# [UK] United Kingdom | road infrastructure • motorways



## ChrisZwolle

by popular demand;

*United Kingdom*










M1: London - Leeds 191 miles
M2: Rochester - Faversham 26 miles
M3: London - Southampton 59 miles
M4: London - Pontarddulais 190 miles
M5: Walsall - Exeter 163 miles
M6: Catthorpe - Carlisle 227 miles
M6Toll: Birmingham bypass 27 miles
M8: Edinburgh - Langbank 60 miles
M8: Edinburgh - Dunblane 33 miles
M10: Hemel-Hempstead - St Albans 3 miles
M11: London - Cambridge 50 miles
M18: Rotherham - Goole 27 miles
M20: Swanley - Folkestone 51 miles
M23: Hooley - Crawley 16 miles
M25: London Orbital 117 miles
M26: Sevenoaks - Maidstone 10 miles
M27: Cadnam - Portsmouth 25 miles
M32: Hambrook - Bristol 4 miles
M40: London - Birmingham 89 miles
M42: Birmingham Orbital 55 miles
M45: Watford Gap - Thurlaston 8 miles
M48: Alveston - Magor 12 miles
M49: Severn Beach - Avonmouth 5 miles
M50: Strensham - Ross-on-Wye 21 miles
M53: Wallasey - Chester 20 miles
M54: Essington - Wellington 23 miles
M55: Fulwood - Blackpool 11 miles
M56: Cheadle - Mollington 35 miles
M57: Huyton - Netherton 14 miles
M58: Netherton - Orrell 12 miles
M60: Manchester Orbital 35 miles
M61: Preston - Manchester 20 miles
M62: Knotty Ash - North Cave 107 miles
M65: Farington - Colne 30 miles
M66: Edenfield - Whitefield 8 miles
M67: Denton - Warhill 5 miles
M69: Coventry - Leicester 16 miles
M73: Birkenshaw - Mollinsburn 7 miles
M74: Glasgow - Abington 35 miles
M77: Glasgow - Fenwick 20 miles
M80: Glasgow - Stepps 5 miles
M90: Inverkeithing - Perth/Broxden Jct 30 miles

total length: 1902 miles or 3060 km.

Quite a small network for such an dense populated and busy country. It's only a few hundred kilometers less than the Netherlands


----------



## x-type

but there is a plenty of expressways


----------



## Verso

Pathetic British motorways.


----------



## Nutshell

LOL @ this thread.

Chris - is that *it* ??? You mean to tell me that the UK has fewer motorways than the Netherlands - a country less than half the size with half as many people living there? Just goes to show that while the UK sits on its butt, the rest of Europe is investing in better / bigger motorways. Just look at how much of the UK is nowhere near a major road artery - that sucks!

You can't even defend the UK by saying "but they have better public transportation", because the public transportation there also lags behind its European neighbors, including the Netherlands.

Prove me wrong, with pics, please?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The UK's network is a bit larger than the Dutch motorway network. But as said, there are a lot of expressways too; Axx(M) roads. Those have motorway standards too, but are not included in the list above, also 3digit motorways are not included, however there are only a few short sections. Doesn't make much of a difference.

But most UK motorways are said to be 2x3 lanes, a big improvement, but still, the UK motorway has the highest average AADT of Europe. 

The signage is really among the worst of Europe.


----------



## Patrick

Chris1491 said:


> The signage is really among the worst of Europe.


any pics of the signage system?


----------



## Stuu

I certainly couldn't argue with the fact the UK has nothing like as large a motorway network as it should, but I am surprised about the signage thing that has been mentioned several times. Any examples of what is wrong?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Well, the signage is just ugly, especially on overhead signs. 
And destinations are sometimes weird too. Driving south from Glasgow, you don't see much more than the quite small city of Carlisle, nothing Manchester or Liverpool. Not made for national traffic. 

Stuff like this (on the M25 London Orbital)


----------



## Nutshell

Only 2 lanes? LOL!

C'mon guys --- we need more PICS! Let's see some magnificent freeways and highways from the UK, please? Otherwise, we'll just think the UK is just a country full of quaint little country lanes and single track highways!

p.s. I actually LIKE the signage - far clearer than US freeways/highways.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I have tons of pics, from Dover to Glasgow and back. But they're not mine. You can find them here on the left


----------



## Stuu

The first picture shows the split between 2 roads: the signs above each lane show where they lead to, the second one is also at a major intersection, it may not be the most beautiful thing you've ever seen but it isn't hard to understand. The point about driving south from Glasgow, Carlisle is the first town/city across the border into England. The system is very much designed with locals (meaning UK citizens) in mind, as there is nothing like the transit traffic of most other European nations to need to cater for


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yeah, but Carlisle is very minimal. I would sign at least one large city on that road. Signage isn't ment for those who are locally known, but for those who are unknown to the area.

But how about those borders? Do you really see them as borders like international borders?


----------



## Stuu

The border is the key point, and yes most people in the UK (from my experience) do consider the border between England and Scotland as pretty much the same as going from France to Spain, on a cultural level at least. Pretty much anyone going from Glasgow south knows Carlisle is in England, not Scotland so that is why it is used, as far as I can tell. I'm pretty sure that in England the signs point to Carlisle too


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I ordered the AA big Road Atlas Britain 2007. Hope to explore Britain better, all i have to date where large undetailed loose leafs.


----------



## Blindfold

As I pointed out in the other thread, Britain's motorway network is not as significant or developed as similar sized European counries for one simple reason: the UK is an island nation surrounded on all sides by the sea. It therefore has nil or negligable through traffic from other countries. Other major European nations are bordered by other countries on a few if not all sides which generate a significant amount of traffic travelling from one country to another.

Another reason is that Tony Blair's then 'anti-road/pro-environment' Labour Government cancelled all new Motorway projects as soon as it came into power in 1997. The only new projects have been the completion of the M60 Manchester Orbital and the M6 Toll.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yeah, just like the Belgium standstill. Nothing new on the motorways there too.


----------



## Stuu

It is true that the Labour government in 1997 cancelled lots of outstanding road projects, but very few, if any, where actual motorways so wouldn't have made much difference to the map posted. "Motorway" seems to cause far more trouble with NIMBYs in the UK, lots of new roads over the past 20 years have been built that would be called motorways/autobahns or whatever in most countries, but they aren't signed as such to avoid the planning issues, such as the A130 from Chelmsford to the A13


----------



## Angelos

why scotland dont have motorways?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Scotland has some.


----------



## Billpa

Chris1491 said:


> The signage is really among the worst of Europe.


You think English signage is worse than what's in France and Belgium? What about Austria?

I think the UK motorway signage is better than that found in all of those nations.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nutshell said:


> This thread proves that the UK has no great highways/freeways. What a backward-ass country, with all your silly little 'quaint' country lanes and tiny cars. Save dramatic road-scenery for the rest of the world.


Don't talk shit.

the UK is the only country where the majority of the Motorways are 2x3 lanes or more. A lot of European countries (like mine) can learn from that with it's overcrowded 2x2 lanes motorways.


----------



## Blindfold

Some UK Motorway aerial photos here:
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/industrial/motorways.htm


----------



## ChrisZwolle

For some reason, Britain tends to sign like villages on a very important axe as the M6.









I'd rather see the following destinations (not nessecary in German style, but i don't have another program to draw such signs)










125 mile is still 200km away. I think this says way more than those villages. Birmingham or London are too far away to sign already near Carlisle.


----------



## Blindfold

^^Penrith and Kendal are not villages (pop 15000 & 28000 respectively) but are major market towns. Towns of that size are often officially given city status here in Australia. 

I would imagine they are signposted because they more or less represent exits from the motorway. In the UK, people will give directions for a certain attraction or village by saying: "follow the Kendal turnoff" etc. 

BTW Chris1491, do you have some sort of connection with Carlisle?


----------



## noblergt

Nutshell said:


> 3 lanes is the max, in the UK.


what






































Also here are some examples of expressways which are not included in the motorway statistics.




























In many cases these are simply not motorways in name only, all dual carrigeways have the same speed limit as motorways unless otherwise instructed. Where the two differ are that motorways cannot have at grade junctions and have to have a hard shoulder, while expressways are not held to these restrictions, yet the biggest adhere to them anyway, but are not included on the map/statistics.

In my opinion the motorway system itself is not as extensive in comparison to countries of a similar size, but the expressways make up for it, providing the same speedy access to the rest of the country that motoways do.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Blindfold said:


> ^^Penrith and Kendal are not villages (pop 15000 & 28000 respectively) but are major market towns. Towns of that size are often officially given city status here in Australia.
> 
> I would imagine they are signposted because they more or less represent exits from the motorway. In the UK, people will give directions for a certain attraction or village by saying: "follow the Kendal turnoff" etc.
> 
> BTW Chris1491, do you have some sort of connection with Carlisle?


Well, the M6 in that area goes through relatively remote areas, with very few places of importance. But i think, if you want to sign those places, at least add one city in the Liverpool - Manchester conurbation. 

I like the way they pick destinations for signs in Germany. Normally only 100.000+ cities, and if there aren't much of those, a regional city, but definatly not cities with population under 40.000. Those are important enough to sign only on the exit signs, and maybe at the last exit before the actual exit.
Again, signage is ment for those who are unknown in the area. And if you unknown, you want to know the directions to nearby large cities, not small towns. 

I have no connection with Carlisle at all, i just picked this picture to show how the picking of destinations should go in my opinion.


----------



## flying tackle

fuckin hell, i cannot beleive some of these people, nutshell for example....? are you some kind of arsehole? mate, were talkin motorways here, things that arent good looking remember, we use them to get from a to b, and we will build what is necessary for the public. so stop having a tantrum over our motorways claiming theyre not big enough when we have a perfectly good transport system...and an all round better country than the netherlands which will soon be underwater! hahahaha!


----------



## Prestonian

Chris1491 said:


> For some reason, Britain tends to sign like villages on a very important axe as the M6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather see the following destinations (not nessecary in German style, but i don't have another program to draw such signs)



In fairness that sign is actually very useful. For starters Penrith and Kendal are fairly large towns and not villages. Secondly Penrith is considered a gateway to the central Lake District and anybody heading to the Lakes would know where to exit the motorway. Kendal is for the South Lakes. You may not consider them large enough places to have a sign but it is much more useful when you are reading a map to have the small places indicated along the way so you know where to exit.

This is proved by 'Brough' which is indeed a very tiny village but which sits on the A66 which is one of the main routes from east to west in the area and is an important marker for travellers following their route on a map. Anyone going to newcastle would know they were going the right way if they went through Brough. Also there are several routes to Newcastle and signposting them all as 'Newcastle' is confusing and unhelpful if you are trying to follow a specific route. Not all travellers head for the large cities so it is very helpful and informative to have smaller places named along the way.

My point in summary is that names are not just listed by size but instead by their importance/usefulness to travellers.

I live in Preston which is a smallish city of average significance, but it is often signposted further south as it is a well known marker for main routes heading further north to the Lakes/Scotland.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

flying tackle said:


> fuckin hell, i cannot beleive some of these people, nutshell for example....? are you some kind of arsehole? mate, were talkin motorways here, things that arent good looking remember, we use them to get from a to b, and we will build what is necessary for the public. so stop having a tantrum over our motorways claiming theyre not big enough when we have a perfectly good transport system...and an all round better country than the netherlands which will soon be underwater! hahahaha!


I'm apologizing for not being only halleluja towards the UK :bash: 

@ Prestonian:

What you say makes some sense. But i would sign at least one large city to the south like Manchester or Liverpool then.


----------



## Nephasto

Indeed that signaling is really weird.
I totally agree with Chris.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

flying tackle said:


> fuckin hell, i cannot beleive some of these people, nutshell for example....? are you some kind of arsehole? mate, were talkin motorways here, things that arent good looking remember, we use them to get from a to b, and we will build what is necessary for the public. so stop having a tantrum over our motorways claiming theyre not big enough when we have a perfectly good transport system...and an all round better country than the netherlands which will soon be underwater! hahahaha!


----------



## shoreditchpete

Lets have a few more photos of British Motorways and expressways.


----------



## Republica

To reiterate whats already been said, the stats do not equate to the reality of driving on a British road. We are constantly reminded by the media of how our country is shit in every way, yet my experience of reality is the total opposite.

From experience of driving in Spain, i can tell you that some of the new 'motorway' classified roads in spain are much worse in virtually every way than many dual carriageways that are all over the UK. There are many, many roads which are up to motorway standard apart from access regulations that arent included on the original map, and as said previously this is the case due to local driver considerations. 

As for the signage, we have a different philosophy when it comes to them. When you are on a motorway, you tend to know whether you need to go north south east or west, or the nearest city in the direction you want to go - why have a sign for somewhere hours drive away? The only exception i can think is signs for London on the M1 and A1.


----------



## CborG

Republica said:


> To reiterate whats already been said, the stats do not equate to the reality of driving on a British road. We are constantly reminded by the media of how our country is shit in every way, yet my experience of reality is the total opposite.


So your experience of the british roads is the bestever in every way?



> From experience of driving in Spain, i can tell you that some of the new 'motorway' classified roads in spain are much worse in virtually every way than many dual carriageways that are all over the UK.


Yeah right, name one new spanish motorway (autopista or -via) with a roundabouthno: 



> There are many, many roads which are up to motorway standard apart from access regulations that arent included on the original map, and as said previously this is the case due to local driver considerations.


So when driving there, on a 2x2 road with hard shoulders (minimum motorway standard) i can expect, tractors, bikes, same grade crossings, traffic lights, roundabouts, variable speed limits and stuff like that? Don't you think that's the reason why they don't appear as motorways on a map? Those acces regulations are what makes a motorway a motorway. No limited acces, no motorway. 
It could also be that when i drive around in Britain I stumble upon a shiny superfast motorway connection while it's displayed as some local road on the map? 
When making a map they (Michelin, Falkplan etc) usually use satellite imagery to determine if a road has the qualifications for a certain line to be used. usually; red-yellow-red: Motorway, red-white-red: 2x2 road with acces regulation and no same grade crossings, but sometimes no shoulders, more and sharper bends, shorter acceslanes etc andred-black stripe-red: just a like a normal road but with 2 lanes per direction. Clear and simple.



> As for the signage, we have a different philosophy when it comes to them. When you are on a motorway, you tend to know whether you need to go north south east or west, or the nearest city in the direction you want to go - why have a sign for somewhere hours drive away? The only exception i can think is signs for London on the M1 and A1.


I guess every Brit know which city is where in the country? 

BtW, I also think the dutch signage and roads are the best because they are and i'm used to it, other countries have weird roads and funny language, they suck not really objective. But it's the truth!


----------



## Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-si

flying tackle said:


> fuckin hell, ...and an all round better country than the netherlands which will soon be underwater! hahahaha!


Sure, I believe it is not Holland but your country that is underwater.
And yes the UK is a much better country, stay there !!!!!!


----------



## shoreditchpete

Here is a map from the excellent cbrd.co.uk website which shows British motorways alongside dual carriageways of a motorway standard


----------



## Napo

shoreditchpete said:


>


:nuts: 


UK's motorways are great kay:


----------



## Republica

CborG said:


> So your experience of the british roads is the bestever in every way?



You want an argument or something? quite a bizarre reply to my original sentence where i simply said that the roads are nowhere near as bad as some would say! 

Chillax:lol:


----------



## CborG

What's so bizarre about? You are stating something and i react, that's bizarre to you? 

First you don't like the mild negative opinions on british roads from other people and immediatly after that you do the same thing by saying: "i can tell you that some of the new 'motorway' classified roads in spain are much worse in virtually every way."



> I simply said that the roads are nowhere near as bad as some would say!


Oh please, you didn't just say, ''nowhere near as bad''; this sentence: ''the stats do not equate to *the reality of driving on a British road*. We areconstantly reminded by the media of how *our country is shit in every way*, yet *my experience of reality is the total opposite.*''
So:
The reality of driving on a british road:

according to media: Country is shit in every way
According to you: my experience of reality is the total opposite

Quite a difference in opinion, the total opposite of shit in every way IMO is the best of the best in every way. I see no reason for asking arguments about that because it's already clear to me that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and it's no use to go in discussion about this untill you
I respect your opinion but it ain't worth much at all, especially when you put a smiley behind it. It makes your statements look like some lame attempt to have a opinion based on a limited knowledge, do you even take yourself serious?

Sorry i'm a bit pissed about it but i hate those 'dooddoeners' (can't find a proper english word for it.) ah forget it..


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Platitude?


----------



## Nephasto

DUMB0 said:


> I've heard that once you get of the motorway, Franco's legacy still remains.


Well, I know more than well the spanish road network and I don't agree. Spanish road (not freeway) network is ok, and some major roads are actually very good. Not worse than the rest of europe, and certainly much better than the UK.



DUMB0 said:


> EDIT: just checked google maps. Italy is average while Portugal and Spain look quite good indeed. I withdraw comparing the UK to Portugal or Spain.


Well, I disagree on Italy being average... in my opinion the north of Itally has, as I've said, one of the best road (motorways and regular roads) of europe. But that's off topic anyway.




DUMB0 said:


> What I'd like to know is what you guys think is missing a britains motorway network. Personally, any city around 120.000 should be connected to the motorway network (dual carriages do NOT count).


Well, thousands of km's of new motorways, and many improvements on existing regular roads.
This year I went to Edinburg(driving from England), and left the M75 to take the A702 to Edinburgh... Well, all I can say is wowwwww!!!
How is it possible that an important road like this (main conexion between the capital of Scotland and England) looks like a bad local road?! Honestly, it was quite a shock. And the quality of roads kept being really low all over scotland. And from what my parent (who were also in cornwall) told me, it was the same in cornwall.
For someone who is used to drive thousands of km's all over european roads every summer, I must say that british roads are quite aa unpleasant surprise, especially taken into account that the UK is a rich country.


Well, but anyway, those narrow scotish roads make for some great photo's with the surrounding landscape!


----------



## geogregor

Existing motorways in UK have good quality. Problem is with quantity.
France has similar population to UK and 3 or 4 times more km of motorways.
I won’t even mention Germany.
UK is of course smaller than France but still quite large country.
But there is no chance for them to be built. All Britain got recently crazy about global warming. Some people would ban cars altogether and force us all to overcrowded trains, some of the worst railways in Europe. Or walk everywhere.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

geogregor said:


> Existing motorways in UK have good quality. Problem is with quantity.
> France has similar population to UK and 3 or 4 times more km of motorways.
> I won’t even mention Germany.
> UK is of course smaller than France but still quite large country.
> But there is no chance for them to be built. All Britain got recently crazy about global warming. Some people would ban cars altogether and force us all to overcrowded trains, some of the worst railways in Europe. Or walk everywhere.


Hehe, same stuff here. Some guy wrote in the newspaper;

"Why do all these guys go in their rotten capitalist cars? Go with the public transportation! I would like if they remove all motorways, much better for the economy - THE REAL LEFTIST SOUND."

But then again, never take such nutheads serious.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Nephasto said:


> ^^So what?!
> If a country limits all it's crappy roads to 200km/h does that make it a country with good roads?



True.


----------



## Nephasto

geogregor said:


> Existing motorways in UK have good quality. Problem is with quantity.


Indeed... UK's motorways are very good (2x3 all the way). The problem is quantity, and that makes them very congested.


----------



## Verso

Chriszwolle said:


> A lot of environmental groups are nothing but "against" "against" "against" etc, very unreasonable. Like keeping traffic jams is a good thing for the environment....


Being against by everything ensures them surviving, cuz most of them don't even know why they exist.


----------



## Mr. B

Nephasto said:


> Well, I know more than well the spanish road network and I don't agree. Spanish road (not freeway) network is ok, and some major roads are actually very good. Not worse than the rest of europe, and certainly much better than the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I disagree on Italy being average... in my opinion the north of Itally has, as I've said, one of the best road (motorways and regular roads) of europe. But that's off topic anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thousands of km's of new motorways, and many improvements on existing regular roads.
> This year I went to Edinburg(driving from England), and left the M75 to take the A702 to Edinburgh... Well, all I can say is wowwwww!!!
> How is it possible that an important road like this (main conexion between the capital of Scotland and England) looks like a bad local road?! Honestly, it was quite a shock. And the quality of roads kept being really low all over scotland. And from what my parent (who were also in cornwall) told me, it was the same in cornwall.
> For someone who is used to drive thousands of km's all over european roads every summer, I must say that british roads are quite aa unpleasant surprise, especially taken into account that the UK is a rich country.
> 
> 
> Well, but anyway, those narrow scotish roads make for some great photo's with the surrounding landscape!


Just a little correction, its the M74.

Anyways the road network is poor, many people in my area complain about the poor state of the road itself, the capacity and usage. For example in my area we have a new an A road being upgraded to Motorway(M80), work is finally going to start early next year after more than 30 years of arguing about the route because many people don't want the Motorway to be built near their houses and have caused the dealys. It's a similar situation with the A702, people nearby don't want it upgraded as it'll lead to an increase of traffic and pollution in the surounding area, therefore if a plan to upgrade it appeared, local people would be up in arms about the proposal and it would most likely be scrapped. I wish they would do something about the capacity and quality of the Roads in Scotland, poor surfaces and huge Delays especially near Glasgow and Edinburgh. Even last week on the A80 through my town of Cumbernauld their was a small roadworks in which a single lane was closed and their was tailbacks longer than an hour.


----------



## Nephasto

^^Good news about the M80. kay:

I think that the problem is that too much power is given to people when it comes to stoping projects. Just because someone doesn't like the idea of a motorway disturbing one's views or whatever, doesn't mean the motorway shouldn't be built.
This happens everywhere, I know. The problem is that in the UK (and in some other countries in northern europe too) it's just too much.


----------



## Mr. B

Funny story about the A80 today near to where I live, a lorry carrying nearly 2000 live chickens crashed and many escaped. The road was shut for 9 hours trying to catch them all, there was huge tailbacks across Central Scotland. :lol: 

Also there was a programme about the British Motorways History on the TV and it showed how the public went from being extremely supportive of the new roads and allowing the Government to build them near to where they lived, to being hostile towards them and endangering their own lives to stop the roads being built. Great TV viewing.kay:


----------



## Nephasto

^^:lol:


----------



## a3c4

Hello, here are some pictures from M25, which I made in August 2007 

*M25 London Orbital Motorway, between junction 15 (M4) and 2 (A2) - 214 pictures, Picasa Web Album*









Sample photos 

2x6 section near Heathrow 









Junction with M3




































4 stack level interchange with M23 




































Above M20


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Very nice.

Bigass Hummer:









British signage never satisfied me. No sign of any destination east of the M25, which is a much-used route from Europe. Dartford is very unknown compared to Dover or Folkestone.









Did you know these British portals are the unsafest you can think of? Crashing into them causes much moreoften fatalities as their European counterparts. 









Traffic jam ahead?









Again a lot of destinations which do not suit the demand of long distance traffic.









Only three lanes for the M25. Not enough for the traffic volume.









Are there more stretches in Europe with a variable speed limit, apart from the traffic jam speed limits one can see in Netherlands or Germany?









Old pavement. I guess it's quite noisy.









Nice countryside near London. The lamppost are quite high.









Chaotic signage, i guess that's why no other European countries use it.









Always some Dutchmen on the road 









Finally a destination east of London on the signs, however Maidstone isn't wellknown as the Chunnel destinations.









Incredible how much airports there are near or in London.









Still quite hilly.









How many lanes will this section get? Such signs are good for the understanding of drivers for eventual traffic jams because of the road works.









Thanks for posting!


----------



## Xusein

What is the deal with designations like A1(M)? :?


----------



## a3c4

And another series of M25 pictures, this time from the northern section 

*M25 between junctions 24 and 2, including Dartford Crossing - 111 pictures, Picasa Web Album* 










Again, some sample photos 









Junction with A10, which is being improved



























Interchange with M11






















































Dartford Crossing - Queen Elizabeth II Bridge (one-way) 


















Toll gates


----------



## a3c4

Chriszwolle said:


> Traffic jam ahead?


Yes, we got caught in a jam. And you have to stick to the speed limit all the time, because of speed cameras. 



> Only three lanes for the M25. Not enough for the traffic volume.


This is because M25 had three lanes before the improvement. Between the interchanges it has at least 4 lanes in each direction. But it would be hard to widen M25 at the interchanges 



> Chaotic signage, i guess that's why no other European countries use it.


IMHO the signage is quite good, compared to French or Polish, for example. But it would be better if the signs included more important destinations. 



> How many lanes will this section get? Such signs are good for the understanding of drivers for eventual traffic jams because of the road works.


This section is being widened to 4 lanes in each direction. New sliproads are also being built for traffic heading from M25 southbound to A2 eastbound.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

TenRot said:


> What is the deal with designations like A1(M)? :?


Yeah, that's quite confusing. 

There are some categories of roads in the UK;

M: Motorway
A: first class road
B: 2nd class road
C: 3rd class road

Some A-roads are up to motorway standards, en they add the (M) behind the number. 

Think of it like some US state road gets an (I) (interstate) behind the number when it has freeway standards. Like State Route 280 (I).


----------



## Verso

Chriszwolle said:


> Incredible how much airports there are near or in London.


They seem to be the main destinations on the Orbital.

a3c4, this is a great presentation of the M25! Do you have the entire ring?


----------



## Mr. B

Yeah talk about the speeds and lack of capacity, yesterday the M8 was named as the slowest Motorway in the Uk due to traffic Jams and Not enough lanes for the amount of traffic. It's average speed was 52.5 mph.



> Did you know these British portals are the unsafest you can think of? Crashing into them causes much moreoften fatalities as their European counterparts.


Those ones in the pics are a lot more safe than the other ones in the UK that have large concrete support pillars like this.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> Yeah talk about the speeds and lack of capacity, yesterday the M8 was named as the slowest Motorway in the Uk due to traffic Jams and Not enough lanes for the amount of traffic. It's average speed was 52.5 mph.


That's not so bad? In the Netherlands, we have motorways with a 50MPH limit hno:


----------



## a3c4

Verso said:


> a3c4, this is a great presentation of the M25! Do you have the entire ring?


Unfortunately no  But I have some photos of other motorways/expressways in the Greater London Area, such as North Circular Road, M4, M23. I'll try to upload them in the next few days.


----------



## Verso

That's just great, a3c4! I'd love to drive on all London's motorways and expressways.  What else do you have? :rock:


----------



## Treasure

A406 North Circular London


----------



## PresidentBjork

As usual I see a lot of platitudinous and entirely subjective comments made about something British in SSC. 

For those who are not British there are good reasons for many of the things mentioned here. 

Firstly, the reason why seemingly unimportant places are mentioned on motorway signs is because a vast amount of commuter traffic comes in and out of villages. With no room for American style suburban sprawl, the motorways spurred an expanding middle class that wished to move from the cities to find homes in the many old villages around the country. Thanks to relatively small distances and the high speed of motorways people who worked in cities moved to the outlying villages. Signs have to now accommodate this. 

Secondly, the reason why some of you don't like the signage of our motorways is because YOU ARE NOT USED TO IT. I , like many, think they are actually very good examples of competent design. Which in fact set the norms used in many other countries road signs, in terms of colour shape, size etc. Yes, many places could be more rationally sign posted, but that's hardly and insurmountable problem.

There are also very good reasons why motorway building became unpopular. A handful of people on SSC who are motorway mad do not match the majority of people in Britain who have come to detest the ugliness, sound, destruction of an all ready dwindling natural habitat, the prosaic towns, business parks and industrial estates that come with motorways. Not to mention the pollution and and the wholesale destruction of urban areas that had motorways ploughed through them. 

Rampant road building is not only wasteful and damaging, as any road built just fills up necessitating the construction of more, but sophisticated road monitoring and congestion managing systems can do a good job ameliorating the effects of congestion instead. The original part of the M1 now handles 16 times the amount of traffic it was meant to, but still works well.

This moribund belief that paving over a country is the answer to all it's problems is ridiculous. We don't want it so don't tell us to do it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

PresidentBjork said:


> Firstly, the reason why seemingly unimportant places are mentioned on motorway signs is because a vast amount of commuter traffic comes in and out of villages. With no room for American style suburban sprawl, the motorways spurred an expanding middle class that wished to move from the cities to find homes in the many old villages around the country. Thanks to relatively small distances and the high speed of motorways people who worked in cities moved to the outlying villages. Signs have to now accommodate this.


So you are signing for daily traffic, in other words, for people known to the motorway and area. That's not what signage is ment for. Signage is ment to those who are unknown to the area, in other words, the not daily traffic. Daily traffic flows aren't shifting because of signage. 



> Secondly, the reason why some of you don't like the signage of our motorways is because YOU ARE NOT USED TO IT.


It's not just a question whether you are used to it or not. Few signage is completely 100% okay, but some are worse than another. Look at Belgian signage, Austrian signage or Spanish/French urban signage. A lot of people find the British signage inconvenient. Again, signage is ment for those who are unknown, so it has to be as clear as possible. German, Swiss, Danish, Czech and Dutch motorway signage do a good job there. 



> There are also very good reasons why motorway building became unpopular. A handful of people on SSC who are motorway mad do not match the majority of people in Britain who have come to detest the ugliness, sound, destruction of an all ready dwindling natural habitat, the prosaic towns, business parks and industrial estates that come with motorways. Not to mention the pollution and and the wholesale destruction of urban areas that had motorways ploughed through them.


You make it sound worser then it is. Sound is a problem that can be solved with soundbarriers with greenery on it, the air quality improved drastically in the last 20 years, and destruction of neighborhoods, i don't know if you do that in the UK, but most motorways aren't constructed in existing neighborhoods here.



> Rampant road building is not only wasteful and damaging, as any road built just fills up necessitating the construction of more


You think people go drive 3 times to work a day? No, expanding a motorway means traffic shifts from other congested roads through towns and villages. However i do believe the decision to build large neighborhoods along motorways, while most work is still in the city centers is wrong. It deliberatly creates huge traffic flows towards the city center, which can't be all done with mass transit. 
A funny thing to know is that mass transit takes much more space per travelled mile as roads. Travelling with public transportation is often inefficient. The only efficient modes of transport is the subway, or city-center-to-city-center travels with trains. My drive to work is 3 times faster as the fastest public transportation trip, even if i'm stuck in traffic jams. This applies to a lot of people. You have to think in macro, not in micro. 



> The original part of the M1 now handles 16 times the amount of traffic it was meant to, but still works well.


Which section? 16 times is very unlikely. A 2x3 motorway is designed for maximum of 132.000 vehicles a day, i dont think it has 132.000 x 16 = 2.112.000 vehicles a day now. Pleasy explain this, i'm interested.



> This moribund belief that paving over a country is the answer to all it's problems is ridiculous. We don't want it so don't tell us to do it.


"Paving over a country" is a popular leftist sentence when it comes to roads, but it isn't anywhere NEAR the truth. The Dutch motorway network, which is in terms of traffic volumes very like the British, covers 0,017% of the total land area. However, your term of "paving over a country" is used here too by environmentalists and green parties, however it's nothing more as complete bullshit. 
When it comes to rail, the land usage of the railnetwork is even bigger as the motorwaynetwork, however it carries only 1/5th of the travelled kilometers of the motorway travelled kilometers. So the sentence "railing over a country" would be more true as "paving over a country". Though, it is never used. Why not? Because both sentences are complete bullshit.


----------



## geogregor

Some countries have huge problem with right balance.
Take USA. They completely neglected public transport in favour of road building.
Nobody seems to think that it’s right.
Some other countries, like UK (or rather especially UK) went completely other way off balance. It means no more new motorways at all, even if they are needed in some regions, just public transport investment (which is in very poor shape anyway – vide overcrowded commuter cattle trains)
Why UK don’t want to take more balanced approach like for example Germany where they invest in public transport but also build new motorways where they are needed?
No ones know.
It’s right to blame USA or any other countries for bad decisions about transportation network, but if someone say something about British policies and roads it is like attack on queen, country and god. 
Ridiculous.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yeah, Germany has done a pretty good deal with their balance. The traffic jams in the Ruhr area for instance, are much less then those in the Dutch Randstad region. 

But the best is still Madrid, i haven't seen any European city with such a great transportation network, whether we're talking about mass transit or motorways.

Some people think public transportation solves all traffic needs. Well, maybe for a part, but not all. Public transportation and automobiles are 2 different modes, sometimes people forget that. Some trips can better be done with PT, others can better be done with a car. Look at cities with a huge PT network like London, Paris or New York City. Their subway network is very extensive, yet there are still a lot of traffic jams. It's indeed all about balance. 

It's crazy to invest 2 times more in public transportation, while it handles 8 times less of the miles travelled in the Netherlands. If you are talking about shifting the limited transportation budget a little more balanced towards roads, you're immediatly accused of not being "social". Why should only Public Transportation be "social"? Like all drivers on the road aren't "social people"?


----------



## Maxx☢Power

PresidentBjork said:


> As usual I see a lot of platitudinous and entirely subjective comments made about something British in SSC.


That's because we don't like you.


----------



## Brilliant

The UK motorways are apparently the safest in 16 European countries researched. :banana:

Link.
UK motorways are comparatively safe ones


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Interesting stuff.  

I think Dutch motorways could do better, they have only a slightly lower AADT then the British ones, but the British ones are almost everywhere 2x3 lanes, where the Dutch motorways are almost everywhere 2x2 lanes, making ours more overcrowded with a higher chance for accidents hno: 

Good job, Britain!


----------



## Pickle33

I think the UK motorway network should be completed by building an east coast motorway London to Aberdeen via Newcastle and Edinburgh and some more east-west motorways eg between Carlisle to Newcsatle and from Birmingham to Norwich, and perhaps a south coast motorway from Plymouth to Dover via Bournemouth, Southampton, Portsmouth, Brighton and Eurotunnel. 

Once these strategic connections are made I see no good case for simply building motorways to meet demand. This would be an environmental disaster for the UK and would be impossible to sustain as well as blighting thousands of towns, cities and villages. We really value our countryside and don't want to destroy it more than we need to. 

We are an island nation and do not need to plan for millions of international car journeys. If there is money to spare it should be spent on subways, LRTs and other mass transit measures within and between our cities. In 20 years time the population of the UK could be reaching 70-75 million at current growth rates....this smallish island cannot provide space for all these people to own and run cars unless we destroy the very thing which makes this an attractive place for people to want to live. I don't want to live in a country where the rights of the individuals are swept aside to build roads that do not solve our congestion problems but just add to them in the medium to long term.


----------



## Nephasto

^^But those major motorways you refered are very important!
They really should be built.


----------



## Brilliant

Well the east coast has the A1 and A1(M) which is to a large extent 2x2 and 2x3 and with further upgrades that are very likely going to happen this route will be mostly dual carriageway 2x2 or 2x3 up to Alnwick. Though it should be all the way to Edinburgh in my opinion and it really should be all 2x3 and be given a M designation.

A1(M)









Alnwick


----------



## Brilliant

Current larger building programmes in the UK.

Under construction

-> Upgrade of a ca. 10 kilometre A1 section to A1(M) standard to connect to large A1(M) sections

-> Construction of dual two lane 3 mile road from M1 Junction 45 to Leeds

-> Single Carriage way dual lane Forth Crossing

-> 57 miles of M1 widening to 2x4

-> 6 miles of M25 widening to 2x4

-> Upgrade of 6 miles of A74 to A74(M) standard with 2x3

-> 8 miles of M4 widening to 2x3


----------



## Nephasto

^^Well, it could be 2x2 as long as it had motorway caracteristics and not the typical british dual carriegeway with roundabouts and without emergency lane...

PS: This was to your first post.


