- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@yorkpress
Follow us on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
The Press, York
Like us on Facebook
Drivers left baffled by new A64 breakdown areas (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Drivers left baffled by new A64 breakdown areas
9:16am Tuesday 14th August 2012 in News
By Mike Laycock, Chief reporter
Drivers left baffled by new A64 breakdown areas
WHEN is a layby not a layby? When it’s an “area of hard standing,” created alongside the A64 near York as a refuge for broken- down vehicles.
The Highways Agency has revealed that it spent more than a quarter of a million pounds on building three such areas in close proximity on the eastbound single carriageway section close to Stockton-on-the-Forest.
Some motorists have been baffled by the areas, which feature latticed concrete which allows grass to grow between the gaps.
One driver who contacted The Press said: “I thought at first they might be a cycle lane or a layby, buit there’s no signs up to say what they are there for, and there aren’t any such areas on the other side of the road. They seem a bit weird.”
But a spokeswoman for the agency said: “These are not lay-bys. They have been constructed to help us keep the traffic flowing, reduce congestion along this single carriageway stretch of the A64 and improve the safety of our roadworkers.”
She said the three areas had been constructed on the grass verge to allow broken-down vehicles and vehicles involved in incidents to be removed from the carriageway to an area of safety.
“The hard standing areas will also be used by our maintenance vehicles to park,” she said. The areas had been constructed along a 700-metre section of the A64 which was prone to congestion when vehicles broke down, particularly on the eastbound lane. “This location was identified in conjunction with North Yorkshire Police,” she said. “These will provide a refuge for broken-down vehicles, thereby allowing traffic to flow freely.
“The hard standings have been located in areas where the verge is of a suitable width and there are no underground services. The scheme has cost £270,000.”
Comments(18)
HTC
says...
9:31am Tue 14 Aug 12
dctyke wrote:They did:
So please tell me why you need three next to each other but no others along the entire A64? Money wasted AGAIN!
"The areas had been constructed along a 700-metre section of the A64 which was prone to congestion when vehicles broke down, particularly on the eastbound lane. “This location was identified in conjunction with North Yorkshire Police,” "
dctyke
says...
9:33am Tue 14 Aug 12
The Great Buda
says...
9:35am Tue 14 Aug 12
Particualy that one near stockton where the coastliner has to turn across traffic. Regulated by sensor so it only changes to red when cars are waiting to turn.
However I'm sure thats far to sensible.
BigDog-LittleDog
says...
11:09am Tue 14 Aug 12
The Great Buda wrote:Stop having good ideas, you'll develop a name for yourself.
Surely fitting traffic lights at some of these junctions would be a better way to keep traffic flowing? ie less incidents in the first place?
Particualy that one near stockton where the coastliner has to turn across traffic. Regulated by sensor so it only changes to red when cars are waiting to turn.
However I'm sure thats far to sensible.
ALL traffic lights, bar none, should have sensors which detect standing traffic. I really have no comprehension why this isn't the case - the technology isn't rocket science and isn't expensive. I've lost track of how many times I sit at traffic lights waiting for non-existent cars to arrive. then magically...we move! If CYC want to cut congestion, cut pollution, this would be such an instant winner it's untrue. But alas. The council are thick.
roskoboskovic
says...
11:44am Tue 14 Aug 12
YorkPatrol
says...
12:15pm Tue 14 Aug 12
When 50 million people from south Yorkshire decide on a day trip to the coast, no solution will solve the problem!
Jazzper
says...
12:27pm Tue 14 Aug 12
BigDog-LittleDog wrote:Great posts.... echoing my sentiments!
The Great Buda wrote:Stop having good ideas, you'll develop a name for yourself.
Surely fitting traffic lights at some of these junctions would be a better way to keep traffic flowing? ie less incidents in the first place?
Particualy that one near stockton where the coastliner has to turn across traffic. Regulated by sensor so it only changes to red when cars are waiting to turn.
However I'm sure thats far to sensible.
ALL traffic lights, bar none, should have sensors which detect standing traffic. I really have no comprehension why this isn't the case - the technology isn't rocket science and isn't expensive. I've lost track of how many times I sit at traffic lights waiting for non-existent cars to arrive. then magically...we move! If CYC want to cut congestion, cut pollution, this would be such an instant winner it's untrue. But alas. The council are thick.
The traffic light sequencing in York is an absolute disgrace!
livewithit
says...
