The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.
There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).
Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.
jackal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 13:58
The problem is that Carlisle traffic would U-turn to access the slip roads. This could be removed by dualling up to Linstock Rbt, with accesses LILOed, though this would add to costs significantly. The money might be better spent on a Warwick Bridge bypass.
Alternatively, you could swap the A689 and B6264 with the A69 to make the northern route the main way to get in and out of Carlisle from the east. This would be a cost-effective way to eliminate the need for a bypass of Warwick Bridge, however, I understand that the combined AADTF of the existing A69 and A689 would push it in excess of 23k, [A69][A689] so dualling may be necessary to provide extra capacity. to the route I'm unfamiliar with traffic movements at J43 and J44, so if someone could tell me what the majority movements are at these locations then I could suggest something to improve those junctions as well.
Additionally, a width and weight restriction could help reduce the number of journeys along the B6263 and existing A69 by signifying that it's an unsuitable route for through traffic. Going even further, traffic calming through the village could further discourage motorists from using the route as a ratrun.
jabbaboy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 23:09
Been a lot of discussion about Warwick Bridge, but wonder if one way to reduce the traffic through there might to build a bypass of Kirkby Steven and sort out the low bridge instead.
Once the A66 dualling is complete, for anyone heading South down the M6, it would be quicker head down to Scotch Corner then across the A66 then down the A685 instead. Even for the lakes, anywhere South of the Tyne would be quicker via the A66.
Would give HGV's an alternative aswell since they can't use it at all currently and give much better links from the North West to the North East.
I was under the impression that the A685 was already the default option for M6(S) traffic. Other than Kirkby Stephen, it's a pretty good road.
Anybody know how long the HGV ban has been in place? I wasn't aware that there was one!
Yes this is the route we always take when headed for the South Lakes. As beyond this point the A66 kicks North, which is fine if you consider the A66 a Scotland-bound road. A685 is mostly fine, I especially like the steep hill you have to climb. Kirkby Stephen is not too much of an issue, I just wish it was a nicer place to stop en-route, we have tried a few places there but none of them are that nice, even Costa was disappointing.
Scrolling the thread and a bit late on this one, but if it's pub food we often use the Bay Horse in Winton. Or for cafe type things, the Ice Cream Parlour at Church Brough. Both are better than places in Kirkby Stephen.
Rob590 wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 09:33
Scrolling the thread and a bit late on this one, but if it's pub food we often use the Bay Horse in Winton. Or for cafe type things, the Ice Cream Parlour at Church Brough. Both are better than places in Kirkby Stephen.
Yes since I posted that we went through again last year and stopped at the Ice Cream Parlour. Not the best I've ever been to but nice in good weather and you can combine it with a look at the castle.
. . .Has the Environmental/Challenge Period ended yet?
. . .T.A.N.'s tree–huggers are wittering on about it all with their usual prattle about cyclists and walkers (how many cyclists ever use the A66? – I have never seen any!) - more to the point, if they care to look at the maps instead of constantly spouting their anti–roads nonsense, they would see that the plans make plentiful provisions for W.C.H./N.M.U. provisions along superseded lengths with short sections of new minor roads provided so these users don't have to use the upgraded dual carriageway!
. . .Nothing on the National Highways Pages about T.A.N.'s nonsense yet!
. . .(Just a thought, how come you never hear any complaints from them about these dreadful tin–shed development routes with twenty roundabouts per mile?
. . .As Bryn and many others have said, tin–shed development routes with twenty roundabouts–to–the–mile are far more damaging to the environment, climate and walker/cyclist/pedestrian safety than a proper length of upgraded grade–separated dual carriageway scheme that keeps WCH/NMU off the new route would be – all the "tin–shed" schemes do is encourage yet more and more short car and HGV journeys and make usable public transport very difficult – The existing A428 St. Neots bypass has virtually become one!)
There are three recent references in this thread to "another" legal challenge, or it being challenged "again". The DCO was only approved on 7 March and as far as I know there has just been one challenge, by TAN.
Perhaps the people who want to stop the A66 upgrade and witter on about cyclists and better public transport should take a closer look at the road. Although not banned, it would take a very brave or stupid cyclist to drive on the A66 and I can't think I've ever seen one except decades ago when the road went through Bowes. There is no alternative to motor vehicles across the Pennines unless someone wanted to spend billions on a rail link from Appleby to Darlington that would be very little used as there are few settlements east of Appleby. Also a long distance bus service from Penrith to Darlington wouldn't be viable for the same reasons, with only Appleby and Brough likely to generate a small number of passengers.
Then have the anti car, anti HGV lobby had the misfortune to live in KIrkby Thore, which is choked with traffic for most of the day, and the residents are desperate for a by pass as the pollution, road noise and danger from vehicles is unbearable.