----------



## geogregor

Yes M1 should go all the way to Edinburgh (it could be 2x2 from Newcastle north)
But problem is that it's not "trendy" now. Every politician try to be greener than green party. 
In this country nobody care about drivers.
"Driving is sin!!!!! You go to hell drivers!!!" this is quite common message in British media (BBC especially).
I remember once in TV, trendy young professor from Oxford claiming that he is cycling every day to university, buying fresh local product on local market etc. He was talkin how we should all stop driving.
You could almost hear: "ban driving"
Well, he can afford it because he earn much more than average Briton, so he can afford house in cycling distance to his work place. he can also afford paying double price for "green" food.
No every one is so lucky. Some people can afford houses only miles from work place. And some even save on food. 
With all this craziness about global warming, and ideas that UK should give example to the world (I already see Chinese officials looking to UK for example and decide to stop building coal power station every week :lol: ) there are no chance for any significant road project in near future.


----------



## Pickle33

Nephasto said:


> ^^But those major motorways you refered are very important!
> They really should be built.


I think key strategic road links are important to complete the network and try to spread growth more evenly in the UK, further the north. It is senseless and futile to build more and more motorways just for commuters to fill them up in the SE of England...this will not make us more competative. 

We're not the US or Canada...or even Spain or France, we have far less land to play with. The Netherlands and Belgium are the crossroads of Europe as far as road and rail are concerned and they are less constrained in terms of their physical geography. The idea that we will be left behind unless we add more congested motorways is rediculous. The more miles of motorway way you build in existing congested areas, the more congestion you create. Its a fact that is well documented. The UK needs to look beyond the age of the car to solve its transport needs. 

Since the road building programme was all but scrapped in the UK in the 1990s train travel has grown exponentially, despite being the most expensive in Europe and at times being very unreliable. This has forced the government to invest heavily in rail infrastructure and improve reliability in the last few years....despite all the b1tching and moaning you hear about rail in the UK.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Pickle33 said:


> The more miles of motorway way you build in existing congested areas, the more congestion you create. Its a fact that is well documented.


You hear that all the time, but it's not true. Like i said above;



> You think people go drive 3 times to work a day? No, expanding a motorway means traffic shifts from other congested roads through towns and villages. However i do believe the decision to build large neighborhoods along motorways, while most work is still in the city centers is wrong. It deliberatly creates huge traffic flows towards the city center, which can't be all done with mass transit.
> A funny thing to know is that mass transit takes much more space per travelled mile as roads. Travelling with public transportation is often inefficient. The only efficient modes of transport is the subway, or city-center-to-city-center travels with trains. My drive to work is 3 times faster as the fastest public transportation trip, even if i'm stuck in traffic jams. This applies to a lot of people. You have to think in macro, not in micro.


Please show me at least one of that "well documented" issue. If you say it enough, people are gonna believe it. That doesn't mean it's true. It's all the same old song here in the Netherlands too.


----------



## Pickle33

geogregor said:


> Yes M1 should go all the way to Edinburgh (it could be 2x2 from Newcastle north)
> But problem is that it's not "trendy" now. Every politician try to be greener than green party.
> In this country nobody care about drivers.
> "Driving is sin!!!!! You go to hell drivers!!!" this is quite common message in British media (BBC especially).
> I remember once in TV, trendy young professor from Oxford claiming that he is cycling every day to university, buying fresh local product on local market etc. He was talkin how we should all stop driving.
> You could almost hear: "ban driving"
> Well, he can afford it because he earn much more than average Briton, so he can afford house in cycling distance to his work place. he can also afford paying double price for "green" food.
> No every one is so lucky. Some people can afford houses only miles from work place. And some even save on food.
> With all this craziness about global warming, and ideas that UK should give example to the world (I already see Chinese officials looking to UK for example and decide to stop building coal power station every week :lol: ) there are no chance for any significant road project in near future.


The M1 serves Yorkshire and the East Midlands, not the North in ts truest sense. An additional motorway is needed by completing the A1 to motorway standard from London to Edinburgh and probably to Aberdeen to serve the oil industry. 

Newcastle and NE of England is one of the most deprived regions in the UK and yet it is barely served by the national motorawy network. How is that region expected to attract investment when you can see from the national motorway network that it is isolated from the rest of the UK by motorway. Motorways should be used to spread growth and investment, not just to shore up areas which are overheating economically and in terms of population growth.

The price of housing is high al over the UK and many people cannot afford to live near their work but that is not an excuse to build more roads. That is a reason to build more housing and create jobs in areas which can accommodate them....ie not the SE of England.

I really don't see how you can refer to global warming as crazy when the evidence of it is plain to see. How much is it costing the US tax payer to rebuild New Orleans, or to rebuild burnt out towns in southern california? I'd like to see where your money for new roads is going to come from in future when the real costs of global warming are factored in and your having to pay Russia and the Middle East princes trillions of $ to get oil so that they can build 3000 ft towers and man made islands.


----------



## Pickle33

Chriszwolle said:


> You hear that all the time, but it's not true. Like i said above;
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me at least one of that "well documented" issue. If you say it enough, people are gonna believe it. That doesn't mean it's true. It's all the same old song here in the Netherlands too.


Well I've just done a simple Google and come up with reaserach in the New Scientist which says that new roads just add to congestion in congested areas.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6922.html


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Pickle33 said:


> Well I've just done a simple Google and come up with reaserach in the New Scientist which says that new roads just add to congestion in congested areas.
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6922.html


Some simple calulating:

You have 3 roads leading to the city center. one of them is a motorway, 2 of them are local roads. All three roads are clogged during rushhour. 

We add a motorway to the existing motorway, which partially replaces the old local road, which was, remember, unlivable because of the traffic jams.

The first motorway, which was at it's peak capacity, can't take that traffic, from the old local road. However, this is only a shift of traffic from one route to another. 

You can't let a motorway merge to another motorway which is already at peak capacity. In that way, you are right about building a new motorway adds to congestion.

However, remember that local road. A lot of traffic was there because, it was trying to bypass the traffic jam on the motorway. When a motorway reaches full capacity, people tend to search for alternate routes. In this case a local road, which isn't meant for this much traffic.

This is often the problem. A motorway is congested, and traffic detours. When you add a new motorway, traffic returnes to it's old route. It is, in fact, a rising number of traffic on that motorway, but not an overall rise. That only happens if the government gets the "wise" idea to allow more urban sprawl along the corridors. That solves nothing. 

You build housing, you also have to adjust the infrastructure, whether we're talking about road or rail. That is often "forgotten", because the (local) government likes the real estate revenues, but don't like the costs of building new infrastructure.


----------



## Pickle33

Chriszwolle said:


> Some simple calulating:
> 
> You have 3 roads leading to the city center. one of them is a motorway, 2 of them are local roads. All three roads are clogged during rushhour.
> 
> We add a motorway to the existing motorway, which partially replaces the old local road, which was, remember, unlivable because of the traffic jams.
> 
> The first motorway, which was at it's peak capacity, can't take that traffic, from the old local road. However, this is only a shift of traffic from one route to another.
> 
> You can't let a motorway merge to another motorway which is already at peak capacity. In that way, you are right about building a new motorway adds to congestion.
> 
> However, remember that local road. A lot of traffic was there because, it was trying to bypass the traffic jam on the motorway. When a motorway reaches full capacity, people tend to search for alternate routes. In this case a local road, which isn't meant for this much traffic.
> 
> This is often the problem. A motorway is congested, and traffic detours. When you add a new motorway, traffic returnes to it's old route. It is, in fact, a rising number of traffic on that motorway, but not an overall rise. That only happens if the government gets the "wise" idea to allow more urban sprawl along the corridors. That solves nothing.
> 
> You build housing, you also have to adjust the infrastructure, whether we're talking about road or rail. That is often "forgotten", because the (local) government likes the real estate revenues, but don't like the costs of building new infrastructure.


So at what point do you stop building motorways and increasing capacity more generally on local roads? You are assuming that we will reach a point when enough roads will be built to accomodate demand. However demand is going up as car ownership rises and population growth in the UK is increasing. You either 1) stop trying to meet demand and try something different or 2) you introduce draconian laws to restrict car use and ownership as they do in Singapore and/ or you introduce immigration restrictions and laws to stabilise or reduce population growth, as in China. Take your pick!?

The fact is that on the whole we have big fancy motorways and interchanges all over the UK....there is no novelty or particular engineering challenge or political propagander motivation to carry on building motorways. Its boring and destructive and if other countries want to pursue a policy of tearing up the countryside in some endless battle to create road space to meet an exponential demand, then that's their choice . No offence, but from my perspective in a Western European context that atitude just isn't very enlightened.

Urban sprawl isn't a serious issue in the UK because we have had green belts around our cities since 1947 and in general British cities have a much smaller urban footprint than cities with comparative populations elsewhere in the world. In some respects this has made the situation worse since housing development has leapt the green belts into towns and cities further away and encouraged longer distance commutes. Sprawl or no sprawl, I don't think it makes much difference in the grand scheme of things. Its growth vs space that is the issue. Growth (population and economic) is theoretically exponential, wheras land is a finite resource...this basic fact cannot be argued away....at some point you have to give up building motorways and more roads and rethink what "quality of life" really means.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> 1) stop trying to meet demand and try something different


We stopped that 2 decades ago. We invests more money in public transportation then road, however it handles 10 times less traffic. We did (almost) nothing to accomodate more traffic. A non-motorway network alternative is virtually inexistent. We build our neighborhoods in a pedestrian, bicycle-friendly way, and we give buses righ-of-way everywhere.

What happened? The traffic jams are growing with 10 - 15% annually, pollution from those traffic jams grows, economic damage grows (in the billions annually in our small country), the economic competition of our mainports, the foundation of our country and economy is detoriating. However there is almost 0 population growth! Project these things in a country where population IS growing. They would be much worse.

Doing nothing is clearly not a solution here. I don't say we should just add more motorways everywhere. 

You can try to meet the transportation demand with mass transit. Have you any idea how expensive this is? It already costs 2 times the road budget, however it carries 10 times less travelled miles. What if you try to cut that in half, 5 times less travelled miles. To achieve that, you need a whole new transportation, because the current trains cannot transport that much people, it's overcrowded already. 5 times less travelled miles, means the Public transportation ridership will grow with over 500%! Do you know how much trouble we are getting through to reach a 10% growth? 

It will be so expensive, you will never be able to pay for that with current taxes. Wouldn't it be much cheaper to add some new lanes to a motorway? Or build a flyover? Or even a whole new motorway?


----------



## geogregor

Pickle33 said:


> The M1 serves Yorkshire and the East Midlands, not the North in ts truest sense. An additional motorway is needed by completing the A1 to motorway standard from London to Edinburgh and probably to Aberdeen to serve the oil industry.
> 
> Newcastle and NE of England is one of the most deprived regions in the UK and yet it is barely served by the national motorawy network. How is that region expected to attract investment when you can see from the national motorway network that it is isolated from the rest of the UK by motorway. Motorways should be used to spread growth and investment, not just to shore up areas which are overheating economically and in terms of population growth.


I see you agree that UK need new motorway serving NE



> The price of housing is high al over the UK and many people cannot afford to live near their work but that is not an excuse to build more roads. That is a reason to build more housing and create jobs in areas which can accommodate them....ie not the SE of England.


Where you want to build new houses for example in London? Residents often oppose increasing density of housing (recently there are stories in news about residents opposing building up some garden plots)
It's all the same struggle between those who have house and want to pretend they live in countryside and those who don't have them.
Anyway it's not so simple just to build new houses in centers of towns.



> I really don't see how you can refer to global warming as crazy when the evidence of it is plain to see. How much is it costing the US tax payer to rebuild New Orleans, or to rebuild burnt out towns in southern california? I'd like to see where your money for new roads is going to come from in future when the real costs of global warming are factored in and your having to pay Russia and the Middle East princes trillions of $ to get oil so that they can build 3000 ft towers and man made islands.


New Orlean and cities of southern California are just build in wrong place.
And Kathrina could hit without global warming. In fact there is no connection between Kathrina and global warming.
Don't understand me wrong. I don’t deny global warming. It’s here and it’s problem.
I just don’t agree with all this judgement day stories. It’s change, probably impossible to stop already, we have to adjust to it and accommodate.
And I strongly believe that answer is in technology (new power sources like nuclear fusion for example), no in recycling or going back of all society to walking, horse riding and using transatlantics instead of planes.
I hope we will drive electric car in near future.
And we needs roads for them.


----------



## Jonesy55

Hi, interesting thread, here's my views on UK motorways.

The quality is generally pretty good in my experience, not universally good though, the surface on the M11 from London to Stansted airport for example is horrible.

People have pointed out potentially unsafe features such as heavy concrete pillars but the safety record of the UK road network overall is very good, almost the best in Europe for the number of deaths per million passenger Kms so it can't be that bad, maybe we are all just very good drivers .

What we do lack is capacity, I would like to see most of the busier 2x3 motorways widened to 2x4 and many of the 2x2 expressways upgraded to 2x3 with full motorway status. If you add some strategic new links into the network like improving motorway provision from Newcastle to Edinburgh for example, we could have a much better network without having to cut lots of big new roads through pristine, untouched countryside.

I'm suprised that so many people don't like the signage, i've never had a problem with it, even in areas of the country that I don't know well, maybe it's just because i'm used to it though :dunno:

The reason why there are not many motorways or expressways in Scotland, especially north of Glasgow and Edinburgh is that a) It is very sparsely populated, with only Aberdeen and Dundee on the East Coast of any significant size and b) it is on the edge of Europe, no transit traffic means low demand.


----------



## geogregor

Jonesy55 said:


> I'm suprised that so many people don't like the signage, i've never had a problem with it, even in areas of the country that I don't know well, maybe it's just because i'm used to it though :dunno:


I agree with you, signage is OK. Even when I came first time to UK I never had problem with finding my way. 
Maybe because I always look on map before going somwhere?  
And then use signs as help not as basics for my navigation.


----------



## Jonesy55

Here's an interesting feature of the M62 between Manchester and Leeds 

When the motorway was built in the 1960s, one farmer refused to sell his 18th century farmhouse to the government and so they just built three lanes around one side of it and three lanes around the other side. To reach the outside world, he has a tunnel under the carriageway which leads eventually to a local road. :laugh: 



















Around this point in the motorway also happens to be the highest the UK network gets above sea level, 439m


----------



## Mackem

It's a nice story, but not actually true. If the engineers had wanted to go through the farmhouse, they would have - the chief engineer on the contract confirmed this. It was just easier to build the m'way as it is due to the characteristics of that area of land. There is a similar section on the M6 in Cumbria, but no farmhouse there.


----------



## Brilliant

Also, a new scheme to use the hard shoulder existing on many UK motorways has been a great success, with accidents and pollution down significantly and traffic jams also down, the scheme will now be introduced gradually on many motorway across the UK.

Link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7061188.stm


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I thought we (the Netherlands) invented it. However, i only see it as a temporarily solution until real widening can be done. If a breakdown or accident occurs, it can be dangerous until the lane gets closed, with potential dangerous situations. It is also a problem for emergency vehicles to reach the site of an accident, because all lanes including the emergency lane will be jammed. This can cost lives.


----------



## geogregor

Jonesy55 said:


> Here's an interesting feature of the M62 between Manchester and Leeds
> 
> When the motorway was built in the 1960s, one farmer refused to sell his 18th century farmhouse to the government and so they just built three lanes around one side of it and three lanes around the other side. To reach the outside world, he has a tunnel under the carriageway which leads eventually to a local road. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around this point in the motorway also happens to be the highest the UK network gets above sea level, 439m


Cool picture
Twol carriageways far apart are quite common in USA but they have far more land to use for road building.


----------



## Nephasto

Mackem said:


> There is a similar section on the M6 in Cumbria, but no farmhouse there.



I have some photos of that (taken from the car...), but I'm too lazy to post them right now. :colgate:


----------



## rick1016

Great info guys, I'd love to visit the UK sometime.


----------



## Jeroen669

pickle33 said:


> So at what point do you stop building motorways and increasing capacity more generally on local roads?


You don't. As long as the economy AND the size of the population grows you need to create more houses, more work and that simply results in more traffic. For each way of transportation.



pickle33 said:


> at some point you have to give up building motorways and more roads and rethink what "quality of life" really means.


Well, I'm curious about your interpretation of 'quality of life'. A father with can't see his children anymore because he's half of the day stuck in traffic, that is also quality of life, isn't it...? 

Sure, jammed roads are causing more pollution. But cars are getting cleaner each year, and I'm sure with alternative fuels that problem will be gone in the (far) future. Untill then we can do what we can with things like big fences (also for reducing sound), by-passes, tunnels etc.


----------



## Pickle33

Jeroen669 said:


> You don't. As long as the economy AND the size of the population grows you need to create more houses, more work and that simply results in more traffic. For each way of transportation.


Who says that by stopping building motorways the economy would stop growing? Where is the evdience for this? The UK economy has grown much quicker than the majority of mainland Europe since 1996...coincidentally around the same time as the UK road building programme was scrapped.

We can build more houses at higher densities with less land take, but higher density development does not favour car based transport. car based transport relies one lower densities which necessitates american style suburban growth.

The idea that in a country like the UK (especially the SE) or the Netherlands that you can carry on taking land to accomodate car based growth is ludicrous and harks back to the 1960s which left us with a terrible town planning legacy. 



> Well, I'm curious about your interpretation of 'quality of life'. A father with can't see his children anymore because he's half of the day stuck in traffic, that is also quality of life, isn't it...?
> 
> Sure, jammed roads are causing more pollution. But cars are getting cleaner each year, and I'm sure with alternative fuels that problem will be gone in the (far) future. Untill then we can do what we can with things like big fences (also for reducing sound), by-passes, tunnels etc.


Yes seeing your children/family contributes to your quality of life, but perhaps that father has to commute many KMs from home to work because his office is located in a business park next to a motorway junction because when his company decided to relocate they wanted to be next to the motorway because the government failed to invest in mass transit to make the city centre more accessible. This scenario is actually happening in the US right now. 

Your argument is based on the premise that its only a matter of creating road space when in fact the real issue is how we plan our cities and what we spend our taxes on. We should be trying to reduce the need to travel by locating homes, shops and offices closer to each other so people don't have to get in their cars unless absolutely necessary. I'm not saying stop building motorways altogether, but to not just build them to meet and fuel demand at the expesne of other transport choices which are less sustainable.


----------



## DUMB0

"Who says that by stopping building motorways the economy would stop growing? Where is the evidence for this? The UK economy has grown much quicker than the majority of mainland Europe since 1996...coincidentally around the same time as the UK road building programme was scrapped."

->German economists declare the British miracle a sham [based on debt and inflated real estate]


----------



## DUMB0

People are very confused between the difference of SIZE and DENSITY. You would think that France, being roughly double the size of the UK, would have much more roads (total length of road network). This is the point made by the environmentalist every time a comparison with another country is attempted. This argument is completely flawed when density statistics are used. For example, Germany has a density of 234.8 vs 238.9 for the UK. The difference in road network AND public transport are extreme. The UK should be ashamed and I completely understand why some member of this forum compare its network to third world/ eastern Europe. Just take 2 Michelin maps at the SAME SCALE of UK and Germany and you'll see what I mean.

A good explanation for UK's deplorable road network is its economy and geographic position. No major manufacturing and therefore exports unlike Germany for example. No transit traffic from other EU nations unlike France for example. HOWEVER, what about the Netherlands or Italy or Spain? Take the Netherlands. Its geography, economy, pop. density are soooo similar I can't help to compare it to the UK. The Netherlands has a great road network esp. motorway , UK does not. 

BTW anyone want to compare the Netherlands modern freight ports to over-capacity ports those of the UK?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> The Netherlands has a great road network esp. motorway , UK does not.


The network is okay, but the capacity is not... even in the Randstad, a lot of motorways are only 2x2 lanes. Some people compare it to a dirt track. 

Today, the delay between Schiphol and Almere (25 - 30km) was over 100 minutes. That's just madness.


----------



## Jeroen669

Chris, where is your proud for our nation? You only keep talking about our bad road capacity while there are so many good things here too. 



DUMBO said:


> Its geography, economy, pop. density are soooo similar I can't help to compare it to the UK.


In a way the Netherlands and UK seems quite simular. But our density is far higher, I thought about 400 inhabitants/km2. Not really because of very high city densities or populations, but because of the huge amount of small(er) cities which cause an extremely amount of commuters.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I saw Dutch average population density is actually higher than metropolitan Atlanta....


----------



## ChrisH

The population density of England (rather than the whole UK) is also about 400/km2. Scotland, Wales, NI and even some peripheries of England are relatively empty. It's the core population regions of England that really need more capacity - roughly a rectangle London-Bristol-Liverpool-Leeds.


----------



## dhlennon

It is almost completely impossible to build anything in the UK now because of NIMBYS and environmentalists. It took us 15yrs to build the high-speed train connection to the channel tunnel.

There's no point discussing improvements to UK in this thread really unless there is a change in planning laws here, at least for nationally important infrastructure. I love roads as much as the rest of you, but I think we're in an era where we're going to lose.


----------



## DUMB0

> It is almost completely impossible to build anything in the UK now because of NIMBYS and environmentalists. It took us 15yrs to build the high-speed train connection to the channel tunnel.
> 
> There's no point discussing improvements to UK in this thread really unless there is a change in planning laws here, at least for nationally important infrastructure. I love roads as much as the rest of you, but I think we're in an era where we're going to lose.


Sad but probably very true.

Idea: (along the lines of)
1. why don't we just set up public transport schemes all across the country (demolition in the name of public transport or the environment still works :lol. Let's deliver an alternative to the car; the environmentalists and other proponents of public transport would then keep quiet.
2. the schemes succeed to reduced traffic on the roads the first few years; but after ~10 yrs traffic is back to old levels. Just like the London congestion charge...
3. By then car would be less polluting and further punitive action against the motorist would not be tolerated by a LARGE MAJORITY of the public. Finally, the British road network is upgraded to a western European standard.

The car revolutionized civilization and a key component of our western lifestyle. I believe private transport is intrinsically far superior in practicality/comfort to any kind of public transport. Let's just give an alternative to the car...fine... we want a whole integrated transport network and each mode will be judge on its merit.

Why take the Eurostar/TGV if it runs at less than half the speed of the plane. You can forget a Glasgow-London high speed rail link; that's dead on arrival. London-Paris takes 45min vs 2hr.15min but it's still ok. That's because airports are so far away from the city centers and involve a lot of time to check-in, waiting for the flight, picking up luggage etc.... Beyond Paris/Bruxelles forget about the train, the plane is king... there is simply no economic alternative shut up and sit down...:lol:

the train/metro/bus may be fine for commuting but that's it. Try doing any grocery shopping or going to IKEA without a car... 
How about just a 100 mile journey to visit some historic town for the week-end (visiting Oxford from London etc..). Are you going to book a ticked in advance? Are you willing to accept the strict times. The car is so comfortable, practical and works 24/7. Just look at the travel patterns in other countries (except for Japan) with substantial public transport facilities. People will essentially choose the car over public transport any day. 

The car has so many strengths, if we block the environmentalists from eroding those strengths (by making it ultra expensive or too congested), the car will always ultimately triumph.


----------



## davidmkelly

*UK Motorway Archive*

I haven't seen a link to the following site anywhere on here. It's an archive of information about UK motorways and contains lots of interesting information as well as photographs of motorways in the early days.

http://www.iht.org/motorway/page1.htm

Cheers, Dave


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I found this list i made on my computer. I made it last summer with Google Earth. It's about the number of lanes.

M1:
London – M25 2x3 
M25 – Hemel Hempstead 4+3
Hemel Hempstead – Flamstead	2x3
Flamstead – Luton-South 4+3
Luton-South – Leicester M69	2x3
Leicester M69 – Leicester-North	2x4
Leicester-North – Derby A42	2x3
Derby A42 – Nottingham A50	2x4
Nottingham A50 – M62 2x3
M62 – M621 Leeds 2x5
M621 Leeds – Garforth A1 (M)	2x3
Garforth A1 (M) – Tadcaster A1	2x4
Tadcaster A1 – Wetherby 2x3
Wetherby – A1 2x2
A1 – Dishfort A1 2x3

M2:
Rochester – Walderslade 2x4
Walderslade – Hempstead 2x3
Hempstead – Canterbury 2x2

M3:
London – North Waltham A303	2x3
North Waltham – Winchester	2x2
Winchester – Southampton	2x3
Southampton – M27 2x2+2x2

M4:
London – Cranford 2x2
Cranford – M25 2x3
M25 – Langley 2x4
Langley – M5 Bristol 2x3
M5 Bristol – Severn Beach	2x2
Severn Beach – Castleton 2x3
Castleton – Coryton 2x2
Coryton – Port Talbot 2x3
Port Talbot – Llanedi 2x2

M5:
Walsall – Exeter 2x3

M6:
Catthorpe – M56 Appleton Thn	2x3
M56 – M62 Warrington 2x4
M62 – M61 Bamber Bridge	2x3
M61 – M55 Preston 2x4
M55 – Carlisle 2x3

M8:
Edinburgh – Baillieston M73	2x2
M73 – M80 Glasgow 2x3
M80 – Glasgow-North 2x5
Glasgow-North – Laurigston	2x3
Laurigston – M77 4x3
M77 – Paisley 2x3
Paisley – Langbank 2x2

M9:
Newbridge – Dunblane 2x2

M10:
Hemel-Hempstead – St Albans	2x2

M11:
London – Bishops Stortford	2x3
Bishops Stortford – Girton 2x2

M18:
Thurcroft – Wadworth (A1) 2x3
Wadworth – Dunscroft M180	2x2
Dunscroft – Goole 2x3

M20:
Swanley – Folkestone 2x3

M23:
Hooley – Crawley 2x3

M25:
Dartford – Hawley 2x4
Hawley – Reigate M23 2x3
Reigate – Denham M40 2x4
Denham – Grays 2x3

M26:
Sevenoaks – Wrotham Heat	2x2

M27:
Cadnam – Portsmouth 2x3

M32:
Hambrook – Bristol 2x2

M40:
London – Beaconsfield 2x4
Beaconsfield – Birmingham	2x3

M42:
Bromsgrove - Appleby Magna	2x3

M45:
Watford Gap – Rugby 2x2

M48:
Olveston – Caldicot 2x2

M49:
Avonmouth – Severn Beach	2x2

M50:
Strensham – Ross-on-Wye	2x2

M53:
Birkenhead – Hooton 2x3
Hooton – Chester 2x2

M54:
Essington – Telford 2x2

M55:
Preston – Blackpool 2x3

M56:
Cheadle – Manchester-Airport	2x4
Manchester Airport – M53 2x3
M53 – Dunkirk 2x2

M57:
Huyton – Netherton 2x3

M58:
Liverpool – Wigan 2x3

M60:
Stockport – M62 2x3
M62 – Worsley 2x4
Worsley – M61 4+3
M61 – M62 2x4
M62 – Stockport 2x3

M61:
Manchester – Bamber Bridge	2x3

M62:
Liverpool – Manchester 2x3
Manchester – Hull 2x3

M65:
Farington – Clayton 2x3
Clayton – Feniscowles 2x2
Feniscowles – Lower Darlen	2+3
Lower Darlen – Blackburn 2x2
Blackburn – Hapton 2x3
Hapton – Colne 2x2

M66:
Edenfield – Manchester 2x2

M67:
Manchester – Mottram 2+3

M69:
Coventry – Leicester 2x3

M73:
Birkenshaw – Baillieston 2x3
Baillieston – Moodiesburn 2x2

M74:
Glasgow – Gretna 2x3

M77:
Glasgow – Fenwick 2x2

M80:
Glasgow – Stepps 2x2

M90:
Inverkeithing – Perth 2x2​


----------



## Des

Chriszwolle said:


> I found this list i made on my computer. I made it last summer with Google Earth. It's about the number of lanes.
> 
> M1:
> London – M25 2x3
> M25 – Hemel Hempstead 4+3
> Hemel Hempstead – Flamstead	2x3
> Flamstead – Luton-South 4+3
> Luton-South – Leicester M69	2x3
> Leicester M69 – Leicester-North	2x4​


Cool! Do you hapen to have a similar list of Germany?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

No, unfortunatly not. 

But Autobahn-online has done that. (In German).


----------



## Jeroen669

You're forgetting the M96, Chris.


----------



## Mateusz

I know the some sections of A1 in northern England, heading to Scotland in Newcastle direction will be upgraded to motorway  So it will be A1(M)


----------



## GNU

Jonesy55 said:


> Here's an interesting feature of the M62 between Manchester and Leeds
> 
> When the motorway was built in the 1960s, one farmer refused to sell his 18th century farmhouse to the government and so they just built three lanes around one side of it and three lanes around the other side. To reach the outside world, he has a tunnel under the carriageway which leads eventually to a local road. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around this point in the motorway also happens to be the highest the UK network gets above sea level, 439m



Poor guy hno:


----------



## sotonsi

Chriszwolle said:


> I found this list i made on my computer. I made it last summer with Google Earth. It's about the number of lanes.


there are many inaccuracies there, mostly due to out of date aerial images (eg, you don't have the D6M bit of the M25). Also you use place names that are hard to locate at times - junction numbers would be easier. CBRD's Motorway Database has up to date data, and uses junction numbers - which is how British people work it out, unless they are local, whereby junction names have very different names to the German-esque ones you have given. An example is given below. Also you use a very confusing system of lane assignments - sticking to engineering descriptions, or spelling it out would be far clearer.


> M3:
> London – North Waltham A303	2x3
> North Waltham – Winchester	2x2
> Winchester – Southampton	2x3
> Southampton – M27 2x2+2x2


should read (for accuracy, and also for clarity):
M3:
Sunbury (j1) - Popham (j8) D3M (or 3 lanes each way)
Popham (j8) - j9 D2M (or 2 lanes each way)
j9 - Chandlers Ford (j13) D3M
Chandlers Ford (j13) - M27 directional split (j14):
northbound 4 lanes
southbound 3 lanes
M27 West slip road:
northbound 2 lanes
southbound 2 lanes, 3 lanes between j13 on slip and A33 offslip
M27 East slip road:
northbound 2 lanes, 3 lanes north of A33 junction
southbound 2 lanes
Notes:southbound M27 directional split occurs halfway through j13 and both slip roads run parallel for a while (and both have an exit to the A33)
the M3 has two lanes northbound and one lane southbound through the M25 junction.
Near Winchester services (just north of j9) there is a southbound climbing lane for a mile​


----------



## RV

How many cars/day are needed in the UK to built a motorway? (most of Europe 15 000)


----------



## ChrisH

RV said:


> How many cars/day are needed in the UK to built a motorway? (most of Europe 15 000)


For a dual-2 lane motorway, 30,000. For dual-3 lanes, 50,000, and 75,000 for dual-4 lanes!


----------



## RV

30 000! A 2-lane road with 30 000 cars/day is fully collapsed!


----------



## ChrisH

I think a non-motorway dual carriageway can be built with lower traffic, but probably not less than 25,000. I'll leave it to you to figure out why motorways are only built with such high traffic requirements...


----------



## dios tanatos

chrishillcoat said:


> I think a non-motorway dual carriageway can be built with lower traffic, but probably not less than 25,000. I'll leave it to you to figure out why motorways are only built with such high traffic requirements...


"Dual carriageway" is such an old-fashioned term. It is cars & not carriages that travel on them. Why don't you start calling them "two-lane highways"? Just because it is a Yank coinage?


----------



## Chris_533976

2+2 in Ireland, which is effectively dual carriageway (no hard shoulder) with non GSJ junctions, is being built instead of a lot of new 2+1 projects. Apparently it only costs 10% more to build this 2+2 than 2+1. Some of the roads planned for this have ~6k AADT.

Even some of the interurbans, which connect the major cities, have only an AADT of 9 or 10,000 at their middle bits, but are being built as HQDC/motorway for safety reasons and to provide much needed bypasses of bottlenecked villages en-route.

Puts it in perspective


----------



## Nephasto

dios tanatos said:


> "Dual carriageway" is such an old-fashioned term. It is cars & not carriages that travel on them. Why don't you start calling them "two-lane highways"? Just because it is a Yank coinage?


Two lane? Well, as far as I know, a regular road is a two lane road: 2x1.


----------



## Jean Luc

Jonesy55 said:


> Here's an interesting feature of the M62 between Manchester and Leeds
> 
> When the motorway was built in the 1960s, one farmer refused to sell his 18th century farmhouse to the government and so they just built three lanes around one side of it and three lanes around the other side. To reach the outside world, he has a tunnel under the carriageway which leads eventually to a local road. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around this point in the motorway also happens to be the highest the UK network gets above sea level, 439m


Why didn't they just build the entire motorway on one side of the farmhouse? Were the roadbuilders just getting back at him for not selling his land? Seems a bit mean to me, although another part of me says "serves him right for not selling"...

BTW, in the second photo there are what appear to be arrowheads (arrows without the stems) painted on the lanes on the left hand carraigeway, at the bottom of the picture. What do they mean?

I guess it snows there too in winter, eh?


----------



## Mateusz

£20 million scheme to widen the M1 in South Yorkshire nears completion

A major scheme to widen one of the busiest stretches of the M1 in Yorkshire is nearing completion.

The new M1 northbound carriageway between junctions 31 to 32 near Sheffield fully re−opens early on Saturday morning (15th December). The new southbound lanes are expected to be finished before Christmas. Both carriageways have been widened from three lanes to four with the aim of increasing capacity and improving safety.

A 50 mph speed limit will remain in place for safety reasons on the southbound stretch until February 2008 to allow completion work on new overhead electronic signs.

The widening work on the M1 junctions 31 to 32 is being carried out by Jackson Civil Engineering Ltd


----------



## RKC

Jonesy55 said:


> Here's an interesting feature of the M62 between Manchester and Leeds
> 
> When the motorway was built in the 1960s, one farmer refused to sell his 18th century farmhouse to the government and so they just built three lanes around one side of it and three lanes around the other side. To reach the outside world, he has a tunnel under the carriageway which leads eventually to a local road. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around this point in the motorway also happens to be the highest the UK network gets above sea level, 439m


hahaha dumbass, serves him right...
we got the same probs with the M0 in Budapest








also agree about the "enviromentalists" their idea of protecting the environment is not to build anything, better if we suffocate in our gases


----------



## Jonesy55

Chriszwolle said:


> It's not directly comparable, since Britain's motorways are almost always 2x3 lanes, and Dutch motorways are almost always 2x2 lanes.
> 
> And i'm not familiar with truck traffic in Britain, but Antwerp and Rotterdam are one of Europe's largest ports. Every 3 seconds, a truck departs from Antwerp, and this is arguably even higher in Rotterdam (larger harbor).
> 
> On some Belgian and Dutch motorways, the right lane is one line of trucks for miles and miles.


True, there is obviously more through-traffic in Benelux and Rhein-Ruhr whereas everthing in Britain is going to or from a British destination (except for a small amount between Ireland and the continent).

I have noticed a huge increase in commercial traffic in recent years on British motorways though, it's not unusual to have congested motorways where 50% of the traffic is trucks and vans, even in the midlands away from the ports.


----------



## willkill

Around the Midlands there are a lot of huge retail distribution centres so a lot of commercial traffic goes from around there up and down the M1, up the M6 etc. I'd seen them before whilst being driven along the M1 but didn't realise the huge scale until I watched The Secret Life of The Motorway which was on BBC4 a while back, don't think it's been mentioned in the thread but I found it very interesting about the growth of the UK motorway network and more recently protests around expanding it.


----------



## Jonesy55

willkill said:


> Around the Midlands there are a lot of huge retail distribution centres so a lot of commercial traffic goes from around there up and down the M1, up the M6 etc.


Yes, there is a huge new one that I pass on the train every day near to the M5 near Birmingham, I think it's Parceline but I could be wrong. There are well over 100 loading bays, it must be almost a kilometre long.


----------



## GlasgowMan

*M74 Expansion, Glasgow*

*M74 Expansion Given Final Go-Ahead*
Ministers have given the final go-ahead to the extension of the M74 through south east Glasgow with the awarding of a £445m contract. 

Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson approved the tender from the sole bidder, Interlink M74 - a consortium of construction companies. 

Campaigners against the link said the tender was against competition rules. 

Mr Stevenson said procurement was robust. Work is expected to begin in May and end in 2011. 

The Scottish Government said the scheme would reduce congestion and provide links to regeneration projects in the east end of Glasgow. 

Climate emissions 
Mr Stevenson said: "This project is also a crucial piece of the infrastructure which is required to provide excellent transport facilities for the visitors and athletes expected in the city as a result of the 2014 Commonwealth Games," he said. 

Glasgow City Council leader Steven Purcell said the scheme was tremendous news. 

The contract for £445m - plus an allowance of £12m for the possible treatment of mine workings - was awarded to a consortium which brought together Morgan Est, Balfour Beatty, Morrisons and McAlpines. 

The Scottish Green Party said it was in breach of European competition rules. 

One of its members lodged a complaint with the European Commission. 

Glasgow Green MSP Patrick Harvie said the decision marked a "dark day" for the city. 

"A sham tender process has been concluded with a sham review and an entirely irresponsible decision, given that the European Commission may pull the plug on the process altogether," he said. 

Mr Stevenson said: "Following an internal review of the procurement processes the government is confident that the procedures are robust and we are happy for Glasgow City Council to award the contract to the Interlink M74 Joint Venture." 

The five-mile extension is designed to connect the M74 to the M8, west of the Kingston Bridge in Glasgow. 

Business leaders said the route would bring "significant economic benefits" to Glasgow. 

Environmental campaigners said they were deeply disappointed by the decision. 

Dr Dan Barlow, acting director of WWF Scotland, said: "At a time when we really need to see concerted and joined-up action by government to reduce our climate emissions, the last thing we need is yet another road building project." 

The project had been backed by the Scottish Executive despite being rejected by a planning reporter after a public inquiry.


----------



## Mateusz

I'm wondering how many lanes will have this new stretch of motorway


----------



## Majestic

I took a look on GE and there's a densely built-up area between M8 exit and Eglinton St. How are they going to get that section done? For me it's either a tunnel or razing a few warehouses :hammer:


----------



## GlasgowMan

3 lanes both sides, so six lanes in total plus hard-shoulder. 

Allot of land has been cleared for the motorway and other sections will be on a flyover.


----------



## Majestic

6 lanes with shoulders plus a long flyover....impressive!!
Respek 

Edit: The rest of the planned route seems to run through an easy terrain-good for Glasgow!


----------



## GlasgowMan

Some more information and pictures here.




























:cheers::cheers:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Quite remarkable they are building a motorway at all in the United Kingdom... It has like the slowest pace of motorway construction in the world.


----------



## Zibou

It seems that most motorway projects in England were killed in the 1990s... The only stretches of blue line to be actually build are along the A1 corridor.
In Northern Ireland all motorway construction was stopped in 1975 (except for a few stretches...) and the proposed 1960s plan dropped.
Scotland is building (actually completing) its network at a respectable pace : completion of the M8, the opening of the M77 last year...


----------



## geogregor

In Poland we complain how slow is road construction in our country.
We can always say that at least we are not as slow as UK 
You know just to make as feel good.
Or at lest not as bad and complaining as usulall.


----------



## Chris_533976

Good stuff.

How did this get past the NIMBY brigade though? Werent they up in arms about it?


----------



## Verso

geogregor said:


> In Poland we complain how slow is road construction in our country.
> We can always say that at least we are not as slow as UK
> You know just to make as feel good.
> Or at lest not as bad and complaining as usulall.


Yeah, but the UK has a much better road/motorway infrastructure than Poland. 



Zibou said:


> In Northern Ireland all motorway construction was stopped in 1975 (except for a few stretches...) and the proposed 1960s plan dropped.


Will there ever be a full motorway between Belfast and Dublin?


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Chriszwolle said:


> Quite remarkable they are building a motorway at all in the United Kingdom... It has like the slowest pace of motorway construction in the world.


The UK is an island nation. It doesn't need the same amount of motorways as say, the Netherlands. That being said, it could do with the following new motorways (in my opinion):

- A motorway linking Newcastle to Edinburgh (converting the A1 to A1(M) all the way)

- A motorway linking Norwich/East Anglia to London

- A "South Coast" motorway going from Dover to Plymouth (an extension of the M27)

- A complete upgrade of the A34 (the road linking the channel ports of Portsmouth and Southampton with the Midlands) to motorway standard (it'd probably be called the A34(M).

- Widening of the M25 to a minimum of 5 lanes all the way

- A new "Western Orbital" motorway for Birmingham/West Midlands to take traffic out of the Black Country

- Upgrading the A14 to motorway standard

- Extending the M5 all the way down to Plymouth

- Widening the M8/A8 between Glasgow and Edinburgh to a minimum of 4 lanes each way, upgrading it to 100% motorway standard

These are just a few upgrades that'd really help ease congestion over there, but if they were ever actioned, I'd like to see them combined with greater investment in public transportation.


----------



## Chris_533976

Verso said:


> Yeah, but the UK has a much better road/motorway infrastructure than Poland.
> 
> Will there ever be a full motorway between Belfast and Dublin?


Its motorway/HQDC all the way to the NI border at the moment, then bits of single carriageway, some at grade DC and then motorway again to Belfast.

I think the plan is to make the remainder DC anyway, but whether it'll be motorway in name I dont know.


----------



## Mateusz

Angry_Chair said:


> The UK is an island nation. It doesn't need the same amount of motorways as say, the Netherlands. That being said, it could do with the following new motorways (in my opinion):
> 
> - A motorway linking Newcastle to Edinburgh (converting the A1 to A1(M) all the way)
> 
> - A motorway linking Norwich/East Anglia to London
> 
> - A "South Coast" motorway going from Dover to Plymouth (an extension of the M27)
> 
> - A complete upgrade of the A34 (the road linking the channel ports of Portsmouth and Southampton with the Midlands) to motorway standard (it'd probably be called the A34(M).
> 
> - Widening of the M25 to a minimum of 5 lanes all the way
> 
> - A new "Western Orbital" motorway for Birmingham/West Midlands to take traffic out of the Black Country
> 
> - Upgrading the A14 to motorway standard
> 
> - Extending the M5 all the way down to Plymouth
> 
> - Widening the M8/A8 between Glasgow and Edinburgh to a minimum of 4 lanes each way, upgrading it to 100% motorway standard
> 
> These are just a few upgrades that'd really help ease congestion over there, but if they were ever actioned, I'd like to see them combined with greater investment in public transportation.


I would add also extension of M67 from Manchester to Sheffield


----------



## GlasgowMan

Chris_533976 said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> How did this get past the NIMBY brigade though? Werent they up in arms about it?


They tried their best to stop this but the Government basically told them where do go:banana:


----------



## GlasgowMan

Some more detailed images of junctions.





































Can’t wait for this to be completed! :banana::banana:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> Mr Stevenson said: "This project is also a crucial piece of the infrastructure which is required to provide excellent transport facilities for the visitors and athletes expected in the city as a result of the 2014 Commonwealth Games," he said.


It's kinda sad that they only build infrastructure to look good to foreigners and athletes, but they don't give a shit about their own inhabitants transportation needs. This road should have been completed decades ago.


----------



## GlasgowMan

Chriszwolle said:


> It's kinda sad that they only build infrastructure to look good to foreigners and athletes, but they don't give a shit about their own inhabitants transportation needs. This road should have been completed decades ago.


Glasgow City Council have wanted this completed for about 20 years now, it was the “Greens” causing all the hold ups etc.


----------



## Verso

Chriszwolle said:


> It's kinda sad that they only build infrastructure to look good to foreigners and athletes, but they don't give a shit about their own inhabitants transportation needs. This road should have been completed decades ago.


It never ceases to amaze me how some games (especially the Olympics!) can be so important to all of a sudden start building highways everywhere. The Soviet Union built a 4-lane road from Moscow all the way to Poland just for the Olympics in Moscow in 1980. Now Poland and Ukraine sped up their construction of motorways just b/c of Euro 2012. :nuts:


----------



## hoosier

Build more roads and you will only cause more traffic and more demand for new roads. How about a new light rail or subway line instead of building a big concrete ribbon through the middle of Glasgow?

Thank God for the "greens." They are the reason you can be reasonably sure the water you drink and the air you breathe are safe and that there are trees still in existence.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

hoosier said:


> Build more roads and you will only cause more traffic and more demand for new roads.


You are wrong. The right sentence should be: "Build more neighborhoods and you will only cause more traffic and more demand for new roads".

You just have to adjust your infrastructure to spatial changes and growing population. There is no point where you can say "we don't have to do anything about the roads anymore", while your population is still growing.


----------



## Svartmetall

Chriszwolle said:


> You are wrong. The right sentence should be: "Build more neighborhoods and you will only cause more traffic and more demand for new roads".
> 
> You just have to adjust your infrastructure to spatial changes and growing population. There is no point where you can say "we don't have to do anything about the roads anymore", while your population is still growing.


It has been argued (and studied and cited in numerous journals such as the European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research) that limiting traffic congestion by constructing new roads can create an impression in the local community that now congestion has been negated the motor car is a better form of transport than any form of public transport. Thus you get a modal shift towards private transport when new road links are created.This very much depends on the mindset of the country involved, however. 

I'd still say that I favour PT developments over motorway though. I'd rather there be rapid rail links or a pre-metro/stadtbahn system installed in favour of more motorways.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ We all know what doing nothing to roads have led to: evergrowing traffic jams. The Netherlands and the UK are perfect examples of that, and Belgium is also heading up in T-jams. 



> he motor car is a better form of transport than any form of public transport.


It is more efficient, and always will be, unless you live in ultra dense cities like Tokyo. But the majority of the cities are not that dense, thus the car will always be more efficient. 

In many countries, it's not so much an issue as "more motorways", but "wider motorways". Especially in European countries, and the US, the network is pretty much okay, though the capacity hasn't been adjusted to population growth and spatial developments.

You cannot build endless seas of houses and new housing projects, without adjusting the roads. Even with a lot of good and fast public transportation, there will always be a lot of car traffic. New York is a good example of that. 



> Thus you get a modal shift towards private transport when new road links are created.


This happens pretty much anyway. For example, in the Netherlands, they are constructing mass housing projects for double income households, often having two cars, because both work somewhere else. These new projects are badly linked with the roads, and the connecting roads are not improved. They (the government, planners etc) thought this would take away the car transportation needs. 

They have been proved wrong with every spatial development. The manipulability is low. 

British traffic jams costs the economy about 25 billion euro's annually. You can construct a lot of road widening projects for that money. I bet it's even like 5 - 10 times the annual road budget.


----------



## Svartmetall

Chriszwolle said:


> ^^ We all know what doing nothing to roads have led to: evergrowing traffic jams. The Netherlands and the UK are perfect examples of that, and Belgium is also heading up in T-jams.
> 
> 
> 
> It is more efficient, and always will be, unless you live in ultra dense cities like Tokyo. But the majority of the cities are not that dense, thus the car will always be more efficient.
> 
> In many countries, it's not so much an issue as "more motorways", but "wider motorways". Especially in European countries, and the US, the network is pretty much okay, though the capacity hasn't been adjusted to population growth and spatial developments.
> 
> You cannot build endless seas of houses and new housing projects, without adjusting the roads. Even with a lot of good and fast public transportation, there will always be a lot of car traffic. New York is a good example of that.
> 
> 
> 
> This happens pretty much anyway. For example, in the Netherlands, they are constructing mass housing projects for double income households, often having two cars, because both work somewhere else. These new projects are badly linked with the roads, and the connecting roads are not improved. They (the government, planners etc) thought this would take away the car transportation needs.
> 
> They have been proved wrong with every spatial development. The manipulability is low.
> 
> British traffic jams costs the economy about 25 billion euro's annually. You can construct a lot of road widening projects for that money. I bet it's even like 5 - 10 times the annual road budget.


Quite a lot of this is very much road lobby rhetoric. I respect your opinion Chris, but saying that transit doesn't work unless the city is hyperdense is really rather stilted towards road building. Yes, transit won't work for SOME people with jobs that rely upon cars, but for the majority of people, as long as coverage is good, it can be just as quick to catch a train as it is to drive and usually results in being much cheaper. 

The BVG in Berlin has 1.4 billion passengers carried on their network every year in a city with a metropolitan population of around 4.2 million give or take depending on which stats you read. This I think shows that transit CAN work in a city that isn't hyperdense and one that has a reasonable road network. 

You can't just take away roads and expect people to take public transport unless the transit is good, I agree, but again as I said, a lot of it comes down to societal mindset and this is the key thing that needs to be changed. I personally hate large roads and cars clogging my neighbourhood which is one reason that I always liked my time in London because even though there were cars there for those silly enough to drive, they weren't overly noisy or in your face because the roads are narrow.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Svartmetall said:


> Quite a lot of this is very much road lobby rhetoric. I respect your opinion Chris, but saying that transit doesn't work unless the city is hyperdense is really rather stilted towards road building. Yes, transit won't work for SOME people with jobs that rely upon cars, but for the majority of people, as long as coverage is good, it can be just as quick to catch a train as it is to drive and usually results in being much cheaper.


SOME = MOST in the Netherlands. 

Coverage is the whole problem. It is technically possible to build a hyperdense public transportation network, to serve the majority of the population well. The costs of this kind of plans would be extraordinary and prohibitively expensive. 

Per travelled mile, public transportation is very expensive. 

An example:

Netherlands:

PT accumulate 23,1 billion traveller-kilometers.
Roads accumulate 141,9 billion traveller-kilometers.

Yet the amount of investments are the same per modality, hence the public transportation is over 6 times more expensive. Ofcourse, the traveller doesn't care about that, since they don't pay the full price for transportation. 

This will increase exponential when PT is expanded to serve more people. Simply because the usage doesn't increase at the same rate with investments, making PT even more expensive per travelled mile. So, thechnically it's possible, but at what price? It is way cheaper to just add some lanes to motorways, and improve urban roads with small tunnels under traffic-light intersections, which improves traffic flow much more than public transportation.

Besides that, PT and roads are generally a different transportation demand. In the Netherlands, less than 15% of the commuters uses public transportation. 
There is also the fact of "choice traveller", which means people having an actual choice between modality's. This is generally low, meaning people often don't have a good choice. In theory it's possible to reach all places in the country, yet at a much longer travel time than with a car. Even with very long traffic jams, the car is usually faster. 

You have to understand, i am not opposed to public transportation, but with the limited budgets available, i think we have to make the right, and most realistic choice of investments.


----------



## Svartmetall

Chriszwolle said:


> SOME = MOST in the Netherlands.
> 
> Per travelled mile, public transportation is very expensive.


In some cases, yes. However, I would also counter that Australia, New Zealand and the USA spend proportionately FAR more of their budgets on transportation than European nations despite the fact that public transport provision and modal share is low in each of these countries. 

True, subsidies do exist for PT and true taxpayers generally foot the bill, but roading costs too and road maintenance is incredibly expensive and the hidden costs associated with roads can mount up too. 

Give me some time after my exams on wednesday and I'll be quite happy to dig out some proper academically written literature associated with this topic if you are interested.


----------



## city_thing

For such a small extension, this is a very expensive project. Is it normal to be paying this much for this type of project in Scotland?


----------



## Liam-Manchester

Interesting thread, I haven't seen this before. I have to say I agree with what people said a lot earlier in the thread about the signing on British motorways. It's something I feel quite strongly about- the big cities should be signed from further out than they are. The most notable for me is travelling south on the M6 from Scotland- Manchester and Liverpool should be signed much further out than they are. About 100km from the Scottish border you still get no signs to any big city, with only places like Blackpool and Preston placed on the signs. Manchester should certainly be on the signs right from the Scottish border in my opinion as the M6 runs very close to the city and it is the first major city that the motorway meets travelling south. You only see the first sign to Manchester on the M6 around the Preston area, which is ridiculously close! The sign designs though I think are very good, British signage is very clear in my opinion.


----------



## Mackem

Jonesy55 said:


> Yes, there is a huge new one that I pass on the train every day near to the M5 near Birmingham, I think it's Parceline but I could be wrong. There are well over 100 loading bays, it must be almost a kilometre long.


You could probably multiply that by 3 when the new building comes on line. The midlands are a distribution centre, they also have much of the remaining manufacturing industry, hence to high degree of LGV traffic. My understanding is the the M6 & M62 have the highest levels of truck traffic in the UK as a percentage due to the industrial ares served by them.


----------



## Timon91

I have two pics over here, made by me on a small trip to Northern Ireland in May 2007. 
First one is the Northern Irish coastal road, not far from Belfast:










This is a small rural road near Thorr's End (or whatsever it's called) It's just somewhere in the northeast:










I know the last picture is taken from the right side of the road, but the guy who was riding the car just put it there for me to take a picture


----------



## Jeroen669

That last pic looks pretty cool.


----------



## Timon91

That is also the reason why I took it :lol: 
The Northern Irish coast is very cool.


----------



## Mateusz

I know it is not a motorway or something but I done photorelation, couple weeks ago. From Wombwell to Barnsley(Interchange). It was also in other thread but it still may be intresting :cheers:

http://picasaweb.google.com/mateuszw90/MyCommute


----------



## [email protected]

Scotland does have motorways. Carlisle to Glasgow M74/A74M. M8 Greenock-Glasgow-Edinburgh
M9 Edinburgh-Stirling. M80 Glasgow-Stirling. M90 Edinburgh-Perth M77 Glasgow-Kilmarnock. plus several shorter sections. In addition many of Scotland's "A" roads are divided highways built virtually to Motorway standards with mostly grade separated junctions.e.g A9 Stirling-Perth. A90 Perth-Aberdeen. A1 Edinburgh-Dunbar. Biggest pressure in Scotland now is to convert the A9 between Perth and Inverness ( 105 miles ) to divided highway for its entire length. Right now it has but short stretches of divided highway.


----------



## Timon91

Northern Ireland only has 60 km of highways, and the road between Derry and Belfast is 2-lane for the longest section.


----------



## Realek

Maybe it's not the best place to ask, but still... What do those zig zag lines on British streets mean?


----------



## PLH

^^ bus stop, when a bus need to park on road lane and do not have special place for that


----------



## Realek

thnx

they seem to have many bus stops then, those lines are all over the place


----------



## PLH

^^ You thought about sth like this?










I couldn't find a better pic


----------



## Realek

yep that's it


----------



## gannman1975

"Prestonian: I live in Preston which is a smallish city of average significance, but it is often signposted further south as it is a well known marker for main routes heading further north to the Lakes/Scotland."

Just to jump in here for a sec - I am aware that it was Preston which got the first Motorway in the UK - the M6.


----------



## Svartmetall

PLH said:


> ^^ bus stop, when a bus need to park on road lane and do not have special place for that


Not true, I believe the zig zags also mean that you're coming up to a zebra crossing or other form of crossing. You can see it clearly on Google Earth. You don't get them at bus stops in Britain.


----------



## Mackem

Realek said:


> Maybe it's not the best place to ask, but still... What do those zig zag lines on British streets mean?


It means no overtaking, usually located near pedestrian crossings.


----------



## H123Laci

must read articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_protest_(UK)


----------



## channel

i hate driving is UK motorways, the m25, north circular 406, m11 and the m1/a1 are a night mare:bash: , the drivers are all dopy, trucks restricted to 55mph all using the overtaking lane and all signs are unhelp ful. :nuts:


----------



## H123Laci

channel said:


> ... and all signs are unhelp ful. :nuts:


There is so much critisism of road signs...

Don't you think that in the age of the PNAs and PDAs it has no importance at all anymore?

We made a 5000km tour in France (from Hungary) last summer.
And I can't remember any road sign because I followed the instructions of the PNA all the way...


----------



## flierfy

H123Laci said:


> There is so much critisism of road signs...
> 
> Don't you think that in the age of the PNAs and PDAs it has no importance at all anymore?
> 
> We made a 5000km tour in France (from Hungary) last summer.
> And I can't remember any road sign because I followed the instructions of the PNA all the way...


There are people who don't use this crap. So there is need of directional signage.


----------



## Jonesy55

channel said:


> i hate driving is UK motorways, the m25, north circular 406, m11 and the m1/a1 are a night mare:bash: , the drivers are all dopy, trucks restricted to 55mph all using the overtaking lane and all signs are unhelp ful. :nuts:


Trucks are not allowed in the outside lane and I've never seen one there.

I don't find any problems driving on UK motorways (except sometimes congestion), it seems simple to me. :dunno:


----------



## Svartmetall

flierfy said:


> There are people who don't use this crap. So there is need of directional signage.


I agree. I hate GPS rubbish. I never had issues with British signage though. I thought it was comprehensive, the route numbering system was excellent and it made it very easy to tell the quality of the road that you were going onto. 

If you want bad signs come to NZ. There are barely any signs in the cities in comparison and motorway signage is very unclear.


----------



## H123Laci

flierfy said:


> There are people who don't use this crap. So there is need of directional signage.


The fact that you can't use it doesn't mean it is a crap...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

flierfy said:


> There are people who don't use this crap. So there is need of directional signage.


Yes indeed. Well some people are so stupid they cannot drive without GPS.

I heard this story a while ago.

Some people were on holiday in France, and they had a car with GPS. Their car broke down, and they've rented a temporary car, and continued their trip. However, after a few hours, they called the Dutch motorists association assistance (ANWB), they were totally lost, because their rented car didn't have GPS.

GPS makes people stupid, they don't plan their trip anymore, and they have generally no idea how long or how far their trip is. People rely too much on their GPS, and they don't bring maps anymore, and also don't know the roads. 

Another story.

Some Dutch guy drove with GPS, and it telled him to go across the roundabout. However, that roundabout wasn't finished yet, but he did drive right across the roundabout, right into the concrete which wasn't finished yet. They had to tow his sunken car out of the concrete, and pour the concrete again. 

Third story:

A man was driving with his GPS, and lost the road, GPS lead him to the same point continuously. He thought he couldn't rely on his TomTom, so he decided to drive the wrong way on a motorway. :bash:


----------



## Timon91

^^:lol: I still use road maps. Last year in Poland this was quite difficult, because our map turned out to have the wrong road numbers on it. And if you have to follow the signs in Poland, you are doomed. We got lost several times.


----------



## H123Laci

Chriszwolle said:


> Yes indeed. Well some people are so stupid they cannot drive without GPS.



Well, it is proven by experiments that women have poor 3D capabilities, so they have problems with maps and orientation.
(however they are strong in doing things simultaneously... 

I think GPS is similar to the autogear:

If you learn to drive with autogear, you will not be able to use a manual gear car.
(If you learn to drive with GPS, you will not be able to use a paper map and orientate with it.)

I like maps and I can orientate with them and I alwas have one in my car.
But in unknown areas (mainly at night) it requires a lot of concentration.

In this case GPS helps a lot.

You can concentrate on driving and traffic or enjoy the view, while you are going directly to your destination on the best route planned accordig to your route options...

ps:
these stories seems to be urban legends and they ranks the drivers not the GPS...


----------



## Comfortably Numb

You know what I miss most about British Motorways?

....the fact that when you get on a motorway, you're allowed plenty of time to merge (the merge lanes are very long, compared to here).

I also miss the fact that motorways in the UK are much safer than expressways here in South Florida. In the UK, drivers are generally courteous and don't weave in/out of lanes, causing accident after accident. Here, people can overtake from ANY lane (unsafe), whereas in the UK, you're only supposed to overtake using the lane to your right.


----------



## Svartmetall

Angry_Chair said:


> You know what I miss most about British Motorways?
> 
> ....the fact that when you get on a motorway, you're allowed plenty of time to merge (the merge lanes are very long, compared to here).
> 
> I also miss the fact that motorways in the UK are much safer than expressways here in South Florida. In the UK, drivers are generally courteous and don't weave in/out of lanes, causing accident after accident. Here, people can overtake from ANY lane (unsafe), whereas in the UK, you're only supposed to overtake using the lane to your right.


The merging lanes are very short in New Zealand too, but then traffic is generally a lot heavier on the motorways and thus the speed tends to be lower than seen on the British motorway system (except during peak or an accident of course when you just get miles and miles of congestion). 

I miss people obeying GIVE WAY. It's a lovely simple concept but one that a lot of the world doesn't seem to acknowledge.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Svartmetall said:


> The merging lanes are very short in New Zealand too, but then traffic is generally a lot heavier on the motorways and thus the speed tends to be lower than seen on the British motorway system (except during peak or an accident of course when you just get miles and miles of congestion).
> 
> I miss people obeying GIVE WAY. It's a lovely simple concept but one that a lot of the world doesn't seem to acknowledge.


Driving in the UK, I remember that people were actually polite enough to LET you merge safely, unlike here where they'll speed up to prevent you from merging safely (which isn't good on a merge lane no longer than my friggin' right leg!). It's interesting that NZ is the same, but their highways look very similar to US highways (aside from the driving on the left thing).

On expressways here, you have people doing 40mph in one lane, 90mph in the other (this can be the lane to your left or to your right). Personally, I think it's very dangerous and leads to many accidents. In the UK, people generally drive at far more consistent speeds (even if everyone is consistently speeding). Of course, you get the odd nutcase doing 120mph in his company car, but that's about it.

Britain may not have as many miles of motorway as other countries, but the motorways are up to pretty good standard. If you take a look at all of the expressways/highways here in South Florida, you’ll realize that despite the huge # of lanes, very few would be up to British motorway standards, if they were somehow transported over there and dumped in the middle of Bedfordshire.

Anyway, that’s my Sunday morning analysis of British motorways….feel free to agree/disagree.


----------



## Jonesy55

^^ Drivers are usually polite on motorways here, most people are curteous enough to move over into the middle lane if they are able to so that merging cars can get onto the motorway.

There is no point being a rude or selfish driver, it rarely gains you anything and just makes all road-users more stressed, if people chilled out a bit when driving there would be fewer accidents and it would be more enjoyable.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Oh yeah, don't forget to visit uk.rippachtal.de

Lots of pics from user fierfly if i'm correct.


----------



## Manchester Planner

Gareth said:


> This sign is approaching a motorway exit. For Heathrow, stay on the M4. Stay on the motorway and follow signs for the M23, if you want Gatwick. Stay on the motorway and follow signs for the M40, if you want Oxford. Use the exit for the A412 and Maple Cross.


Also the "17" in the bottom left hand corner is the junction number - so this is junction 17 on the M4.


----------



## Manchester Planner

Chriszwolle - generally when driving on the British road network it's all about route numbers rather than destinations. So to get from A to Z it's a case of remembering, say, A45-B5667-A33-B4677 and following signs for those roads, rather than following a direction sign which has the destination name on. I think it's in part because there are so many destinations in our densely built country that this is done. A road sign could easily become quite long with place names!










Keeping it simple!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

But how about those 4-digit numbers? Those aren't that easy to remember for foreigners or people not known to the area.


----------



## Jonesy55

Chriszwolle said:


> About that too regional signage, i found these pics posted by me earlier in the thread.
> 
> This is the M6, one of the most important axis in the United Kingdom. However, only small towns are signed, no sign of Birmingham or even Liverpool or Manchester.


It's not something i'd ever thought about before I read this thread but yes, maybe major cities should be signposted in preference to the local/regional towns.

I think that the signs assume that most people on the road know that the M6 travels from the Scottish border to Liverpool/Manchester and then on to Birmingham so they signpost smaller destinations.

Clearly this might not be so good for somebody who is totally unused to the British motorway network but this probably isn't as much of a problem here as on the continent. If you are driving in the UK it's because your destination is in the UK, there is no transit traffic because we are at the edge of Europe. In, say, Bavaria on the other hand, there will be Danes driving to Italy, Czechs driving to France, Swiss driving to Poland, Italians driving to The Netherlands etc so it is more important to sign major cities to give people a general idea of where they are heading :dunno:


----------



## Manchester Planner

Chriszwolle said:


> But how about those 4-digit numbers? Those aren't that easy to remember for foreigners or people not known to the area.


I don't think our system is designed for international travel and foreigners... Especially from Europe, with our left driving, miles...


----------



## Svartmetall

Most people have a map, Chris. Britain is incredibly dense for the most part and has big cities everywhere. As Manchesterplanner says, the road signs would get very long if they were all listed! 

Most people know vaguely where their destination city is so when you see "M1 NORTH" and know you're in London and want to get to Birmingham it's usually a good guess that you'd want to go North.


----------



## Jonesy55

Chriszwolle said:


> But how about those 4-digit numbers? Those aren't that easy to remember for foreigners or people not known to the area.


No, but they are usally small roads, how are very small roads numbered in other countries? Surely there are far too many to all have 1, 2 or 3 digit numbers?


----------



## Manchester Planner

Yeah, B roads in the UK are local roads, usually in the countryside. They mostly have four digit codes, apart from a few three digit ones (in London mainly). They generally look like this:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/287097

The B5062 in Shropshire (Jonesy's county!)

Found a nicer one, which has been resurfaced recently:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/245677

The B4379, also in Shropshire


----------



## Wuppeltje

If we go to the UK again, we probably would be using a Tomtom. In the past however the UK signs we found out that UK signs were a problem. A large city is clear, using a road number only is risky, because you can go both ways.


----------



## Manchester Planner

I think this debate demonstrates the differences between driving in Britain and in continental Europe! It's more than just miles v km, left v right - the signage is different and the way people go about journeys is different too. And of course we use the "A" letter for major classic roads rather than motorways (which we give "M" lettering to). We also love the dual carriageway, which is to all intents and purposes a motorway, but without the hard shoulder and with green rather than blue signs! (Though saying that, most dual carriageways do have a small hard shoulder, or at least a grass/gravel strip down the side. I'm sure many of our dual carriageways would be classed as motorways in a lot of European countries.)


----------



## Gareth

Chriszwolle said:


> In my opinion, they show a few too much road numbers. It's not always clear which road you're on (look at the first motorway pic). Also, the roadnumbers appear too large in my opinion. Besides that, i think destinations are choosen too regionally, in other words, they don't always sign major cities far away. Since there are a lot of major cities in the UK, it's not always clear how to take a route to Birmingham from the north for instance.


But you're looking at that photo on the internet, which someone else posted up. If you were actually there, it should be apparent to you that you're already on the M4. You not liking the size of the numbers is more an aesthetic, rather than funtional issue. The whole point of the system is that you follow the number and its control destinations. When I leave Liverpool, the M62 tells me that St Helens, Warrington and Manchester are coming up. It doesn't sign Leeds, even though it eventually goes past Leeds. Once you get to Manchester, it signs Leeds, and other places in Yorkshire. Yes, it is assuming I know that Yorkshire is the other side of Manchester, but so what? If you've such a poor knowledge of UK geography, you should use an atlas. Likewise, if I want to drive to London, there are no signs on the M62, however, I already know that I need the M6. When I arrive at that interchange, you're instructed to get into lane. The three options are leave for the M6 North to Preston, leave for the M6 South to Birmingham, or stay on the M62 for Manchester. It's immediately apparent to me that M6 South Birmingham is the option to take. If I was going to Yorkshire, I'd know to stay on the motorway. If I wanted Scotland, I'd know M6 North Preston was the option to take, without any of these places being signed. If your knowledge of UK geography doesn't allow you to know that Birmingham is on the way to London, if you're travelling from Liverpool, then you really should plan beforehand. Road signs are merely to assist you in your navigation, not be your navigation. Okay, you can argue that it would be easier for me to be told, as soon as I leave Liverpool, where London is in relation to me at each stage, but that doesn't help me if I want to go to Milton Keynes, of Beford, or St Albans.



Chriszwolle said:


> However, i don't think the UK signage is that bad. One of the most important things to me is that "signage is meant for those unknown to the area/system, not for those driving there regularly". So signage has to be clear instantly to someone unknown to the area.


I don't see the beef. I'd never drive abroad relying purely on the road sign system. I'd have already pre-planned what numbered routes I was going to take. It's the same if I was going to a small town off some secondary road, in a part of the UK I'm unfamiliar with.



Chriszwolle said:


> Of what i've heard from Dutch road meetings at signage factories, they say the British gantry's (overheads and signage structure) are by far the unsafest due to their massiveness, and their often concrete poles. I don't know wether it's true, but it were experts saying that.


Another way of looking at it is that their mass aids their visibility, which helps with safety. I've never heard of such things falling down, even in gales. There's always two ways of looking at something.


----------



## Jonesy55

Manchester Planner said:


> Yeah, B roads in the UK are local roads, usually in the countryside. They mostly have four digit codes, apart from a few three digit ones (in London mainly). They generally look like this:
> 
> http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/287097
> 
> The B5062 in Shropshire (Jonesy's county!)
> 
> Found a nicer one, which has been resurfaced recently:
> 
> The B4379, also in Shropshire


I like this one, it's labelled "nothing of interest on the B5063" :laugh:










The B5063 is not far from the B5062, I guess that could be confusing but I don't go by the road numbers here and major cities like Wem and Whitchurch are clearly signposted


----------



## Gareth

Chriszwolle said:


> About that too regional signage, i found these pics posted by me earlier in the thread.
> 
> This is the M6, one of the most important axis in the United Kingdom. However, only small towns are signed, no sign of Birmingham or even Liverpool or Manchester.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My proposition (i used a German style program, but don't think i want German style signs )


Your photographic example clearly tells me that that stretch of the M6 is not far south of Carlisle and the Scottish border. It's also apparent by the 'The South' legend, that I'm going south and not north. Therefore, I automatically know that I'm going in the right direction for Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham & London. Again, if your geographic knowledge is not telling you that at that point, Liverpool, London, Paris, Barcelona, Addis Ababa & Cape Town are in front of you and that Carlisle, Glasgow, Thurso & Reykjavik are behind you, then you should plan ahead with a road atlas. If you want to pander to people who have no geographical knowledge of the UK, signing Liverpool and Manchester aren't going to help people who want Stockport, Blackburn, Chester and Southport.

By the way, we do have route confirmation signs like the one you made. Liverpool and Manchester are signed on the M6 quite a way north and south of the M62 interchange, just not that far north. You'll get signs for Preston first.


----------



## Manchester Planner

Jonesy55 said:


> ...major cities like Wem and Whitchurch are clearly signposted


:lol:

Oh Shropshire..!


----------



## RoadUser

Hi all,

I've driven a great deal in the UK and (nearly) always found the signposting to be very clear. 

The one real exception that I came across to this, where everything broke down and entered a kind of surreal signpost hell, was trying to navigate my way off the Coventry ring-road to the M40. I worked in Coventry for over a month and for the first few days I found myself going round and round, trying to work out which was the correct exit.


----------



## Jonesy55

^^ Few people ever escape Coventry, you should count yourself lucky!


----------



## Gareth

The system isn't perfect, but where it does get complicated is more in urban areas, rather than on motorways and long distance roads. My only bugbear with M6 signing is that it instructs Liverpool-bound traffic from the north, to change onto the M58, even though for much of the city, the M62 is better. I'm not sure if this is to try and add some relief to those parts of the M6/M62, whereas the M58 & M57 are very quiet, but anyone who knows the area will know that for central Liverpool, the M62 is better.


----------



## Verso

I still think not signing Manchester and Liverpool there is quite ridiculous. On the continent we (I do though) don't even know major road numbers, let alone minor ones, and you don't see it always written on maps, especially minor ones, whereas you even have small towns written on maps (at least those with normal scale). If I asked my friends or family how the most important highway(s) here were designated, I don't think they'd have a clue.

Chris, how did you enlarge the pic?


----------



## Gareth

I don't see why it's vital to sign Manchester and Liverpool in the very far north of England, just south of the Scottish border. They are miles away. Like I said, they are signed once you get within about 50 miles, so large cities do get some precidence. Again, if you're just south of the Scottish border, it should be apparent that Liverpool is in front of you, not behind. I really do thing numbers benefit more people than just big cities.


