Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
*** Make campaign for the widest possible support and acceptance - [here]
 25/09/2019 - WWRUG / Transport Focus
03/10/2019 - ACoRP Community Rail Awards
05/10/2019 - WSR shuttle last for 2019
10/10/2019 - IET Signalling Talk - Reading
16/10/2019 - MRUG meeting
16/10/2019 - ACoRP board nominations close
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
September 22, 2019, 12:50:35 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[57] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[56] Templecombe
[55] St.Erth Park and Ride
[49] No steam to Ryde (for a number of years)
[44] 21st September 2019 - RailFuture National Conference, in Brist...
[40] Out of Office quiz - September 2019
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Linked Events
  • JLTP Consultation closes: March 20, 2019
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: WECA Alphabet Soup  (Read 3806 times)
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2019, 08:51:59 pm »

Not quite answering your question, but according to section 4.36 of the DMRB junctions should be at least 2km apart. The proposed Jct 18a of the M4 is just outside this distance from Jct 19 (M32).
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4124


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2019, 10:10:10 pm »

Not quite answering your question, but according to section 4.36 of the DMRB junctions should be at least 2km apart. The proposed Jct 18a of the M4 is just outside this distance from Jct 19 (M32).

It's possible to put junctions closer than that, with overlapping slip roads, and by designing the whole thing together. For an example, see the collective junction 12 of the M27 at the north end of the M275. Usually this involves more grade separation (to avoid those "weaving lengths"), and omitting some inner slip roads in favour of traffic going to the other junction to join the through motorway further along.

Whether this detracts from the utility of the road for through traffic I guess depends on how many lanes are left clear for it.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2205


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2019, 05:42:46 pm »

It's not just the effect of joining and leaving traffic on the main carriageways, which can probably be minimised by slip-road design, it's also that placing junctions close together attracts local traffic using the motorway in preference to A or B roads.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2019, 07:05:07 pm »

It's a fair point, but then the M4 (J19 - J20) and M5 (J15 - J18)  do act rather like an outer ring road for Bristol (sorry, 'the west of England') anyway...
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2205


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2019, 07:38:18 pm »

That's true, which is why it was a more general point, not just WECA. (And plenty of other examples in other places: M42, M25 explicitly so, etc).
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3317


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2019, 07:42:32 pm »

Not quite answering your question, but according to section 4.36 of the DMRB junctions should be at least 2km apart. The proposed Jct 18a of the M4 is just outside this distance from Jct 19 (M32).
I am told that Highways England tend to quite rigidly enforce the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).  So I would not expect any relaxation of such standards. 
Logged
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2019, 04:42:18 pm »

Quote

Plans to build 105,000 homes should be scrapped as councils sent back to drawing board

It would have seen new homes built in 12 significant locations across the four authorities

Government officials have rejected major plans to build 105,000 homes across the West of England.

Planning inspectors have advised the local authorities for Bristol, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset to take their joint spatial plan back to the drawing board.

The regional plan was put through its paces during an examination held in public in Bath last month.

Planning inspectors Malcolm Rivett and Steven Lee were tasked with deciding whether the plan was sound and legally compliant and could be adopted straight away or needed modifications first.

Instead, the inspectors concluded they had “significant concerns” about fundamental aspects of the plan and advised the four councils to withdraw it.

In a letter dated August 1, Mr Rivett and Mr Lee wrote: “We think it only fair to advise you that we currently consider that withdrawal of the JSP from examination may well be the most appropriate way forward.

(...continues)


Source: Bristol Post

The JLTP serves the JSP, so logically you'd have to assume that the JLTP will need to be rewritten too... from a public transport viewpoint this could be good news, as the planned 'garden villages' at Banwell, Churchill and Buckover were particularly contentious because among other things they relied on the private motor car as the main means of transport. In the context of WECA's declaration of a climate emergency, one might hope for a change of emphasis when the plan is rewritten!

Watch this space! This news item was a month old when I posted this, but thus far there's no reference to it on the WECA website.

Rivett and Lee's letter is here. Deary me.
Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 442


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2019, 07:13:21 pm »

Quote
The JLTP serves the JSP, so logically you'd have to assume that the JLTP will need to be rewritten too... from a public transport viewpoint this could be good news, as the planned 'garden villages' at Banwell, Churchill and Buckover were particularly contentious because among other things they relied on the private motor car as the main means of transport. In the context of WECA's declaration of a climate emergency, one might hope for a change of emphasis when the plan is rewritten!

This is interesting, and demonstrates that adding another level of local government does not do anything to solve the problems facing planning policy formulation. It looks like another example of planning authorities hoping to avoid the NIMBY problem by concentrating new housing in new settlements. That might be appropriate in Cambridgeshire, where there are wide open spaces around a tightly drawn green belt around Cambridge with very little infrastructure and a huge demand for new housing, but the Planning Inspectorate has pushed back at this approach elsewhere applying the National Planning Policy Framework even where they have been proposed in locations with reasonable public transport links where the inspectors feel that there has not been a full and proper assessment of the sustainability of the locations has been undertaken.

If RS is right, and some of these WECA candidate Ecotowns/Garden Villages are dependent upon private car transport, then WECA has done a poor job in selecting them as major strategic housing allocation sites.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3150


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2019, 08:28:23 pm »

...If RS is right, and some of these WECA candidate Ecotowns/Garden Villages are dependent upon private car transport, then WECA has done a poor job in selecting them as major strategic housing allocation sites.

The Banwell and Mendip Spring Garden Village plans revolve around a new Banwell Bypass to the north of the A371, and a new junction 21A where the M5 crosses the A371.

Buckover is on the A38 just north of Thornbury.

These are deliberately low-density developments.

In each case the concept diagrams refer to access by road and, peripherally, cycle paths. Buckover, it is said, " will also assist make the case for a step change in public transport in the locality, by extending Metrobus routes from the major employment centres of North Bristol, providing for additional bus services and supporting the case to reopen Charfield railway station."

It may be noted that Charfield is about 8km from Buckover by the most direct route.

On the face of it you can see why some might think that these proposals did not spring from the planning process, but drove it.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2205


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2019, 10:36:03 am »

Buckover is on the A38 just north of Thornbury.
I wish they'd get around to fixing that patch of melted tarmac at the top of the hill opposite the pub. But other patches are far worse.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page