The A66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner is a terrible road. I should know – I drive it often enough. As the main trunk road over the Pennines between the M62 (which is well to the south) and the A69 (to the north, between Carlisle and Newcastle upon Tyne), it is heavily used by lorries, but also (because it runs through rural areas) by many tractors. In addition it sees quite a lot of caravans and motor homes, since it is a convenient route to the Lake District for those travelling from the east, and army vehicles are not uncommon either, thanks to there being an army base at Warcop immediately adjacent to the road. To add to the chaos, the annual “horse fair” at Appleby sees the travelling community arriving in large numbers, typically driving large vehicles towing caravans, but also often using horse-drawn caravans and horses and traps. Combine that traffic profile with the fact that significant sections of it have still not been turned into dual carriageway, and you have a recipe for slow and dangerous travel.

Or, as Highways England puts it in yet another massive report (running to more than 100 pages):

The A66 provides an important strategic, regional and local route, connecting east and west coasts, as well as providing local access… It is the most direct route between the Tees Valley, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, parts of West Yorkshire, the East Midlands, Eastern England and North Cumbria, Glasgow, and much of the central belt of Scotland and Cairnryan (for access to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland).

There is a lack of public transport infrastructure on the A66, with minimal bus service provision and no direct east-west rail connections. This emphasises the importance of the A66 in terms of strategic connectivity across the UK.

For key journeys across the UK, such as trips from the east and south east of England to the north west of England or Scotland, the A66 is the most direct and quickest route. The only strategic alternative east-west route for road traffic in the north of England is the M62 or the A69, both of which require a significantly longer journey time.

The data from the report isn’t up-to-date, going back to 2015, and I suspect that since then the statistics will have deteriorated, at least so far as the simple car driver is concerned. We are told that in 2015, the proportion of HGVs using the road was between 18% and 29% (which carries a remarkable degree of imprecision, unless those proportions are accurate but representing highs and lows at different times of the day). That’s an astonishingly high proportion, given that we are told that the typical proportion “is 15% on motorways, 12% on trunk roads and 8% on principal roads”.

The consequence, it seems, is a particularly dangerous and problematic road:

The A66 has average casualties 50% higher than the average casualties across SRN [Strategic Road Network]. Road traffic accidents are a major cause of incidents and closures on the route. More than 20% of these road closures last over five hours (between 2014 and 2016). Therefore, this route’s overall performance is deemed low.

The A66 has a higher-than-average number of accidents in some sections of the route, with a number of accident cluster sites… A number of these sites are either located in single carriageway sections or in dual sections adjacent to single carriageway sections. Varying standards along the route with a mixture of single and dual carriageway sections leads to difficulties with overtaking, poor forward visibility, and difficulties at junctions as a result of short merges and diverges and right turning traffic off and on to the A66.

A footnote to those observations tells us that the higher than average casualty rate is actually “29 casualties on average per hundred million vehicle miles on route compared to 19 casualties on average across SRN and 24 casualties on average across dual carriageway A-roads.” That suggests that the casualty statistics are roughly between one-fifth and one-third higher than comparable roads. The casualty statistics, in detail, make for sober reading:

Between 2013 and 20177, there were 197 accidents which occurred along the route, equating to an average of 40 accidents per year. Of the 197 reported accidents, 74% resulted in slight injuries, 21% resulted in serious injuries and 5% resulted in fatality. Over the five-year period, accidents which resulted in fatalities increased, with five fatal accidents in 2015, including three which involved head-on collisions at the Warcop bends and at Crackenthorpe. There was also one fatality in 2016 and 3 fatalities in 2017.

In some cases, accidents caused multiple casualties; the 197 accidents resulted in 340 casualties, of which 18 were fatal, 93 were serious and 229 were slight… The highest casualties over a five-year period was recorded in 2015 with 12 fatalities.

My perception (and I accept that it is only my perception) as a regular user of the route, is that since those statistics were noted the volume of traffic using the route has increased considerably, with the inevitable consequence that the number of accidents also seems to have increased. I suppose I am lucky not to have been involved in an accident, but I have regularly found myself at a standstill for long periods of time (in the worst cases, for hours on end, with no ability to turn around and find an alternative route).

