Martin Underwood wrote:
"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
IIRC, the plan for the M25 was that it should have 4 service
areas, of which we now have 3 (South Mimms, Thurrock, Clackett
Lane).

Logically, the 4th would sit somewhere around junction 10 (A3) or
junction 11 (M3). As there is another bout of works around J11 at
the moment, has anyone heard if they plan to recitify the
deficiency at the same time ? Or, for that matter, ever?

Given that the south-west quarter of the M25 is the most
intensively used, it's surprising that it wasn't the first to get a
service area. It's also surprising that there aren't signs at each
junction on the M25 to the nearest off-motorway services where you
could at least get a cup of coffee and a Mars Bar, and go to the
loo.

The idea of motorways is to take traffic away from ordinary roads, not
to inject additional traffic into villages which just happen to be close
to a motorway junction. Also, the M25 junctions are quite busy enough
without encouraging extra traffic leaving and entering the M25 at them.

There seems to have been a change in the design of motorway service
stations in recent years. Originally (with the exception of
Scratchwood at the southern end of the M1) two service stations
have always been built - one serving each direction with no vehicle
link between the two. Now (M40 services, M25 services) one service
station is built which is reached by coming right off the motorway
at a junction

This is not a change in design policy. There have been several such
service areas for many years, e.g. Aust on M4 (now Severn View on M48),
Gordano on M5, Exeter on M5, in addition to Scratchwood.

- this is probably more efficient as it avoids duplication and
allows the services to be used by non-motorway traffic too. I wonder
why this wasn't done from the start.

It adds traffic to the junction roundabout, possibly requiring a bigger
junction than would otherwise be necessary, and it adds journey time.
It also, in my experience, leads to lower standards in the service area,
perhaps because big does not necessarily mean better. Personally, I
would like to see more small service areas on the French pattern, not
all with full facilities, though they have the advantage of more land
being readily available.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)