Southend (A127)

[Muze ST]

Was recently in the Southend on a small holiday visiting family and traveling over to france, anyways im from Scotland i saw a huge change in the driving attitude and the roads down there. But the main thing that got me was the speed camera's, The amount of avg speed camera's shocked me. They lasted for a mile, stopped at a junction then restarted. Why do people put up with it. They create more accidents.

I have 1 question, why do people put up with them, why not take a chainsaw to them or am i being a bit crazy?

[Ojc]

The reason the A127 has so many cameras is that for the past god knows how long the A127 was used as a race track to and from Southend & Basildon, if you drive down the A127 on a Saturday night the amount of mobile cameras increases along with the undercover Police cars.

I'm not a fan of cameras but a lot of serious accidents have occured in the past by lads driving down the A127 well over the speed limit and the road isn't in the best of conditions.

[AstonV12]

Ojc said:

The reason the A127 has so many cameras is that for the past god knows how long the A127 was used as a race track to and from Southend & Basildon, if you drive down the A127 on a Saturday night the amount of mobile cameras increases along with the undercover Police cars.

I'm not a fan of cameras but a lot of serious accidents have occured in the past by lads driving down the A127 well over the speed limit and the road isn't in the best of conditions.

Erm, whilst this has an element of truth, I think this is rather sensationalist. Th current 50 limit is far too low and most accidents are caused by the very short slip roads. There's nothing wrong with the road condition; it is fast smooth and well sighted.

[youngsyr]

AstonV12 said:

Ojc said:

The reason the A127 has so many cameras is that for the past god knows how long the A127 was used as a race track to and from Southend & Basildon, if you drive down the A127 on a Saturday night the amount of mobile cameras increases along with the undercover Police cars.

I'm not a fan of cameras but a lot of serious accidents have occured in the past by lads driving down the A127 well over the speed limit and the road isn't in the best of conditions.

Erm, whilst this has an element of truth, I think this is rather sensationalist. Th current 50 limit is far too low and most accidents are caused by the very short slip roads. There's nothing wrong with the road condition; it is fast smooth and well sighted.

... not to mention that it is ridiculous* to make traffic travel at 50 mph on a road for 6 days and 18 hours of the week simply because on the other 6 hours a group of motorists break the rules.


'*Almost as ridiculous as raising the toll fee on the QEII bridge, where you have to stop at a barrier to pay, from £1 to 1.50 to reduce congestion, when the powers that be promised to remove the charge over a decade ago.

[anonymous-user]

AstonV12 said:

Ojc said:

The reason the A127 has so many cameras is that for the past god knows how long the A127 was used as a race track to and from Southend & Basildon, if you drive down the A127 on a Saturday night the amount of mobile cameras increases along with the undercover Police cars.

I'm not a fan of cameras but a lot of serious accidents have occured in the past by lads driving down the A127 well over the speed limit and the road isn't in the best of conditions.

Erm, whilst this has an element of truth, I think this is rather sensationalist. Th current 50 limit is far too low and most accidents are caused by the very short slip roads. There's nothing wrong with the road condition; it is fast smooth and well sighted.

Is that the same A127 as I drive along...? Fast smooth and well sighted? Well sighted I might agree with (at 50mph), but fast and smooth, certainly not!

The 50 limit, and the Average Speed Cams are there for the racing issue. And the road is not to a 70mph standard - too narrow, as you mention the slips are too short, businesses and properties which access directly off the road, some of the bends are too tight for a 70mph road, etc etc. In addition to this, there are unprotected hazards at the side of the road (high drops into fields, watercourses etc).

Add to this the TERRIBLE driving by (predominantly) white van man and TDi salesman-chap, and you start to see that 70mph limits would cause more harm than good.

Although, near Bas Vegas, the national speed limit does make an appearance.

But yes, it's a terrible road, past a terrible part of the country. I was working overnight down there last week (noise surveys, oh the hardship!), and I reckon I saw maybe 40 cars all night, and 35 were police cars...

I don't think it's sensationalist to blame the boy racers. Enthusiastic they may be. Considerate, courteous and careful drivers they ain't. (think more Barryboys than PH)

[V8Maverick]

I have to say, I never thought the A127 wasn't up to 70mph standard. Granted, back when I had the Cerbera it used to bottom out on a little dip in lane 2 between the A130 and A132 junctions, hence neccessitating the need to slow a bit at that point, but to be totally honest, they should have stuck up the SPECS cams to deal with the barryboy racing element and left the limit at 70, rather than drop it to 50 when the cams went live this christmas just gone.