Not surprisingly, the report concludes that there is a “a strong correlation between accident cluster sites and the remaining sections of single carriageway.” Various attempts have been made to render the road safer – the introduction of a 50mph limit over considerable distances; the installation of speed cameras; the introduction of a 40mph limit through the village of Kirkby Thore; and the provision of a right-turn lane at an accident black-spot. Still, or so it seems to me, the numbers of accidents and casualties rise remorselessly. And the accidents that continue to occur, tragic though they are for those directly affected, also have significant effects for those drivers caught up in the aftermath:

Due to the varying standard of the route and lack of suitable diversionary routes, the route’s ability to maintain smooth traffic flow during periods of disruption such as road traffic accidents and severe weather events is poor. The high elevation of the route at Bowes Moor and Stainmore and severe weather events are common in this area, making the route particularly vulnerable to accidents.

The ability to keep the route open during accidents, incidents and other disruptions is significantly affected by the existence of the single carriageway sections. Generally, traffic movements can be better managed when incidents happen on dual carriageway sections.

In the event of a closure on the A66, there are limited diversion routes and this leads to delays, longer journey distances and longer journey times. For a closure of the A66 between Scotch Corner and Bowes – journey distance 24km (15miles), the diversion route follows the A1(M), A66(M) and the A67, and is 43km (27miles) in length. This route has 30mph speed restrictions through Darlington, weight restrictions at Barnard Castle and is unsuitable for abnormal loads due to the width of the road. In the event of a closure between Penrith and Brough – journey distance of 34km (21miles), the diversion route follows the M6 and A685, and is 53km (33miles) in length. This route has a speed limit of 30mph through Kirkby Stephen and 40mph through Brough, and vehicles weighing in excess of 18 tonnes are restricted from using the A685 between Brough and Kirkby Stephen, with the exception of access, permit holders or vehicles moving livestock.

In the event of a full route closure, or due to weight restrictions, the diversion route for heavy goods vehicles is significantly longer than the direct distance of 80km (50miles) as it uses the A1(M), the A69 and the M6 and has a length of 184km (115miles). Freight traffic will often use the diversion route if delays are likely to be long term, but sometimes will remain on the A66 waiting for the traffic to clear, either because they cannot physically turn back due to lack of turning facilities, or the driver does not have the required driving hours left to reach the nearest truck stop or rest location. Due to weight restrictions and height restrictions on highways structures, and also the proximity of buildings to the carriageway, it is not feasible to enable HGV traffic to use the shorter diversion routes.

As I said – the A66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner is a terrible road. It was thus a huge relief to learn that plans are now in place to turn the entire distance into a dual carriageway – albeit my relief was tempered by the knowledge that this project will apparently take ten years to complete, and I fear that while the works are ongoing, the situation may deteriorate still further. Nevertheless, for a host of reasons, not least of which is road safety and the current danger to life, it is important that the project goes ahead. If I were concerned about CO2 emissions, it would occur to me that whenever there is an accident, CO2 emissions must be increased significantly by all those idling engines stuck in the aftermath, and by all the extra miles taken by vehicles following detours to avoid the scene of the accident. There must be an argument – perhaps quite a strong argument – that even from the point of view of those who wish to “save the planet” from the “climate crisis”, the dualling of the A66 makes sense.

Sadly, not everyone sees things that way, and my heart sank when I spotted a piece on a local website, headed “Legal challenge launches over plans to dual A66”:

Transport Action North has lodged the challenge against the granting of a development consent order for the scheme, which would see 50 miles of the road from Penrith to Scotch Corner turned into a dual carriageway.

The organisation said it believed the Secretary of State’s decision was flawed.

And so, here we go again – yet another expensive judicial review, yet more delays, and while the delays are ongoing, yet more deaths. The reasoning expressed by Chris Todd, Transport Action Network’s founder and director, strikes me as weak and driven by dogma. He complains about the “great harm” that will be caused “to important landscapes and wildlife”, yet – so far as I know, neither he nor his organisation have ever complained, still less brought a legal challenge to prevent, the great harm caused to important landscapes and wildlife by proliferating wind and solar farms.

