Future expansion of the UK Motorway Network

[ABB125]

Thinking more about this. Does it make a difference whether or not there is a parallel ARoad to take the excluded traffic to the same destination? The new A14 cannot be replicated by the old A14 since it was severed in Huntingdon (but there are old roads you could go down).
However, is there an A1 equivalent for non-motorway traffic when the A1 turns into the A1(M), if not, how do learners or mopeds travel north or south without taking a circuitous route?

I believe that a parallel non-motorway is only required if you're taking an existing road and upgrading it to be a motorway (or other "special road", like the new A14 is). But this is not the case for new build sections.
Hence, most motorways don't have parallel roads for non-motorway traffic, because the existing roads remained as they were and available for use. However, as you mention the later bits of A1(M) through Yorkshire have a parallel road (with the notable exception of the bit just north of the A168 junction), because it was an upgrade of the existing A1 route.
Similarly, look at the new A14. The "online" bit immediately north of Cambridge has a parallel road cobbled together from the old A14, some bits of new build, and some other random roads that happened to be in the right place. Whereas the "offline" bit (that actually bypasses Huntington) doesn't, because non-motorway traffic can use existing roads through the town.

 

[Snex]

just a bit!

I still maintain that the A66 should be a dual carriage way from A1M to M6 - unsure how practical that would be on the Penrith > Workington section

Yeah can't disagree with that, to be honest I'd go further and say the A19 to the M6. The Darlington bypass, really should be dualled aswell and is quite often the forgotten bit. All these new houses popping up in the area isn't helping the thing either.

Don't disagree about the flyover, even known there's plans around for another bridge but I'd be surprised if it ever happens tbh.

 

[DM352]

I think the best we will get are all purpose dual carriageways like the A14 but they need to be safeguarded from the wonderful greenfield developers who like to insert their cheap roundabouts and often reduce the speed limit.

Would like to see an M27 replace the A27 but best hope for is an A14 standard dual carriageway and more tunnels through the South Downs park.

 

[camflyer]

Auto Shenanigans takes a look at the A14 upgrade and why it isn't a motorway

 

[Jimini]

Auto Shenanigans takes a look at the A14 upgrade and why it isn't a motorway

A brilliant watch

 

[D365]

The A14 ”expressway” would indeed have been designated A14(M). Not M14, M11, M604 etc. This would have been for continuity of both the A14 route and A14 junction numbers.

 

[greataj]

Will there likely be any plans for future upgrades to junctions along the M11 itself? The new Harlow north junction at 7A has been a godsend, but south of the original Junction 7, there's still no exit southbound until the north circular, or even Waltham Abbey or Brentwood from the M25 interchange each way.

Surely it's time to add southbound exits and northbound entries to Junction 5. Is there any reason why that hasn't been done besides local traffic concerns through Loughton? Could there not even be potential to convert that strange service station provision that's never been built just south of Junction 5 and link it up with the B170 Roding Ln with upgrades? To drive from Harlow to Chigwell, which I've done a few times, is a nightmare. You practically follow the M11 the whole way but not once can you actually use it, you have to take the local roads through Epping or Abridge.

 

[DarloRich]

Yeah can't disagree with that, to be honest I'd go further and say the A19 to the M6. The Darlington bypass, really should be dualled aswell and is quite often the forgotten bit. All these new houses popping up in the area isn't helping the thing either.

Your biggest problem is the section between Blands corner and the A66m in Darlington. River crossing, affluent area, big houses and lots of new building underway - it will need a diversion

Don't disagree about the flyover, even known there's plans around for another bridge but I'd be surprised if it ever happens tbh.

yeah - never gonna happen!

 

[camflyer]

Will there likely be any plans for future upgrades to junctions along the M11 itself? The new Harlow north junction at 7A has been a godsend, but south of the original Junction 7, there's still no exit southbound until the north circular, or even Waltham Abbey or Brentwood from the M25 interchange each way.

Surely it's time to add southbound exits and northbound entries to Junction 5. Is there any reason why that hasn't been done besides local traffic concerns through Loughton? Could there not even be potential to convert that strange service station provision that's never been built just south of Junction 5 and link it up with the B170 Roding Ln with upgrades? To drive from Harlow to Chigwell, which I've done a few times, is a nightmare. You practically follow the M11 the whole way but not once can you actually use it, you have to take the local roads through Epping or Abridge.

The northern part of the M11 from Cambridge to Stansted also desperately needs improvements. A two lane motorway really shouldn't be acceptable especially when the nearby A14 is a much better road but not a motorway.

 

[greataj]

The northern part of the M11 from Cambridge to Stansted also desperately needs improvements. A two lane motorway really shouldn't be acceptable especially when the nearby A14 is a much better road but not a motorway.

