It was promised that this, mere eight mile, section of road would bring much
needed relief from traffic to the Berkshire town of Newbury.
The protesters disagreed, objecting to its 100 million GBP cost and the damage
which would be done to the environment and the area of natural beauty through
which it ran.
This was not some New Age Traveller, Tree Hugging Hippy C--p
protest, but one which concerned many in Newbury and further afield.
Newbury became a focal point of the nineties for environmental activists;
protesters came in all shapes and sizes, young and old, and those demonstrating
spread across all class divides.
Although the battle at Newbury, long, hard and sometimes bloody, was finally
lost; those who demonstrated can be proud that they brought the issue of road
construction onto the agenda of the man in the street.
The debate stirred up over the pro's and con's of the road expansion programme,
its cost, what benefits were really to be gained and what damage would actually
be done has genuinely affected the government's transport policy, not just in
road construction itself, but also with respect to vehicle emissions and
alternative transport.
The public are much more aware of the issues on both sides of the fence than
they were before Newbury and, with its bypass completed, and traffic flows having
fallen into a more stable pattern, we can sit back and look at just how good
this, 12.5 million GBP per mile, road is performing and judge it against
the expectations and fears voiced earlier.
Expected to reduce traffic through Newbury by over 40%; it has actually reduced
traffic by under 25% - Protesters claimed that the bypass would never achieve
its claimed reductions because most vehicles weren't through traffic, a
fact the poor results surely show.
Undoubtedly there has been an increase in traffic because of the bypass; without
the Newbury bottle-neck in the way, travel through the area would appear to be a
lot easier. So, although Newbury has benefited only a little itself, how have
those who travel the bypass fared ?
Not a lot better; the bypass has reduced the average travel time by only a few
minutes.
With a minor reduction in traffic through Newbury and only slightly reduced
journey times for those skirting round it, it is hard to see how the tremendous
cost of this construction project is to be justified.
And the costs and inconvenience, to those in Newbury and those using the bypass,
is set to rise and continue.
It may seem surprising that a road, which cost over 7,000 GBP per yard, needs
resurfacing after just 10 months of use, requiring each carraigeway of the
bypass to be closed for a month each, with traffic diverted through Newbury,
but residents and travellers should brace themselves for this becoming an
almost yearly event.
I was living in Hertfordshire when the A1(M) was extended through Hatfield, the
new Hatfield Tunnel with the loss making Galleria above it being the most
noticed effects upon the landscape, and have regularly travelled along the
motorway there since.
The A1(M) expansion had been on and off for decades before the planners finally
got their acts together and went for it.
Unlike Newbury, the A1(M) expansion cut round the outskirts of Hatfield through
an area which was derelict, admittedly only through years of speculation that
the road would one day arrive, and the Hatfield Tunnel solved many of the
aesthetic problems that other similar schemes encountered.
Showing obvious
benefits to many who lived in and around Hatfield the scheme encountered little
resistance and, with hindsight, has been a remarkable success; the only real
problems being the failure to expand the A1(M) north of Hatfield into three
lanes, a scheme now scrapped by the government, and to improve the A1 along
the rest of its length northwards through Bedfordshire.
Road users welcomed its opening but were more than a little surprised when,
just a few years later, the carraigeways were being regularly closed to allow
resurfacing to be carried out.
Given modern construction techniques and the lofty science these days which
goes into road building, it seemed strange that a road would need resurfacing
so soon after opening but travellers who expressed concern were told it was
due to the unpredicted increase in traffic.
A fair point perhaps, if the road was built using predictions made when
the scheme was first proposed, but further, up to date, analysis of demand
should have been done before the final design was committed to paper.
The first resurfacing was put down to incompetence; the second and third were
much harder to explain away. In fact, the later were put down to normal wear
and tear and something which one had to live with.
Whilst road users could not argue with the fact, even though I'm sure it
must have appeared unbelievable that a modern road was not outlasting most others
built many more years ago; local residents and those like myself who watched
the resurfacing actually take place saw a different explanation emerge.
You may have noticed that most resurfacing is done during the Autumn and
Winter months, the explanation being that it causes less disruption to
traffic than works during the summer, and you may also have noticed that the
carraigeway is scheduled for closure for weeks at a time; there is, I believe,
a very simple explanation, as I observed, for this ...
Rain.
Autumn and Winter are the best times to get rain but you can't be too sure
exactly when it is going to come so you need a massive window of opportunity
to take advantage of it when it does.
And why would road constructors want rain ?
To make money.
Whilst the road may be closed for months, the old surface is scraped off in
just a few days and then it's left, not to settle or dry out but ready for
the rains to come, the harder and longer the better.
As soon as the skies open up the resurfacing gangs spring into life like
fighter pilots scrambling against an invasion force, poised at the end of
the roadworks waiting for the appointed time.
Then it is a battle against time to get the road re-surfaced whilst the
sub-surface is as wet as possible.
Not for better adhesion but for precisely the opposite effect; if a loose top
surface can be laid down which looks as good as possible but is so loose that
it slides over the sub-surface, because it hasn't adhered, then it is going to
ruck up, thin out, wear through and crack and you're guaranteed a return
trip next year or so to put things right or patch them up.
With luck, you'll be in business forever.