Next he makes the dubious link to “more flooding due to climate change”, and claims that the dualling will encourage more HGVs and thus drive up “carbon” emissions by the remarkably precise number of 2.7 million tonnes. This ignores the reality that traffic on the road is increasingly naturally due to an ever-increasing UK population, and ignores the emissions caused by traffic sitting idling in the aftermath of yet another crash and/or being diverted huge distances to avoid the crash. Rather dubiously, he also says that more HGVs will make the existing dualled sections of the A66 more dangerous (he has nothing to say about the new dualling making those currently un-dualled sections of the road safer). He claims that National Highways should instead be implementing “cheaper and quicker” safety measures, ignoring the fact that they have already done so, without any significant safety improvements, so far as I can see.

Transport Action Network is based in the south of England, I believe, so will be blissfully unaware of the daily reality that faces we poor saps who have to use the A66 regularly. It is also yet another climate alarmist organisation that is viscerally opposed to building new roads (and, it seems, improving existing ones):

Climate Change and the need for decarbonisation are now high on the agendas of many organisations. There are many challenges and issues to tackling this problem, although the best start would be to stop making things worse by building more roads.

It is primarily funded by the Foundation for Integrated Transport.

Needless to say, they are a registered charity. Reading their website I am far from hostile to all of their activities, and I would go so far as to wish them well with some of them. However, I would urge them to ponder the reality that failing to dual the A66 between Penrith and Scoth Corner will make no discernible difference to climate change, nor to the lives of anyone on the planet supposedly affected by climate change. However, failing to dual the A66 over that distance will cause people to die in road traffic accidents that dualling would help to avoid. Should charities be funding legal action that, if successful, will cause people to die?

28 Comments

  1. The article I cited is obviously based on yet another press release. Another local news website (the News & Star) runs an identical article, a pure cut and paste job. That’s journalism these days. It allows comments. One is in favour of the legal challenge, eleven oppose it (some quite angrily).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. If only the cabal of new-roads objectors never ever travelled via ring-roads, dual-carriageways or motorways.

    Norwich has a similar bunch of morons objecting to the completion of its outer ring road. 3/4s of it already exists. The remaining ¼ is (hopefully) about to commence. The morons would rather the traffic inc a relatively large % of HGVs is routed along residential roads and close to schools. Rush hours are chaotic stop-start, at crawling pace along a number of stretches.

    A completed circular bypass would reduce traffic emissions, divert them away from the greater populated areas, and also reduce travellers’ valuable time. A win-win-win for ‘normal’ folk.

    Some protestors have too much time on their hands to value that particular commodity.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Mark – a comment I posted about 5 mins ago hasn’t appeared on your web page, despite it being refreshed. It hasn’t appeared via W/Press either.
    This notification is posted via W/Press. It may be trapped in spam?

    Like

  4. Sorry Joe, yes it was. It’s free now. And I have given it a deserved “like” for good measure. 😊

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Of course, the other northern road upgrade that desperately needs approving is the dualling of the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh. Another death trap if there ever was one.

    Like

  6. Don’t even think about it John. There’s a Court challenge just waiting to be brought…

    Like

  7. I may have mentioned this before, but dualling work in Norfolk is also being opposed beyond the limit of reason:

    A47 Norfolk dualling work held back due to legal challenge

    Having lost in the High Court and then the Court of Appeal, Dr Boswell is seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court (this was a month ago, so the story may have moved on; I do not know).

    Joe, regarding the Northern Bypass: this was sold to us originally as justified on the basis that it would reduce traffic in the city centre, according to the council-preferred model, by a mere 6%. At the time the promoters of this road were adamant that they had no plans to close the loop and build on the most controversial bit of land.

    In the meantime, the land within the line now demarcated by the boundary (and some beyond it) has been subject to a building frenzy of characterless box houses in stupid pointless estates, and yes, adding traffic to the city centre as the residents of these new estates drive in to get anywhere where there is anything.

    ASTERISK: I worked on a series of invertebrate surveys to inform the original bypass’s route.

    Like

  8. Some things strike me as obvious – such as the need to dual a busy and accident-prone stretch of single carriageway trunk road. Others can be more problematic. One of the problems with by-passes is that they can, in some circumstances, make things worse, not better. The by-pass round the west of Carlisle has so many roundabouts and is so badly potholed that it’s a bit of a joke. I suspect it hasn’t reduced traffic through Carlisle by as much as anticipated, though I could be wrong. They are now extending it to the south of the city, and I suppose it’s possible that once the extension joins up with the M6 it might reduce traffic through the city. Only time will tell. They do have a depressing tendency to effectively increase the area of towns and cities that might be built on – anything inside the bypass being regarded as a new extended city limit and to be fair game for developers. 

