Philip & Margaret Shaw
Hawthorn Cottage
Barrington Road
e-mail:
FOXTON LEVEL CROSSING
A STRATEGIC VIEW
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Network Rail (NR) has produced a project plan to close and by-
pass the level crossing at Foxton. Foxton Level Crossing Elimination GRIP 2
Report Rev C (the Project) which has been posted on the FoxtonVillage web site,
We have read the Project report.
1.2. The Project takes a restricted view for overcoming the perceived problem at
the level crossing. NR has not sought any local view prior to publishing the
report, but has followed the historical approach to provide a solution.
2. HISTORY.
2.1. A proportion of the land the Project incorporates was purchased by the
Department of Transport in 1935 to provide a by-pass for the level crossing at
the time. The situation then was that Barrington Road, Foxton ran through
the level crossing complex. Thus there was a cross road with Station Road and
the A10 together with the level crossing, a complicated junction. Some time after the purchase of the land in 1935 the present Barrington slip road was built. This was considered a solution. Was this the real reason for purchasing the land? Since then there have been a number of proposals for a by-pass to the level crossing but none has been executed, it is thought due to cost.
2.2. About 8 years ago the A10 was ‘detrunked’ as a major route, reverting from
green to red on OS maps. The A505 and M11 were given the status of the ‘trunk’
route access to Cambridge
2.3. The village of Harston has sought to have a by-pass for some time. About
5 years ago a traffic calming project was carried out on the A10 through Harston.
The cost was reported to be in excess of £1M.
2.4. Over the past 20 years the passenger rail traffic using the Cambridge to
Kings Cross line has increased from 2 slow diesel trains each hour to 6 fast and 2
slow electrified trains each hour as standard and 12 trains each hour at peak
times. In the same period the volume of traffic using the A10 travelling both
north and south has increased exponentially. Also the legal physical size of
lorries has doubled which affects Harston particularly.
2.5. The rise of Cambridge as an advanced technological industrial city over the
past 30 years has developed it as a major centre for employment. Thus all
aspects of life in the area have increased and intensified. Cambridge is also
considered within commuting distance of London. These factors have given the
impetus for the increase in road and rail traffic through the level crossing at
Foxton.
3 PRESENT SITUATION.
3.1.The level crossing is a major obstacle to the flow of road traffic,
particularly at peak times. Peak time amounts to a 6/7hour period each work
day, 2.5/3hours in the morning and 3.5/4hours in the evening. Due to the
number of trains at peak times the crossing is closed to road traffic for extensive
periods resulting in very long tail backs both north and south The consequence
is ever longer daily traffic delays. A circumstance that is really unacceptable
today.
3.2. From the rail crossing north bound traffic then encounters Harston creating
a deluge of vehicles into the traffic calmed village hence even more delay. The
calming includes 3 sets of traffic lights, 2 pedestrian and one road set. The
situation creates potential danger for pedestrians, children going to and from
school, cyclists and drivers. The tail back of traffic can reach 1/2 mile.
3.3. The traffic delays at Foxton give rise to frustration and annoyance that cause
a few drivers to take risks as the barrier closes. NR has installed cameras to help
apprehend culprits. A 50mph speed limit over the crossing is frequently
monitored by the transport police to deter speeding and eliminate a potentially
dangerous situation as the barrier is lowered. There has been successful
prosecution of wrong doers.
3.4. The Project states that safety is of paramount importance and accepts that
the safety regime at the crossing meets all current criteria and that there is a
good record of safety.
4. POLITICS/POLICY
4.1. NR has instituted a policy to close as many rail crossings as possible
throughout the country. Government has given its support and made finance
available. The policy has been born due to a number of tragic accidents at rail
crossings that have been given high profile in the media. This has led to more
reporting by the media of incidents at rail crossings, many on a regional basis.
The high profile accidents have given rise to local action groups and these have
further developed into a national action group intent on closing as many
crossings as possible and thus supporting NR’s policy.
4.2. It is evident from reports in the media that most of the accidents or near
accidents are due to lack of self discipline and/or patience on the part of the
perpetrator. This is a very small minority of the public and therefore should not
be allowed to drive policies that infringe the rights and freedom of the public at
large.
4.3. An advantage to NR is that closing crossings will save money in due course. It
will also simplify management of the rail network. Two very good reasons for the
policy. However the policy must not be permitted to close crossings which by
doing so would infringe the environment, cohesion and freedom of any
particular community.
5. THE PROJECT
5.1. The Project takes into use a piece of land purchased nearly 80 years ago to
create a by-pass to the level crossing. The Project will need to purchase
additional land, well in excess of that now held, for it to be achieved. As written
the Project aims to keep cost to a minimum and has a narrow perspective in an
effort to achieve its aim. What is needed is a full examination of all possibilities
and to look well into the future. So many minor projects are absorbed by a bigger
project in following years when it would have been best to do a quality project
from the start.
5.2. If the project is implemented the living circumstance for some residents
will improve whilst for others it will be considerably worse. The layout of the
alternative road positions to the north of the railway is awful beyond
description. It will mean destroying a well developed copse, now nearly 20 years
growth and a quality village feature, and replacing it with tarmac! Two homes
are particularly badly affected by the Project and the Project should consider
purchasing these properties if the owners so wish.
5.3. Closing the level crossing, repositioning the A10 as projected and building a
steel pedestrian bridge, suitable for the disabled and horses, over the crossing
will physically divide the village in two and create an entirely unacceptable
blotch of tarmac and steel within the village.