Didn't stop the problem though did it? I had to divert off at the rayleigh wier up to the A13 a few months back due to the road being closed at the wier underpass because two chavs had still managed to smash their cars up, even at 50. The problem is crap drivers, not the old 70mph limit which had been there for decades.

[V8Maverick]

youngsyr said:

'*Almost as ridiculous as raising the toll fee on the QEII bridge, where you have to stop at a barrier to pay, from £1 to 1.50 to reduce congestion, when the powers that be promised to remove the charge over a decade ago.

Indeed, they did say the charge would be removed when the bridge had paid for itself. Though as soon as it had paid back its construction costs in toll charges, they went and sold the bridge, tollbooths and all to the French. Hence the charge is still ongoing.

[youngsyr]

V8Maverick said:

youngsyr said:

'*Almost as ridiculous as raising the toll fee on the QEII bridge, where you have to stop at a barrier to pay, from £1 to 1.50 to reduce congestion, when the powers that be promised to remove the charge over a decade ago.

Indeed, they did say the charge would be removed when the bridge had paid for itself. Though as soon as it had paid back its construction costs in toll charges, they went and sold the bridge, tollbooths and all to the French. Hence the charge is still ongoing.

We were discussing this on another thread, and unfortunately we can't blame the French for this for once.

The UK powers that be still own the bridge, they just agreed to let a French company operate it for a few years. That contract is up very shortly as well, I believe.

[anonymous-user]

The QE Bridge DOES cost a lot to maintain. I would imagine it has an annual rolling inspection programme, which would involve rope-access, boats, CCTV surveys, X-ray surveys (in the structural steel), not to mention the massive wear of the road surface, road markings, cleaning/maintenance of signs, lighting columns, toll booths etc.
I'm not sure how the funding works, but I would imagine they don't get too much in the way of HA handouts, not if they have their own means of income coming in. The bridge may even be a DBFO or PFI-type scheme, which although I don't really 100% understand, I know means that their funding availability from the gov't is quite limited.

However, I agree that raising the price is a PITA. I always try to gt over before 6AM, like everyone else. I think they should also have 1 or 2 dedicated booths for left hookers. They cause the longest wait at the tolls. Oh, and nuggest who want change from the "correct money" machines!

[youngsyr]

Opulent said:

The QE Bridge DOES cost a lot to maintain. I would imagine it has an annual rolling inspection programme, which would involve rope-access, boats, CCTV surveys, X-ray surveys (in the structural steel), not to mention the massive wear of the road surface, road markings, cleaning/maintenance of signs, lighting columns, toll booths etc.
I'm not sure how the funding works, but I would imagine they don't get too much in the way of HA handouts, not if they have their own means of income coming in. The bridge may even be a DBFO or PFI-type scheme, which although I don't really 100% understand, I know means that their funding availability from the gov't is quite limited.

However, I agree that raising the price is a PITA. I always try to gt over before 6AM, like everyone else. I think they should also have 1 or 2 dedicated booths for left hookers. They cause the longest wait at the tolls. Oh, and nuggest who want change from the "correct money" machines!

I read somewhere that that around 150,000 vehicles cross there daily. Obviously the majority of them are during the 16 hour period from 6am to 10pm when the toll is active and I believe lorries pay considerably more than the car rate of £1.50, but let's assume 100,000 vehicles use the crossing on average each day and pay an averate of £1.50 each.

That's £55 million per year in tolls taken in. It only cost £114m to build in the first place!

[anonymous-user]

youngsyr said:

Opulent said:

The QE Bridge DOES cost a lot to maintain. I would imagine it has an annual rolling inspection programme, which would involve rope-access, boats, CCTV surveys, X-ray surveys (in the structural steel), not to mention the massive wear of the road surface, road markings, cleaning/maintenance of signs, lighting columns, toll booths etc.
I'm not sure how the funding works, but I would imagine they don't get too much in the way of HA handouts, not if they have their own means of income coming in. The bridge may even be a DBFO or PFI-type scheme, which although I don't really 100% understand, I know means that their funding availability from the gov't is quite limited.

However, I agree that raising the price is a PITA. I always try to gt over before 6AM, like everyone else. I think they should also have 1 or 2 dedicated booths for left hookers. They cause the longest wait at the tolls. Oh, and nuggest who want change from the "correct money" machines!

I read somewhere that that around 150,000 vehicles cross there daily. Obviously the majority of them are during the 16 hour period from 6am to 10pm when the toll is active and I believe lorries pay considerably more than the car rate of £1.50, but let's assume 100,000 vehicles use the crossing on average each day and pay an averate of £1.50 each.

That's £55 million per year in tolls taken in. It only cost £114m to build in the first place!