----------



## Verso

Stuu said:


> Its a fair point that they are airports but they are probably much better known than the suburbs and commuter towns the road passes.


Ok, it's not the best example, as it's a simple exit anyway (although it's hard to notice, as the whole sign is blue). Oxford for M40 is ok, b/c of its renown, so Birmingham isn't exactly necessary [except by the junction with the M40, where it's written (B'ham)]. Heathrow for M4 is also ok, b/c of its instant proximity to the interchange M25×M4 and the sign itself, although Bristol wouldn't hurt. But Gatwick for M23 is nonsense. Instead it should be Crawley or Brighton. And if there's sign for M23, there's no logic in not signing M3, which comes first, and Southampton as the destination. We're not talking about signing unknown suburbs here.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The problem on the M25 is that there aren't enough large places that could function as a control city on the signs. So you're either stuck with dozens of places along connecting (radiating) motorways, or focal points such as airports or bridges.


----------



## ElviS77

Svartmetall said:


> In some cases, yes. However, I would also counter that Australia, New Zealand and the USA spend proportionately FAR more of their budgets on transportation than European nations despite the fact that public transport provision and modal share is low in each of these countries.
> 
> True, subsidies do exist for PT and true taxpayers generally foot the bill, but roading costs too and road maintenance is incredibly expensive and the hidden costs associated with roads can mount up too.
> 
> Give me some time after my exams on wednesday and I'll be quite happy to dig out some proper academically written literature associated with this topic if you are interested.


I think the main point should be to realise that neither roads nor public transport alone can solve all congestion problems we face today, whether they are local, regional, national or international. We need efficient metro systems, high- and slower-speed trains, bus lanes, trams... but also quality motorways sppplemented by good highways. I live in "the world's richest country", and we have none of the above...


----------



## sotonsi

Verso said:


> And way too much stress is put on airports. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted etc. are small places; how am I supposed to find them on map, if I'm not interested in airports? Most people coming by plane don't rent cars, and British taxi- and bus drivers know where the airports are anyway.


The original M25 control destinations were Gatwick M23; Heathrow M4; Watford & M1; Harlow M11 and Dartford Tunnel. The road numbers have all gained brackets, as the roads aren't considered destinations anymore. 'Harlow M11' has since changed to 'Stansted M11' as Stansted is better known. Some of the Watford ones became Luton (signing the airport) - the rest lost their '&' or became 'The NORTH M1' though it seems that Watford is the current choice (and in British culture, Watford (though not this one) is the gateway to the north). Dartford Tunnel became 'Dartford Crossing' when they put the bridge in.


Stuu said:


> Re the comments about road numbers not being useful, this is how virtually everyone in the UK refers to roads, I'm genuinely surprised that this isn't how people refer to roads elsewhere in Europe, on other threads people talk about the Hungarian M3 etc. Whether the use of road numbers for general direction finding is because of the signs work or the reason for them is a different question


While the destinations are airports (or Watford or a feature of the road), they are always coupled with a road number. The M11 stands out - the M4 is at the 9 o'clock position, the M1 at the 11 o'clock position (and heads 'due north' in a warped British geography, so is really the 12 o'clock position) the M11 is between 1 and 2 o'clock, the Dartford crossing is at 3 o'clock and the M23 is at 6 o'clock. They are all a quarter of the way round (roughly). I guess that the M11 is on there as M1-Dartford is rather a long stretch. As we navigate in numbers (or things like 'go through the Dartford Tunnel') these make much more sense. The M20, M40 and M3 appear on signs as well, normally when entering the Motorway network onto the M25. The signs at junction 18 have M25 South (M40, M4, M3) and M25 North (M1, A1(M), M11) IIRC.


flierfy said:


> The example you came up with is great. It got it all in once the flaws of the British road signage. As already mentioned it is mainly based on road numbers. And that's the reason why this sign is utter crap.


it's not too bad - there's far more flaws it could have. I could lack of 'M25', lack of brackets on M4, M40 and M23 (not standard when that sign was put up on the M25 - the roads were destinations), little aeroplane symbols, rather than a big one, and the M4, M40 and M23 shouldn't be above the arrow (as that's where the 'M25' goes). However, you should know that you are on the M25 by know, and the previous signs for the junction (3 of them) have M25 on them. Having 4 road numbers (even if some bracketed) on one sign isn't a good idea - which destination would you get rid of there to put 'M25' on? You have next two control destinations and the next junction (signed with the horribly far away Oxford - that's the worst thing about that sign - it's fine when there's a couple of destinations along the M40, but Oxford just jars when it's the only one, and you're at that location - it goes against the status quo - it's too far away, yet not a compass direction).


> It is neither on the M4, the M23 nor the M40. It is J17 on the M25. It fooled you and anybody else. Now tell me how someone who isn't used to places like Gatwick or Heathrow is supposed to find his way when even the only useful information is wrong and misleading.


numbers. Most of the people on the M25 would be wondering which way to go if you had all sorts of far off places that were - all they want to do is make a local journey, not go to the other side of the country. Oxford is a far more annoying destination than Heathrow and Gatwick, which are common destinations for longer distance people (not lorry drivers, but then they ought to be good navigators anyway) and locals (we're talking anyone who lives within 100 miles of the M25, if not 200) should know roughly where they are, and also what directions the roads that they are attached to head out of London in.


> This sign differs from the standard I have to admit. A standard that isn't bad generally. However, signing small town rather than big cities on motorways isn't really helpful. And not just for Europeans.


However Heathrow and Gatwick are treated by the British road signing system as big cities - far more important than most of the commuter belt towns near to the M25. I think that Reading (or Bristol) M4; Brighton M23 would be even more confusing than Heathrow and Gatwick - Heathrow is on the M25, as are Watford and the Dartford Crossing, Gatwick and Stansted are close enough to it to make sense.

To take that awful 'Oxford M40' destination as an example - if I wanted to go to High Wycombe (which is about the same size as Oxford, just not the furthest away place on the M40 you'd want to use the M40 to get to from that point) I'd have to know both where Oxford was and where High Wycombe was, and where I am, to know that heading towards Oxford would take me to High Wycombe. The M40 is the important thing here - If I was going to either Oxford or High Wycombe, I should know that the M40 heads that way, so I see M40 and know that I'm going the right way. The signs at the junction from the M25 show both, but here there's nowhere near enough room. Heathrow and Gatwick, as well as being important destinations in their own right, mark the cardinal West and South positions on the circular motorway, with Watford (being the biggest place on the M25, and the home of the junction with the M1 - the main road to the North) marking the Northern 'corner' (though really the NW), the M11 and Stansted marking the NE (filling in the gap due to the oval nature of the M25), Dartford marking the east.

Flierfly - what you you sign the onward direction on that sign as?
For myself, "Heathrow (M4), Gatwick (M23), Uxbridge (M40) M25" would fit the bill, however, you'd disagree as these are all 'small' places.
Would it be "Channel Tunnel, Birmingham (M40), Bristol (M4) M25"? After all - long distance, you ought to sign further round and further out! OK, Birmingham and Bristol is taking it to extremes (in my book at least) - how about Oxford and Reading? I wouldn't mind that much if it was "The WEST (M4)", but I feel that Heathrow should be signed, thus removing the need for a long distance destination there.


----------



## Verso

sotonsi said:


> You have next two control destinations and the next junction (signed with the horribly far away Oxford - that's the worst thing about that sign - it's fine when there's a couple of destinations along the M40, but Oxford just jars when it's the only one, and you're at that location - it goes against the status quo - it's too far away, yet not a compass direction).numbers.


Oh, come on; how much do you drive across England that you see Oxford as "horribly far away"? Oxford is as near as the other side of London. The British Empire was once the largest empire in the world, how can you be so "close-minded"? :laugh:

Also, I think the destination "Channel Tunnel" should be supplemented with "France" or "F" in ellipse.


----------



## sotonsi

Why do you think that signs should be long distance - you're the one being closed minded by saying that Oxford isn't too far away for that location when you live in Slovenia and you are ignoring the advice of an 'expert' - someone who has spent most of his life with that motorway junction being his closest motorway junction. Someone who is English and knows about how road signs work in this country and how that Oxford is too far away compared to every similar sign - no city the size of Oxford would be signed on a road that didn't lead directly to it (or to directly to a road that went straight to it), as a forward destination, from that far away - especially when there's a place a lot closer, that's the first control destination on the motorway (High Wycombe) that's half the distance away and nearly the same size.

Most of the traffic from there on the M25 comes off before then. Oxford is pretty useless as a destination there - at the M40 junction, yes, but then there's also High Wycombe, Uxbridge, Central London and (IIRC) Beaconsfield signed on the M40 from the M25 from Watford. Very little of the traffic heading that way is going to Oxford - it's going to the places in between. M40 and Oxford are also, in our number based system, rather linked - a destination less linked, but still important would be good - I chose Uxbridge as London (C) is rather dumb for the M25, plus it's the closest town to the junction and doubly good, as people might want to take the A412 at that junction to get to Uxbridge and nearby places, when they are better off carrying on down to the M40, for everywhere except Maple Cross.

As for Channel Tunnel needing to be supplanted with France, what needless clutter - it's really obvious that it goes to France, so why bother wasting the space.

Just because that's how they do things in Slovenia, or Germany, doesn't mean that's how they should do them in the UK - the countries have a very different geography (other than to get to Ireland, no one needs to drive through Britain to get to another country, unlike Germany or Slovenia) and method of doing things - the UK went with a number-destination hybrid system, and endorsed it more so when the motorways came along, with primary destinations (with names shown in green/yellow on modern UK maps) and the Motorway font for road numbers on Motorway signs. We have vague directions such as 'The NORTH' to save listing tons of far off places and only name ones closer in (the exception being London, which is like a direction thing anyway). Sometimes confirmation signs have ports, etc a long way off just before/after major junctions - eg the M6/A14 one. However direction signs don't have them. Birmingham at the M40/M25 junction must be the furthest away a non-London place is signed on a direction sign (and funnily enough, it's not signed again until a lot later).


----------



## flierfy

sotonsi said:


> it's not too bad - there's far more flaws it could have. I could lack of 'M25', lack of brackets on M4, M40 and M23 (not standard when that sign was put up on the M25 - the roads were destinations), little aeroplane symbols, rather than a big one, and the M4, M40 and M23 shouldn't be above the arrow (as that's where the 'M25' goes). *However, you should know that you are on the M25 by know, and the previous signs for the junction (3 of them) have M25 on them.* Having 4 road numbers (even if some bracketed) on one sign isn't a good idea - which destination would you get rid of there to put 'M25' on? You have next two control destinations and the next junction (signed with the horribly far away Oxford - that's the worst thing about that sign - it's fine when there's a couple of destinations along the M40, but Oxford just jars when it's the only one, and you're at that location - it goes against the status quo - it's too far away, yet not a compass direction).


No, the road number almost never appears on post-mounted ADS on the M25. Only road confirmation signs and gantry directional signs name this road.

Having 4 road numbers for one direction alone is indeed too much. But exactly this can be seen far too often in Britain.



sotonsi said:


> numbers. Most of the people on the M25 would be wondering which way to go if you had all sorts of far off places that were - all they want to do is make a local journey, not go to the other side of the country. Oxford is a far more annoying destination than Heathrow and Gatwick, which are common destinations for longer distance people (not lorry drivers, but then they ought to be good navigators anyway) and locals (we're talking anyone who lives within 100 miles of the M25, if not 200) should know roughly where they are, and also what directions the roads that they are attached to head out of London in.However Heathrow and Gatwick are treated by the British road signing system as big cities - far more important than most of the commuter belt towns near to the M25. I think that Reading (or Bristol) M4; Brighton M23 would be even more confusing than Heathrow and Gatwick - Heathrow is on the M25, as are Watford and the Dartford Crossing, Gatwick and Stansted are close enough to it to make sense.


Destinations have be chosen to describe the course of a road. Such places are cities or town at the end of the road or cities that outweigh any other place along that road by size and importance.



sotonsi said:


> Flierfly - what you you sign the onward direction on that sign as?
> For myself, "Heathrow (M4), Gatwick (M23), Uxbridge (M40) M25" would fit the bill, however, you'd disagree as these are all 'small' places.
> Would it be "Channel Tunnel, Birmingham (M40), Bristol (M4) M25"? After all - long distance, you ought to sign further round and further out! OK, Birmingham and Bristol is taking it to extremes (in my book at least) - how about Oxford and Reading? I wouldn't mind that much if it was "The WEST (M4)", but I feel that Heathrow should be signed, thus removing the need for a long distance destination there.


In case of J17 I'd just name the M25 and get rid of anything else and would rather fill the sign by one or two more places for the turning direction.

More importantly are the major junctions where the M25 interchanges with other motorway and should-be-motorways DC's where I'd indicate there direction by the following places:
A13 Southend
A127 Southend
A12 Ipswich
M11 Cambridge
A1 Edinburgh (that's a tricky one)
M1 Leeds
M40 Birmingham
M4 Bristol
M3 Southampton
A3 Portsmouth
M23 Brighton
M26 Dover
M20 Dover
A2 Dover


----------



## Verso

sotonsi said:


> Why do you think that signs should be long distance - you're the one being closed minded by saying that Oxford isn't too far away for that location when you live in Slovenia and you are ignoring the advice of an 'expert' - someone who has spent most of his life with that motorway junction being his closest motorway junction.


This is exactly why I'm more appropriate to comment the British signage; b/c signs are meant for those unknown to the area; you don't need _any_ signs there any more, as you've driven there hundreds of times.

I understand the London Orbital is a long road you don't just drive in a few minutes. I guess for many people it's the goal itself. My city's orbital is just 18 miles long and the most you'll drive of it is 9 mi (half). The M25 is 117 mi, so you can drive almost 60 mi on it. This distance already gets me to the seaside. But the problem is that there aren't any big towns along M25 and airports are seldom named on maps. It would be different, if London had just one airport.



flierfy said:


> A1 Edinburgh (that's a tricky one)


:lol: I'd put Peterborough here.


----------



## sotonsi

Flierfly and Verso - you are still imposing your European signing ideals on the UK - do foreign people make up the majority of people driving on UK roads? No - why should the minority be catered for? You are being small minded and thinking that your way is the only way - it's not - British people do just fine with the British system. It may be flawed, but half changing it and half not (ie bringing it in gradually) would be far more confusing for everyone - maybe if we change all the signs for metric will we change to a continental style of navigation  The approach you are suggesting has many merits, it's just that we aren't wired like that.


flierfy said:


> Having 4 road numbers for one direction alone is indeed too much. But exactly this can be seen far too often in Britain.


Here are some more European style signs in England (though by your system, The MIDLANDS would be Greenock, where the E05 ends and Salisbury would be Bath or Bristol, despite the A36 not being the quickest way between Southampton and Bath, The WEST would be Lands End. Then again - if it's the end of the road, it would just need to be Upton heading North, and Redbridge heading south - OK, maybe Romsey and Southampton Docks! Good for those truckers!).

Check out the two different routes to Southampton - it's what you get for signing the end destination - confusion - which way do I go? (for Shirley, I'd probably go down the M271 anyway - depends whereabouts in that very large suburb)


> Destinations have be chosen to describe the course of a road. Such places are cities or town at the end of the road or cities that outweigh any other place along that road by size and importance.


only in your thinking - to a Brit they often make no sense in signing - because they are too far away, or too obscure or both. Destinations in British thinking is the closest control/primary destination along that route - gives the option of destinations that you pass (which you wouldn't really if they were always at the end of roads) - Southampton-Basingstoke-Reading-High Wycombe-Amersham to go between my house and my parents, or numbers M3-A33-M4-A404. If it was end points it would be London-Reading-London-London, which is really useful - not! Or the reverse journey would be Maidenhead-Carmarthen-Southampton-Southampton. Not the most useful thing.


> In case of J17 I'd just name the M25 and get rid of anything else and would rather fill the sign by one or two more places for the turning direction.


Rickmansworth (S) (which is really just the same thing as Maple Cross) - what other locations does this junction serve? There's no other turning destinations, though I'd agree that having three onward ones is too much for a simple fork diagram - Heathrow M25 would work.


> More importantly are the major junctions where the M25 interchanges with other motorway and should-be-motorways DC's where I'd indicate there direction by the following places:
> A13 Southend


fair enough


> A127 Southend


maybe - though I wouldn't have both of these as Southend - A13 Northbound (with the A127 being Romford or Basildon) and A127 Southbound, with the A13 being Tilbury. Everyone for Southend would have left at the first junction, meaning the name at the second is superfluous and may as well be somewhere a bit closer.


> A12 Ipswich


why not Great Yarmouth . Chelmsford is fine (and to be fair, the M11-A120 route is better from the West for Colchester and beyond, especially when they finish it)


> M11 Cambridge


though it's the route to the A1 north of Peterborough - It's Cambridge heading towards Dartford and Edinburgh () heading away from Dartford.


> A1 Edinburgh (that's a tricky one)


to get to which you'd take either the M1 or M11, and also it's really not a useful destination - it's nearly 400 miles away and about 1 in 1000 people on the M25 would be heading there.


> M1 Leeds


that'll really annoy the people of York, Sheffield and so on - The M1 bypasses Leeds, just as it bypasses Sheffield!


> M40 Birmingham


from the Watford direction, you would use the M1-M6 to get to Brum.


> M4 Bristol


and what about South Wales?


> M3 Southampton


as much as I love my new home town,


> A3 Portsmouth


not the intuitive route - there's tons of signs telling you to go that way, to relieve pressure on the M3, which (from the North) is the sensible route at the moment.


> M23 Brighton


possibly the most reasonable of the lot - but Gatwick works just as well until the junction - Gatwick is kind of on the M25 route and can be a control destination better than just 'M23'.


> M26 Dover


maybe - but the Channel Tunnel is how it's signed now, IIRC.


> M20 Dover


the A2 is shorter, and the M26 takes most of the south side traffic off


> A2 Dover


not from the south, of course, as the M26/M20 takes that traffic.

Basically on the side where the distances travelled aren't much before you reach the end of the road, there's several routes. The same is true for Birmingham, and there's the problem of which route up the east coast - The M1/A1 route, the A1 route (which they don't want you doing) or the M11/A14/A1 route? The difference is which way round the M25 you're coming, I guess.


Verso said:


> This is exactly why I'm more appropriate to comment the British signage; b/c signs are meant for those unknown to the area; you don't need _any_ signs there any more, as you've driven there hundreds of times.


but I know the flows, I know the mindset of the majority of people using the road (being British)


> I understand the London Orbital is a long road you don't just drive in a few minutes.


so you got plenty of time to work out where you need to go, how the signage system works and so on...


> But the problem is that there aren't any big towns along M25 and airports are seldom named on maps.


Watford is a big town. Heathrow and Gatwick are primary destinations, and as such, on any UK made UK map, are rather obvious.


> It would be different, if London had just one airport.


why? Do your maps of the UK not have road numbers on - the destination is Heathrow (M4) or Gatwick (M23): a quick glance at the map would help you to see which way that's going. Anyway, Dartford would be on the map anyway, and if entering London from a port, you'd come to that first, unless you came from Portsmouth or Plymouth, where you'd have come to the M4 or you wouldn't be heading to Dover or (shock horror, you'd have looked at a map or invested in a British one and either know where you are going, or where the airports are!).


----------



## Jonesy55

I'm driving to the south coast tomorrow, if I end up in Scotland, that will be proof that the British signing system is crap, if I make it to Portsmouth with no problems it will be vindicated.

Watch this thread for updates


----------



## ttownfeen

These signs look way too busy - that is to say they have too much detail. If the driver unfamiliar with the area is smart and is carrying an atlas, s/he knows in which general direction s/he needs to be heading. S/he doesn't need every detail laid out in the signs.



This sign is overkill. From orienteering on Google maps, this seems to be a roundabout on Brownhill Way in northern Portsmouth near Junction 1 of the M271. At this point, a driver unfamiliar with the area would probably be saying to him/herself "I need to get on the M271; which way do I go?" S/He is not asking "How do I get to the 'The West' from here?" So, why is it necessary to list every destination the M271 could possibly lead you to?

Another thing, why are there two different signs for the two directions of the M271? It makes it seems at first glance if you are not familiar with the area that there are two different motorways in that direction. It seems to me the simplest and most effective sign to have here is one that says "To M271 -->"



According to Google maps, this is where Brownhill Way meets the M271 at Junction 1. This is sign is much clearer and more concise than the last one, but I would say it could still be improved (for somebody who doesn't already which way to go) by taking out the "The WEST" and "The MIDLANDS" (Do you really need a sign to tell you that?), leaving important regional control cities on the sign.


----------



## sotonsi

ttownfeen said:


> These signs look way too busy - that is to say they have too much detail. If the driver unfamiliar with the area is smart and is carrying an atlas, s/he knows in which general direction s/he needs to be heading. S/he doesn't need every detail laid out in the signs.


Indeed - these signs have a far more European feel to them. Most signs in the UK have two or three (maybe 4) locations each way.


> This sign is overkill. From orienteering on Google maps, this seems to be a roundabout on Brownhill Way in northern Portsmouth near Junction 1 of the M271.


wash your mouth out - Southampton is definitely not pompey! . You also mean Romsey Road - you got confused with the other one.


> At this point, a driver unfamiliar with the area would probably be saying to him/herself "I need to get on the M271; which way do I go?" S/He is not asking "How do I get to the 'The West' from here?" So, why is it necessary to list every destination the M271 could possibly lead you to?


it doesn't give every destination. It does give far too many.


> Another thing, why are there two different signs for the two directions of the M271?


because the other sign is for the places accessible by using the M27. The northern section of the M271 functions as both a Southampton radial, and a spur to it's bypass - the M27. I totally agree it is overkill. By the way, these are not two different directions, but the two different functions.


> It makes it seems at first glance if you are not familiar with the area that there are two different motorways in that direction. It seems to me the simplest and most effective sign to have here is one that says "To M271 -->"


but that would be wrong, as it is the M271, so the 'To' is superfluous. I guess that your Americanness makes you far more reliant on numbers.
"Southampton
Nursling Ind Est
Portsmouth
The WEST
M271 (M27, M3)" would be a far better sign than that massive long list of places. Especially as I side more with numbers than places. This is rather a local junction, there needn't be tons of far off places.


> According to Google maps, this is where Brownhill Way meets the M271 at Junction 1. This is sign is much clearer and more concise than the last one, but I would say it could still be improved (for somebody who doesn't already which way to go) by taking out the "The WEST" and "The MIDLANDS" (Do you really need a sign to tell you that?), leaving important regional control cities on the sign.


agree - in fact I would get rid of several of those cities too - we're talking a local junction with an unnumbered road here - while it's on an Euroroute, it doesn't carry little more than traffic to the industrial estate, and local traffic. All that needs to be said is which way the M27 is and which way the Southampton is for the different directions of the M271. 'The MIDLANDS' comes from it being the road from the Docks and 'The WEST' seems to be a generic thing to give the M27 (and the M271-A33 route into the city) a destination, trying to cut down on masses of places being signed - here, they sign all the 'The WEST' locations (pretty much), so it doesn't need to be on there. Then again, it does tell you what is 'The WEST', which is good, seeing as the long list is exclusive to the M271, pretty much - the signage at the M27/M271 junction is much more simple and has very few destinations.

Portsmouth (about the only bit of good signage principles there) just sign 'out of city' from their docks to the M27 (and also on other routes out of the city). Then again, they are on an island with only three bridges out - Southampton has lots of different ways 'out of city' and they go to different places.


----------



## Gareth

flierfy said:


> Now tell me how someone who isn't used to places like Gatwick or Heathrow is supposed to find his way when even the only useful information is wrong and misleading.


The information is not wrong or misleading. And if you aren't used to these places, use a road atlas.


----------



## Verso

The thing is probably that few foreigners drive there (even the French, who are notorious for not getting out of France much anyway ), whereas the British probably know very well where these airports are located, or at least English(wo)men.


----------



## flierfy

Gareth said:


> The information is not wrong or misleading. And if you aren't used to these places, use a road atlas.


Sure it is wrong. Look at the post above. Anyone considered it to be on the M4. It simply states the wrong road numbers. Don't deny that it's wrong when it obviously is.


----------



## Gareth

Okay then, what are the right road numbers then? Come on, let's see what's so wrong with this sign and how it could be put right. 

And throughout my life, I've never not known what motorway I was on. There are little signs, at the on ramp and also, periodically, rout confirmation signs, should you forget.


----------



## sotonsi

I think Flierfy is thinking that Heathrow is on the M25, when it's not - there's more justification post-T5, but Heathrow is still as much on the M4 as the M25, and also forgetting that the M4 is also kind of a destination anyway. Heathrow M4 or Heathrow (M4) are both correct and legit.


----------



## J N Winkler

flierfy said:


> Sure it is wrong. Look at the post above. Anyone considered it to be on the M4. It simply states the wrong road numbers. Don't deny that it's wrong when it obviously is.


The main reason that sign is wrong is because all three of the forward destinations are shown unbracketed. If it is on the eastbound M4, then the other motorways should be shown as (M23) and (M40). It is nevertheless correct to use the bracketed destinations because the M4 outside the M25 can form part of a logical high-speed routing to both Gatwick (via M23) and Oxford (via M40).

I have some doubts about whether the lines making up the forward destination block are correctly spaced. I think they need additional space because the motorway designations are almost on top of each other. However, I have not checked this against a dimensioned drawing of the sign.

Regarding UK direction sign design generally, I think some criticisms are justified while others aren't. Taking a selection point-by-point:

* It is not true that there is no standardization in direction sign design. There is, if anything, far too much detail in the standards. The design reference is Chapter 7 ("Design of Traffic Signs") of the _Traffic Signs Manual_ (*caution!* 5 MB PDF). The color patching system, which dates from the introduction of the current signs (Worboys signs) in 1965, has recently become complicated with the introduction of what are called "Guildford Rules" and, as a result, patching is not always implemented correctly. There are numerous other specific provisions WRT spacing, thicknesses, radiusing, and white separation borders which are also frequently not implemented correctly (and indeed, in the case of some rules, rarely followed).

* UK sign designers are generally encouraged to maintain continuity rather than to limit information loading. In the US the _Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices_ imposes a limit of three destinations per sign, which translates to one destination per possible direction of travel at a four-legged intersection. The UK also has a three-destination rule but this is the recommendation, not the absolute limit, which is six destinations. The American standard is based on the justification that a person passing the sign should be able to read the entirety of the sign twice, and thus is very conservative. The UK standard is admittedly less conservative but is based on the theory that each driver just needs to be able to pick out his destination on the sign and that this requires far less time than reading the entire sign.

* UK direction signing has a hierarchy of destinations for long-distance travel. At the top are the _regional destinations_--"The NORTH," "The WEST," etc. and even "The Lakes" on some older signs. Immediately below are _super-primary destinations_, which are typically large conurbations like Birmingham, Leeds, etc.  London has dual status as a regional destination and a super-primary destination. There are also _primary destinations_, which are smaller towns like Oxford and Felixstowe whose names are shown in yellow against green on UK-produced road atlases. The intent of this hierarchy is to allow drivers to navigate according to region, then nearest very large city, then nearest primary destination, and then actual destination. In theory it should work very well, but in actuality the last approved signing map for regional and super-primary destinations was prepared in the mid-1960's and there is no clear and current guidance on their use.


----------



## Verso

There are apparently no signs saying "France" (just "Channel Tunnel"), but are there signs saying "Ireland" (in Northern Ireland), and what about signs saying "England", "Scotland" or "Wales"; do they exist?


----------



## Gareth

Verso said:


> There are apparently no signs saying "France" (just "Channel Tunnel"), but are there signs saying "Ireland" (in Northern Ireland), and what about signs saying "England", "Scotland" or "Wales"; do they exist?


No. In Ireland, you don't even get 'Welcome to the Republic of Ireland' or 'Welcome to the United Kingdom' signs, as they cause political controversey and are often vandalised or removed. At best, you will get a local authority sign and a sign warning you of the change from metric to imperial, or vice-versa.

In mainland UK, we have 'NORTH WALES' and 'SOUTH WALES' as regional destinations. I've never seen a 'SCOTLAND' sign, I think just the normal compass points and town/city destinations are used, though I don't know for sure.


----------



## Gareth

Here's a simulator from CBRD, if people are interested in British directional signs.

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/sim/


----------



## sotonsi

Gareth said:


> In mainland UK, we have 'NORTH WALES' and 'SOUTH WALES' as regional destinations.


and MID WALES


> I've never seen a 'SCOTLAND' sign, I think just the normal compass points and town/city destinations are used, though I don't know for sure.


IIRC, the M6 north of j42 has them, along with the A74 to the border.

IRELAND is almost certainly not signed - simply because it would cause an outrage.

There's a very good reason why FRANCE isn't signed - simply as there's no way of actually driving there - you don't want directions to France, you want to know if you're heading to the right port. Channel Tunnel must have paid to become the lead destination on the M20, but there are frequent ferry signs with distances to all the ways to the continent further down the road on them along Kent's trunk and major primary roads.


----------



## get13

Gareth said:


> No. In Ireland, you don't even get 'Welcome to the Republic of Ireland' or 'Welcome to the United Kingdom' signs, as they cause political controversey and are often vandalised or removed. At best, you will get a local authority sign and a sign warning you of the change from metric to imperial, or vice-versa.
> 
> In mainland UK, we have 'NORTH WALES' and 'SOUTH WALES' as regional destinations. I've never seen a 'SCOTLAND' sign, I think just the normal compass points and town/city destinations are used, though I don't know for sure.


Here's one of the new Welcome to Scotland signs that are replacing the old brown ones.


----------



## Verso

^^ Yeah, but I meant _pointing to_ Scotland.



sotonsi said:


> There's a very good reason why FRANCE isn't signed - simply as there's no way of actually driving there - you don't want directions to France, you want to know if you're heading to the right port.


In Estonia:


----------



## trmather

There is a sign in Gibraltar that points one way to 'Town Centre' and the other way to 'Spain'.

It's relevant I suppose.

I couldn't get used to the European way of doing things, I'd miss my turning for various places purely because they're not signed.


----------



## ardmacha

> but are there signs saying "Ireland" (in Northern Ireland),


How could you have a sign saying Ireland in Ireland? Not a very helpful sign, there is plenty of useful ones that could be erected. You could have ones pointing East saying Britain and West saying Canada, but they wouldn't be much practical help either.


----------



## brisavoine

Jonesy55 said:


> I'm driving to the south coast tomorrow, if I end up in Scotland, that will be proof that the British signing system is crap, if I make it to Portsmouth with no problems it will be vindicated.
> 
> Watch this thread for updates


My uncle was once returning from Spain. His wife insisted on driving, which was very unusual given how "macho" are men in my family. He finally gave in and she took the wheel. My uncle fell asleep. Just before Narbonne my aunt was supposed to take the motorway to Toulouse, where my family lives, but instead she just didn't read the signs and kept on driving and driving... Eventually my uncle woke up in the end of the afternoon, and when he looked outside the window, he didn't recognize the place at all. He asked my aunt where they were, and she said they would reach Toulouse shortly. So my uncle just sat waiting, but as minutes passed, the scenery became more and more unfamiliar. Eventually, he thought that was just too odd so he asked my aunt to stop at the next rest area. He went to see the people working at the petrol station and asked them whether they were still far from Toulouse. The guy at the petrol station looked at my uncle in disbelief and answered: "Toulouse? You're 30 miles from Lyon sir!"

I thought I had to tell this incredible story to someone at some point. :lol:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Verso said:


> ^^ Yeah, but I meant _pointing to_ Scotland.
> 
> In Estonia:


A sign somewhere east of London with "Paris" makes more sense than the one pictured above. First, the relation London <-> Paris/France is much larger, in terms of passenger traffic, and the sea crossing is much shorter in the Channel than in the Baltic Sea.


----------



## Verso

^ Actually the sign with Stockholm is ridiculous, but I guess Estonians feel closer to Nordic countries and less Eastern European this way, especially given the fact that there's no sign for Saint Petersburg in Estonia, which is closer and actually reachable on road, not to say much bigger than Stockholm.


----------



## Rijeka

Between Amsterdam aiport (Schphol) and The Hague there is a sign (with distances) for Brussels, Paris and London. That's the only one I've seen in NL. Sorry, I don't have a picture, but I suppose Chris from Zwolle has  By the way, this weekend I was going from London to Oxford (by bus) and the signs on the English motorways seemed great to me.


----------



## Verso

Rijeka said:


> Sorry, I don't have a picture, but I suppose Chris from Zwolle has


Chris from Zwolle? You mean Chriszwolle?  :lol:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Chris is actually from Zwolle 

I have to dig really deep for a picture. I don't come there that often, but someone i know does, and he makes pics regularly.


----------



## sotonsi

Chriszwolle said:


> A sign somewhere east of London with "Paris" makes more sense than the one pictured above. First, the relation London <-> Paris/France is much larger, in terms of passenger traffic, and the sea crossing is much shorter in the Channel than in the Baltic Sea.


For Paris you'd take the train though 

Seeing as there are several different ports in Kent - I think there's 6 on the distance to port signs (though not all go to France and not all are passenger routes, but freight), 'FRANCE' doesn't make much sense, as you'd not want to know which way FRANCE was, but your specific port.

Also, if FRANCE (M20) is signed on the M25 from Heathrow, then those going from Portsmouth (Cherbourg/St Malo), Poole (Cherbourg) and Plymouth (Roscoff) may go the wrong way!


----------



## Jeroen669

Rijeka said:


> Between Amsterdam aiport (Schphol) and The Hague there is a sign (with distances) for Brussels, Paris and London. That's the only one I've seen in NL. Sorry, I don't have a picture, but I suppose Chris from Zwolle has


You mean this one?










We also have this one. :cheers:


----------



## Jeroen669

sotonsi said:


> Also, if FRANCE (M20) is signed on the M25 from Heathrow, then those going from Portsmouth (Cherbourg/St Malo), Poole (Cherbourg) and Plymouth (Roscoff) may go the wrong way!


Then they could at least sign Calais. The world doesn't stop at Folkestone/Dover.


----------



## Timon91

We also have a sign near Abcoude saying "Luxembourg 371" on the A2.


----------



## GlasgowMan

*Work starts on motorway extension *









Work has officially started on the controversial M74 extension through south Glasgow and South Lanarkshire. 

The ground-breaking ceremony for the £445m project was performed by First Minister Alex Salmond. 

The five-mile extension, which is expected to open in 2011, is designed to connect the M74 to the M8, west of the Kingston Bridge in Glasgow. 

Environmental campaigners abandoned their legal battle to block the project in 2006. 

Mr Salmond said completion of the extension would see a "vital piece of infrastructure" in place to help the Scottish economy. 

"Better access for customers and suppliers will benefit thousands of businesses in the surrounding areas," he said. 

"Shorter journey times on local roads will help communities as well as business and will greatly help the preparation and hosting of Glasgow's 2014 Commonwealth Games. 

Dr Dan Barlow, WWF Scotland 
"Regeneration will be a direct result of the completion of the M74, helping to tackle pockets of unemployment through development of prime sites along the Clyde corridor and areas in Glasgow's east end and south side." 

The ground-breaking ceremony brought renewed criticism from environmental campaign group, WWF Scotland. 

Its acting director, Dr Dan Barlow, said: "It is highly ironic that on the very day MSPs debate a government motion on climate change, the first minister is celebrating the official start of Scotland's most expensive motorway project. 

"Massive new road building schemes like the M74 and Aberdeen bypass put at risk the Scottish Government's pledge to cut emissions by 80% by 2050. 

"Proceeding with this pollution-generating motorway scheme is a bad decision for people and the environment. 