Now I've often been called a cynic, and it's been argued that the process of
asphalting removes any surface water and allows strong adhesion, but every
major resurfacing work I've seen done has involved laying the new top surface
in the rain even when the weather forecast has predicted clear days both
before and after; far too many times for this to be chance and if anyone has
ever tried to lay an asphalt coating over another with a layer of water
between they will have to agree that adhesion is reduced; one of the reasons
why plaster and even paint must be applied over a clean and dry surface.
Whilst one may expect the people asphalting the driveway to your home to be
incompetent or out to produce a bodged job, to guarantee a return trip,
it would not seem unreasonable that there were site inspectors assigned to
oversee works which costs many millions of pounds.
If such inspectors do exist then it must be asked, why don't they stop such
practices ?
Probably because it's become an accepted practice which no one has had the
courage to stand up to and condemn; I'm sure that all the road constructors
would swear blind that asphalting in the rain has no detrimental effect
on quality or lifetime of the result - I'd agree if I was out to make money in
the road building arena.
The governments insistence of lowest tender has also got to take some of
the blame. It would not surprise me if the low quotes given were accompanied by
clauses for maintenance costs to cover any repairs necessary during the life
time of the road.
It's a well known fact of life, in any building trade, that you pay for what you
get; you can pay the top rate and have something which will last a lifetime or
you can go for minimum outlay with higher maintenance cost.
When supplying to customers wanting minimum outlay, it must be more than
tempting to ensure that, the optional, maintenance, if it's necessary,
becomes more than optional.
If I could make as much money from doing a minimal outlay job but guarantee
enough maintenance work to make the same or, better still, more, money than if
I'd done a proper job in the first place I'd go for it, and who wouldn't ?
Road builders must be laughing all the way to the bank. They've raked in vast,
up front, income and can guarantee themselves future income on an almost
scheduled basis.
The claimed reason for having to resurface the Newbury bypass is because of the
special asphalt used to reduce the road noise for local residents which hasn't
stood up to wear, undoubtedly, they'll say, because of the unpredicted increase
in traffic on the road.
To the residents of Newbury, and the users of the bypass, I suggest you take
note of when the actual resurfacing gets done; I'd lay money on the fact that
it's raining when it happens.
To the road contractors I suggest they come clean about what they're
actually doing.
Unfortunately, the current system allows them to produce more profit than doing
a proper job in the first place.
Whilst the road builders rake in the money it is us, the tax payer and car
owners who are lining their pockets.
But there's little that can be done whilst central government goes along with,
and even supports, such schemes.
The A1(M) Expansion Scheme
Although the A1(M) expansion, I mentioned above, has generally been successful
as far as road users are concerned and has had little effect on most of those
who live in Hatfield itself, the development has not been without its scandals,
mishaps and amusing side.The route of the A1(M) scheme required the compulsory purchase of not just
land through which the road would run but that adjacent to it.
Once bought by the Department of Transport the land used only during the
construction can be sold off and planning permission for the use of such
land is almost of formality.
In the case of the A1(M) scheme this meant the development of a large area
which now surrounds the Hatfield Tunnel; this was used to build The Galleria
shopping mall, an attached cinema and blocks of small flats.
The Galleria development was a complete fiasco.
With fears about the impact on Hatfield Town Centre shops, the new mall being
built in Welwyn Garden City and the historic town of St. Albans just up the
road, the restrictions placed on the shops allowed in The Galleria were
incredible; no high street stores, no supermarkets, only high-class
fashion outlets and the like.
Hatfield may not be the most backward town in the country but it is not
the most cosmopolitan either so when The Galleria opened it attracted virtually
no outlets and almost zero customers.
Just a few years after opening, it closed with debts of 30 million GBP. It was
bought up but has never managed to get itself out of the rut of being a second
rate shopping centre despite having a slightly better choice of outlets as
it would appear some restrictions are not enforced as strongly as originally
intended.
The Galleria stands as a sad monument to failed commercial reality. The bridge
from the cinema complex into the main mall, with its extremely sharp descent,
stands as a monument to the inability of the developer to design two, almost
separate, buildings which were meant to join together seamlessly and the proposal
that The Galleria would be adorned with laser beams, shining into the sky,
which would be seen from London, 30 miles south, became a matter of ridicule
from locals who foresaw the problems of such a scheme not five hundred yards
from the runway at British Aerospace across the road and in the midst of Luton
Airport's approach path.
The housing development has also been less than successful.
Along the edge of The Barnet Bypass, the old Great North Road or A1000, stood
three impressive blocks of flats. Having fallen into disrepair through the
years when the proposed A1(M) expansion was being debated made for excellent
squatter accommodation which I had personal experience of.
Finally leaving the property when Welwyn Hatfield Council promised me Council
accommodation which they later reneged on ( I still have the original letter,
you b-----ds ) it was with great pleasure that the demolition took an awful
lot longer, and cost considerably more than anticipated when it was revealed
that the properties were built from metre square slabs and not just some
cheap material.
The flats built in their place were substantially smaller and much poorer in
construction than those replaced.
They were also over priced and, having fallen into a state well below that of
the squats they replaced, they show the irony of redevelopment at its worst.
Due to problems over who actually owned the land which the developers sold as
part of the flats for parking spaces, the residents now have to pay over the
odds to gain access to their properties and to park their cars outside their
accommodation.
The, "Most prestigious development in Hatfield", as it was once called has turned
out to be one of the worse.
