look at a map of the UK will show that "the rest of the country" can get to most of the country without going anywhere near London
*sigh*
Thanks for the geography lesson. Not very useful for your point though, is it?
Why don't you look at the distribution of motorways against the population density? You'll find them well matched. There are loads of motorways across the North of England. It's not like you're being short changed, is it?
Governments do work quite hard to spread industry and commerce around the country, as it makes life a hell of a lot easier for them to not have large areas of jobless wasteland. Of course they aren't always successful, but that's another issue.
Whining about how much money London gets spent on it is bloody pointless. If you live in Nowheresville, you'll have roads, and hospitals and a police force. I bet a large amount of the funding for those things comes from the tax take from businesses based in London and the South East.
Even given cross-channel links
How much port traffic from Dover, Ramsgate or Folkestone do you think goes anywhere without going on the M25? The M4, M1, A1(M), M40, and M3 will all be accessed via the M25. So by my reckoning that's Wales, the West country, the Midlands, the north West, the North East and Scotland that will all be using the M25 to get many of their goods.
Really don't see your point.
druidh - Member
A casual look at a map of the UK will show that "the rest of the country" can get to most of the country without going anywhere near London. Even given cross-channel links, I can't believe so many folk need to go to and from Kent.
It shouldn't be that surprising considering the population of around 1.6 million in Kent plus 1.7 million in Essex, a million in Surrey etc bearing in mind in comparison that the whole of Scotland has approx 5.5 million.
We all pay equal tax, but the majority get a very raw deal when it comes to equal spend.
but you get all those free prescriptions, money you can divert to your travel costs, whereas we have expensive travel AND prescription costs...
Equal tax is probably not true either - salaries are higher down here and so we pay more tax - fuel costs are higher as well, so more tax...
Good point about salaries. Salaries for the same jobs are often (usually?) higher because the cost of living is more. I also suspect that there are more jobs that are intrinsically higher paid in the SE. Since we have a progressive tax scheme (ie higher earners pay more percentage) then Londoners/Southerners will pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than everyone else.
We all pay equal tax
Do you?