    I’m not pretending that the issue of roads is always easy. But sometimes it is. The A66 should be easy. So should John’s example of the A1 through Northumberland.

    Like

  9. Mark, I have lived close to the A66 for most of my life and have actually driven every inch of it! However once I had to collect a friend from the tow company in Darlington who collect a large number of crashed vehicles from the route, The vast majority were head on or offside to offside crashes. In other words overtaking without due attention and inappropriately Although dualling the entire road is the answer, human error can never be ignored sadly. The excuses of the objectors are frivolous.

    Like

  10. Richard,

    You are quite right – many, if not most, crashes are due to unsafe overtaking, often caused by frustration due to being stuck behind a lorry/caravan/tractor/horse and trap for mile after mile. Human error can never be eradicated, but dualling the A66 would rule out the “need” to overtake when a brief gap appears.

    I agree that the reasons of the objectors are frivolous, and I think any Court will so find. They will still delay the necessary work, however, which is deeply frustrating. It is one thing to object to a new road, quite another to object to making an existing road safer.

    Like

  11. One of the problems with the A66 is that, traversing the Pennines, it can often be closed in winter. It was closed once when we were moving up here in 2021, necessitating a very circuitous diversion to get back down south. But I must admit, I found the dual carriageway sections adequate and frequent enough to get past slow moving vehicles. Obviously though, dualling all the way would greatly improve traffic flow and safety. The A595 from Cockermouth to Carlisle has no dual carriageway for 25 miles, I can tell you. I was stuck behind a slow moving fully laden lorry for 13 miles two days ago, then it signalled left to turn off and I was so relieved – but another lorry then pulled out of the same junction and I was then stuck behind that lorry all the way to Carlisle. Almost like they were doing shifts! I had a real Victor Meldrew moment I can tell you.

    Like

  12. Jaime, we can only speak as we find. If you travelled the A66 between Scotch Corner and Penrith as often as I do, I think you would find that the dual carriageway sections, while they come as a great relief, aren’t enough.

    The A595 from Cockermouth to Carlisle is another road I travel very frequently, and I share your pain! That one is a much harder nut to crack, I suspect.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. What a pleasure it would be to have three quarters of a ring road and the relative security of (at least) a second bridge.

    I appreciate the concern over house building but when there is, in effect, only a single road bridge connecting the north and south of your city, there’s little alternative other than to travel in to travel out if one wants to go from, say, the north-east to the south-west.  Add in the fact the city’s north/south arterial route, including that bridge, happens to be the A49 (another SRN member that provides scant overtaking opportunities and is prone to agricultural traffic), the simplistic Green mantra of walking, cycling and public transport simply doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Like

  15. I don’t travel the A9 as often as I use the A66, but I do drive on it sufficiently to know that the lack of dualling renders it slow, frustrating and dangerous, with many fatal accidents every year, and so this story chimes with my frustration regarding the delay in dualling the A66:

    “I’m sorry we haven’t dualled the A9 – Sturgeon”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp44z71xd7ko

    Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon says she is sorry a commitment to dual the A9 from Inverness to Perth by 2025 could not be met.

    She told a Holyrood inquiry she was not apologising because the SNP or Scottish government had “messed up”, but because the £3bn project had faced significant challenges beyond their control, including from Brexit and the Covid pandemic.

    Ms Sturgeon said: “I want to be clear that I do not accept that the failure to meet that target was because we just didn’t bother and we weren’t trying to meet that target.“

    The Scottish government made a commitment in 2011 to complete the project by 2025, but in February last year said the target was “unachievable”.…

    …Ms Sturgeon said the 2025 target was made in good faith, but she went on to pose the question whether the cabinet at the time was as candid with itself and the public about just how challenging the project was.…

    There is an irony here. The Scottish government did mess up. The target was achievable. However, the SNP government had other priorities, such as accelerating a net zero, a target which was never achievable, as they have now had to acknowledge.