"Whilst the Scottish Government acknowledges the urgent need for Scotland to make drastic cuts in climate pollution sadly much of our transport policy remains at odds with this commitment." 

The cost of the project is being met by the Scottish Government and Glasgow, South Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire councils. 

Work is being carried out by Interlink M74 JV, a joint venture comprising Balfour Beatty, Morgan Est, Morrison Construction and Sir Robert McAlpine.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7424027.stm


----------



## Gareth

Jeroen669 said:


> Then they could at least sign Calais. The world doesn't stop at Folkestone/Dover.


As far as roads on this island are concerned, it does. You could always sign Dublin and Belfast when going towards Liverpool, but that would be silly. You tend to get Dover with a nice little ship icon next to it. What benefit is there to then sign Calais?


----------



## Vertighost

British signage is pragmatic. Knowing that your going to arrive at a destination in x hundred miles/km is only useful as an aspiration. You still have two hours driving ahead of you. Knowing distances to local destinations gives you an idea of how alert you need to be for your turn off. 

Equally knowing the distance to Calais or Paris is irrelevent because you'll arrive when the ferry/train does. Making sure you arrive at the correct port on time is far more important.


----------



## Verso

Haven't seen that London sign yet! It's even further away than Stockholm is from Estonia.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

2x3 as expected  British widening/construction pace may be very low, but they have the advantage nearly all motorways are already 2x3 lanes, so you're not immediatly stuck when there is an higher-than-predicted truck traffic growth, like we see in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.


----------



## Mateusz

Now you have all pictures  I wish my phone would be charged then I would take pictures of M56, M60, M62 and M1 :bash:


----------



## Republica

the M1 will be 2x4 for a lot of the way in a few years. Although why not just go for 5


----------



## NZer

I can't tell if the surface is asphalt or chip-seal......what do most British motorways have?


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ Asphalt. I don't remember EVER seeing chip-seal until I got to NZ.


----------



## NZer

lol.
Okay, thanks for answering my question.


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ No problem, though I'm not sure that I'm totally correct in saying that there isn't any chip-seal in the UK, more that I don't remember ever seeing any there in the time I lived there.

One thing I do notice is how hard to read the gantry signage is in the UK. The arrows denoting the lanes to use are rather on the small side on this motorway at least.


----------



## NZer

The strucures that the signs are mounted to are pretty impressive, though.
Those things look like they could withstand a nuclear bomb blast.


----------



## Svartmetall

NZer said:


> The strucures that the signs are mounted to are pretty impressive, though.
> Those things look like they could withstand a nuclear bomb blast.


Nuclear bomb? Yes. Impact from a Hummer? Somehow I doubt it! :lol:

(Yes I agree, they definitely look impressive)! I do like the font used on British signage though. It's probably my favourite road sign font.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I find those gantry's ugly as hell.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

havaska said:


> The reason behind building these HQDC over motorway is purely a political one. People don't like the idea of a motorway near them, but if it's an A road thats more acceptable (even though it often amounts to the same thing!)


Sounds like the classic expressway trick.

"Hey, you want a motorway next to your house?"
"You can take your motorway and stick it up your .."
"Ok, how about just an expressway then?"
"Hm, well, that doesn't sound as awful.."


----------



## r-g-b

> I find those gantry's ugly as hell.


The more modern ones are a little less obtrusive.


----------



## Accura4Matalan

Something I read in the newspaper the other day:
The M6 at Broughton Interchange (M6/M55 Preston) is due to be widened. At the moment its a horrendous bottleneck. From the South, the M6 suddenly transforms from a 2x4 motorway to a 2x2 road. And with the majority of traffic heading north rather than west on the M55, there are always huge tailbacks. Hopefully this should solve that problem. Lets see how many years it takes though 

Broughton Interchange under construction. The motorway in the foreground is the M55 with the M6 going over the bridge in the background:








Photo courtesy of the Lancashire County Archives


----------



## Comfortably Numb

I said it before, but I'll say it again -- driving on British motorways is a doddle and a pleasure compared to driving on the highways & expressways of South Florida (and other places I've driven in). Most British drivers are courteous and generally pretty sensible and safe. They do drive at pretty high speed (probably faster than the drivers here on the whole), but they do it in a safe manner, generally sticking to one lane (as opposed to weaving in and out) and they don't tend to tailgate as much. Whenever you merge onto a British motorway, drivers will actually give you enough space to allow you to merge safely, as opposed to here where drivers will actually do everything in their power to prevent you from merging (very dangerous). Something else I didn't mention previously -- the fact that British motorways are built to a very high standard and I've rarely encountered potholes or major cracks. In other countries (including here), you see craters in the road all the time due to the fact that many highways are built 'on the cheap' + shoddy/irregular maintenance.

At the end of the day, it's primarily a safety issue for me. I rarely felt in any sort of danger when driving on UK motorways, which made driving a far more pleasurable experience (traffic aside). Over here, driving is anything but a pleasure and you feel in danger 90% of the time, mainly due to the other drivers and poorly designed exit/entrance ramps with way-too-short merge lanes.

So the motorway network may not be quite as extensive as it should be, although the gantrys are kinda ugly, I think the British motorway system is pretty darn good.


















(a couple of my personal favourites, the M5 + the M4 Severn Crossing, taken 5 years ago on a trip down to Cardiff, Wales).


----------



## Infrarojo

interesting but not impressive


----------



## geogregor

Guys do you have any updates or pictures of motorway construction in Glasgow? I don't remember number.


----------



## Mateusz

I think it is M74 or M8... I don't remember exactly


----------



## r-g-b

Its M74 and it has a section on the transport scotland website.

="http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/projects/m74-completion/"


----------



## elfabyanos

Svartmetall said:


> One thing I do notice is how hard to read the gantry signage is in the UK. The arrows denoting the lanes to use are rather on the small side on this motorway at least.


I don't find them hard, as the blue (or green for A roads) boxes above are always directly above whichever lane it is, and the black lane displays make it easy to tell which lane is your lane. In France I was really confused until I realised the signs are not always above the lanes which they relate too. Found myself pulling out of a slow lane as I thought it was peeling off the autoroute or something, only to find it didn't. I did this about 3 times before I was sure it was just the way the signs are!!!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yeah, they really don't use overheads that much in rural France. The road guidance markings are pretty clear though, much better than in Italy for instance, where the right lane looks like an exit lane near every exit.


----------



## sotonsi

I think that even with the 'high quality' dual carriageways (mostly they aren't) the network is far from complete.

Here's a 30 year plan. Blue is current and funded motorways, red is my plans (though a couple of them have been proposed). I'm mostly filling in gaps, and upgrading routes from scratch, though a few major dual carriageways are there, upgraded. Some routes would be tolled, and most would be D2 (two lanes each way), though some things would be D3. This may seem extreme, but most of it is instead of large bits of widening. There'd still be some dual carriageways to also carry traffic.

What's missing is NI - M1 to Omagh, M22 to Londonderry, A8(M) to Larne (renumber M8?) plus a Belfast ring road type thing between Bangor and Lisburn, and a bypass from Banbridge to the A8 to Larne (via the Airport), with a link to Antrim. Also a Londonderry-Coleraine motorway and a Derry-Strabane one too. Also A1(M) from the border to Lisburn. All of these can be D2, and tolls don't bother me.










In terms of 20 years, the M30, M34 between M3 and M40, M11, M42, M51, M56, A555(M), A556(M), M18 to York, M19 north of York, M9, M90 to N of Dundee, M14, M34 between M11 and Newmarket, M3 to Poole, M4 Newport Bypass, A1(M) to Newcastle (and round it), M12 and M68 should be built. I'd be surprised if we get more than the M4, A1(M), M42 to the M1, A556(M) and a Dundee outer bypass (as A90) by 2028.


----------



## Timon91

I don't think that you really need the M22. AFAIK the traffic intensities are quite low and the A6 is mostly a wide two-laned road, that works out pretty well. Correct me if I'm wrong - only been there once.


----------



## sotonsi

The M22 plan is about make that route a lot better - it's actually got quite a bad twisty bit through the mountains. Traffic volumes of this level south of the border would warrant a motorway easily, even with the old road in the fairly decent state it's in (look at the M17 plan, which comes alongside plans to upgrade the old N17, traffic volumes are about the same on both routes). The A6 route suppresses demand - as many people seem to go to Derry via Coleraine, because that road is better.

The Northern Irish Roads Service are planning on making a grade-separated dual carriageway for Londonderry-Dungiven, as well as another GSDC extending from the end of the M22 the other way. Sadly these won't be motorway, though it won't be that hard for them to become so.

I guess I would like this scheme as much to say to the Republic "yea, we can have a motorway network like yours" as it is for traffic reasons. Londonderry is rather small, however it's bigger than Waterford, bigger than Galway, yet both of these will have motorways to Dublin. The Republic went nearly as far as wanting to build a motorway across NI to get to Derry, though they seem to have gone for a dual carriageway of unspecified type.

The original plans had the M2 going to Coleraine and about halfway between Ballymena and Coleraine a spur, the M23 going to Limavady and Londonderry. The M22 was just going to be a route to Castledawson/Magerafelt. What I'm doing is having a Belfast-North Coast route in the A26/M2 route, and a Belfast-Derry & Donegal route, as well as a Derry-North Coast route.


----------



## Mateusz

Wow, great plan, it seems like UK will significantlly expand road network


----------



## Timon91

Hopefully they do that, because it's necessary in some places.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I don't know, I need to see some traffic data before I can make a good judgement. Most motorways are 2x3 but it makes a difference if they carry 120.000 or 180.000 vehicles/day.


----------



## Mateusz

Is it realted to road consultancy job ? I was always woundering what is is about  UK might need it if they want to expand their network, to be honest you could expect more roads in such country


----------



## sotonsi

Mateusz said:


> Wow, great plan, it seems like UK will significantlly expand road network


Thanks - the plan is entirely mine, save a small number of schemes that come from HMG and subsidiaries. I have used some old plans, IIRC, but they've long been sent to the "lose it" section of archives.

Here's the current, through as much as possible onto it 30 year plan for the motorway network expansion (though there will be lots of widening)









That's the M4 Newport Southern Bypass scheme proposed by the Welsh Assembly, the New Forth Crossing giving a short spur (perhaps M9), proposed by the Scottish Executive or whatever they call themselves, completion of the A1(M) in North Yorkshire proposed, and fairly definite to go ahead, by the Highways Agency, completion of the A1(M) in Yorkshire - not officially proposed by the HA yet, though it's looking likely and some studies have proposed it IIRC. A1(M) extension to meet the A14 CHUMMS scheme - proposed by the Cambridge-Huntingdon Multi Modal Study (CHUMMS) in one of the options (IIRC might not happen) and the East of England regional body, which also proposes the Peterborough-Stamford bit of A1(M) in it's Greater Peterborough study.

I also added the A556(M) and M6 Expressway, simply as schemes that were scrapped in the last 5 years, as the map was looking rather empty.

You are looking at very little, and that's effectively the 30 year plan - there isn't, of course, a 30 year plan. After all, this is Britain! Even TfL only have a 19 year plan (running to 2025).


----------



## Chris Jackson

lets see if this works


----------



## Chris Jackson

It didn't !

I have bare pictures of British roads... I took them in late 2005 and 2006 on my crappy old camera so there not that great.

M32 (Bristol City Centre - M4)
<a href="http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf3049hk4.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1648/dscf3049hk4.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://img604.imageshack.us/content.php?page=blogpost&files=img243/1648/dscf3049hk4.jpg" title="QuickPost"><img src="http://imageshack.us/img/butansn.png" alt="QuickPost" border="0"></a> Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!


----------



## Chris Jackson

nope that didnt work either


----------



## Chris Jackson

thats better :-D

Like I was saying... these were taken on the M32, heading out of Bristol.

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/6926/dscf3049hv2.jpg

Sorry about the glare: it says 'LONDON & S.WALES, MIDLANDS (M4, M5)
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/1058/dscf3050xx8.jpg

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/5116/dscf3051xr8.jpg

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/8837/dscf3052dz7.jpg

my exit 
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/2342/dscf3054uz9.jpg

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/4818/dscf3055uv0.jpg

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/9996/dscf3056pi0.jpg

anyway got to go, tea's ready lol!


----------



## Svartmetall

Great pictures mate, but you might want to use the resize picture option on Imageshack next time.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Channel Tunnel (Chunnel) was closed in September. This was the result on truck traffic along the Motorway.


----------



## Republica

This is well known as police 'operation stack', as it tends to happen quite a lot (75 times in 20 years apparently!) due to brisavoine et al going on strike 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Stack


----------



## sotonsi

Operation Stack uses some of the M20 as a lorry park (for those too lazy to click the link). Hence the lorries in lane 3 (illegal normally) in the video, and the sheer number of them. Often happens because the French lorry drivers, etc blockade and strike - so we kindly move the place where the lorries get stuck to this side of the Channel. This time it was a Channel Tunnel fire.


----------



## Mackem

Republica said:


> This is well known as police 'operation stack', as it tends to happen quite a lot (75 times in 20 years apparently!) due to brisavoine et al going on strike
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Stack


Happens a bit more often than 75 times in 20 years, try every time it's windy and ferries are delayed, any strike opportunity etc. Was in use every week a couple of months back for various reasons.


----------



## Mackem

ChrisZwolle said:


> Question to British forumers (or perhaps others too):
> 
> Which motorways do you think are essentially to construct the next 20 years? Or perhaps by upgrading existing roads?


We're not generally too bad at North South directions but when heading across country we're poor here. The A14 is a pleasant car park for much of it's time and here in sheffield the main routes to Manchester either the Snake pass (A57) or the Woodhead (A628) are romantically named but poor for the traffic levels. The M67 as proposed in the 1960s would solve this one but will never happen due to environmental considerations, even though the route has a rail track (disused) and a high voltage electricity pylon corridor straight along it. apparently road improvements would be seen as disturbing the (un) natural countryside here:bash:

Many of the much promised widening schemes are under review to cut cost, so what will come to fruition is generally hard shoulder running - a dubious improvement as they are really just longer slip roads. Current economic conditions are leading to a review of expenditure so I expect many more projects to be cancelled/delayed or just lost in time.


----------



## Dan

I hear M6 Birmingham is notorious for bottlenecks. Are they doing anything to try to alleviate this problem?


----------



## sotonsi

It's more Wasall-Wolverhampton, rather than Birmingham: M5 to M54. It'll get ATM, along with other parts of the network around there. There's not really any chance of widening the M5 and M6 in the West Midland Conurbation, due to being on viaducts for much of it. Building collector-distributor roads on separate viaducts would work, but the cost would be too high for the Government to do it.

A sensible option would be to make the M6 Toll free and also build the Western Orbital. This would mean that traffic for other areas can easily bypass the central area. There's the problems of suppressed demand, and the through routes being shorter to deal with still, but having the alternatives would help no end.


----------



## Verso

sotonsi said:


> also off-topic, as not on a motorway...


Sorry I posted a 6-lane expressway. :lol:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

sotonsi said:


> also off-topic, as not on a motorway...
> 
> that guy hadn't broken the law, AFAIK.
> 
> he should have kept to the hard strip though.


Why is this thread just about motorways, the title isn't everything.


----------



## Nick_A34

ea1969 said:


> Back in 1959 the British highway authorities decided that the prefix Mx would apply to long-distance or integrated motorways. Where, however, a motorway was to be built as a by-pass along an existing route Ax, it would not be given a separate Mx number, but in order to make it clear that it is a motorway and that motorway regulations apply to it, the letter M would be added in brackets to the existing route-number as Ax(M). At the time they thought that this would preserve the continuity of the route-number of long-distance all-purpose roads. And that's how it stayed, considering the British bad attitude towards change.


Road numbers are allocated in zones - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_road_numbering_scheme. To change the scheme for single route numbering when building motorways would have involved a massive renumbering of roads in the UK, which would so very expensive for little gain. As the number of Ax(M) roads is limited and help to maintain continuity for the route. Why change when it's not needed? This article is quite interesting - http://www.pathetic.org.uk/features/numbering/


----------



## Treasure

Verso said:


> :hilarious


Do you want a ride mate?


----------



## rosn19

does the uk use the metric system?


----------



## gramercy

rosn19 said:


> does the uk use the metric system?


once in a bluemoon :lol:


----------



## rosn19

gramercy said:


> once in a bluemoon :lol:


THAT'S ODD:nuts: for a european country in the european union.


----------



## Timon91

AFAIK the Brits often regret that they are in the EU


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Timon91 said:


> AFAIK the Brits often regret that they are in the EU


Only because the media is owned by a few anti-European people and people delive anything they read, see and hear.


----------



## sotonsi

rosn19 said:


> does the uk use the metric system?


yes. It also uses the imperial system.

Legally, everything has to be in metric, except draft beer (in pints, multiple pints, half pints and third pints) and road signs. However milk, for instance is sold in multiples of 567ml (though some places/brands have 500ml multiples, often at a higher price per unit volume - eg shops selling 2 litres for the price that the competition selling 4pints, as people don't look closely, and lose out on just over 10% of the amount of milk).


rosn19 said:


> THAT'S ODD:nuts: for a european country in the european union.


I'm guessing in reference to 'blue'moon? (Bluemoon is a second full moon in a calender month, IIRC). There's not much to tell between red and blue in the UK, both aren't 'red' by european standards. Then again, from America (Barack Obama being effectively right wing in Europe), Europe looks very socialist, despite the rise of the Centre-right across Europe.


DanielFigFoz said:


> Only because the media is owned by a few anti-European people and people delive anything they read, see and hear.


Not only, though that is a mitigating factor. The problem of paying much more in than we seemingly get out. The out of work fishermen, stopped by EU quotas, when other countries' fishermen are more free. The fact that the CAP is set up to help France (always a sore point) and that the EU's not-very-hidden aim of a European Super State are disagreed with (as they are in France, Ireland and the Netherlands - the only 'old Europe' countries given a public vote on the EU's plans in recent history, not that these votes stopped the EU to continue to try to push it's aims - Ireland is having to vote again as it got the 'wrong' answer).


----------



## ea1969

Nick_A34 said:


> Road numbers are allocated in zones - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_road_numbering_scheme. To change the scheme for single route numbering when building motorways would have involved a massive renumbering of roads in the UK, which would so very expensive for little gain. As the number of Ax(M) roads is limited and help to maintain continuity for the route. Why change when it's not needed? This article is quite interesting - http://www.pathetic.org.uk/features/numbering/


Zones: Well defined but badly implemented. According to my files there are the following out of zone numbers: M48, M49, M62, A14, A199, A1000, A1057, A1081, B197, B1164, A282 (yes the non-motorway part of the M25), A3(M), A3023, A3400 (dedicated to Nick A34), B325, A41 (original route), A42, A404(M), A412, A447, A4174, A4300, A4303, A4304, A4500, A4501, A4601, B452, B454, B455, B4640, B4667, B4669, A51, A55, A505, A5127, A5223, B5060, B5061, B5072, B5404, A66, A601 (the Derby edition), A624, A683, A6004, A6010, A6144 (and the former A6144(M)), B6241, B6407, B6420, A720, A88, A882, A8000, B855, B876, A949 and B9176.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

ea1969 said:


> Zones: Well defined but badly implemented.


I agree, on paper it is a great system, but it just too confusing put into practice.


sotonsi said:


> Ireland is having to vote again as it got the 'wrong' answer).


I am pro EU, but I have to admit that that is ridicolus, they've voted no, it should be end of story.


----------



## Nick_A34

ea1969 said:


> Zones: Well defined but badly implemented. According to my files there are the following out of zone numbers: M48, M49, M62, A14, A199, A1000, A1057, A1081, B197, B1164, A282 (yes the non-motorway part of the M25), A3(M), A3023, A3400 (dedicated to Nick A34), B325, A41 (original route), A42, A404(M), A412, A447, A4174, A4300, A4303, A4304, A4500, A4501, A4601, B452, B454, B455, B4640, B4667, B4669, A51, A55, A505, A5127, A5223, B5060, B5061, B5072, B5404, A66, A601 (the Derby edition), A624, A683, A6004, A6010, A6144 (and the former A6144(M)), B6241, B6407, B6420, A720, A88, A882, A8000, B855, B876, A949 and B9176.


Indeed there are always exceptions to the rules! The system works rather well though and makes a lot of sense. On just a few of them:

A3(M) is in zone as it is on the A3 route. It is permitted as it is a motorway bypass of the A3. The A404(M) is part of the A404 route so again is fine.

The A1000 at its furthest northern part finishes as part of a junction complex with the A1(M) so it seems to be in zone (yes by a couple of yards it is in another zone).

The A55 starts and finishes within the 5 zone so is fine. 

The A3400 is actually the A34 (yards from which I was born) in disguise. It was renumbered when the M40 opened. It should have been given another number, but it is a lot cheaper to tack 00 onto existing signs I suppose.

The A505 starts on the A5 in Dunstable so is in zone I believe.

A282 is out of zone and should have an A1xxx number but they are kind of rare and the A2 zone is still rather full of spare numbers.

The A41 is always open to debate.

The A14 is very much out of zone as is the A42. The later makes sense though as an extension of the M42, but does not follow the rules.

I'll look into the others later. It's past my bed time....


----------



## rosn19

sotonsi said:


> yes. It also uses the imperial system.
> 
> Legally, everything has to be in metric, except draft beer (in pints, multiple pints, half pints and third pints) and road signs. However milk, for instance is sold in multiples of 567ml (though some places/brands have 500ml multiples, often at a higher price per unit volume - eg shops selling 2 litres for the price that the competition selling 4pints, as people don't look closely, and lose out on just over 10% of the amount of milk).I'm guessing in reference to 'blue'moon? (Bluemoon is a second full moon in a calender month, IIRC). There's not much to tell between red and blue in the UK, both aren't 'red' by european standards. Then again, from America (Barack Obama being effectively right wing in Europe), Europe looks very socialist, despite the rise of the Centre-right across Europe.Not only, though that is a mitigating factor. The problem of paying much more in than we seemingly get out. The out of work fishermen, stopped by EU quotas, when other countries' fishermen are more free. The fact that the CAP is set up to help France (always a sore point) and that the EU's not-very-hidden aim of a European Super State are disagreed with (as they are in France, Ireland and the Netherlands - the only 'old Europe' countries given a public vote on the EU's plans in recent history, not that these votes stopped the EU to continue to try to push it's aims - Ireland is having to vote again as it got the 'wrong' answer).


i dont get it, why do some brits dont consider them selves european? that doesn't make any sense when they are clearly in europe


----------



## Verso

Chechnya is more European than UK though.


----------



## Mateusz

Well, some UK people just feel own identity and they blame EU for their 'downfall' even though its prospering quite well. I think it has to do more with culture.


----------



## sotonsi

ea1969 said:


> Zones: Well defined but badly implemented. According to my files there are the following out of zone numbers: M48, M49, M62, A14, A199, A1000, A1057, A1081, B197, B1164, A282 (yes the non-motorway part of the M25), A3(M), A3023, A3400 (dedicated to Nick A34), B325, A41 (original route), A42, A404(M), A412, A447, A4174, A4300, A4303, A4304, A4500, A4501, A4601, B452, B454, B455, B4640, B4667, B4669, A51, A55, A505, A5127, A5223, B5060, B5061, B5072, B5404, A66, A601 (the Derby edition), A624, A683, A6004, A6010, A6144 (and the former A6144(M)), B6241, B6407, B6420, A720, A88, A882, A8000, B855, B876, A949 and B9176.


M48 is dubious - could be, could not be - did the zone boundary move? A3(M) has been dealt with - it's a spur of the A3. A41 is not out of zone - it may have part of it's London route in zone 5 (including it's southern end), but enters zone 4 - it's legit for it to have a 4x number; as for old route, that never entered the 5-zone.


Nick_A34 said:


> The A404(M) is part of the A404 route so again is fine.


A404(M) makes the entire A404 out of zone, as it goes out of the 4-zone the wrong way.


> The A1000 at its furthest northern part finishes as part of a junction complex with the A1(M) so it seems to be in zone (yes by a couple of yards it is in another zone).


it's those couple of hundred yards the wrong side of the A1 that make it out of zone, but it's the old road, so is it even out of zone?


> The A55 starts and finishes within the 5 zone so is fine.


but enters the 4-zone inbetween the ends. Ends have absolutely nothing to do with the zonal allocation. Anyway, it doesn't end in the 5-zone, as it's either beyond the end of the A5, and forming the boundary, or on the A5, approaching from the 4-zone.


> The A3400 is actually the A34 (yards from which I was born) in disguise. It was renumbered when the M40 opened. It should have been given another number, but it is a lot cheaper to tack 00 onto existing signs I suppose.


yes, but it is still out of zone, even if a fairly clever (if unimaginative) way of renumbering - A4300 is the same.


> The A505 starts on the A5 in Dunstable so is in zone I believe.


I take it you haven't heard on the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass. It ends at the end of the A418 - it's rather pointlessly out of zone.


> The A41 is always open to debate.


there is no debate - there's only a debate if you don't understand the rules.


rosn19 said:


> i dont get it, why do some brits dont consider them selves european? that doesn't make any sense when they are clearly in europe


Where did I say they didn't? I did say that they dislike the EU, but the EU and Europe are not the same. We do have an island mentality - that bit over the stream is Europe and Europe is a place to go on holiday.


Mateusz said:


> Well, some UK people just feel own identity and they blame EU for their 'downfall' even though its prospering quite well. I think it has to do more with culture.


I don't think the UK fishing industry is prospering, and the EU is to blame (though the UK government would have done similar silly things if we weren't part of the EU, but they wouldn't have let Iberian fishermen fish in our seas, with less controls than UK ones).


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Mateusz said:


> Well, some UK people just feel own identity and they blame EU for their 'downfall' even though its prospering quite well. I think it has to do more with culture.


We also ike to thing that we don't have a European culture, but there is no doubt that the culture is European.


----------



## ea1969

Thanks alot for your comments. I will try to point out why I referred to those roads

A3(M): After a while it diverges anticlockwise from its parent road (A3). 

A404(M): It runs south of A4, where the A404 starts. 

A1000: It is a bit complicated - I agree. The B197 thing makes things more complicated.

A55: West of Bangor it shadows the A5; it also passes the 4/5 Zone boundary many times.

A3400: I fully agree. It may be an aspect of memorizing as well. The same appears to be the case with A4300, A4500, A4501, A4601 too.

A505: It should be a continuation of A418.

A282: I think that they could have given one of the vacant A122 or A150 or even an easy-to-remember A1xxx number (A1100 is vacant).

A41: The original route of the A41 is A4140 and that was in the correct zone as it starts clockwise from A5 and runs alongside M1 for most of its journey in Greater London. 

I fully agree with the A14 and A42.


----------



## sotonsi

ea1969 said:


> A3(M): After a while it diverges anticlockwise from its parent road (A3).


It's a spur and therefore the same road as A3.


> A404(M): It runs south of A4, where the A404 starts.


indeed on the A404(M) running south of the A4. The A404 starts on the M4 (or the Marylebone flyover). The A404(M) is out of zone, but the whole A404 is, thanks to the bit under motorway regs.


> A41: The original route of the A41 is A4140 and that was in the correct zone as it starts clockwise from A5 and runs alongside M1 for most of its journey in Greater London.


err, so what is the A41 doing in a list of out-of-zone roads? And what does running next to the M1 have to do with anything numbering related?


----------



## Nick_A34

sotonsi said:


> I take it you haven't heard on the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass. It ends at the end of the A418 - it's rather pointlessly out of zone.


Sorry I did miss that.



ea1969 said:


> A55: West of Bangor it shadows the A5; it also passes the 4/5 Zone boundary many times.





sotonsi said:


> Ends have absolutely nothing to do with the zonal allocation.


But from the CBRD article the start/finish appears to be critical: _Under the rules introduced in 1922, every road had a starting point which was at its furthest anticlockwise terminus_ and _roads can only proceed around the country clockwise._ Therefore if the A55 finishes on the A5 then it is in the 5 zone. Which leaves the A282 in a possible in-zone situation. It's furthest anti clockwise position is in the 2 zone and it heads clockwise into zone 1.



sotonsi said:


> there is no debate - there's only a debate if you don't understand the rules.


 There has been plenty of debate over on SABRE.


----------



## ttownfeen

It seems to be it would be a lot simpler if you guys followed the German model of numbering motorways after the parent motorway they spur off from. It would actually work better for the British radial road system than the German grid road system (Germany's road system is similar to the US's, no?) since all road in England and Wales are supposed to lead to London (and all roads in Scotland are supposed to lead to Edinburgh), if that makes sense.


----------



## Nick_A34

ttownfeen said:


> It seems to be it would be a lot simpler if you guys followed the German model of numbering motorways after the parent motorway they spur off from. It would actually work better for the British radial road system than the German grid road system (Germany's road system is similar to the US's, no?) since all road in England and Wales are supposed to lead to London (and all roads in Scotland are supposed to lead to Edinburgh), if that makes sense.


That was one of the ideas considered for England & Wales. It was partly rejected as the first long distance motorway would have been given the M5 number as it parallels the A5 as opposed to the A1. Scotland has gone with the principle of using the same number and it does happen in England (e.g. the M23/A23, M4/A4, M27/A27) but they can be quite different (e.g. M5/A38). Often the Motorway only partly parallels the similarly numbered A road (e.g. M40/A40) or is in completely the wrong place (M54 is close to the M5 not the A54).


----------



## Gareth

And the M62 should be the M52, due to it starting west of the M6. The reason for this though, is that the section east of the M6 is older than the western section.


----------



## ttownfeen

Nick_A34 said:


> That was one of the ideas considered for England & Wales. It was partly rejected as the first long distance motorway would have been given the M5 number as it parallels the A5 as opposed to the A1. Scotland has gone with the principle of using the same number and it does happen in England (e.g. the M23/A23, M4/A4, M27/A27) but they can be quite different (e.g. M5/A38). Often the Motorway only partly parallels the similarly numbered A road (e.g. M40/A40) or is in completely the wrong place (M54 is close to the M5 not the A54).


Good job to Pathetic Motorways for the article. Reading the Ministry of Transport memos, it seems the main reason the "tree system" lost to the "sector system" was fear of running about of two digit numbers for all the branches.

Seems to be the whole problem stem from the fact that they decided to name the Birmingham-Bristol motorway M5 for no reason from what I gather before a numbering system was put in place and then tried to fit a numbering system around the M5 instead of considering renaming the M5 once a system was in place.

Hindsight is 20/20, of course.


----------



## ttownfeen

Is the M40 an important motorway? (It would seem so since it connects London and Birmingham.) If so, why wasn't it given a single digit number? Looking at Google Maps, it seems would be more logical to have the M6 follow the path of the M40 (using the M5 and M42 path to get around the west and south of B'ham) all the way to London instead going east from Birmingham to merging into the M1.


----------



## Gareth

^^ The M40 is much newer than the others.


----------



## Mateusz

Well, Birmingham has 2 motorway connections with London, M40 and M1+M6


----------



## ttownfeen

Is there a good UK motorway picture website like aaroads.com? 

CBRD and Pathetic Motorways have small collections at best.


----------



## Nick_A34

ttownfeen said:


> Seems to be the whole problem stem from the fact that they decided to name the Birmingham-Bristol motorway M5 for no reason from what I gather before a numbering system was put in place and then tried to fit a numbering system around the M5 instead of considering renaming the M5 once a system was in place.


I don't think it necessarily the case. The plans from the 50s called for only 4 spokes from London going long distance. There were more spokes planned but they were relatively short at the time. Once they got to 4, they then moved onto Birmingham as a secondary hub which got 5 & 6. At the time the link from the M1 to the M6 hadn't been decided upon. I believe there was some discussion about extending the M45 (though don't quote me on that!). 

The rest of the spokes were reserved for Scotland.

I suppose in the end what you have got is the decision to treat the motorway network as almost completely separate from the all purpose network, so they created a numbering system around that. In Scotland they went a different way, with the result that you have no M7 but an M876.

The obsession with avoiding three digit numbers was a bit bizarre!

As an aside if you enjoyed PM, try the UK Motorway Archive.


----------



## Nick_A34

ttownfeen said:


> Is there a good UK motorway picture website like aaroads.com?
> 
> CBRD and Pathetic Motorways have small collections at best.


Try SABRE. There is quite an extensive photo gallery there.


----------



## Robosteve

I was just browsing Google Maps when I came across this abomination. Who in their right mind gave _that_ thing its own two digit M number? What's wrong with numbering it A414(M)?


----------



## sotonsi

Bear in mind that it was the second motorway in the country to open (along with the M1 between what's now j5 and j18, and the M45 - another 2-digit motorway that's really not worth such a good number). The A414 didn't go that way in 1959 anyway (Park Street was the A5/A405 junction back then), nor were there planned to be that many more motorways. Anyway, the 1-zone still has lots of spare numbers - even if you had the ringways there'd probably be a spare number or two still.

It's also being/been* downgraded to A414 as part of the M1 widening works, though will remain restricted to motor vehicles only.

*delete as applicable


----------



## Robosteve

sotonsi said:


> Bear in mind that it was the second motorway in the country to open (along with the M1 between what's now j5 and j18, and the M45 - another 2-digit motorway that's really not worth such a good number). The A414 didn't go that way in 1959 anyway (Park Street was the A5/A405 junction back then), nor were there planned to be that many more motorways. Anyway, the 1-zone still has lots of spare numbers - even if you had the ringways there'd probably be a spare number or two still


Ah, I see. But aren't most of those spare numbers the result of not building motorways like the M12 and M13? I think it would have been a lot more reasonable to number this road M100 or something similar.



sotonsi said:


> It's also being/been* downgraded to A414 as part of the M1 widening works, though will remain restricted to motor vehicles only.
> 
> *delete as applicable


Yeah, I read about that on Pathetic Motorways. I still think it's a bit odd that they numbered it M10 in the first place.


----------



## sotonsi

Robosteve said:


> Ah, I see. But aren't most of those spare numbers the result of not building motorways like the M12 and M13? I think it would have been a lot more reasonable to number this road M100 or something similar.


if you read my post, you'll see that I said that there would have been spare numbers even if London's plans went ahead.


> Yeah, I read about that on Pathetic Motorways. I still think it's a bit odd that they numbered it M10 in the first place.


why? It was to be the closest spur to the hub, in the 1-zone. There wasn't planned to be many more spurs when it was open, especially as it was South of Leeds that the 1-zone went to (18 and 19 taken in Yorkshire). 17 would have been at Castle Donnington, with the M45 as M12. 

There was absolutely no reason to number it anything other than M10, or perhaps another M1x when it opened, unless you just considered it as long slip roads from the M1 and just left it without it's own number (and the Luton spur didn't get that).

There were no Ax(M)s at that point, and motorway numbering was still up in the air - the M6 is called that almost by accident - it could have been M2. There was no decision by any central planning system for it to be M6 - it was a localised decision. The M1 got it's number pretty much when they ordered the signs, ditto M10 and M45. This didn't go through the proper bureaucracy that was planned - it seemed to be almost another scheme-based decision. It wasn't an upgrade of an A road, nor a spur to one (it was a spur to two - the A405 and the A5). There was no way it would have ever been worth it to call it A414(M).

The 1980s widening to three lanes, south of junction 7 (which had 7-8 n/b widened to 4-lanes, thanks to weaving) still didn't make it worth it. However the widening to 4-lanes has allowed collector-distributor carriageways to be built, allowing j7 to j8 to not have to use the M1 mainline. As the M10 doesn't lead inescapably to a motorway any more, they can/have downgrade(d) it to A414 (though left some restrictions - it's still a special road AFAIK - so learner car drivers are the only people to be allowed access that were denied before), which was rerouted in 1986 (with the M25) to go round the south of St Albans, taking over the A405 and the A4147, multiplexing with the M1 and M10. The A4147 (which used to go to M1 j8) was rerouted over the old A414 to central St Albans (with the out of zone A1057 rerouted over the other half of former A414).