That it did. However, adjust that figure using the current RPI (Retail Price Index)factor (or it might be RCTPI - another wierd factor), and you'll soon see how astronomically the costs have risen in the last 20 years. I'm a little too young to remember costs back in '90, but I wouldn't be surprised if £20M in 1990 is equivalent to £55M today.

Also, say 20% are heavies. That is a fantastic amount of wear on the deck, bearings, surface, etc. I haven't got time to calculate the actual wear rate but I know from experience it will be stupendous.

And when companies are charging £1000/hr/km just to put cones out, WITHOUT the night-time uplift, then a simple drainage survey can end up costing millions.

[youngsyr]

Opulent said:

youngsyr said:

Opulent said:

The QE Bridge DOES cost a lot to maintain. I would imagine it has an annual rolling inspection programme, which would involve rope-access, boats, CCTV surveys, X-ray surveys (in the structural steel), not to mention the massive wear of the road surface, road markings, cleaning/maintenance of signs, lighting columns, toll booths etc.
I'm not sure how the funding works, but I would imagine they don't get too much in the way of HA handouts, not if they have their own means of income coming in. The bridge may even be a DBFO or PFI-type scheme, which although I don't really 100% understand, I know means that their funding availability from the gov't is quite limited.

However, I agree that raising the price is a PITA. I always try to gt over before 6AM, like everyone else. I think they should also have 1 or 2 dedicated booths for left hookers. They cause the longest wait at the tolls. Oh, and nuggest who want change from the "correct money" machines!

I read somewhere that that around 150,000 vehicles cross there daily. Obviously the majority of them are during the 16 hour period from 6am to 10pm when the toll is active and I believe lorries pay considerably more than the car rate of £1.50, but let's assume 100,000 vehicles use the crossing on average each day and pay an averate of £1.50 each.

That's £55 million per year in tolls taken in. It only cost £114m to build in the first place!

That it did. However, adjust that figure using the current RPI (Retail Price Index)factor (or it might be RCTPI - another wierd factor), and you'll soon see how astronomically the costs have risen in the last 20 years. I'm a little too young to remember costs back in '90, but I wouldn't be surprised if £20M in 1990 is equivalent to £55M today.

Also, say 20% are heavies. That is a fantastic amount of wear on the deck, bearings, surface, etc. I haven't got time to calculate the actual wear rate but I know from experience it will be stupendous.

And when companies are charging £1000/hr/km just to put cones out, WITHOUT the night-time uplift, then a simple drainage survey can end up costing millions.

If 20% of vehicles (in my experience it is much less than that) are multi-axle, they pay £3.70 per crossing. That's £40.5m per year in revenue from those vehicles alone, the remaining 80% would contribute £66m at £1.50 each. Say 20% of all vehicles travel outside the 16 hours of the chargeable period, that's £85 million in revenue every year.

Furthermore, this report from the AA in September 2004 stated that around £60 million of surplus revenue had been generated by the crossing between April 2003 and September 2004, that's just 19 months.

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/dartfo...

Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 20th August 14:44

[anonymous-user]

I'm not defending the cost - I totally agree, that as a business it's a true cash cow. But, I just advise a bit of caution in comparing original build costs to current maintenance costs. 30-odd booths must cost some to staff, not to mention the crossing patrol, haz teams, they must have environmental and emergency services on 24hr standby, it alla dds up.

I'm in agreement that they certainly rake it in!!

20% HGV count is an estimate, based on surrounding roads HGV content - the A12, for example, is 24% in places. I would imagine the M20 (or is it M2?) to Dover also has a particularly high level. Plus the deliveries for Bluewater/Lakeside, the Coryton (spleleling) oil refinery, the A13 industrial corridor, it's a busy part of the world! But, yes, that figure is an educated guess.

[youngsyr]

Opulent said:

I'm not defending the cost - I totally agree, that as a business it's a true cash cow. But, I just advise a bit of caution in comparing original build costs to current maintenance costs. 30-odd booths must cost some to staff, not to mention the crossing patrol, haz teams, they must have environmental and emergency services on 24hr standby, it alla dds up.

I'm in agreement that they certainly rake it in!!

20% HGV count is an estimate, based on surrounding roads HGV content - the A12, for example, is 24% in places. I would imagine the M20 (or is it M2?) to Dover also has a particularly high level. Plus the deliveries for Bluewater/Lakeside, the Coryton (spleleling) oil refinery, the A13 industrial corridor, it's a busy part of the world! But, yes, that figure is an educated guess.

It would be nice to see some published accounts for the crossing, but I imagine they would show what we all suspect and so are deliberately kept unaccessible.

I've googled search and found nothing that shows any recent costs or expenses for the crossing.