12:35pm Tue 14 Aug 12
Andy1675
says...
12:52pm Tue 14 Aug 12
YorkPatrol
says...
1:40pm Tue 14 Aug 12
livewithit wrote:It's NOT!
The hopgrove interchange IS a total disaster. Spent millions and what have we got - un intelligent traffic lights and a dangerour S bend where 1 lorry has already toppled over and crushed a car. Why do the traffic planners in York always mess things up = so they can do it all over again. Time someone was held responsible !!!
again
says...
3:06pm Tue 14 Aug 12
roskoboskovic wrote:You are a very violent commenter. I keep hearing that you want people strung up, flogged or shot.
the hopgrove interchange is a total disaster and is the cause of tailbacks and hold ups at busy times.whoever designed it and whoever passed it for construction should be strung up.roundabouts are far more suitable and cause less disruption than multiple traffic lights.visitors from outside the area regularly say that they ve seen nothing like this abomination.drive up there now and see the mess it has made of the bypass and the a64 to scarborough.
I do hope the revolution doesn't come when you are around!
Stevie D
says...
3:15pm Tue 14 Aug 12
roskoboskovic wrote:
the hopgrove interchange is a total disaster and is the cause of tailbacks and hold ups at busy times.whoever designed it and whoever passed it for construction should be strung up.roundabouts are far more suitable and cause less disruption than multiple traffic lights.visitors from outside the area regularly say that they ve seen nothing like this abomination.
livewithit wrote:
The hopgrove interchange IS a total disaster. Spent millions and what have we got - un intelligent traffic lights and a dangerour S bend where 1 lorry has already toppled over and crushed a car. Why do the traffic planners in York always mess things up = so they can do it all over again. Time someone was held responsible !!!
One – the Hopgrove roundabout upgrade was carried out by the Highways Agency (the A64 is a trunk road, so managed by central government), not by City of York Council.
Two – the upgrade has been very successful in its aims. These were to reduce queues for traffic coming from Malton Road and the A1237 and wanting to head south/west on the A64. Before, queueing traffic on the A64 blocked the roundabout and so traffic wanting to turn right towards Leeds was stuck and could be waiting for half an hour or more. Now the traffic lights ensure that those drivers get a chance to get across the roundabout and queues are down to just a few minutes. While drivers not familiar with the road might think it’s a disaster, they clearly never saw the queues on the Ring Road stretching all the way back to Haxby, and on Malton Road going down past Monks Cross – thanks to the improvements, those queues are now a thing of the past.
No, the upgrade hasn’t solved the problem of queueing traffic on the A64, but it was never intended or expected to. Without the A64 to the east being upgraded to dual-carriageway, no amount of tinkering and improving at Hopgrove, not even a flyover, will enable three lanes of coast-bound traffic to squeeze into a single lane without long queues.
highvoltage
says...
3:44pm Tue 14 Aug 12
Pete the Brickie
says...
4:36pm Tue 14 Aug 12
Mind you coming from an agency who purchases massive over specified four wheel drives for its Highway's Agency Traffic Officers to sit in then doesn't train give them enough training to put them to any kind of practical use in a roadside emergency (They are not allowed to tow anything with them or use them to move vehicles in a dangerous position for "health and safety reasons") we should expect no better.
Regarding the Hopgrove lights and roundabout alterations they have definitely improved the Westbound flow of traffic at peak periods but like most sensible people I wish they'd switch the lights off at night.
Jam tomorrow
says...
9:39pm Tue 14 Aug 12
Something will have to be done before Monks Cross is expanded.
Buzz Light-year
says...
9:42pm Tue 14 Aug 12
I travel along that stretch of road all the time and I've never ever seen even one broken down vehicle. Why are our taxes getting spent on catering for the non-existent? I want to see some figures!
These broken down vehicles are getting out of hand. Only the other day I saw one in town, stopped and smoking and causing such a tailback, holding up dozens of honest taxpayers.
These menaces with their breakdowns should be made to put on hi-visibility clothing, leave their vehicle and move to the side or if there is a bank then move up it and wait until help arrives.
Magicman!
says...
6:56pm Fri 17 Aug 12
However, this being single carriageway didn't mean Hopgrove couldn't have been built with a flyover for westbound traffic and a slip for eastbound traffic with traffic lights at the end of that, making it the only one direction controlled by lights instead of the current setup where every direction gets a red light when it isn't really required.
dctyke says...
9:28am Tue 14 Aug 12