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Robosteve said:


> I was just browsing Google Maps when I came across this abomination. Who in their right mind gave _that_ thing its own two digit M number? What's wrong with numbering it A414(M)?


LOL, I see what you mean...I remember the M10. I don't even know why it has it's own "M" designation to begin with....it's basically just a slip road to get onto the M1.

Perhaps there was a much greater plan for a longer M10 back in the day? Either way, it's a waste of a 2 digit motorway!


----------



## Mateusz

A1 and M11 need widening. 

End of.


----------



## nils16

Now in Streetview

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=...Yd67gyikRB9DJw&cbp=12,122.10323993552886,,0,5


----------



## Exethalion

On the subject of streetview, the M8 through Central Glasgow is particularly awesome.

There's a lovely view of the famous ski-jump ramps as well, looks like they're been overrun by pikies now.


----------



## chillout66

never been to Scotland, but I think the nicest Motorways in England to drive are the M1 in Midlands and the M40 in Buckinghamshire. Almost no queues, nice scenery and in case of M40, beautiful cars. In this way, the South East of England is very special


----------



## geogregor

On Monday there was interesting documentary on BBC4 about motorways in UK.
Have you seen it guys?


----------



## Comfortably Numb

DanielFigFoz said:


> If you take into consideraiton the thousands of miles of rural motorways in the US, which are mostly 2 lanes in each direction, you could say that even more than three lanes in eac direction is relativly rare.


Those superhighways really only exist in major cities. Here in Florida, Miami has a few 5x5 or even 6x6 expressways (I-95 and SR-826 for example), but once you get into the sticks, it's mostly 2x2 or 3x3.


----------



## Mateusz

geogregor said:


> On Monday there was interesting documentary on BBC4 about motorways in UK.
> Have you seen it guys?


Sadly, no... any chances of seeing it again ?


----------



## CharlieP

geogregor said:


> On Monday there was interesting documentary on BBC4 about motorways in UK.
> Have you seen it guys?


Yes, it's been shown before.



Mateusz said:


> Sadly, no... any chances of seeing it again ?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007xmdn/Secret_Life_of_the_Motorway_The_End_of_the_Affair/


----------



## abritishguy

geogregor said:


> On Monday there was interesting documentary on BBC4 about motorways in UK.
> Have you seen it guys?


I've seen 2 of the 3 parts of that documentary a few times. It is certainly very interesting, especially for us few road geeks! 

Oh, and first post and all that...


----------



## Pansori

Are A road pictures allowed in this thread? 

I took these pictures of A27 today from Mill Hill (that is near Brighton) with my mobile phone. Quite a landscape over there! I will get back with a proper camera and tele lens for some nighshots next time.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Pansori said:


> Are A road pictures allowed in this thread?
> 
> I took these pictures of A27 today from Mill Hill (that is near Brighton) with my mobile phone. Quite a landscape over there! I will get back with a proper camera and tele lens for some nighshots next time.


In many countries, that would be considered a motorway anyway.

Great scenery BTW....your phone takes really good pictures.


----------



## Pansori

^^
Yeah it's a fairly good road. No much different from some motorways. One thing it lacks though is proper hard shoulders.


----------



## x-type

we are anyway in lack with photos from GB so all photos are welcome indeed


----------



## bleetz

A27 is not a very good road. It has good sections but it has some really poor ones. The section from Portsmouth to Chichester is quite good, similar to above. However, there are too many roundabouts (about 5) near Chichester and it gets worse around Arundel and Littlehampton where it becomes a B road with a few roundabouts (this is due to the fact that the road works were blocked by local farmers).


From then on, the Littlehampton-Worthing section is good again (similar to above), but it goes through Worthing town where it is very slow all the way to Lancing. The section you see in Pansori's photos above is the Lancing-Lewes section, which is the best section of the road. After Lewes it is a single carriageway all the way to Eastbourne.


----------



## ea1969

The A27 around Portsmouth is nearly a motorway. There are 3 to 4 lanes with full-width hard shoulders so it could be considered as part of the M27 (Junctions 13 to 15). 

Apparently there is no official alternative route for non-motorway traffic, so it remains an A-road. However, the former A27 runs parallel through the middle of Havant and Cosham. It could easily be reinstated. As is stands, though, this means the the A3(M) is isolated from the rest of the motorway network. 

These sections are called (unofficially, I think) 'secret motorways'. Other such sections are the following: A1 in East Lothian, Scotland - A55 in North Wales - A167 in Newcastle - A533/A557/A558 in Runcorn, Chesire.


----------



## Pansori

bleetz said:


> Littlehampton where it becomes a B road with a few roundabouts (this is due to the fact that the road works were blocked by local farmers).


I'll post a map illustration of that:

Blue brackets show the A27 where it is a dual carriageway road. The red lines show where (I guess) it should have gone if not the protests (?) due to which the section has never been completed. 










I wonder if they are going to improve the situation? Because driving through that particular stretch of A27 is quite miserable.


----------



## bleetz

Yep, but not as miserable as driving on A27 through Worthing where it becomes a very narrow single-lane city road with two extremely busy roundabouts and loads of local traffic. The road A27 and road A24, which is also a very busy road, actually turn into one (called A24) for half a mile or so (as below) and its impossible to drive through that section during peak hours! Worthing DESPERATELY needs at least two bypasses in place of those annoying roundabouts!


----------



## NCT

I think the British Motorway system is by and large fine as it is. Many people are scandalised at the idea that it's inferior to the motoway systems of so many other European countries. I for one do believe the notion that 'you cannot build your way out of congestion'. Britain is more densely populated than most other European countries so you simply can't have everyone driving their cars all the time. The railway system of the country is essentially sound, only a bit old. Ironically enough the problem with British railway is actually quality rather than quantity. All it needs is some junction alterations and signalling improvements. Progress is on the way and it does have the potential to become an even better alternative to the car. For most high-volumn journeys the train is already a much better option - trying Birmingham - London in 90 minutes in a car. Ticket flexibility would also be nice too. 

Aethetically I think anything more than 4 lanes is hard to manage as a driver. If you start turning local roads into motorways and build duplicates then you really do end up spoiling the beautiful but already precious countryside. Many drivers prefer the A1(M) to the M1 because the M1 is too boring. Having a variety of road widths and an odd roundabout here and there is actually quite nice. For all intents and purposes most dual-carriageways do just a fine job as motorways - the obtainable top speeds are essentially the same, roundabouts may take an extra 5 minutes but a variety helps keep you awake. I don't believe motorways in Britain need any major capacity boosts - most of the time even with a bit of congestion 40 or 50 mph is still obtainable. Britain is very fortunate to have very good drivers - everybody drives at almost identical speeds, something that won't happen for 100 years in America or China. British Motorways are still pretty free-flowing with its high AADT. Trust me if Chinese motorways had this level of AADT everything would be at a standstill.

That's not to say however that nothing at all needs to be done about the system. There are bottlenecks that still need to be widened and bypassed, but I'd keep it at that. Perhaps it is true that too much power is given to the NIMBYs and tree-huggers. I suspect the underlying problem is that people are nolonger talking to each other, each fearing if any compromise is made it's the start of a slippery slope.

As for signage, I think the British system is just fine. In fact I feel it's quite systematic - it's very easy once you understand how it works. It uses a checkpoint system, such that on your way from Liverpool to Leeds, it doesn't give you Leeds straightaway, so you look for (for example) Warrington, then Manchester, then Rochdale, then Huddersfield, then Leeds. I think that's the least amount of work that can be expected from any driver. If you can't even handle this little amount of basic geographic information then you simply shouldn't be on the roads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nah, I think a certain amount of congestion will always appear around cities. Simply too many people go to work at the same time. However, traffic jams on rural sections can be solved. You rarely need more than 6 lanes on rural motorways, and 8 if needs to be. Road transport is still the backbone of the economy, especially with todays "just in time" economy where warehouses, distribution centers, supermarkets, and factories don't keep expensive large stocks anymore, it can be a matter of hours before such companies run empty and the customers are gonna feel it. 

Major truck corridors should be 6 lanes, and even 8 lanes around cities if necessary. Idling hours are very expensive and can hurt an economy, I'm sure y'all read about the billions lost because of traffic congestion. 

In the case of London, I don't traffic congestion is avoidable in the city itself, but M25 should be widened to 8 or even 10 lanes to keep the traffic moving around the city. I think London's main problem is that there isn't a good orbital around the city center. Yeah A406 is somewhat of a substitute, but especially trips that don't go to the city center are hard to handle with public transportation, since they focus on city centers and urban subcenters. But M25 is too far out, so people chose the surface streets instead. 

I think the Paris setup, with a center orbital, and a suburban orbital (A86 if completed) is better. Through traffic can use the third orbital. In the case of London, one either needs to use M25 or the surface streets. 

However, there's not much one can change about that. A new beltway around central London is out of the question, since all of it is densely build, or they have to chose an underground beltway, much like Madrid's M30. 

I wonder though, since they do not build new motorways anymore, where does all the funding go to? I mean, they must've had significant funds in the 60's and 70's to construct the motorways, but has the budget been cut back since? The main problem in most of the modern countries is that road construction costs have tripled or even more (adjusted to inflation), but budgets haven't, so you can build less with the same funds.


----------



## Chris_533976

Also no amount of public transport will solve the A303 Stonehenge problem. What they need is a government who'll stop pandering so much to the green lobby and build that damn bypass.


----------



## NCT

As for orbital traffic, the London Overground network when it's fully operational will, probably not completely solve, but help a great deal towards alleviate the traffic problems.

As for the A303, there are rather a few single-carriageway sections that could do with dualling. When the road is already mostly dual-carriageway then removing bottle-necks actually makes environmental sense, as less congestion = less pollution. However I am in favour of a generally environmentally sensitive attitude.


----------



## J N Winkler

ChrisZwolle said:


> I wonder though, since they do not build new motorways anymore, where does all the funding go to?


It is not strictly true to say that there is no new construction on the motorways--M74 Glasgow southern orbital is going forward, as is A1(M) Dishforth-Darrington, M25 widening DBFO, etc. Labour massively cut spending on trunk road construction with the so-called "New Deal for Trunk Roads" but even so lengths of new or widened motorway have opened in virtually every year Labour has been in power (since 1997).



> I mean, they must've had significant funds in the 60's and 70's to construct the motorways, but has the budget been cut back since? The main problem in most of the modern countries is that road construction costs have tripled or even more (adjusted to inflation), but budgets haven't, so you can build less with the same funds.


There was significant funding (in real terms) in the 1960's and early 1970's, but this was greatly cut in the years following 1973 as a result of the Middle Eastern oil crisis. The Thatcher-Major years brought a partial recovery (completion of the M25 and M40), but I don't think construction funding was hiked back to 1960's levels in real terms. The Major government brought in the so-called "fuel tax escalator" and Labour continued it for a number of years until fuel tax protests in 2000 forced a rethink of the policy.

The fuel tax escalator consisted of above-inflation increases in the fuel tax year on year, but it was intended as a straightforward Pigouvian tax on car usage with the entire proceeds of the fuel tax going into general government revenues. As far as I am aware, no part of UK motor fuel tax is dedicated specifically to maintaining or extending the road network, and in practice motorists derate other areas of government spending such as health care.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

J N Winkler said:


> As far as I am aware, no part of UK motor fuel tax is dedicated specifically to maintaining or extending the road network, and in practice motorists derate other areas of government spending such as health care.


I think this is true for most European governments. The Dutch fuel tax brings in about € 12 billion, while only 2.8 billion is spend on roads. Even total infrastructure (including waterworks) do not exceed 8 billion. And I'm not even counting other road-related taxes such as the monthly road tax and purchase tax which also brings in additional billions. 

I don't mind paying taxes to fund needed basics like health care and education, but I get a bit anxious when people say they can't build a road because there's not enough money. There is enough money, but it's spend otherwise.


----------



## J N Winkler

Yes, the "not enough money" alibi is irritating, particularly when refashioned as a justification for using some other method of financing road construction (like tolls) which adds financing charges to the actual construction cost.

As far as I am aware, the federal government in the US and the majority of American states are the only jurisdictions worldwide which have laws stipulating that motoring tax revenues must be spent on highways (or, in California's case, on transportation in general). Britain used to have a similar rule but it collapsed in the 1920's.


----------



## bleetz

NCT said:


> I think the British Motorway system is by and large fine as it is. Many people are scandalised at the idea that it's inferior to the motoway systems of so many other European countries. I for one do believe the notion that 'you cannot build your way out of congestion'. Britain is more densely populated than most other European countries so you simply can't have everyone driving their cars all the time. The railway system of the country is essentially sound, only a bit old. Ironically enough the problem with British railway is actually quality rather than quantity. All it needs is some junction alterations and signalling improvements. Progress is on the way and it does have the potential to become an even better alternative to the car. For most high-volumn journeys the train is already a much better option - trying Birmingham - London in 90 minutes in a car. Ticket flexibility would also be nice too.
> 
> Aethetically I think anything more than 4 lanes is hard to manage as a driver. If you start turning local roads into motorways and build duplicates then you really do end up spoiling the beautiful but already precious countryside. Many drivers prefer the A1(M) to the M1 because the M1 is too boring. Having a variety of road widths and an odd roundabout here and there is actually quite nice. For all intents and purposes most dual-carriageways do just a fine job as motorways - the obtainable top speeds are essentially the same, roundabouts may take an extra 5 minutes but a variety helps keep you awake. I don't believe motorways in Britain need any major capacity boosts - most of the time even with a bit of congestion 40 or 50 mph is still obtainable. Britain is very fortunate to have very good drivers - everybody drives at almost identical speeds, something that won't happen for 100 years in America or China. British Motorways are still pretty free-flowing with its high AADT. Trust me if Chinese motorways had this level of AADT everything would be at a standstill.
> 
> That's not to say however that nothing at all needs to be done about the system. There are bottlenecks that still need to be widened and bypassed, but I'd keep it at that. Perhaps it is true that too much power is given to the NIMBYs and tree-huggers. I suspect the underlying problem is that people are nolonger talking to each other, each fearing if any compromise is made it's the start of a slippery slope.
> 
> As for signage, I think the British system is just fine. In fact I feel it's quite systematic - it's very easy once you understand how it works. It uses a checkpoint system, such that on your way from Liverpool to Leeds, it doesn't give you Leeds straightaway, so you look for (for example) Warrington, then Manchester, then Rochdale, then Huddersfield, then Leeds. I think that's the least amount of work that can be expected from any driver. If you can't even handle this little amount of basic geographic information then you simply shouldn't be on the roads.


I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The British motorway network is quite sound and there is little to complain. There is a lot of work to be done but the quality of it is actually pretty good (of course lack of transit traffic when compared to Germany helps the adequacy). The signage is also decent and I don't think that there are that many people that would struggle too much with it.

The biggest problem in the UK are A roads (too many roundabouts and single level junctions) and city bypasses/ringroads/good city-roads in general (or the lack of them). For example, in my opinion, London desperately needed to complete the A406, they even bought out the houses around it! Yet they abandoned the plan and it is still a huge, unacceptable mess. Try crossing it around 5 PM from Turnpike Lane to Southgate, you end up standing in Traffic for 30-40 minutes in the same 500 meters!!

London roads are unacceptably terrible, yet if someone says something about it they end up being called "selfish", "inconsiderate", etc. for driving a car!? At the same time, London spends billions on the inefficient, old tube that, in my opinion, does not bring anywhere near as many benefits as a decent road network would! And you could build a very good road network in London for the money that they spend on the tube.


----------



## abritishguy

bleetz said:


> London roads are unacceptably terrible, yet if someone says something about it they end up being called "selfish", "inconsiderate", etc. for driving a car!? At the same time, London spends billions on the inefficient, old tube that, in my opinion, does not bring anywhere near as many benefits as a decent road network would! And you could build a very good road network in London for the money that they spend on the tube.


What you are saying is true but the only problem is these roads will have to be built somewhere. Don't forget that, after WWII, there were massive plans for a motorway network within London that would rival the motorway ringroads in Madrid. Yet as soon as they started a 2 mile section of the innermost motorway the residents were up in arms about the whole thing, which eventually led to only the outer parts of the 'ringways' being built, or what is now the M25.

This is sadly true for the whole of the UK no matter what type of road it is. People want a better road network, but not if it is anywhere near them!


----------



## H123Laci

ChrisZwolle said:


> There is enough money, but it's spend otherwise.


or in other words: "There is enough money. It's a matter of how you redistribute that money." 

do you know the author? :lol:


----------



## Jonesy55

bleetz said:


> London roads are unacceptably terrible, yet if someone says something about it they end up being called "selfish", "inconsiderate", etc. for driving a car!? *At the same time, London spends billions on the inefficient, old tube that, in my opinion, does not bring anywhere near as many benefits as a decent road network would!* And you could build a very good road network in London for the money that they spend on the tube.


You need both, if the tube was abandoned, there's no way that the road network could pick up the burden of the *1.2 billion tube journeys per year* even if it was vastly improved, there simply isn't room in London for enough roads to carry all those cars.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That's correct. London desperatly needs the tube.

A little sidenote; not all transit journeys would otherwise been done by cars. In the Netherlands, less than 10% of the PT travellers have day-to-day access and financial means to a car. This represents only 1% of all travel mileage on average. (higher to cities, lower in rural/smalltown areas)


----------



## Timon91

Yeah, when there was a strike in the tube in June London was a complete chaos.


----------



## Mateusz

Somewhen ago I have drawn inner motorway ringroad in London, partly using A406, this would cost heavy billions :nuts:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

So? A HSR to Glasgow costs 55 billion dollars.


----------



## Mateusz

They just wouldn't do that.

As you see, rail 'is a cure' for all transport problems


----------



## bleetz

Jonesy55 said:


> You need both, if the tube was abandoned, there's no way that the road network could pick up the burden of the *1.2 billion tube journeys per year* even if it was vastly improved, there simply isn't room in London for enough roads to carry all those cars.


Yes, you do need both, hence the question is why is it that only rail transport gets any decent investment? Nobody says that the tube should be abandoned. I simply think that London should diversify more and not abandon the road network.

And I disagree that there's no space in London for more roads. Yes, you can't really do much about zone 1 but roads like A406 and A205 could be easily expanded to form a proper ring road instead of what is now mostly a single-lane alleyway. This would make a huge (positive) difference to current traffic flows. Also, houses that are near roads further away from A205/A406 mostly have low architectural and monetary value and are quite new, so necessary road expansions could still be carried out, even if it would mean that some of those houses would have to be bought and demolished. 

The saddest thing is seeing the change in attitude of the municipality. They bought out so many houses next to A406 to expand it, yet now those houses are abandoned and left for squatters and no work is taking place. This means that even viable and useful road projects that have been started are now dropped in favour of the tube using the same old excuse. This is a disgrace. For 55 billion London could have built one the best city road networks in the world and now all that we'll get are slightly faster journeys to Glasgow. Woo-pee :|


----------



## Mateusz

Currently long distane trains go about 200 kph / 120 mph. If HSR can give 200 mph / 320 kph then it's major improvement. 120 mph is still damn fast and trains still guarantee same comfort 

I would rather invest in widening some motorways upgrading to motorway :0


----------



## NCT

bleetz said:


> Yes, you do need both, hence the question is why is it that only rail transport gets any decent investment? Nobody says that the tube should be abandoned. I simply think that London should diversify more and not abandon the road network.
> 
> And I disagree that there's no space in London for more roads. Yes, you can't really do much about zone 1 but roads like A406 and A205 could be easily expanded to form a proper ring road instead of what is now mostly a single-lane alleyway. This would make a huge (positive) difference to current traffic flows. Also, houses that are near roads further away from A205/A406 mostly have low architectural and monetary value and are quite new, so necessary road expansions could still be carried out, even if it would mean that some of those houses would have to be bought and demolished.
> 
> The saddest thing is seeing the change in attitude of the municipality. They bought out so many houses next to A406 to expand it, yet now those houses are abandoned and left for squatters and no work is taking place. This means that even viable and useful road projects that have been started are now dropped in favour of the tube using the same old excuse. This is a disgrace. For 55 billion London could have built one the best city road networks in the world and now all that we'll get are slightly faster journeys to Glasgow. Woo-pee :|


I agree that there is a case for improving London's road network, especially the major arteries (the A10, A21 and A24 come to mind instantly) and the North and South Circular Roads.

The problem is that Britain is in the developed stage and people don't want the fuss of major construction works and mass-relocation. Coupled with NIMBY-ism and tree huggers such plans are very dificult come into fruition.

I'd still put stronger emphasis on public transport than on private transport though. Roads should be just decent enough so you can have continuous bus lanes in both directions and parking and loading bays don't get in the way. I wouldn't like any 8- or 10-lane monstrosities.


----------



## Mateusz

The problem also is with people. They would rather prefer own car and travel, 'freedom factor' or something. I have nothing against public transport and I like to travel on trains because it's comfortable, you don't need to stress or think, you just get on board and travel. Quite a lot of people who I know are describing buses and trains as 'peasant wagons'. Northern England have quite a good motorway network but it's sad how people see public transport.


----------



## Jonesy55

bleetz said:


> For 55 billion London could have built one the best city road networks in the world and now all that we'll get are slightly faster journeys to Glasgow. Woo-pee :|


Yes, it could buy a lot of road, but why would we want to spend all of that money in London alone when it could be spent on projects which benefit the whole country (or at least much more of it than just widening a few London commuter routes)

I think that halving the time taken to get to Scotland (Edinburgh as well as Glasgow) from London is not an insignificant improvement at all and you also get big improvements in times from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool at the same time as well as big improvements for people traveling from Brum, Manc, Liverpool to Scotland too.


----------



## Mateusz

For 55bn there could be made quite a lot upgrades and constructions of new road stretches across the country


----------



## mikeleg

August 30, 2009
NM Rothschild pitches motorway privatisation plan
Robert Watts and Dominic O’Connel
*
A radical plan to raise £100 billion by privatising the motorway network has been presented to the three main political parties by NM Rothschild, the influential investment bank.
*
Rothschild, an architect of several privatisations, made its pitch in the weeks running up to the summer recess on July 21, Whitehall sources said. Bankers told leading politicians that the sale of the roads overseen by the Highways Agency — all motorways and most big trunk roads — could help revive battered public finances.
(...)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...ectors/banking_and_finance/article6814923.ece


----------



## Mateusz

I hope this doesn't mean motorway tolls


----------



## Des

Mateusz said:


> I hope this doesn't mean motorway tolls


I'm quite sure that's what it means. hno:


----------



## shpirtkosova

i very much doubt there will be motorway tolls in the UK. Power EU countries usually have no tolls.


----------



## Pansori

So basically this means that motorways would stay the same except being toll.


----------



## poshbakerloo

shpirtkosova said:


> Has anyone got any pictures from the M62, I heard it is the best motorway for scenery!


The M62 is the Transpennine route


----------



## ardmacha

Is this picture the reservoir near Huddersfield? I visited there 40 years ago when the M62 was being built and the water had not yet filled the valley.


----------



## Mateusz

M62 really scenic motorway

Possibly better ones in Scotland


----------



## poshbakerloo

*M6*

The M6 is very scenic in some places...

Near Carnforth, Lancashire


----------



## bleetz

I noticed an interesting phenomenon when driving in the UK. British drivers are actually very polite and driving in the UK is effortless and safe, however, there are some cases where this politeness goes a bit too far! Say there's a situation where the right hand lane is closed on a two lane road, everywhere else in Europe people would use both lanes until the actual merging point. Its pretty easy and there's no fuss at all. However, in the UK, people would actually start changing lanes miles before the actual merging point, which gives an advantage to people that drive all the way to the merging point. Often people from the left then wouldn't let the guys from the right (a.k.a. "bloody bastards") merge, especially in cases where gained advantage is significant. Also, this clogs up a larger proportion of a road, especially in cases where there's a roundabout before the merging point. I wonder whether the rules in the UK are different to those elsewhere.


----------



## nibblecat

poshbakerloo said:


> The M6 is very scenic in some places...
> 
> Near Carnforth, Lancashire


Thats my junction. I join the M6 there on the way to work.


----------



## keber

bleetz said:


> I noticed an interesting phenomenon when driving in the UK. British drivers are actually very polite and driving in the UK is effortless and safe, however, there are some cases where this politeness goes a bit too far! Say there's a situation where the right hand lane is closed on a two lane road, everywhere else in Europe people would use both lanes until the actual merging point. Its pretty easy and there's no fuss at all. However, in the UK, people would actually start changing lanes miles before the actual merging point, which gives an advantage to people that drive all the way to the merging point. Often people from the left then wouldn't let the guys from the right (a.k.a. "bloody bastards") merge, especially in cases where gained advantage is significant. Also, this clogs up a larger proportion of a road, especially in cases where there's a roundabout before the merging point. I wonder whether the rules in the UK are different to those elsewhere.


Zip-merge. It is valid even with one vehicle on closing lane and 100 stupid drivers waiting on other lane. But that kind of picture you see everywhere in Europe.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Same with busy 2x2 motorways and trucks on the right lane and 50 cars on the left lane with people going 5 km/h faster than the trucks. I usually stay on the right lane, bypassing all those left-lane hoggers and just merge closer to the trucks. Some say it's asocial, but I think it's just using capacity. Why go to the left 1 mile in advance of a truck?


----------



## flierfy

ChrisZwolle said:


> Same with busy 2x2 motorways and trucks on the right lane and 50 cars on the left lane with people going 5 km/h faster than the trucks. I usually stay on the right lane, bypassing all those left-lane hoggers and just merge closer to the trucks. Some say it's asocial, but I think it's just using capacity. Why go to the left 1 mile in advance of a truck?


You don't use capacity that way. You just gain an advantage at the expense of others. They might have violated to rule to stay on the right. But overtaking on he right is even worse.


----------



## Stainless

bleetz said:


> I noticed an interesting phenomenon when driving in the UK. British drivers are actually very polite and driving in the UK is effortless and safe, however, there are some cases where this politeness goes a bit too far! Say there's a situation where the right hand lane is closed on a two lane road, everywhere else in Europe people would use both lanes until the actual merging point. Its pretty easy and there's no fuss at all. However, in the UK, people would actually start changing lanes miles before the actual merging point, which gives an advantage to people that drive all the way to the merging point. Often people from the left then wouldn't let the guys from the right (a.k.a. "bloody bastards") merge, especially in cases where gained advantage is significant. Also, this clogs up a larger proportion of a road, especially in cases where there's a roundabout before the merging point. I wonder whether the rules in the UK are different to those elsewhere.


This has always baffled me, I have often been the 'bloody bastard' who uses all the space and have to wait behind people in the right lane trying to bully their way in a massive distance from the actual merge point. You also get people being bloody minded at the merge point as they have been waiting in a queue for ages watching queue jumpers fly past and don't want to let anyone in. For example the last time I was in this situation I was stuck in the left lane as I joined the traffic before any signs about roadworks. When we got to the merge point the car behind stuck as close as he possibly could to my rear bumper to stop anyone getting in.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

poshbakerloo said:


> The M6 is very scenic in some places...
> 
> Near Carnforth, Lancashire


I love the long merge lanes in the United Kingdom...they give you plenty of time to merge safely and many drivers are courteous enough to move over or slow down, so you can merge.


----------



## nibblecat

Comfortably Numb said:


> I love the long merge lanes in the United Kingdom...they give you plenty of time to merge safely and many drivers are courteous enough to move over or slow down, so you can merge.


Not all slip roads are like that one (J35). Just south of here is junction 34. It follows a tight curve confined by a river bridge on an incline, in both directions. It can be difficult to get up to speed and merge safely before the slip road disappears. If you're stuck behind a wagon merging you might be boxed in for a few miles.


----------



## Pansori

Ok, here goes a little report from UK. Some facts first

Starting point: London, SW20
Destination: Barrow in Furness, Cumbria LA14
Distance: ~500km (~300miles)
Roads involved (in this order):
- A3
- M25
- M40
- M42
- M6
- A590

Participants:
- bleetz (driving)
- Pansori (photographing)

We went there and back on the same day which means we did well over 1000km in a day. Too bad it was dark on the way back so almost all photos are from the way forward.

Map:









1.
About 8 a.m. on A3 going towards the M25









2.
A bit rainy at firts... the good news is that later in the day weather became much better









3.
A3 is an excellent road most of the time... that i before it gets closer to central London where it becomes an ordinary little street. The good thing was that we were going the opposite way 









4.









5.
Traffic is still quite intensive despite heading further away from London


----------



## Pansori

6.
Approaching M25









7.









8.
The famous M25. The weird thing was the traffic light at nearly every entrance to the M25... I somehow never noticed that before. This is really strange to say the least :|









9.









10.
M25 has some concrete crash barriers which is not a very usual thing in Europe


----------



## Pansori

11.
M25









12.









13.
5+5 lanes. Not a very common sight on a motorway in Europe too









14.
Approaching Heathrow and junction with M4









15.


----------



## Pansori

16.









17.









18.









19.
Some of those fellows on the right will probably try to get towards central London. At that time (i.e. morning rush) it would probably be easier to drive to the moon. But thank god we're not going that way









20.
Turning towards M40


----------



## Pansori

21.
M40









22.









23.









24.









25.


----------



## Pansori

26.
M40









27.









28.









29.









30.


----------



## Pansori

31.









32.









33.
Just a quick turn off the M40 to have a snack at services stop









34.
A couple of roundabouts for you. I'm absolutely sure that those who are involved in road-planning in the UK are sadomasochists because those roundabouts (usually with traffic lights) do exactly what it is about: torture people for no reason :|. Seriously, can anyone explain what's up with the roundabouts in UK? I have never seen so many roundabouts in any other country. Many of them seem to make no sense as well.









35.


----------



## Pansori

36.









37.









38.









39.









40.


----------



## Pansori

41.









42.









43.









44.









45.


----------



## Pansori

46.









47.
There are quite a few road works... speed is limited to 50 mph









48.









49.









50.


----------



## Pansori

51.
Nearing Birmingham









52.









53.









54.









55.









56.









57.
More road works










to be continued soon...


----------



## Nexis

Pansori said:


> 8.
> The famous M25. The weird thing was the traffic light at nearly every entrance to the M25... I somehow never noticed that before. This is really strange to say the least :|


Those are Ramp Meters they have them at almost all West Coast Major hwy ramps in the Urban / Suburban areas and also sum areas over here too, they help control the amount of traffic entering the freeway at one time.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Excellent photos Pansori. I took the M40 a lot between the Midlands and London, but I haven't driven on that road in well over 7 years (brought back a lot of memories though). As for the M25, I barely recognize it....it seems to have gained a lot of weight (extra lanes). The gantries look different to the ones I remember though....are they new? Also, are they finally widening the M40 approaching the M42 in Birmingham? The M42 itself could have done with widening 10 years ago...hate to think how it must be now, in terms of traffic.


----------



## Pansori

Comfortably Numb said:


> Excellent photos Pansori. I took the M40 a lot between the Midlands and London, but I haven't driven on that road in well over 7 years (brought back a lot of memories though). As for the M25, I barely recognize it....it seems to have gained a lot of weight (extra lanes).


There are some serious road works going on in some stretches of M25 right now. I guess they do more widening.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Amazing pictures!  We haven't seen too much of the UK yet here on Highways & Autobahns (I mean continuous reports  )


----------



## bleetz

Amazing what you miss out while driving! Can't even believe I was there. Thanks for the photos.


----------



## MAG

Pansori said:


>


You have to search high and low to find another sign designed with less imagination than this oddity. 
I am sure the designer meant well but the end-result is appalling and confusing.




Pansori said:


> 11.
> M25


Nice to see something from the north-west of Europe. Good, though very noisy roads, good overall infrastructure, which by now is showing its age. Shall we say ... errr ... 'different' signage philosophy, though reasonably consistently implemented with minor exceptions.

On seeing the above picture my instinct reaction was 'a small, overcrowded island with far too many cars'. Yes, yes I know, this is the famous South East but such a sharp constrast with the open spaces of France. I always have ambivalent feelings about such over-urbanisation.


.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The aesthetics of these signs is below zero... There's a reason why no other country has signs like these? Any plans to improve the overheads?


----------



## Harry

Great pics. It's a shame you weren't able to catch the (fairly short - approx 2 mile) section of 6+6 lane M25 just south of the M4 intersection at Heathrow (immediately after the 5+5 lane section you captured). Anyone who chooses to drive on the south western section of the M25 during rush hour deserves a lot of sympathy. I tend to use it only at weekends when it's much more open and flows well.

And talking of madness...London to Cumbria _and then back again in one day_!! That's a long way. I hope you got a good rest afterwards. A single journey of that distance (~300 miles) is a long drive in my book.

Agree with Chris about the gantry signing, by the way. I think much of the signage in the UK is very good - especially away from the motorways where the quality and frequency makes it very hard to get lost. But for some reason, motorway signage can be poor quality, ugly and also inconsistent. I am sure someone will get around to making improvements one day...but this being the UK, it may take some time.


----------



## NCT

Really what is it with those people who don't like roundabouts? They offer better efficiency over conventional crossroads (by cleverly getting rid of left-turns (or right-turns in the UK)), yet are much less expensive and visually obtrusive than grade-separated junctions. If you observe lane discipline properly you shouldn't even have to change lanes - it doesn't get any more straightforward than that! Frequent roundabouts also mean if you take a wrong turning you can do a U-turn easily at the next roundabout.

As for motorway signage - IMO they are clear and consistent, and this is what's important. As for aesthetics, I don't see what's wrong with the Arial font or the blue background - it's a more subjective matter IMO.

I've worked out why most merge lanes in Britain are generous. Slip roads are usually 2-lane wide so the merge lane has to be long.


----------



## geogregor

NCT said:


> Really what is it with those people who don't like roundabouts? They offer better efficiency over conventional crossroads (by cleverly getting rid of left-turns (or right-turns in the UK)), yet are much less expensive and visually obtrusive than grade-separated junctions. If you observe lane discipline properly you shouldn't even have to change lanes - it doesn't get any more straightforward than that! Frequent roundabouts also mean if you take a wrong turning you can do a U-turn easily at the next roundabout.
> 
> As for motorway signage - IMO they are clear and consistent, and this is what's important. As for aesthetics, I don't see what's wrong with the Arial font or the blue background - it's a more subjective matter IMO.
> 
> I've worked out why most merge lanes in Britain are generous. Slip roads are usually 2-lane wide so the merge lane has to be long.


I have exactly the same opinion. Roundabouts are brilliant idea. Great to drive.
Signage is also good. Maybe some can complain about aesthetics but it perfectly does the job of guiding you while you drive.
Never had problem with finding my way, except sometimes in London madness


----------



## ChrisZwolle

NCT said:


> Really what is it with those people who don't like roundabouts?


In my opinion, excessive use of roundabouts is not necessary. You really do not need to turn every intersection with minor cross traffic into a roundabout. It only slows down through traffic. Roundabouts are a good thing for replacing traffic lights though. But it also depends on the roundabout design, for instance in the Netherlands, nearly always the minimum design is used, causing crawling lorries at every roundabout, really annoying at high trafficked roads, slowing down from 50 mph to 10 mph every 1 or 2 km at minor intersections.



> As for motorway signage - IMO they are clear and consistent, and this is what's important. As for aesthetics, I don't see what's wrong with the Arial font or the blue background - it's a more subjective matter IMO.


The font and colors are okay. The main problem is those obtrusive gantries with massive overheads like I referenced to here. Why not integrate the arrows and junction numbers within the sign and get rid of all the useless gray?

Another thing I'm not really a fan of in Britain is the layout of the road number in plain text. A box with a different color inside it would bring out the number much better, especially with the fact Britain uses a lot of brackets for indirect signage "(M6 toll), A1 (M)", that kind of stuff, which tend to make the number less visible between the other information.