Ideally yes, but I'd say that's lower priority given the size and scale of doing that vs improving the junctions further south. I've never found the M11 on that section to be too bad besides the occassional lorries overtaking, which on some sections they're not supposed to. It's a bit worse though where the A11 joins then down to Junction 8. Given the level of housing development in areas that would use that route it will only likely get worse. Cambridge and Peterborough are two of the fastest developing areas in terms of new housing outside of London, so was no wonder why the A14 atleast needed upgrading.

 

[DM352]

Controversial but it will be rare to see many more UK motorways built. A thing I would like to see more of are improved trunk roads that complement motorways.

Example 1 is the A5 between the M6 Toll and Rugby. Used to be a pain in Tamworth 25 years ago but then that got fixed with 70mph dual carriageway. With forward thinking (not), the problem moved south to this day where developers have put in extra roundabouts and lights like in Rugby and Baddersley areas where flyovers should have been considered.

Example 2 is the A50 as an alternate to the M6 but they still have not fixed the at grade roundabouts which are bottlenecks

 

[AlastairFraser]

Controversial but it will be rare to see many more UK motorways built. A thing I would like to see more of are improved trunk roads that complement motorways.

Example 1 is the A5 between the M6 Toll and Rugby. Used to be a pain in Tamworth 25 years ago but then that got fixed with 70mph dual carriageway. With forward thinking (not), the problem moved south to this day where developers have put in extra roundabouts and lights like in Rugby and Baddersley areas where flyovers should have been considered.

Example 2 is the A50 as an alternate to the M6 but they still have not fixed the at grade roundabouts which are bottlenecks

I agree in general and about the A50 (apart from the remaining roundabouts, it's quite a good quality route, especially used in combination with the A500 to avoid the M6 south of Barthomley).

I suspect they won't improve the A5, as it would end up with more induced demand, and possibly abstract from the already underused M6 toll.

 

[Northumbriana]

Any new motorway to come with an accompanying new railway line and bicycle lanes. Also have plenty of noise mitogation including land bridges and tunnels.

 

[edwin_m]

Any new motorway to come with an accompanying new railway line and bicycle lanes. Also have plenty of noise mitogation including land bridges and tunnels.

And bat caves?

 

[Northumbriana]

And bat caves?

If Bruce Wayne pays for it!

 

[WibbleWobble]

Example 2 is the A50 as an alternate to the M6 but they still have not fixed the at grade roundabouts which are bottlenecks

Well it was meant to be a motorway! The A50 is the watered-down version that did get built.

 

[Yew]

We don't have any way of generating the money to spend more on infrastructure. The government appears to be looking into a last ditch option of trying to divert pension scheme money from investing in foreign companies into investing in UK infrastructure but pension scheme trustees are going to have to be very clear that investing in the UK is going to provide security to their members.

I don't think that represents a realistic understanding of how state-level macroeconomics works, it's typically much more efficient to use public borrowing to pay for schemes, then use the benefits of the economic stimulus and efficiency savings to pay it off, as opposed to saving to pay in advance with the fruits of a less efficient economy.

 

[MotCO]

I don't think that represents a realistic understanding of how state-level macroeconomics works, it's typically much more efficient to use public borrowing to pay for schemes, then use the benefits of the economic stimulus and efficiency savings to pay it off, as opposed to saving to pay in advance with the fruits of a less efficient economy.

But with public borrowing at record highs, it may be difficult for new schemes to be funded with public borrowing. Getting the pension funds to invest in these schemes may be one way of getting infrastructure projects off the ground, and keep them off the public balance sheet.

 

[renegademaster]

But with public borrowing at record highs, it may be difficult for new schemes to be funded with public borrowing. Getting the pension funds to invest in these schemes may be one way of getting infrastructure projects off the ground, and keep them off the public balance sheet.

It's just sleight of hand however, since the government will still be bound to pay back the investors, at a greater interest rate of which they have to pay back the bank of England

 

[Oxfordblues]

I would support new motorways but only if toll-booths were included to pay for them. At present a trucker can take a container from Southampton to Manchester for example without once encountering a demand for payment. So the hauliers undercut the railways and win traffic which would be more efficiently conveyed by rail.

Converting the A34 here in Oxford to a 6-lane motorway would require demolition of swathes housing in Botley (Oxfordshire) when a few extra freight trains might be the solution.

 

[Yew]

But with public borrowing at record highs, it may be difficult for new schemes to be funded with public borrowing.

Have you any evidence for this? We still have a AA credit rating.

Getting the pension funds to invest in these schemes may be one way of getting infrastructure projects off the ground, and keep them off the public balance sheet.

Pension funds are for-profit entities, they do not exist to do public works. How will the pension funds get their returns, how will that compare to the interest rates on public finance?