ETA: No figures for the crossing itself, but Le Crossing Ltd, the company that operates the crossing on behalf of the HA is a UK limited company and files its accounts at Companies House.

Le Crossing's turnover was £23.4m in the year to 31 December 2007 and after all costs and tax it made a profit of £1.2 million.

That's the equivalent of saying that 1.2 million people's "toll charge" for crossing the bridge during that year went straight into the pockets of the owners of Le Crossing.

Over the 5 year period to 31 December 2007 the total profit after all costs and tax for Le Crossing is £6.3 million.

Unfortunately I can't see enough detail to see the exact arrangements under which Le Crossing operates the crossing, but I would imagine they just act as collectors and hand over the money and then bill the government directly, so their turnover only equates to a fraction of the actual take at the tolls.

Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 20th August 15:37

[anonymous-user]

youngsyr said:

Opulent said:

I'm not defending the cost - I totally agree, that as a business it's a true cash cow. But, I just advise a bit of caution in comparing original build costs to current maintenance costs. 30-odd booths must cost some to staff, not to mention the crossing patrol, haz teams, they must have environmental and emergency services on 24hr standby, it alla dds up.

I'm in agreement that they certainly rake it in!!

20% HGV count is an estimate, based on surrounding roads HGV content - the A12, for example, is 24% in places. I would imagine the M20 (or is it M2?) to Dover also has a particularly high level. Plus the deliveries for Bluewater/Lakeside, the Coryton (spleleling) oil refinery, the A13 industrial corridor, it's a busy part of the world! But, yes, that figure is an educated guess.

It would be nice to see some published accounts for the crossing, but I imagine they would show what we all suspect and so are deliberately kept unaccessible.

I've googled search and found nothing that shows any recent costs or expenses for the crossing.

If it's a DBFO or a PFI, then there will be no onus on them to gain minimal profit. They will have a performance related clause, which would most likely terminate their term contract should standards slip, but once the costs are agreed with (at a guess) the HA, then the level of profit would be entirely dependant on the humber of vehicles using it, minus the maintenance costs.

I wouldn't know where to start in calculating them, although I would imagine the managing agent/contractor would provide a report each year to the HA/it's shareholders. I wouldn't know how to go about obtaining a copy - although it may be available under FOIA.

[youngsyr]

Opulent said:

youngsyr said:

Opulent said:

I'm not defending the cost - I totally agree, that as a business it's a true cash cow. But, I just advise a bit of caution in comparing original build costs to current maintenance costs. 30-odd booths must cost some to staff, not to mention the crossing patrol, haz teams, they must have environmental and emergency services on 24hr standby, it alla dds up.

I'm in agreement that they certainly rake it in!!

20% HGV count is an estimate, based on surrounding roads HGV content - the A12, for example, is 24% in places. I would imagine the M20 (or is it M2?) to Dover also has a particularly high level. Plus the deliveries for Bluewater/Lakeside, the Coryton (spleleling) oil refinery, the A13 industrial corridor, it's a busy part of the world! But, yes, that figure is an educated guess.

It would be nice to see some published accounts for the crossing, but I imagine they would show what we all suspect and so are deliberately kept unaccessible.

I've googled search and found nothing that shows any recent costs or expenses for the crossing.

If it's a DBFO or a PFI, then there will be no onus on them to gain minimal profit. They will have a performance related clause, which would most likely terminate their term contract should standards slip, but once the costs are agreed with (at a guess) the HA, then the level of profit would be entirely dependant on the humber of vehicles using it, minus the maintenance costs.

I wouldn't know where to start in calculating them, although I would imagine the managing agent/contractor would provide a report each year to the HA/it's shareholders. I wouldn't know how to go about obtaining a copy - although it may be available under FOIA.

See the edit of my previous post above, Le Crossing is a UK limited company. Still doesn't give the full picture though, as £23m equates to just 23m cars each way per day, ignoring the lorries pay more.

Per the HA site there were around 53m vehicles crossing during this period (so revenue will be at least £53m and probably quite a bit more).

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4070.asp...


So, not only did Le Crossing's owners make £1.2 million out of the bridge after all their costs of operating it in 2007, but there's at least a missing £30m that never hits Le Crossing's books in 2007 alone.

Straight to the government, me thinks...

Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 20th August 15:51

[anonymous-user]

(Sorry, I missed that edit 1st time around)

Aye - that's some good digging there fella. The figures speak for themselves, hey!

Cash cow indeed... I'm glad I try and cross outside of tollable times.

[Two Stallions]

Ojc said:

The reason the A127 has so many cameras is that for the past god knows how long the A127 was used as a race track to and from Southend & Basildon....

Is all the croooozers tearing down to Saarfend from Bas-Vegas!