----------



## Pansori

Roundabouts are great in some situations. Especially when it comes to improving safety at dangerous one level junctions which are not too busy. In England, however, it seems that someone decided that roundabouts should be put everywhere and anywhere with or without reason, at busy interchanges (which need a 2 or 3 level junction) of divided A roads and streets or roads that are barely used... sometimes there are roundabouts every hundred yards or so and very often with traffic lights. Too much is too much.


----------



## NCT

To be honest though multi-level junctions are more easily said than done. The only really bad (large) roundabout I can think of is Hyde Park Corner with very heavy traffic and the roundabout itself has a lot of lanes. There's already the underpass and building more levels simply would not be practical or aesthetically justified for that part of London. Most motorway junction roundabouts do the job just fine IMO. Where there should be multi-level junctions there usually are(some M25 junctions and the Spagetti Junction).

As for roundabouts for junctions of an A-road with a very minor road - think of it that way, without the roundabout traffic on the minor road has almost no chance of crossing the dual-carriageway, and the roundabout itself serves as a traffic calming measure for the A-road.


----------



## Pansori

NCT said:


> To be honest though multi-level junctions are more easily said than done. The only really bad (large) roundabout I can think of is Hyde Park Corner with very heavy traffic and the roundabout itself has a lot of lanes. There's already the underpass and building more levels simply would not be practical or aesthetically justified for that part of London. Most motorway junction roundabouts do the job just fine IMO. Where there should be multi-level junctions there usually are(some M25 junctions and the Spagetti Junction).
> 
> As for roundabouts for junctions of an A-road with a very minor road - think of it that way, without the roundabout traffic on the minor road has almost no chance of crossing the dual-carriageway, and the roundabout itself serves as a traffic calming measure for the A-road.


What you say makes sense and after all traffic even in the worst parts of the country still keeps moving (albeit at a very slow pace sometimes ). My evaluation and conclusions are relative i.e. I'm comparing it to other countries that I had a chance to drive or be driven at (Germany, Malaysia, Singapore would be primary examples of well-developed and excellent road systems that I had a chance to explore) and I concluded that roundabouts are still evil and simply annoying and that road network can work better without them. If you have driven in the South East (especially around Brighton) you know what I mean. After some driving and all those turns on roundabouts I almost get sick and get headache. Not that it's the worst thing in the world but it could be done much better and more efficient (perhaps it would be more expensive though which, I guess, is the reason why such a system was chosen).


----------



## Pansori

Let's go further...

We're somewhere near Birmingham on M6

58.









59.









60.









61.
Truck from Czech Republic









62.


----------



## Pansori

63.









64.









65.









66.









67.


----------



## Pansori

68.









69.









70.









71.









72.


----------



## Pansori

73.
We're on a long (perhaps a few km long) elevated motorway section... all of a sudden I had good memories of Bangkok where such "bridges" continue for miles and miles and seem to never end









74.









75.









76.









77.
Efficient way of using electricity in the day


----------



## Pansori

78.









79.









80.









81.









82.
Surrounding scenery


----------



## Pansori

83.









84.









85.
Flyovers are colored in different colors... not sure what is the purpose of that... maybe so that driving wouldn't get too boring? 









86.









87.


----------



## Pansori

88.
Light blue is perhaps the best color when it comes to painting motorway flyovers. I'm being sarcastic here, of course









89.









90.









91.









92.


----------



## Pansori

93.









94.









95.









96.









97.


----------



## Pansori

98.
A very extraordinary-looking flyover









99.









100.









101.









102.


----------



## Pansori

103.









104.









105.









106.









107.


----------



## Pansori

108.









109.









110.









111.
Exiting M6 for A590









112.


----------



## Pansori

113.
A590. 









114.









115.









116.









117.


----------



## Pansori

118.









119.









120.









121.









122.


----------



## Pansori

123.









124.









125.









126.
(A590)









127.


----------



## Pansori

128.









129.









130.









131.









132.


----------



## Pansori

133.









134.









135.
Somewhere in the Lake District on some little road









136.









137.









138.
Surrounding views









139.
It was getting dark









This is where it had to end... we had a long journey back in the dark. One of the extraordinary experiences we had on the way home was the M6 toll. We did it just for fun and drove on a completely empty new motorway which was definitely the smoothest and best stretch of the road we got our wheels onto that day. It was a tiring day... after coming home all I managed to do was to find my bed and sleep.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Stunning photos of the Lake District....excellent bonus. I love the autumn (fall) colors.


----------



## Accura4Matalan

ChrisZwolle said:


> The font and colors are okay. The main problem is those obtrusive gantries with massive overheads like I referenced to.


They are slowly being phased out and replaced...... VERY slowly...........


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Accura4Matalan said:


> They are slowly being phased out and replaced...... VERY slowly...........


The UK could do with similar gantries to those used in the US, but using the same typeface for signage that is in use now (clear, bold, concise).


----------



## Robosteve

When are they going to replace Imperial signage with metric in the U.K., and get rid of all those ugly fractional distances?


----------



## Harry

Robosteve said:


> When are they going to replace Imperial signage with metric in the U.K., and get rid of all those ugly fractional distances?


There's no appetite for it at all. The only argument for is standardisation with mainland Europe, and that simply isn't persuasive enough for the man on the street. So I think it will happen around the same time that Australia switches to driving on the right!


----------



## Pansori

Harry said:


> There's no appetite for it at all. The only argument for is standardisation with mainland Europe, and that simply isn't persuasive enough for the man on the street. So I think it will happen around the same time that Australia switches to driving on the right!


Why not? Some job has been done already... in shops it's no longer about pounds and ounces but kgs and grams. Some were not too happy about that but now it's long forgotten and everyone's just fine. Same will have to be done with miles and yards.


----------



## Harry

Metrication of road signs won't happen in the UK for the same reason it won't happen in the US: it would cost £ millions, cause confusion...and all for a cosmetic change that would add little or no benefit to people's lives. Most people are bright enough to convert to km if they absolutely have to, but to be honest, that is not very often.

British people think in miles, just as they do in the US. (We also buy our beer by the pint!) Any government that put forward a proposal to metricate road signs would be derided by the electorate as being profligate with tax payers' money. They simply would not be taken seriously.

So while I can understand that the use of miles may seem odd to some visitors from abroad, I hope that they might simply accept this as a difference that makes the world a more interesting place. Why pursue standardisation/homogenisation for the sake of it? (And frankly, if anyone is unable to carry out a simple multiplication/division by 1.6, they probably shouldn't be driving anyway!!)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I don't see metrication happen either, just like the issues Harry pointed out. Both the UK and the United States are geographically too isolated to justify the high cost of conversion with little added value to the daily life. 

As far as I know, most scientific work is done in metric anyway.


----------



## Harry

That's true. Most Brits are 'bilingual' when it comes to measurements (ie we understand both metric and imperial measures.) All scientific work is carried out in metric measures, as Chris says. Weights in supermarkets are now metric following EU legislation some years ago, and petrol is now sold in litres rather than gallons (although newspapers will often give a £/gallon comparison so people can appreciate how much more expensive it is than it was in the 1980s!)

But miles and pints are here to stay, I think. Most people will also give their own weight in stones/pounds (rather than kg) and their height in feet/inches (rather than metres). If they had to, they could probably convert - but the mindset is quite engrained.


----------



## NCT

It's not even hard. Anyone who doesn't _know_ the following should really ask themselves why they are on the road:

30 mph ~ 50 km/h
40 mph ~ 60 km/h
50 mph ~ 80 km/h
60 mph ~ 100 km/h
70 mph ~ 110 km/h.


----------



## snowman159

Thanks for the great trip report, pansori. :applause:




Harry said:


> .... accept this as a difference that makes the world a more interesting place. Why pursue standardisation/homogenisation for the sake of it?


I couldn't agree more! :cheers:


----------



## Pansori

Whatever guys... I guess I just disagree with you on miles and yards... time will show. Even if not, this is perhaps not the most major issue to be concerned with on UK roads. 

And thanks for feedback on the report, I very much appreciate that. It's a pleasure to explore roads and share the reports with others too. :cheers:


----------



## Rebasepoiss

This is just beautiful. I love how the road follows the landscape:


----------



## bleetz

Harry said:


> And talking of madness...London to Cumbria _and then back again in one day_!! That's a long way. I hope you got a good rest afterwards. A single journey of that distance (~300 miles) is a long drive in my book.


Actually, I was the driver, and my journey was:
Brighton area - SW London to pick up Pansori
SW London - Barrow-in-Furness
Barrow-in-Furness northwards across the Lake district
Back to SW London to drop Pansori off
SW London - Brighton area

It was work related, I worked for about four hours and the whole journey took 15-16 hours of pure driving, so ~ 20 hours in total  I drive across Europe a lot so I'm used to these distances. The most important thing is to take regular breaks and drink a lot of fluids.


----------



## poshbakerloo

ChrisZwolle said:


> The aesthetics of these signs is below zero... There's a reason why no other country has signs like these? Any plans to improve the overheads?


Whats there to improve? I've always thought they was pretty clear. Each arrow directs you to a particular lane...


----------



## poshbakerloo

NCT said:


> It's not even hard. Anyone who doesn't _know_ the following should really ask themselves why they are on the road:
> 
> 30 mph ~ 50 km/h
> 40 mph ~ 60 km/h
> 50 mph ~ 80 km/h
> 60 mph ~ 100 km/h
> 70 mph ~ 110 km/h.


I don't know that. If you live in a country that just uses Mph then why would you need to know that?


----------



## bleetz

Well, I think converting to the International System of Units is a matter of principle rather than that of an economic efficiency. Since SI units are used in ALL scientific calculations in the world and make far more sense (i.e. having kilo- deci- centi- mili-, etc. prefixes instead of having units that don't relate to each other much), maybe its time to think about converting instead of sticking to an artificial and ancient unit system? What is the motivation for that? Nationalism? What are the arguments for this (apart from retarded ones like "EU will not take our sovereignty" and similar")?


----------



## Harry

bleetz said:


> Well, I think converting to the International System of Units is a matter of principle rather than that of an economic efficiency. Since SI units are used in ALL scientific calculations in the world and make far more sense (i.e. having kilo- deci- centi- mili-, etc. prefixes instead of having units that don't relate to each other much), maybe its time to think about converting instead of sticking to an artificial and ancient unit system? What is the motivation for that? Nationalism? What are the arguments for this (apart from retarded ones like "EU will not take our sovereignty" and similar")?


It's not so much about nationalism as pragmatism. As already stated, there would be a cost attached here - and the benefits seem only to extend to 'neatness', so far as I can tell. The residents of the UK do not consider themselves in anyway disadvantaged by the use of miles, and nor do they consider the system antiquated. So why change?

Or to put it another way, why do Lithuanians insist on speaking Lithuanian when this system of speech is adopted no where else. I appreciate that many Lithuanians have a second language (as you ably demonstrate), but would it not be so much simpler to abandon the Lithuanian language completely and for everyone there to agree to start speaking English from Jan 1st next year?


----------



## bleetz

It would probably make sense to do so, however, this would destroy the identity of Lithuania and Lithuanians, and people wouldn't want to switch to English purely because of this. I have expressed the view that English (or any other chosen language) should be an official language in all EU member states to facilitate communication, however most people don't even want that for the same reasons and I can somewhat see why.

I don't see how switching to the metric system would destroy the English identity or how it would bring any negative consequences. If Lithuanians measured weight in apples and distances in fish, I'd be the first one in line campaigning for switching to the metric system. Yes, it would bring neatness and standardisation, which is a good thing. The imperial system and the metric system are not competing systems, metric system is better in all areas as shown by the fact that it is the sole system in science. In my opinion, it should be a matter of principle for a country to switch to the SI system, but of course its up to the Brits. As you have already mentioned, it doesn't make much difference.


----------



## Robosteve

My main issue with the use of the Imperial system in the U.K. is that the same speed limit signage is used as elsewhere in the world. As far as I know, in every other country that uses a red circle with a number inside it to indicate speed limit, the number is always in km/h. There's no explicit indication on these signs in the U.K. that they are actually being used in a non-standard way.


----------



## Highwaycrazy

Harry said:


> The residents of the UK do not consider themselves in anyway disadvantaged by the use of miles, and nor do they consider the system antiquated. So why change?


Because the imperial system is outdated. Its not as accurate as the metric system. Its much easier to use a single system of internationally recognized units than switching from one system to another, causing confusion.

Here in Ireland, we we changed over to the metric system in 2005 and it hasn't caused us any problems so far. Before 2005, we were using MPH Speed limits. Really, the time has come for britain to go metric because its the only country in Europe still using MPH, Yards, miles etc.


----------



## Harry

Highwaycrazy said:


> Because the imperial system is outdated. Its not as accurate as the metric system. Its much easier to use a single system of internationally recognized units than switching from one system to another, causing confusion.
> 
> Here in Ireland, we we changed over to the metric system in 2005 and it hasn't caused us any problems so far. Before 2005, we were using MPH Speed limits. Really, the time has come for britain to go metric because its the only country in Europe still using MPH, Yards, miles etc.


Again, I don't have much of a gripe with your points. We all know the overall trend, globally, is towards metrication. But as I've said before, the arguments for change in the UK are simply not strong enough to justify the upheaval and expense of a change. (In Ireland, a country of 4 million (?) people, I can understand there being a greater incentive to adhering to the international norm, but in the UK it's not quite as pressing.)

Tellingly, the three people to have recently been critical of the UK's approach on this thread have been an Irishman, a Lithuanian and an Aussie...but a change to metric measurements on roadsigns will only make its way up the political agenda here when Brits start complaining. And at the moment, no one cares. People here are perfectly happy with the status quo.

I may be proven wrong in the future but, for now, I just can't see it happening. Frankly, at the moment we have a few problems out there of a more pressing nature!


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Highwaycrazy said:


> Because the imperial system is outdated. Its not as accurate as the metric system. Its much easier to use a single system of internationally recognized units than switching from one system to another, causing confusion.
> 
> Here in Ireland, we we changed over to the metric system in 2005 and it hasn't caused us any problems so far. Before 2005, we were using MPH Speed limits. Really, the time has come for britain to go metric because its the only country in Europe still using MPH, Yards, miles etc.


The cost of doing the same in the UK would be *far* greater than the Republic of Ireland, which has far fewer roads, fewer cars and fewer people.


----------



## bleetz

Highwaycrazy said:


> Because the imperial system is outdated. Its not as accurate as the metric system. Its much easier to use a single system of internationally recognized units than switching from one system to another, causing confusion.
> 
> Here in Ireland, we we changed over to the metric system in 2005 and it hasn't caused us any problems so far. Before 2005, we were using MPH Speed limits. Really, the time has come for britain to go metric because its the only country in Europe still using MPH, Yards, miles etc.


What is the general attitude of the Irish towards this switch? Were there a lot of people that complained about it? Were there more accidents as the result of it? Are there any people that want to switch back?


----------



## ardmacha

> What is the general attitude of the Irish towards this switch? Were there a lot of people that complained about it? Were there more accidents as the result of it? Are there any people that want to switch back?


There wasn't a single accident because of the change. I suppose someone wants to change back, there are cranks everywhere plus the odd person that longs for the return of the British Empire. 

The point about Britain is that metric measures have been introduced for most things in shops etc, roads remain outside this change process which is not really logical. It is a change that is going to come, you might as well do it sooner rather than later.


----------



## NCT

Surely anyone should do some homework before entering a foreign country? If you are on the road the presumably you can handle driving on the 'wrong' side of the road. If you've accomplished that what's difficult about miles?


----------



## bleetz

I don't think anybody in this thread has ever said that it is difficult to convert to miles.


----------



## poshbakerloo

bleetz said:


> I don't think anybody in this thread has ever said that it is difficult to convert to miles.


I could never use km...
they confuse me and i dnt even get how long 1 is compared to a mile. and its the same for most people in the UK all we know is that they are smaller than a mile...


----------



## Highwaycrazy

Harry said:


> Again, I don't have much of a gripe with your points. We all know the overall trend, globally, is towards metrication. But, as I've said before, the arguments for change in the UK are simply not strong enough to justify the upheaval and expense of a change. (In Ireland, a country of 4 million (?) people, I can understand there being a greater incentive to adhering to the international norm, but in the UK it's not quite as pressing.)
> 
> Tellingly, the three people to have recently been critical of the UK's approach on this thread have been an Irishman, a Lithuanian and an Aussie...


A phased introduction to the metric system? 

Britain can't insist on MPH speedometers for much longer. 

I am not originally from ireland btw, I'm Canadian. But it confuses me anytime I drive to england to see the speed limits in something that isn't even on my speedometer! Cars imported to non-UK countries have km/h only speedometers. I always hope I'm never exceeding the speed limit when I drive in Britain.


----------



## Highwaycrazy

bleetz said:


> What is the general attitude of the Irish towards this switch? Were there a lot of people that complained about it? Were there more accidents as the result of it? Are there any people that want to switch back?



Very few prefer to change back to the imperial system now. Older people still use miles when giving me directions but the younger people always use Kilometres.


----------



## Dimenzion

Harry said:


> The residents of the UK do not consider themselves in anyway disadvantaged by the use of miles, and nor do they consider the system antiquated.



And you speak for all of us here in the UK? I happened to find usage of the imperial system a disadvantage. Its created many trade obstacles for me in recent times. But one good reason is for road safety: Bridge strikes occur nearly every week in the UK because the heights are in Yds. Foreign drivers who never encountered these units in their lives can't be held totally liable just because the council and government refused to include height measurement in metres. 

The changeover cost would be minimal if councils simply overlayed the existing speed limit signs and distance gantries.


----------



## Harry

Dimenzion said:


> And you speak for all of us here in the UK?


Of course not - and I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was trying to. There are many arguments for and against, some of which you explain above and I can see where you are coming from. But like I said, those such as yourself will need to form a majority (or, at least, a sizable minority) before the issue of metrication rises once again up the political agenda.

It's not so much that the UK is a nation of those steadfastly for or firmly against metrication. We're a nation of possibly 5% who are hugely in favour, 5% who are hugely against and 90% who are happy as they are and really couldn't care either way...but who would crucially have to be persuaded that the benefits of metrication would outweigh the costs. And no one seems to want to take that task on at the moment. Even the EU gave up on that one a couple of years ago...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6988521.stm

[Apologies to Pansori and Bleetz, by the way. This thread has taken a bit of a diversion...and I guess I'm partly to blame.]


----------



## Robosteve

Harry said:


> [Apologies to Pansori and Bleetz, by the way. This thread has taken a bit of a diversion...and I guess I'm partly to blame.]


Me too, actually, since I was the one who brought up the whole Imperial/metric issue. Anyway, thanks for the pictures Pansori, I really enjoyed them.


----------



## havaska

OK, just to clear a few things up.

1) The metric system is not more accurate than the imperial system. It's a far better system because it's base 10 but it isn't any more accurate.

2) Height restriction signs in the UK (as well as width restrictions) are signed in both metres and yard with the metric bit first, so the foreign lorries hitting bridges thing is just not true.



















3) I don't see the problem with us using the imperial system on our roads. The majority of people that live in this country or more than happy with the current mix of systems and get along fine with it.


There just isn't any benefit to us changing. Sure it would be nice, and I'd like us to be metric too, but realistically speaking, it's a big waste of money. For the millions it would cost to change all the road signs I'd rather pay less tax or that money go to schools and hospitals.


----------



## bleetz

Would you agree to it if EU funded it?


----------



## Dimenzion

havaska said:


> 2) Height restriction signs in the UK (as well as width restrictions) are signed in both metres and yard with the metric bit first, so the foreign lorries hitting bridges thing is just not true.



:|

Are you sure about that? 


http://www.ukma.org.uk/press/releases/prPreview.aspx?ID=8

_*...Although the low clearance is signposted, the signs show only imperial units...*_


If you look here, the photos clearly show imperial-only units on the height signs:
http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/06/18/metric-signs-call-after-crash/


----------



## Pansori

I guess it won't happen unless the old good EU will take action like with the old-fashion light bulbs and weighting units in shops. London loves getting spanked by Brussels


----------



## Gareth

I was thinking, why not, in true British style, introduce bi-measurement signs. So long as it's clear which measurement is which, it'd could work. Then, new UK cars can have metric-dominant speedometres.


----------



## poshbakerloo

^^^ but then all the speed limits would have to change aswell. know longer 70mph for motorways...

There really isnt any point in changing to KM...
How would we benefit? I think its good that most people in the UK know both systems.
People in France and the USA only know one or the other...


----------



## Robosteve

Gareth said:


> I was thinking, why not, in true British style, introduce bi-measurement signs. So long as it's clear which measurement is which, it'd could work. Then, new UK cars can have metric-dominant speedometres.


I like this idea. Then after a decade or two when people are used to it, the Imperial units can start being phased out.


----------



## bleetz

poshbakerloo said:


> I think its good that *most people in the UK know both systems*.
> People in France and the USA only know one or the other...





poshbakerloo said:


> I could never use km...
> they confuse me and i dnt even get how long 1 is compared to a mile. *and its the same for most people in the UK* all we know is that they are smaller than a mile...


You change your mind often


----------



## Tom 958

Crossing in British Columbia from Montana (and surely at other places!) there's a sign that says, "Think metric. 100kpm=60mph" or something like that. Mega math whizzes might even realize that they can convert kilometers to miles by dividing by ten and multiplying by six. :lol:

What would really be hilarious would be to post the metric speed limits as actual mph equivalents, e.g. 112=70mph. :banana:


----------



## ardmacha

> I was thinking, why not, in true British style, introduce bi-measurement signs. So long as it's clear which measurement is which, it'd could work


I don't think this is much help. One or other system has to be the legal limit and the other for information only. If Km were for information only then this wouldn't tell people anything their speedometers weren't already telling them and if MPH was for information only then the letter writers in the Daily Telegraph would be entirely opposed to it. Either way it would cost more money.


----------



## geogregor

Some pictures from Scottish Highlands:
Island of Sky


















Going down to one lane road, still on Sky









Around Fort William









I love such roads, almost like a roller coaster. This one is in Glen Nevis.













































Wild, wild west. "Cattle grid".









A82 going towards Glencoe 









A82 again, this time around Loch Ness. Please don't look for the monster 
Doesn't it look like in Oregon?


----------



## Pansori

^^
Great! It would be fun to drive there (not too much though... I'd get a headache after a couple of hours ).


----------



## havaska

bleetz said:


> Would you agree to it if EU funded it?


Yes, I would, but I still think it would be a waste of money on the EU would be better spending the billions elsewhere!


----------



## bleetz

Nice photos, geogregor! Thanks.


----------



## GrubyNH

A1 Newry Bypass - Beech Hill to Cloghogue 
:cheers: Photos by Aubrey Dale :cheers:


Drainage being installed along part of the new road near canrbane ind. est.









The bridge that will carry the new A1 over Tandragee Road









The twin carraigeways of the future A1 very evident looking south from what will be Carnbane junction









Cloghogue roundabout seen looking towards Dublin









Tandragee Road bridge carrying the future A1, seen from Carnbane









View north from the railway station 









View south from the railway station









:cheers:


----------



## Mateusz

Recently I drove on M1 up North and widening goes on in many places. Widened sections are much more comfortable to drive than those 2X3


----------



## Cosmin

Is there a thread here specifically for A roads? I love A roads.


----------



## jandeczentar

A-Roads are rubbish. I should know, I live right next to one. It has the traffic volume of a motorway but is only 2x2 lanes and has no hard shoulders. It also has crap junctions all along its route. Slip-roads are too short, too close together or, in some cases, non-existant. Some are just basic T-junctions with "Give Way" signs at the end. That's no way to join a carriageway of fast moving traffic (not safely anyway). However, because it is an A-Road and not a Motorway there is no legal imperative to do anything about it. Major A-Roads, in my experience, are just Motorways that carry the same volume but are built cheaper and crapier.


----------



## geogregor

jandeczentar said:


> Major A-Roads, in my experience, are just Motorways that carry the same volume but are built cheaper and crapier.


Well, this is also A-road, can't see huge volume of traffic. :lol:


----------



## jandeczentar

Perhaps you're looking at the wrong A-Road. This is the A12 in Essex. Unusually, it has a hard-shoulder, at least down one carriageway.



















The problem with A-Roads is that there is a vast disparity between different types but they are all governed by the same rules. If it was up to me (which it isn't unfortunately) I would make large, inter-city A-Roads (eg. A3, A14) subject to the same laws as motorways, as should have been done decades ago when Britain's road strategy was first being planned.

In the event that the images don't appear, here are the URL's.

http://img38.imageshack.us/i/pd2385892.jpg/

http://img38.imageshack.us/i/pd2385891.jpg/


----------



## Mateusz

jandeczentar said:


> A-Roads are rubbish. I should know, I live right next to one. It has the traffic volume of a motorway but is only 2x2 lanes and has no hard shoulders. It also has crap junctions all along its route. Slip-roads are too short, too close together or, in some cases, non-existant. Some are just basic T-junctions with "Give Way" signs at the end. That's no way to join a carriageway of fast moving traffic (not safely anyway). However, because it is an A-Road and not a Motorway there is no legal imperative to do anything about it. Major A-Roads, in my experience, are just Motorways that carry the same volume but are built cheaper and crapier.


A1 has a really bad traffic hno: Should be widenend and converted to motorway but thats rather impossible because there is not enough space for that, close to settlements etc.


----------



## GrubyNH

*Newry Bypass*

Map of a section under construction
http://roadimprovements.roadsni.gov.uk/beech_hill_to_cloghogue.pdf

Information about junctions
http://applications.drdni.gov.uk/publications/document.asp?docid=14394


We start from Belfast direction to Dublin 

^^Sheepbridge Junction^^





























































































^^Bridge over Newry River and Tandragee Road A27^^

































































^^Carnbane Junction^^
























































^^Bridge over Bessbrook River ^^




























^^Craigmore Viaduct^^




























^^Camlough Road Junction^^

















































































Next part will be soon :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Nice. This basically looks like a motorway, complete with hard shoulder. I see it becoming the A1(M) at some point


----------



## Highwaycrazy

GrubyNH said:


> Map of a section under construction
> http://roadimprovements.roadsni.gov.uk/beech_hill_to_cloghogue.pdf
> 
> Information about junctions
> http://applications.drdni.gov.uk/publications/document.asp?docid=14394
> 
> 
> We start from Belfast direction to Dublin
> 
> ^^Sheepbridge Junction^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :


LOL, Look at their spelling of *Downpatrick* on the sign :lol: :lol: ^^

And people thought the UK government gets everything perfect..!


----------



## andrelot

Each new small strecht of motorway is a win of rationality of NIMBYsm and BANANA-ism.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

The Northen Irish photos are very intersting. Is heavy congeston expected?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Today it's 44 years ago a speed limit was introduced in the United Kingdom: 70 mph on motorways and rural roads. Before that, there was no speed limit.


----------



## Danielk2

So, in the years before 1965, there was no speed limit anywhere in the UK??


----------



## scragend

Danielk2 said:


> So, in the years before 1965, there was no speed limit anywhere in the UK??


Since 1934 the speed limit has been 30 mph in built-up areas, but there was no limit on other roads until 1965.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Danielk2 said:


> So, in the years before 1965, there was no speed limit anywhere in the UK??


In 1957, a 30 mph (50km/h) speed limit was introduced within city limits in the Netherlands. A 60 mph (100 km/h) speed limit was introduced in 1974 on motorways.

So the first speed limit in the Netherlands on motorways was introduced 9 years after the British speed limit came into effect. Prior to 1974, the Dutch motorways had no speed limit.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

During late Victorian times, the speed limit was 5 or so.


----------



## Danielk2

5 mph?? damn that's slow! Actually, i've seen lower. In Poland, at the D/PL border Crossing from Germany. The speed limit for trucks when there's water on the road is 5km/h (3mph).


----------



## Kjello0

From Wiki, 
The first maximum speed limit was the 10 mph (16 km/h) limit introduced in the United Kingdom in 1861.

The first person to be convicted of speeding in the UK was Walter Arnold of East Peckham, Kent. On January 28, 1896 he was fined for speeding at 8 mph (13 km/h), thus exceeding the contemporary speed limit of 2 mph (3.2 km/h). He was fined 1 shilling plus costs.


----------



## poshbakerloo

^^ 
LMAO!!!


----------



## poshbakerloo

geogregor said:


> Existing motorways in UK have good quality. Problem is with quantity.
> France has similar population to UK and 3 or 4 times more km of motorways.
> I won’t even mention Germany.
> UK is of course smaller than France but still quite large country.
> But there is no chance for them to be built. All Britain got recently crazy about global warming. Some people would ban cars altogether and force us all to overcrowded trains, some of the worst railways in Europe. Or walk everywhere.


I think they main reason why we don't have as many miles of Motorways is that there aint anywhere to put them! The reason why everything is so crowded is because the island as a whole is crowded...


----------



## bleetz

United Kingdom — Population Density: 246/km2
Germany — Population Density: 230/km2

Not exactly a massive difference is it.


----------



## bleetz

Oh and Netherlands has a much denser motorway network than the UK even though their population density is actually over 1000/km2 (more than 4 times that of the UK).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Around 460/km² actually. Only one province exceeds 1000 per km² (Zuid-Holland).


----------



## poshbakerloo

bleetz said:


> Oh and Netherlands has a much denser motorway network than the UK even though their population density is actually over 1000/km2 (more than 4 times that of the UK).


The UK includes Scotland, and Wales, where there aren't many people and have a lot of mountains...

- Density 637/sq mi (246/km2)

But England which makes up most of the area and about 85% of the population is like one huge metro area...

- Density 1,023/sq mi (395/km2)

Netherlands...

- Density 1,025/sq mi (396/km2)

The difference aint that big, and England is a lot bigger with about 3 times the total population. Also there are a lot of roads which are called as 'A roads' but are basically just the same as motorways, just not classed as one as some vehicles cannot use them...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ 18% of the Dutch area is water. If we exclude water, the population density is 486/km².


----------



## niterider

A roads are not like motorways - all but a few lack shoulders, and are plagued by roundabouts - which themselves are often one lane wide despite serving 2 lane dual carriageways . They also have slips lanes which are dangeriously short, or sometimes non-existent! Not to mention regular grade level crossings - fine in urban/scarely used areas but often never upgraded over the years when traffic levels increased. Finally, the surfacing on UK motorways is world class - the same cannot be said for the A roads

England does have room for motorways to fill in the 'gaps' - much of the network is already there, albeit as 'A' roads rather than motorway - to change this status quo at the moment is political suicide


----------



## piotr71

poshbakerloo said:


> Also there are a lot of roads which are called as 'A roads' but *are basically just the same as motorways*, just not classed as one as some vehicles cannot use them...


I would say, they are not. Some of them, after complex improvement and reconstruction might have become motorways. Basically, "A" dual carriageways are closer to Polish "gierkowka" (road enthusiast should know what I am writing about) or Dutch dual carriage - expressways such as Almere ring. 



niterider said:


> A roads are not like motorways - all but a few lack shoulders, and are plagued by roundabouts - which themselves are often one lane wide despite serving 2 lane dual carriageways . They also have slips lanes which are dangeriously short, or sometimes non-existent! Not to mention regular grade level crossings - fine in urban/scarely used areas but often never upgraded over the years when traffic levels increased. Finally, the surfacing on UK motorways is world class - the same cannot be said for the A roads


I utterly agree with the preceding user (niterider)

This week on my trip to London from Portsmouth along A3, I will get - hopefully - opportunity to have a semi - photographer onboard. A3 is one of the roads mistakenly called "almost motorway".


----------



## Manchester Planner

I love this site:

http://pathetic.org.uk/


----------



## Nowax

Newry Bypass :cheers:


SHEEPBRIDGE JUNCTION


----------



## Comfortably Numb

The UK builds good motorways (no one can deny that). The problem is a LACK of them. How is it that two major and important cities such as Newcastle and Edinburgh are not even connected by so much as a dual carriageway?

When I lived in the UK, I really wanted the A1 to become a full-on motorway, all the way from London to Edinburgh. The route connects so many major cities that it needs to be 100% motorway, even if it's just a two-laner.


----------



## Morjo

Comfortably Numb said:


> The UK builds good motorways (no one can deny that). The problem is a LACK of them. How is it that two major and important cities such as Newcastle and Edinburgh are not even connected by so much as a dual carriageway?
> 
> When I lived in the UK, I really wanted the A1 to become a full-on motorway, all the way from London to Edinburgh. The route connects so many major cities that it needs to be 100% motorway, even if it's just a two-laner.


Some of the dual carriageway A roads in the UK would be considered motorways in some countries, they're very good arterial roads.

But yes it does seem strange that there isn't a full motorway from Edinburgh to London.


----------



## da_scotty

Being strict, There wasn't even a strict Motorway connection betwee England and scotland, considering the Carlisle gap,and the A74 (m) -> strictly no motorway, but a road under motorway restrictions,, or has this been rebuild yet?


----------



## abritishguy

da_scotty said:


> Being strict, There wasn't even a strict Motorway connection betwee England and scotland, considering the Carlisle gap,and the A74 (m) -> strictly no motorway, but a road under motorway restrictions,, or has this been rebuild yet?


The M6 was extended up to Gretna Green 2 years ago. You can now drive from London to Glasgow via nothing but motorway!

Regarding the question about as to why the A1 between Newcastle and Edingburg isn't motorway is because there isn't much traffic demand for it. In fact, if anything, it could do with a dualling of the single carriageway sections but a motorway between the 2 would be a bit advantagious.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

abritishguy said:


> The M6 was extended up to Gretna Green 2 years ago. You can now drive from London to Glasgow via nothing but motorway!
> 
> Regarding the question about as to why the A1 between Newcastle and Edingburg isn't motorway is because there isn't much traffic demand for it. In fact, if anything, it could do with a dualling of the single carriageway sections but a motorway between the 2 would be a bit advantagious.


Last time I drove down that section of the A1, there was quite a bit of traffic (and that was 11 years ago!), along with a LOT of lorries. Being only one lane either side, it was hard to overtake when I'd get behind someone doing 45mph.

I'm sure that a full dual carriageway would suffice, but building a full motorway could also help divert a lot of traffic away from the M6 (traffic going north/south).


----------



## PortoNuts

Nowax said:


> Newry Bypass :cheers:
> 
> 
> SHEEPBRIDGE JUNCTION


Motorways of great quality! :applause:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ Those aren't normal English motorways, they are generally 2 lanes in NI and 3 lanes in the rest of the country.


----------



## PortoNuts

DanielFigFoz said:


> ^^ Those aren't normal English motorways, they are generally 2 lanes in NI and 3 lanes in the rest of the countries.


Thanks for the info . Hadn't noticed it before.


----------



## jandeczentar

It's unusually high-quality for an A-Road. Most of them don't have hard shoulders and the slip roads appear to be a decent length. You don't see that very often.


----------



## Nowax

Newry Bypass :cheers:

^^ Sheepbridge Junction ^^



















































































^^














































^^Carnbane Junction^^




































^^Camlough Road Junction^^



































































































:cheers: to be continued ... :cheers:


----------



## Nowax

:banana:


----------



## PortoNuts

Great pics! Lots of motorway work. :cheers:

*Queen Elizabeth II Bridge - Dartford*


----------



## PortoNuts

*M5 around Gloucester*


----------



## piotr71

Here you have some promised pictures of A3 road connecting Portsmouth with London.
Some say, this road belongs to the group of near motorway standard roads in the UK, or even would swap green boards for blue ones to convert them to motorways easily. I have different opinion. I think it would not have gone so smoothly to convert A3 to a motorway. It would have to be plenty work to do so. Though, some bits are really close to what we call motorway. Have a look on the pics and make your own opinion. 














