WECA Alphabet Soup

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

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).

[stuving]

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.

[Bmblbzzz]

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.

[Red Squirrel]

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...

[Bmblbzzz]

That's true, which is why it was a more general point, not just WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about). (And plenty of other examples in other places: M42, M25 explicitly so, etc).

[ellendune]

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. 

[Red Squirrel]

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^» (West of England Combined Authority - about)'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.

[eightonedee]

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^» (West of England Combined Authority - about)'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.

[Red Squirrel]

...If RS is right, and some of these WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about) 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.

[Bmblbzzz]

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.

[Red Squirrel]

Some interesting stuff in the results of WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about)'s JLTP4 consultation, according to the Bristol Post:

* People's highest priority? New and improved railway stations and services.

* Strong support - mainly in Bristol - for congestion charges or a new levy on workplace parking to bring in extra funding.

* People also wanted to see a comprehensive and safe network built for walking and cycling, and more road space used for public transport, walking and cycling.

* Three in five people found buses unreliable and poor value for money, and said it was not easy to plan journeys.

If you read the article, you may notice that the Bristol Post listed these in a different order...

Meanwhile, WECA plan to spend £100s of millions on roads for cars...

[johnneyw]

Some interesting stuff in the results of WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about)'s JLTP4 consultation, according to the Bristol Post:

* People's highest priority? New and improved railway stations and services.

* Strong support - mainly in Bristol - for congestion charges or a new levy on workplace parking to bring in extra funding.

* People also wanted to see a comprehensive and safe network built for walking and cycling, and more road space used for public transport, walking and cycling.

* Three in five people found buses unreliable and poor value for money, and said it was not easy to plan journeys.

If you read the article, you may notice that the Bristol Post listed these in a different order...

Meanwhile, WECA plan to spend £100s of millions on roads for cars...

Which makes one speculate what the public consultations are really for.

[stuving]

The full Draft Joint Local Transport Plan 4 Consultation Report is on Travelwest's JLTP page.

[Red Squirrel]

Dr Steve Melia of UWE has written a thought-provoking piece on JLTP4 for the Bristol Cable. He reiterates his view that it's not enough to provide better public transport; we need to reduce road capacity too:

https://thebristolcable.org/2020/01/plans-for-new-road-threaten-bristols-countryside-and-undo-action-on-the-climate-crisis/

[johnneyw]

Dr Steve Melia of UWE has written a thought-provoking piece on JLTP4 for the Bristol Cable. He reiterates his view that it's not enough to provide better public transport; we need to reduce road capacity too:

https://thebristolcable.org/2020/01/plans-for-new-road-threaten-bristols-countryside-and-undo-action-on-the-climate-crisis/

I think he was given a quick interview on local TV news a day or two back saying that the plan falls between two outdated stools and that they need to go back to the drawing board to come up with something that addresses the challenge more realistically.

Edit. Minor punctuation.