    Like

  16. “Hearing date announced for A66 legal challenge at London’s High Court”

    https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24367575.hearing-date-announced-a66-legal-challenge-londons-high-court/

    The initial hearing will be held at the High Court in London on October 23, 2024.

    The quote offered up by Chris Todd, TAN’s founder and director, strikes me as pretty lame, offering up the usual knee-jerk claims that don’t stand up well under scrutiny. There is only one comment under the article, but I endorse its sentiment (if not it’s lack of punctuation):

    More public money wasted on a pointless legal challenge. Just get on with building it. Hasnt it already been blocked twice this week by accidents.

    Like

  17. As a user of the A66 this is a very very well reasoned and entirely correct assessment of the road itself and the current legal challenge. Surely the death rate alone is a compelling reason for throwing out the objection. Is there no way to make representations to the judicial review – even sending the above statement with as many signatures as can be gathered.

    Like

  18. Richard,

    Thank you for your comment, and apologies for the fact that WordPress saw fit to put it in the pending pile for half an hour or so until I found it and set it free.

    I am actually quite optimistic that the challenge to the Highway Authority’s plans is so misguided that it will fail fairly quickly once it is in front of a High Court judge. Nevertheless it is frustrating – Court time wasted, more cost to the taxpayer, delays to the improvement works, and very sadly as a result, more lives lost.

    Like

  20. “PM refuses to commit to A66 dualling project in PMQs”

    https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24562436.pm-refuses-commit-a66-dualling-project-pmqs/

    …Following the election, the new Labour Government put the whole project – which would cost hundreds of millions – under review, blaming the ‘dire’ state of the public finances left by the Tories.

    The new government cancelled and put other major road and public transport infrastructure projects across the country in review following the election.

    In the House of Commons on Wednesday lunchtime, Westmorland and Lonsdale MP, Tim Farron, asked the prime minster to commit to the project to help ‘save lives’...

    …In his response, Sir Keir thanked Mr Farron for ‘raising the issue’ but did not commit to the future of the project and said that the government will give an update ‘as soon as we can’.

    “We have inherited a broken economy,” Mr Starmer claimed.…

    Like

  21. “Government urged to scrap A66 Scotch Corner dualling”

    https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24640953.government-urged-scrap-a66-scotch-corner-dualling/

    …Michael Solomon Williams from Campaign for Better Transport, said: “The Government should revoke the planning order for the A66 scheme and instead use the staggering £1.4 billion to maintain existing roads and expand local public transport, especially into the Lake District National Park where road traffic is already causing havoc.

    “It’s an established myth that building new roads eases congestion.

    “It is wiser economically and environmentally speaking to invest in public transport.”

    Give me strength. The proposed dualling of the entire route doesn’t involve building a new road. And the A66 between Scotch Corner and Penrith is a major trunk road, a vital arterial route, much used by lorries. Investing in public transport between those two locations will achieve absolutely nothing.

    The last Prime Minister got one thing right:

    …Richmond and Northallerton MP and former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had previously said that any delay or abandonment of the A66 upgrade in North Yorkshire could cost lives and hold back the economy.

    In his letter to the Transport Secretary, Mr Sunak said that there can be no delays to the A66 project and that the current government should “stick to the schedule”.

    “Twelve people died on the road in 2023 and the route has 50 per cent more casualties than the average for a road of this type,” he said. “The remaining single carriageway stretches – like the one near Ravensworth – are very dangerous and need to be dualled.

    “The road’s high accident rate doesn’t just cost lives and cause many casualties, it costs businesses millions.

    “The congestion caused by accidents – 20 per cent of which lead to complete closures of more than five hours – means this key link between Yorkshire, the North East and North West and the UK major ports is often blocked with no realistic diversion alternatives.”…

    Liked by 2 people

  22. “Rishi Sunak and Tim Farron urge Keir Starmer to back project”

    https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24657033.rishi-sunak-tim-farron-urge-keir-starmer-back-project/

    A Cumbrian MP and a former Prime Minister have written a cross-party letter to the Prime Minister calling for the government to commit to the A66 dual carriageway project.…

    ...Tim Farron said: “The A66 is a key arterial route connecting the North West of England with the North East.

    “Therefore every time there is a collision on this road, the impact on our economy is hugely disruptive.