5.4. The Project is assessed as costing between £14M & £22M depending on
the decision for a flyover or an underpass. Allowing for the usual under
budgeting a figure of £25M is more likely for the top end cost. This is a
substantial amount of money and it has to be asked whether it could be better
used?
6. THE VILLAGES.
6.1. There are two villages affected by the Project, Foxton and Harston. Harston
has called for a by-pass for some time because the A10 constitutes their High
Street. To appease the village a traffic calming scheme was implemented about 5
years ago at a cost reported to be in excess of £1M. The scheme has slowed traffic
but also made the road more dangerous for two wheeled traffic. The scheme also
causes long tail backs, up to 1/2 mile, to the south particularly at peak times.
6.2. If the Project is implemented the A10 is likely to be used even more heavily
than now due to a major delay factor being removed. Also considerable numbers
of houses are being built at either end of this stretch of A10 further increasing
traffic. In consequence Harston will have to cope with even more traffic thus
reducing the quality of life in the village even further.
6.3. Foxton will become a totally disjointed village. The present rail crossing
divides the village but it is at a single point and is used by pedestrians and all
modes of transport. The Project will introduce an absolute division by closing the
crossing, cause additional effort by having to use a footbridge or lift(some people
fear lifts and wont use them) and create a second infringement by having to
cross the relocated A10
6.4. Surely in an advanced civilized society this is not acceptable change.
Countries such as Holland and Italy produce beautiful solutions to overcome
local difficulties created by the increasing burden of traffic. We should be equal
to this approach.
7. STRATEGY.
7.1. The A10 is the major route from the south and south west, using the
A1/A505, to and from Cambridge. The Melbourne by-pass made the A10 more
viable for the increased size of heavy vehicles. That the A10 was ‘detrunked’ has
had no effect on traffic using the road. In the future with Cambridge continuing
to grow in both industry and population and Royston doing the same the A10
between can only get more and more busy. It is therefore not sensible to just
tinker with modifying the road, it requires strategic vision.
7.2. The rail connection between Cambridge and London will increase in
importance and thus usage. The plan to increase trains to 12 carriages, develop
stations to incorporate the change and the new loop line at Hitchin demonstrates
the rail managements forward thinking on need and safety
7.3. The A10 from the junction with the A505 at Royston north as far as
Shepreth,Frog End, is a clear road and could be made into a dual carriageway.
From Frog End the road deteriorates with numerous junctions a level crossing
and a serious built area, Harston.
7.4. There are two possible alternatives to the Projects’ solution. First, to let the
A10 cross the rail line to the west of the rail crossing and then follow the present
sidings towards Barrington swinging right just before meeting the Barrington
Road. It would then meet up with the present A10 route south of Harston. From
here it could either run into Harston or carry on going up on to the ridge and
passing east of Harston to create a by-pass. Second, the better alternative,
reroute the A10 from just north of Frog End by swinging right to the east of
Foxton and Harston on to the east side of the ridge and rejoining the A10 at
Hauxton near the old chemical works. This is virgin land and could provide for a
dual carriageway from the outset. There is bridge over the railway on the B1368
that would require modification. The new build would be 4.66 miles in length.
7.5. A similar project has been done at Baldock to create a by-pass for the A505,
a distance of 3.8miles at a cost of £43M. The tunnel absorbed 10% of the cost,
this was incorporated to enable the land to be returned to farming.
An even bigger project on the Hoggs Back at Guildford in Surrey has seen
the road put through a tunnel a mile long so that the Hoggs Back could be
reinstated to the environment that it enjoyed some hundreds of years ago. The
Hoggs Back has been a major route for travellers since before the carriage was
invented. These are beautiful solutions to traffic problems, and should be the aim
for planners
7.6. The ground on which the road would be built is chalk. Chalk is easily
excavated, as at Baldock, to make the road almost invisible so not to infringe the
enviroment and reducing noise pollution. The spoil could be disposed of in the
quarry at Barrington where it is needed to landscape the quarry for future
development.
7.7. Under this scenario the level crossing would remain so not to divide Foxton.
It could be modified to make it into a minor road crossing, but still retaining pedestrian gates that lock as the barrier closes, and the barrier made
parallel with the rail track thus removing the restriction at the rear of No 2
Barrington Road. The present A10 having become a minor road it would be for
consideration whether both Foxton and Harston could be further developed.
7.8. The route to the east of Foxton and Harston is 4.66 miles, longer but less
complex than the Baldock by-pass so cost may not be that much different, a
budget of £50M should be near the mark. Using the budget from the Foxton rail
crossing it may require only an additional £30M to provide a scheme that will
resolve all problems and last long into the future.
8. CONCLUSIONS.
8.1. The proposed Project has not taken due note of changes in traffic and living
circumstance over the past 80 years.
8.2. The project would not resolve the real problems created by the present density of road traffic using the A10 between Royston and Cambridge. The density will intensify therefore a more strategic solution is needed than that proposed.
8.3. Building a new dual carriageway road to the east of Foxton and Harston would meet present and anticipated future of the village communities and road users.
8.4. The rail crossing should be modified to become a crossing on a minor road and not closed.
IF YOU AGREE WITH THE ABOVE PLEASE E:MAIL US AND WE SHALL CREATE A DATA BASE OF THOSE SUPPORTING A BROADER APPROACH.
THE RED ARROWS SHOW THE TWO STRATEGIC BYPASS IDEAS.
THE ONE TO THE LEFT KEEPS FOXTON AS AN UNDIVIDED VILLAGE
THE ONE TO THE RIGHT IS THE SUGGESTED BYPASS FOR FOXTON AND HARSTON