Apart from political point-scoring, why is taking on more expensive debt worth keeping the legal fiction of the public balance sheet technically being clearer.

 

[JamesT]

I would support new motorways but only if toll-booths were included to pay for them. At present a trucker can take a container from Southampton to Manchester for example without once encountering a demand for payment. So the hauliers undercut the railways and win traffic which would be more efficiently conveyed by rail.

Converting the A34 here in Oxford to a 6-lane motorway would require demolition of swathes housing in Botley (Oxfordshire) when a few extra freight trains might be the solution.

Is there any room on that route for ‘a few extra freight trains’?

Any likely upgrade to the A34 would probably involve bypassing the Botley section, rather than demolishing properties.

 

[MotCO]

Have you any evidence for this? We still have a AA credit rating.

Highest levels since the 1960s which was still in the period of paying off the war debt.

UK government debt 2026| Statista

UK government debt as a share of GDP is at its highest levels since the 1960s, and is not expected to start falling until the late 2020s

www.statista.com

 

[Yew]

Highest levels since the 1960s which was still in the period of paying off the war debt.

UK government debt 2026| Statista

UK government debt as a share of GDP is at its highest levels since the 1960s, and is not expected to start falling until the late 2020s

www.statista.com

The assertion I was questioning was that there was reluctance to lend us money?

 

[MotCO]

Apart from political point-scoring, why is taking on more expensive debt worth keeping the legal fiction of the public balance sheet technically being clearer.

I agree - it is sleight of hand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 May 2025 ==

The assertion I was questioning was that there was reluctance to lend us money?

Probably not at the moment. However, does the Government want our debt levels to rise? At some stage, interest rates will rise to offset rising inflation, which will add to the pain of servicing the debt.

 

[Gazimo]

I think part of the problem with the government funding it with a loan is that if this extra loan causes even a 0.1% increase in overall borrowing costs, then the cost for the borrowing is not say 5% on 10 billion, but is 5% on 10B and 0.1% on 1T, and so the costs are significantly higher than the headline rate. This would mean it would technically be cheaper if the private sector was getting charged 8% or more for the borrowing.

Of course what usually happens is that if its privately funded the quality of the road is usually higher than if the government builds it itself, whether that means more lanes are built or the road is kept in a better condition (partially as a consequence of how the government pays for it, which is usually based on how many vehicles use it rather than for the road itself), this means in the long run it also saves the cost of expanding the road in the future.

That's the cause of several of our major roads having sections which are much better than the bits either side.

 

[Yew]

I think part of the problem with the government funding it with a loan is that if this extra loan causes even a 0.1% increase in overall borrowing costs, then the cost for the borrowing is not say 5% on 10 billion, but is 5% on 10B and 0.1% on 1T, and so the costs are significantly higher than the headline rate.

Are there any credible indications that this is actually happening?

Of course what usually happens is that if its privately funded the quality of the road is usually higher than if the government builds it itself, whether that means more lanes are built or the road is kept in a better condition (partially as a consequence of how the government pays for it, which is usually based on how many vehicles use it rather than for the road itself), this means in the long run it also saves the cost of expanding the road in the future.

Perhaps the road may be better quality, but is that simply because it is more expensive?

 

[edwin_m]

Of course what usually happens is that if its privately funded the quality of the road is usually higher than if the government builds it itself, whether that means more lanes are built or the road is kept in a better condition (partially as a consequence of how the government pays for it, which is usually based on how many vehicles use it rather than for the road itself), this means in the long run it also saves the cost of expanding the road in the future.

The private sector may take a balanced view of whole-life cost and spend more up front to reduce future maintenance, though that depends both of the terms of the contract and the competence of the winning bidder, so is by no means assured. However, I can't see them building extra lanes on their own initiative. Even if their contract doesn't cap the number of vehicle movements they can charge for, the designs and approvals in place before signing probably limit the footprint of what they are able to build. Considering induced demand effects, it would be really bad policy to allow a road to be over-built in this way.

 

[JamesT]

Are there any credible indications that this is actually happening?

UK borrowing costs have hit their highest level since the banking crisis. An economist explains what’s happening

How much trouble is the government in?

theconversation.com

UK borrowing costs have risen rapidly to their highest level since the banking crisis of 2007-08, with implications for the government’s tax and spending plans. Yields on gilts, as UK government bonds are called, have been rising – and these yields are effectively the level of interest that the government pays on its borrowing.

 

[Yew]

UK borrowing costs have hit their highest level since the banking crisis. An economist explains what’s happening

How much trouble is the government in?

theconversation.com

That seems to be at-best half related, the article just talks about overall borrowing costs being related to interest rates - a point which seems unremarkable given the general market trends.


The point we were discussing was if government borrowing to fund infrastructure investment would further increase the interest rates enough to make typically more expensive PFI-type deals more attractive.