    “However my biggest motivation for trying to secure this upgrade is safety. Tragically there were 12 fatalities on the stretch between Penrith and Scotch last year alone. This cannot go on.

    “The new Government must urgently give this vital scheme the green light.”...

    ...Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: “12 people died on the road in 2023 and the route has 50 per cent more casualties than the average for a road of this type. The remaining single carriageway stretches are dangerous and need to be dualled.

    “The road’s high accident rate doesn’t just costs lives and cause many casualties, it costs business millions.

    “The congestion caused by accidents – 20 per cent of which lead to complete closures of the road for more than five hours – means this key link between the Yorkshire, the North-East and North-West and the UK major ports is often blocked with no realistic diversion alternatives.”…

    None of which will stop the Court challenge brought by those who don’t seem to care about such things. I wonder if the government will fight the Court case or whether – as seems to be the case with challenges to anything fossil fuel-related – they will simply concede? If it doesn’t go ahead, a lot of money will have been wasted, as the signs of substantial preliminary works are very obvious whenever I travel the road these days.

    Like

  23. Thank goodness common sense has prevailed:

    “Campaign group loses legal bid against decision to dual A66”

    https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24679280.campaign-group-loses-legal-bid-decision-dual-a66/

    …In a ruling, the judge said the bid “does not raise an arguable basis” to claim the Secretary of State was wrong to grant the order.

    He said: “The Secretary of State plainly took into account the need for the development in terms of national considerations and he also took account of the prospects and opportunities of carrying out the development elsewhere.”

    The development consent order encompasses several schemes to dual around 30km of single-carriageway sections of the A66 between junction 40 of the M6 motorway at Penrith, Cumbria, and junction 53 of the A1(M) at Scotch Corner in North Yorkshire....

    Liked by 1 person

  24. “Court of Appeal dismisses legal challenge on A66 dualling”

    https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24889452.court-appeal-dismisses-legal-challenge-a66-dualling/

    The Court of Appeal has dismissed a bid to appeal a high court decision regarding the dualling of the A66. 

    Transport Action Network had appealed the decision made by the High Court in October regarding its legal challenge to the A66 dualling upgrade project, however this was rejected on January 27….

    Thank goodness for that. Common sense has prevailed. It’s just a shame that there have been avoidable delays. Unfortunately, however….

     The project remains part of the government’s ongoing spending review, and we await the outcome later in the year.

    Like

  25. “A5 ruling shows impact of Stormont climate change legislation”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79qd843yqeo

    I appreciate that this isn’t about the trans-Pennine A66 upgrade, but it’s about similar litigation to that which was used (thankfully unsuccessfully) by UK campaigners to try to prevent the upgrade:

    The High Court judgement blocking the upgrade of the A5 road shows the reach and impact of Stormont’s climate change legislation.

    It has implications not just for the A5 but for other road projects and possibly wider areas of Stormont policy, such as agriculture.

    It means that when ministers are proposing big construction projects they will need to clearly show how they comply with climate laws….

    When politicians blithely pass legislation about Net Zero, legislation which will make no difference to climate change, they need to understand that it can have hugely significant implications for society. Some would argue that preventing road upgrades is beneficial to society, and it’s a valid point of view. But I would argue that each project needs to be considered on its own merits, whereas climate legislation means that those merits and de-merits are potentially ignored, while the impact on emissions becomes the only thing that matters. And since reducing emissions in Northern Ireland is an utterly meaningless gesture (even more so than it is for the UK as a whole, if that’s possible), policy will in future be potentially be made by reference to the wrong reasons. And that, surely, is a retrograde step.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Well, if we can see what is going on, others will too. The pressure to get rid of the absurd climate legislation itself will eventually become too powerful to bear.

    The answer is not to find a convoluted way of making the road comply with the climate law, but to find a way to make the climate law comply with the need to build things like new roads.

    Like

  28. Good news:

    “A66 dualling approved again after review delay”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgeqn87pe9o

    But:

    A timeline for the work to be carried out is yet to be confirmed.

    It’s rare I agree with Tim Farron, but he and I are on the same page on this one:

    Farron said the connection to other routes made “so much sense for the economy” and the work would improve safety on the road.

    “For those people who are most concerned locally about the loss of life on the A66, I think for them and for me this is a moment of great relief,” he said.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.