More detailed preview can be seen here:
*
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=452021&page=12*

Some links:

http://pathetic.org.uk/current/a3m/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A3_road

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindhead_Tunnel

Some chosen pics:




























































































More detailed preview can be seen here:
*
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=452021&page=12*


----------



## Comfortably Numb

piotr71 said:


> Here you have some promised pictures of A3 road connecting Portsmouth with London.
> Some say, this road belongs to the group of near motorway standard roads in the UK, or even would swap green boards for blue ones to convert them to motorways easily. I have different opinion. I think it would not have gone so smoothly to convert A3 to a motorway. It would have to be plenty work to do so. Though, some bits are really close to what we call motorway. Have a look on the pics and make your own opinion.


Some parts of the A3 are pretty much up to motorway standards, particularly those sections of the A3 before and after the M25. Once you hit Guilford though, the road becomes just another bog standard dual carriageway. Going into London, the road very suddenly (at least from my memory) goes from a near motorway type road to 50/50 normal urban dual carriageway / urban expressway fast.

The A3 is still a good road though. Is there still a section of it that is still not a dual carriageway?


----------



## piotr71

Yes it is, luckily not too long though. Will soon be replaced by a new underground/overground stretch. This section is one vast building site now. 
Because of extremely long cars queue before that section during my A3 trip, I had decided to divert it, so I have not taken photographs of it.
Below some maps and info related to this bit. Blue line shows the length of single carriageway stretch of A3. Another single carriageway is going parallel to A3(M). It is called "the old London Road" in Portsmouth. 





















> Trunk road tunnel benefits environment and cuts journey times
> The A3 trunk road is a major highway between London and Portsmouth on England’s south coast. To tackle congestion and improve safety on this busy route – which carries an average of 28,400 vehicles per day – the Highways Agency is implementing a 6.5km dual two-lane highway scheme at Hindhead in Surrey. The scheme includes a 1.8km twin-bore tunnel which removes the trunk road from Hindhead village and from the Devil’s Punchbowl, a famous natural landmark designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest and part of a Special Protection Area.





>


*http://www.tunnels.mottmac.com/projects/?id=3402&mode=type*


----------



## PortoNuts

Thanks everyone for the pics :cheers:


----------



## Nowax

^^NEWRY BYPASS ^^

Today opened a new section of A1 Newry Bypass between the Carbane Junction and Camlough Road Junction :banana: :banana: :banana:


A1 Newry Bypass Map : 

http://roadimprovements.roadsni.gov.uk/beech_hill_to_cloghogue.pdf


^^Carnbane Junction ^^


























































































^^Camlough Road Junction^^


























































































^^ Section between Carnbane and Sheepbridge is still under construction ^^














































:cheers:


----------



## PortoNuts

Good news kay:

M20 Junction 10









flickr


----------



## Carldiff

I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know Google Street View has just opened up on 95% of the UK, so now you can see virtually anywhere on the road and motorway network on the UK.


----------



## PortoNuts

^^Great news indeed. Even the most hidden roads are now covered by street view. :cheers:


----------



## havaska

Here's a good example of a road that's a motorway in everything but name!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...=xcYn-Yte177USfZ6YJ52IA&cbp=12,359.26,,0,0.29

The A550 in Wales! They recently grade separated the parts between this section and the M56, but with those bits being in England, they did it half-arsed and it's only D2


----------



## Carldiff

^That photo is right by my mum's house! The A550 is quite fast now once you leave the 50 zone, but there are a lot of short sliproads, I don't think it is quite motorway standard. It is a neat link to the M53 and M56 though. My sat-nav hasn't been updated there though so I tend to get lost!

Also I'm loving streetview, some epic images of roads in Wales:


----------



## Comfortably Numb

PortoNuts said:


> ^^Great news indeed. Even the most hidden roads are now covered by street view. :cheers:


Oh my god, I found my old flat!!!! How old are these images? Google, thank you for helping to ease my homesickness.


----------



## Davodavo

Hi I'm Spanish, I still find funny those motorways (great pictures) driving on the other side  :lol:
Do you know what's the speed limit in those (in km/h)?


----------



## NCT

Speed limits for motorways in the UK are 70mph for cars (112km/h). Legally (open to correction here though) you are allowed 10% over the mark so technically you could say it's 77mph (123km/h).


----------



## Davodavo

Thx, I thought it would be a bigger number than the Spanish limit, but I see it's not.
Is there a big number of road casualties per year?


----------



## Uppsala

Davodavo said:


> Hi I'm Spanish, I still find funny those motorways (great pictures) driving on the other side  :lol:
> Do you know what's the speed limit in those (in km/h)?


I like the British motorways. I also see the charm with motorways with traffic on the other side. I think they looks like the motorways in Netherlands but with left hand traffic :happy:


----------



## Davodavo

^^ Well until yesterday I didn't knew there were such a good network of motorways in GB, it seems what you need to invest in are trains and maybe airports isn't it?

I don't know if you have seen this, I imagine you do:
http://www.motorwaymap.co.uk/pdf/Web v1 custom 614x460 v11 - FINAL.pdf

Are motorways in GB public or private?, I mean, do you have to pay for driving through them?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Davodavo said:


> Are motorways in GB public or private?, I mean, do you have to pay for driving through them?


You always pay to use a piece of infrastructure. Sometimes it's direct (tolls), often it's indirect (petrol tax, registration fees, road tax, etc.)
It's really a misconception to think roads are free if you don't pay tolls.


----------



## NCT

Most continuous primary dual-carriage-ways are like the A42 you described, like (most stretches of) the A1, A14, A34, A50 to name but a few. I don't think the mapping convention leaves much ambiguity at all.


----------



## Manchester Planner

The point at which the A42 (a dual carriageway and primary route) becomes the M42 (a proper motorway) is clearly shown on maps:

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=52.68926036727239~-1.5550379588623855&lvl=14&sty=s

Also at that junction you have the A444, a primary A road which is not a dual carriageway.

Basically I think what you're trying to get at is that there should be a map showing both motorways and (primary) dual carriageways? I'm pretty sure though that most, if not all, road maps show dual carriageways differently than single carriageway roads, usually as a double line.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Thanks, that does help, but the issue I have with this is that there seems to be no distinction between this and a dual carriageway that goes through a city, full of traffic lights and roundabouts. 

Basically, the A42 and the primary dual carriageway that goes through Nottingham are two different beasts, yet they seem to be labeled the same way. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken?


----------



## JeremyCastle

piotr71, what company or online service produces the map you're showing?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

AA Road Atlas


----------



## piotr71

Have a look, it shows (almost)motorway standard roads pretty clearly. 



















A1- I would read it as a dual carriageway including anything from private properties roadways, lay-by-_es_ and roundabouts, level junctions to multilevel junctions. Least similar to motorway. 










A38 - Basically I would expect good standard of this road, 
with no interrupted drive by crossroads but some right turns or short merging lanes might happen here.










A42 - That sort of road, in the countries like Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Austria and Switzerland is called "expressway". In almost all cases its standard is such similar to motorways that someone who does not know technical specifications would definitely say-motorway.


This atlas lets me distinguish, what is what:


----------



## Manchester Planner

ChrisZwolle said:


> AA Road Atlas


My example










is AA.


----------



## NCT

JeremyCastle said:


> Thanks, that does help, but the issue I have with this is that there seems to be no distinction between this and a dual carriageway that goes through a city, full of traffic lights and roundabouts.
> 
> Basically, the A42 and the primary dual carriageway that goes through Nottingham are two different beasts, yet they seem to be labeled the same way. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken?


It's pretty obvious which roads are grade separated quasi-motorways and which ones are urban roads full of intersections and lights. This is how I find it anyway.


----------



## Manchester Planner

Yeah, clearly if you see on a map a dual carriageway with roundabouts and other junctions in close proximity to one another within an urban area, then that's not going to be the motorway-like (expressway) dual carriageway which is shown as a straight run in the countryside with non-roundabout junctions (and perhaps even numbered junctions) every couple of miles only.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

I think what would be interesting is to see an overview map that shows all proper motorways and near-motorway A roads (not Ax(M) that actually are real motorways) to get a sense of the real extent of the motorway(-ish) network. By near-motorway I mean what would be classified as expressways elsewhere, but isn't because there's no such designation in GB: Limited access, dual-carriage roads of at least 2x2, mostly with shoulders, but with no roundabouts, traffic lights, access to properties, etc.


----------



## Uppsala

I think its still a part of A1/A1(M) between Leeds and Newcastle who are not a real motorway. But aren't they going to reclass that part to motorway very soon? All of the A1/A1(M) is dual carriageway and all of the junctions are like a motorway. So what is missing before reclass that part to real motorway?


----------



## poshbakerloo

Uppsala said:


> I think its still a part of A1/A1(M) between Leeds and Newcastle who are not a real motorway. But aren't they going to reclass that part to motorway very soon? All of the A1/A1(M) is dual carriageway and all of the junctions are like a motorway. So what is missing before reclass that part to real motorway?


If they did, then some vehicles would not be able to use it. I'm not sure exactly which ones but I think things like normal service buses etc


----------



## csd

JeremyCastle said:


> Thanks, that does help, but the issue I have with this is that there seems to be no distinction between this and a dual carriageway that goes through a city, full of traffic lights and roundabouts.
> 
> Basically, the A42 and the primary dual carriageway that goes through Nottingham are two different beasts, yet they seem to be labeled the same way. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken?


Michelin's maps make the distinction you're looking for, namely between 'Dual Carriageways with Motorway characteristics' and other dual carriageways. Check out http://www.viamichelin.com for some examples (use the two less zoomed out scales).

/csd


----------



## Exethalion

poshbakerloo said:


> If they did, then some vehicles would not be able to use it. I'm not sure exactly which ones but I think things like normal service buses etc


Strange that, even before the bus lane plan, regular buses always used the M32 radial in Bristol.


----------



## poshbakerloo

Exethalion said:


> Strange that, even before the bus lane plan, regular buses always used the M32 radial in Bristol.


well maybe it wasnt buses but the Dartford crossing isnt a motorway for the reason that is it would stop certain vehicles using it...


----------



## scragend

Highway Code section 227 :-

"227. Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders of provisional car or motorcycle driving licences unless exempt, riders of motorcycles under 50cc, cyclists and horse riders. Certain slow-moving vehicles and those carrying oversized loads (except by special permission), agricultural vehicles and most invalid carriages are also prohibited."


----------



## Stainless

poshbakerloo said:


> well maybe it wasnt buses but the Dartford crossing isnt a motorway for the reason that is it would stop certain vehicles using it...


It would be mopeds and agricultural vehicles. I have been on a regular bus on the M32 and it is quite noisy, they really don't like higher speeds. Incidentally Megabus used to use regular buses on quite long distance routes but changed to proper coaches (British word for long distance bus, typically point to point with booking, seatbelts and a luggage hold).


----------



## niterider

Maxx☢Power;53633245 said:


> I think what would be interesting is to see an overview map that shows all proper motorways and near-motorway A roads (not Ax(M) that actually are real motorways) to get a sense of the real extent of the motorway(-ish) network. By near-motorway I mean what would be classified as expressways elsewhere, but isn't because there's no such designation in GB: Limited access, dual-carriage roads of at least 2x2, mostly with shoulders, but with no roundabouts, traffic lights, access to properties, etc.


Trouble there is that often such routes don't exist in their entirety. Take the A55 along North Wales for example - it switches from narrow poor surfaced dual carraigeway to 2-3 lanes wide with shoulders, but such sections may only last a few miles.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Maxx Power, I agree. There should be a map that shows the difference clearly. The Michelin online map is quite good I think at that I think. It might be easy for a Brit to say well, it is pretty obvious to notice the difference between a dual carriageway with roundabouts and one that is an expressway, but for the average non-Brit visiting here or someone just looking at a road map of the UK, they won't know this. As a result we see time and time again here on Skyscaper City someone wondering why the UK has a "small" motorway network compared to the rest of Western Europe without taking into account the expressways.

There should be a separate category for expressways and regular dual carriageways, or at least show it as a separate colour/category on maps.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Studying a map of the UK, I am struck by the lack of a direct connection between Stansted airport and Luton airport. Have there every been any plans to upgrade and extend the A120 to link the two airports? That would avoid having to go down to the M25 and then back up. Seems extremely inefficient.

After that linkup, extend the A120 to Oxford and have it connect with the A34. Seems like the area could do with something like this.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Yesterday I noticed something strange. The A40(M) lost it's motorway status to be transfered to Transport for London, however, I as watching the traffic CCTV on the BBC yesterday and the tape clearly said TRANSPORT FOR LONDON A40(M)


----------



## Manchester Planner

The BBC are far from being infallible.


----------



## ea1969

DanielFigFoz said:


> Yesterday I noticed something strange. The A40(M) lost it's motorway status to be transfered to Transport for London, however, I as watching the traffic CCTV on the BBC yesterday and the tape clearly said TRANSPORT FOR LONDON A40(M)


Probably they did not bother to change the inscription.:bash:


----------



## JeremyCastle

This thread has really slowed down! Let me see if I can wake it up(at least a little). 

Returning to a topic I brought up earlier and expanding a bit on it, it would be interesting to see how much it would cost to create a whole integrated highway network for the UK.
That is having every motorway and primary dual carriageways(expressways) connect with each other in one giant seamless network allowing drivers to never have to stop for a traffic light or a roundabout until she/she reached their junction to get to their destination.

I know in this economic crisis, this is not a realistic idea, but would love to hear from some people as to how much this would cost? It would cost a lot, but at least many many jobs would be created.


----------



## PortoNuts

M62 at Castleton



















M62 from Scammonden Bridge, looking east.









flickr


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Does that section has shoulder running? The shoulders look prepared for that...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

JeremyCastle said:


> Returning to a topic I brought up earlier and expanding a bit on it, it would be interesting to see how much it would cost to create a whole integrated highway network for the UK.
> That is having every motorway and primary dual carriageways(expressways) connect with each other in one giant seamless network allowing drivers to never have to stop for a traffic light or a roundabout until she/she reached their junction to get to their destination..


For example the dual carriageway in this video has an awful lot of roundabouts on them... I mean, there should be some kind of policy to eliminate these roundabouts when there is a (financial) opportunity.


----------



## flierfy

ChrisZwolle said:


> For example the dual carriageway in this video has an awful lot of roundabouts on them... I mean, there should be some kind of policy to eliminate these roundabouts when there is a (financial) opportunity.


Don't fix it if it isn't broken. These roads seem to cope with traffic fairly good. Most junctions are already grade-separated. Others can't be upgraded due to limited space.


----------



## PortoNuts

*M42*


















flickr


----------



## JeremyCastle

flierfy said:


> Don't fix it if it isn't broken. These roads seem to cope with traffic fairly good. Most junctions are already grade-separated. Others can't be upgraded due to limited space.


 I completely disagree with you flierfy(politely of course). I can't tell you how many times that I am happily driving around at 60-70mph on a nice expressway(primary dual carriageway) when I have to slow and yield at a roundabout just because some minor A road intersects with it. If you are going to build a road that you can drive 60-70 miles per hour on, the whole network(in which that speed is allowed) should be considered one whole "organism", rather than the piecemeal network the UK currently has.

I realize that my original statement/question might be construed as mostly hypothetical, but only partly. Traffic flow could be a lot smoother if one integrated freeway network(motorway/primary dual carriageway) system was a goal of the UK transport gods.


----------



## Jonesy55

How much money are we talking to take a simple intersection of a dual carriageway and one relatively minor road which is currently served by roundabout and either insert a flyover or tunnel with sliproads instead?

Any guesses? Multiply that figure by the number of simple intersections of that type around the country and I suspect that the figure is going to be pretty huge!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

You can also reduce the number of minor roads having to interchange with the dual carriageway anyway. Spain managed to construction literally thousands of such interchanges in the past 15 years. I don't see why the UK can't, if you take the time for it. First start with the busy intersections, then do the minor ones. 

Another possibility is to just build slip roads, but not an overpass for minor intersections. Through traffic on that minor crossing road can use a nearby interchange for example.

Meanwhile, I'm still searching for a British traffic volume map or excel file.


----------



## flierfy

JeremyCastle said:


> I completely disagree with you flierfy(politely of course). I can't tell you how many times that I am happily driving around at 60-70mph on a nice expressway(primary dual carriageway) when I have to slow and yield at a roundabout just because some minor A road intersects with it. If you are going to build a road that you can drive 60-70 miles per hour on, the whole network(in which that speed is allowed) should be considered one whole "organism", rather than the piecemeal network the UK currently has.
> 
> I realize that my original statement/question might be construed as mostly hypothetical, but only partly. Traffic flow could be a lot smoother if one integrated freeway network(motorway/primary dual carriageway) system was a goal of the UK transport gods.


Roundabouts are by far the most efficient way to join roads. They provide a remarkable amount of capacity while still being fairly save and cheap. Cheap in actual construction cost as well as land consumption. The latter is even more important in one of the most densely populated part of the world, that England is.

An integrated freeway network is just a purist's wet dream but no real purpose as such. Junctions are improved occasional and some roads are even turned into continuous freeways. But to connect all dualled and grade-separated roads into one integrated network is neither needed nor intended.


----------



## NCT

I agree with flierfy completely. Roundabouts do not always equate to jams - there might be a road leading to a few villages that require access to the major road, and it's clear in this instance a fully grade-separate junction would not be justified. Apart from the purists roundabouts, or anything that gives drivers a break from 70mph are actually welcomed by drivers.


----------



## Stainless

NCT said:


> Apart from the purists roundabouts, or anything that gives drivers a break from 70mph are actually welcomed by drivers.


It is true that on small roads they use mini roundabouts as traffic calming. If anyone is unaware a mini roundabout is a painted circle on the ground where normal roundabout priorities work. They work quite well in some areas as speeding drivers are forced to look around and approach them at a safe speed. In many cases a grade separated junction won't fit and not all have the majority of traffic passing through so it would not be a simple task at all.


----------



## J N Winkler

flierfy said:


> Roundabouts are by far the most efficient way to join roads. They provide a remarkable amount of capacity while still being fairly safe and cheap. Cheap in actual construction cost as well as land consumption. The latter is even more important in one of the most densely populated part of the world, that England is.


On a dual carriageway, roundabouts do not save that much land compared to a compact GSJ. They do save considerably on construction cost, but they impose a higher cost per motor vehicle transit on the "through" road and the cumulative excess cost can easily be higher than the construction cost difference between a roundabout and a GSJ over the life of the improvement.



> An integrated freeway network is just a purist's wet dream but no real purpose as such.


This is not strictly true. You don't want to waste money replacing roundabouts with GSJs, even when they are failing, unless analysis at the corridor level shows that the improvements won't expose other bottlenecks and will therefore deliver a net savings in time. But interconnecting lengths of comprehensively grade-separated road produces network effects.


----------



## ea1969

And this is how British think of roundabouts:

"They're everywhere. Connecting roads large and small, organising and smoothing the conflicting needs of traffic. Helping people get on and off busy motorways, providing a pleasant transition from open road to suburb, making the flow of urban streets more efficient. It's amazing how productive it can be to go in circles.

The humble roundabout has been with us for a century now, in various forms, through all manner of fashions for straight sides and sharp corners, different systems of priority, one way and two way traffic flows.

These days, traffic lights are probably multiplying at a faster rate, and "give way" junctions are far more numerous, but roundabouts are the ones that have suited us best and become part of our culture. To people overseas, they have often become associated with all things British".

More about the topic can be found on: http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/roundabouts/


----------



## Carldiff

The M4 in Cardiff between J33 and J35 was closed westbound nearly all day today after a fatal accident there this morning between a Transit van and a lorry. All traffic was diverted onto the parallel A48, which is a single carriageway virtually the whole way (except the bypass around the village where I work), there was a 3 hour tailback to leave the motorway at the closure, and Cardiff was completely congested with traffic seeking alternative routes around the closure. It took me 1h40 to go 15 miles from my home in Cardiff to Cowbridge, and all evening I've been stuck in the traffic while making deliveries.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Don't get my wrong, I think roundabouts are great, much better than traffic lights anyday(and safer)but for example, leaving Nottingham for Derby on the A52 as it leaves the city, it turns into a 70mph primary dual carriageway, yet just as you start to cruise, in only about 1.5 miles, you reach quite a large roundabout(Stapleford/Long Eaton) which creates some terrible jams in the morning and evening. Once through it, it is again 70mph for the next 7 miles when it reaches the outskirts of Derby.

Another example is the primary dual carriage(A46) way from Lincoln to Newark. The constant stop and car of cars from 70mph to 0 on that primary dual carriageway everytime a roundabout is reached creates a disjointed flow of traffic. From an environmental perspective, it is better in terms of car exhaust to keep the traffic moving on the main through-way, not to mention the economic benefits of better fuel economy for the drivers.

Can anyone confirm that the expansion of the A46 from Newark south will be grade separated, eliminating wasteful roundabouts?


----------



## JeremyCastle

In my travels across the East Midlands(and surrounding areas) it seems that Derby and Leicester have a much better road network in and around their respective city compared to Nottingham. Can anyone share any light as to why Nottingham hasn't cared to upgrade their network?


----------



## PortoNuts

*M23*


















flickr


----------



## INTER88

How big is the English motorway network?


----------



## J N Winkler

About 2,000 miles--but you really need to be using standard works of reference instead of asking the same question in each country thread, don't you think?


----------



## Uppsala

It's quite a lot of motorways in England. In Scotland there is less motorways and Wales only have a few. The most important in Wales is M4.


----------



## havaska

There are actually only three motorways in Wales. There's the M4, the obvious one. The other two are the M48 (the old M4 Severn Crossing) and the A48(M) which is a spur from the M4 into Cardiff.

You could argue there's one more 'motorway' in that the A55 near Colwyn is actually a 'special road', which is the UK legal status for a road to be a motorway. So this section of the A55 is legally a motorway in all but name. We call these 'secret motorways' and there are a few more in the UK.


----------



## Uppsala

havaska said:


> There are actually only three motorways in Wales. There's the M4, the obvious one. The other two are the M48 (the old M4 Severn Crossing) and the A48(M) which is a spur from the M4 into Cardiff.
> 
> You could argue there's one more 'motorway' in that the A55 near Colwyn is actually a 'special road', which is the UK legal status for a road to be a motorway. So this section of the A55 is legally a motorway in all but name. We call these 'secret motorways' and there are a few more in the UK.


That's right! And I think the old Severn Crossing at the M48 is more interesting than the new M4 Severn Crossing. The old bridge is more beautiful. And maybe I like the feeling of an old classic motorway built in 1960s. But the new bridge is very nice too. But I still think it's a little bit special feeling to use the motorways at the border between England and Wales over Severn. And I like to cross the borders at the motorway and see the signs change to bilingual signs. So I like the Welsh motorways. :happy:


----------



## Carldiff

Uppsala said:


> That's right! And I think the old Severn Crossing at the M48 is more interesting than the new M4 Severn Crossing. The old bridge is more beautiful. And maybe I like the feeling of an old classic motorway built in 1960s. But the new bridge is very nice too. But I still think it's a little bit special feeling to use the motorways at the border between England and Wales over Severn. And I like to cross the borders at the motorway and see the signs change to bilingual signs. So I like the Welsh motorways. :happy:


You don't come here often, do you? Although the M4 around Cardiff (where I live) westwards is good, I hate the Severn Crossing and the M4 to Cardiff, I resent paying to come back into my country (the cost of building the bridges was paid off a long time ago) and now there is a permanent 50mph limit from the Bridge all the way to the A48 (M) exit. I understand the need for it at peak times, but at 3am at a weekend to have to do 50mph is ridiculous.


----------



## Uppsala

Carldiff said:


> You don't come here often, do you? Although the M4 around Cardiff (where I live) westwards is good, I hate the Severn Crossing and the M4 to Cardiff, I resent paying to come back into my country (the cost of building the bridges was paid off a long time ago) and now there is a permanent 50mph limit from the Bridge all the way to the A48 (M) exit. I understand the need for it at peak times, but at 3am at a weekend to have to do 50mph is ridiculous.


Of cause I'm not using this motorways so often like you do. I'm not living there like you do. And maybe I find the charm with Severn Crossing because I'm not living there. And I can understand how you think about the paying. But I still like the Severn crossing. :happy:


----------



## shpirtkosova

The thing with UK motorways is that they are pretty much all 6 lane motorways where as in most of europe you will have 4 lane motorways. In effect, the UK probably should get more motorway milage than it deserves because of more space possible for traffic. Mybe the 2 extra lane advantage gets taken into account when making these figures, I don't know.


----------



## JeremyCastle

shpirtkosova said:


> The thing with UK motorways is that they are pretty much all 6 lane motorways where as in most of europe you will have 4 lane motorways. In effect, the UK probably should get more motorway milage than it deserves because of more space possible for traffic. Mybe the 2 extra lane advantage gets taken into account when making these figures, I don't know.


 And don't forget, as we've been talking about on this forum recently, if you count roads that are almost like Motorways(primary dual carriageways), the UK motorway network is much larger.


----------



## shpirtkosova

JeremyCastle said:


> And don't forget, as we've been talking about on this forum recently, if you count roads that are almost like Motorways(primary dual carriageways), the UK motorway network is much larger.


Yes there are many dual carriageways that are at 70mph (112 km/h) which in many European countries would be considered as motorway. UK has some of the best motorways in Europe.


----------



## JeremyCastle

I noticed that on Google maps on the satellite map at the 100mile level shows an excellent view of the UK's motorway and primary dual carriageway/expressways network.

I tried to upload the map, but my account here doesn't allow me to post attachments. :-(


----------



## Maxx☢Power

^^


----------



## JeremyCastle

Yes, anyone think that this is NOT a good representation of A more "accurate" map of the true freeway (Motorway and primary dual carriageway) network?

And to continue to harp on my theme... if only they would eliminate the roundabouts from this map above, this would be and excellent integrated network.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe which uses roundabouts on motorway-like roads extensively. Other countries with significant networks of near-motorways (France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy) do not have a large number of roundabouts on such roads.


----------



## Dan

Dundee comes to mind! lol


----------



## flierfy

JeremyCastle said:


> Yes, anyone think that this is NOT a good representation of A more "accurate" map of the true freeway (Motorway and primary dual carriageway) network?


I do. Most of the green lines in this map represent roads that are neither grade-separated nor dualled.


----------



## PortoNuts

*M25*









flickr


----------



## Uppsala

PortoNuts said:


> *M25*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flickr


Very nice! :happy:


----------



## JeremyCastle

flierfy said:


> I do. Most of the green lines in this map represent roads that are neither grade-separated nor dualled.


You could be correct, can anyone confirm or deny this?

There are some obvious ones on this map that are duelled however.


----------



## JeremyCastle

PortoNuts said:


> *M25*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flickr


 I love the old bridge on the right side.


----------



## J N Winkler

JeremyCastle said:


> You could be correct, can anyone confirm or deny this?


Firefly is right. The A75/A77 itinerary in particular sticks out like a sore thumb--except for a short length around Castle Douglas, none of it is dualled, let alone comprehensively grade-separated.


----------



## Carldiff

I don't get all the hate for roundabouts in this thread. Is it just because most of you aren't used to using them? Even if we do have them at weird places (like on motorway intersections), once you're used to using a roundabout it's much quicker, it keeps traffic flowing, and with so many I think the UK highway authorities (largely) know what they're doing. There are roundabouts with unnecessary traffic lights and some are less than ideally laid out, but for the most part they work. This desire to see the UK entirely linked by flyovers and overpasses is pipe-dreaming from people who don't see the bigger budgetary constraints and the fact that such a network simply isn't needed when roundabouts work so well.


----------



## Chris_533976

The thing with roundabouts is that they are great at low traffic levels and connect roads up nicely. But when they jam up they jam up mercilessly and are an awful nuisance.

Especially in the UK where there is such vehement opposition to any road scheme so a lot of these roundabouts cant be replaced.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Carldiff said:


> I don't get all the hate for roundabouts in this thread. Is it just because most of you aren't used to using them? Even if we do have them at weird places (like on motorway intersections), once you're used to using a roundabout it's much quicker, it keeps traffic flowing, and with so many I think the UK highway authorities (largely) know what they're doing. There are roundabouts with unnecessary traffic lights and some are less than ideally laid out, but for the most part they work. This desire to see the UK entirely linked by flyovers and overpasses is pipe-dreaming from people who don't see the bigger budgetary constraints and the fact that such a network simply isn't needed when roundabouts work so well.


 I for one love roundabouts, I think they should be plastered all over my native land of California(they are at least putting some in here and there).

What I am concerned about is drivers being able to get from point a to point b and back to point a again in the easiest smoothest way. Roundabouts don't, in my opinion, belong when people are going 60-70mph. It breaks up the continuity of the journey, creates more pollution and exhaust having a whole mess of cars having to go from 70 to 1/2/3 mph, then back to 70 again and finally is bad for fuel consumption.

Am I missing any other reasons? Again, roundabouts are great, they are much safer than traffic "lighted" junctions any day. But if you going to create a motorway/expressway network, do exactly that, not piecemeal it together.

Isn't there an argument from a "systems" point of view to having one integrated network/system? If we have any experts that can help me explain it better, I would appreciate it.


----------



## JeremyCastle

J N Winkler said:


> Firefly is right. The A75/A77 itinerary in particular sticks out like a sore thumb--except for a short length around Castle Douglas, none of it is dualled, let alone comprehensively grade-separated.


 OK, I appreciate it, then that Google Map doesn't show what I thought it did.... :-( I'm still hoping to find that perfect UK road map, one that has the motorways in one colour, the primary dual carriageways in another colour, and the other sorts of A and B roads still in other colours. Maybe I should make one myself.... if only I had the time.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Apologies if this has been discussed in the previous 50-odd pages....

How do British people refer to roads with numbers like Ax(M) in casual conversation (a) with road enthusiasts, (b) with normal people  ?


----------



## J N Winkler

Google Maps tries to follow local mapping conventions. In the case of Britain this is blue for motorways and green for primary routes, and some combination of red, yellow, and white for other roads. Some mappers try to establish a distinction between local authority principal routes and other roads.

In general, the primary route network is a type of _reseau vert_ which includes roads of basically all types of construction, ranging from full American-style freeway down to single-carriageway roads (maybe even single-track in the Scottish Highlands). Much the same is true of local authority principal roads.

If you made a complete map of roads in Britain which met the AASHTO definition of a freeway, it would include nearly all of the motorway network (probably all of it now that the A6144(M) anomaly has been despecialized), a fair chunk but by no means all of the primary route network, and a few bits here and there of the principal road network.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

ChrisZwolle said:


> The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe which uses roundabouts on motorway-like roads extensively. Other countries with significant networks of near-motorways (France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy) do not have a large number of roundabouts on such roads.


I know the UK uses a lot of roundabouts, but it has plenty of stretches of practically motorway-standard highways that have no roundabouts. 

Don't believe me -- just take a drive down large stretches of the A14, A45, A34, A1, A55, A303, A3, A23, A30, A42, A13 and A19 (to name but a few of the high quality trunk roads I've had the pleasure of driving on in my time).

I agree though -- the UK needs more motorways, in places. For example, the M27 should cover most of the south coast. The M11 should be extended eastwards to Norwich. The A1 should be upgraded to motorway standard from London to Edinburgh (its entirety). Manchester and Sheffield badly need a direct motorway link. My former home of the Black Country (west of Birmingham) badly needs a western orbital motorway, which has been on the drawing board for 22 years. Call me wild, but I have also always felt that London always needed its motorways to go into the semi-heart of London, ending at an inner ring road, much like Paris's Peripherique.

That always frustrated me about the UK -- the NIMBYism when it came to the building of new roads. Roads don't have to destroy the environment and they can actually help to keep traffic out of congested places, thus reducing pollution. New roads also = jobs.


----------



## CairnsTony

An 'Outer M25' would be really useful as well. Linking together the commuter towns ringing London and taking a lot of pressure off the M25.

Part of the reason that opposition to motorways became so strong I think links in with the general feeling in the 80s that the government of the day simply didn't listen to the electorate. When they decided to build motorways/dual carriageways through environmentally sensitive areas, they pushed through certain schemes-which could have been carried out more sensitively-regardless of vocal opposition. When you do this enough times you create a strong 'anti' lobby, not least because of rapidly increasing environmental awareness in the 80s.

In consequence, that Tory government and subsequent labour governments became so sensitive to the idea of building motorways, that they cancelled or shelved a number of schemes for fear of alienating voters. Some road schemes that did go ahead are motorways in all but name, because somehow building a 'dual carriageway' seemed less environmentally damaging than building a motorway, even if they were practically the same thing. It's all in the packaging and labelling.

Interestingly, Scotland appears to be the exception. There, quite a few proper motorways have appeared in the last couple of decades. They're building a few other extensions as I type this. Any Scottish posters wish to enlighten us as to why this should be?


----------



## PortoNuts

*M62*









flickr


----------



## JeremyCastle

Does anyone have any idea why primary dual carriages(expressways) have the same speed limit as motorways if, they are not quite up to the same safety standards such as raised kerbs(curbs), lack of hard shoulder, shorter entrance ramps, etc...?

I would assume that if the safety standards are not quite as high as motorways, the speed limit would be a bit lower, such as 65 or something.


----------



## bleetz

The speed limit for dual carriageways in the UK is the same as that for motorways, i.e. 70 mph (unless sign posted otherwise).


----------



## MAG

JeremyCastle said:


> Does anyone have any idea why primary dual carriages(expressways) have the same speed limit as motorways if, they are not quite up to the same safety standards such as raised kerbs(curbs), lack of hard shoulder, shorter entrance ramps, etc...?
> 
> I would assume that if the safety standards are not quite as high as motorways, the speed limit would be a bit lower, such as 65 or something.


I think the ****-up is the other way round on British motorways, namely, the motorway speed limit is too low and should be raised to 75 mph or 80 mph.

Remember, 70 mph is a mere 112.7 km/h, which is a typical speed limit for a well-designed dual carriageway in continental Europe. 
In most EU countries you'll find that the motorway speed limit is 120 km/h or 130 km/h, which is 74.6 mph or 80.8 mph, respectively, while dual carriageway speed limits are more or less in line with the British 70 mph.

So if a copper stops you doing 80 mph on the M1 just reassure him that it is perfectly safe and that you were just keeping up with your continental cousins.



.


----------



## NCT

I think simplicity is also a factor. It's much easier to have one rule for 'national speed limit' than to have separate speed limits. Not always, but generally, lower traffic volumes on dual-carriageways warrant the same speed limit even though design standards are lower than motorways. The argument that motorway speed limit is too low is I suppose valid to an extent - people do travel at 80mph in the 2nd and 3rd lanes and that's pretty much accepted.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

NCT said:


> I think simplicity is also a factor. It's much easier to have one rule for 'national speed limit' than to have separate speed limits. Not always, but generally, lower traffic volumes on dual-carriageways warrant the same speed limit even though design standards are lower than motorways. The argument that motorway speed limit is too low is I suppose valid to an extent - people do travel at 80mph in the 2nd and 3rd lanes and that's pretty much accepted.


Unless things have changed since I left, going over 70mph is no big deal. My average speed on the motorway was 85-90 and I never once got pulled over by the police. In fact, I've done well over 100mph and never been pulled (when it was safe to do so, of course).


----------



## NCT

Comfortably Numb said:


> Unless things have changed since I left, going over 70mph is no big deal. My average speed on the motorway was 85-90 and I never once got pulled over by the police. In fact, I've done well over 100mph and never been pulled (when it was safe to do so, of course).


The police are not actually interested in you travelling at 90mph on a motorway because the marginal risk is minimal. Where the marginal risk is high is around the 30mph area where there's a lot of pedestrian interaction as the boundary between life and death upon impact is around the 30mph mark.


----------



## Carldiff

NCT said:


> *The police are not actually interested in you travelling at 90mph on a motorway *because the marginal risk is minimal. Where the marginal risk is high is around the 30mph area where there's a lot of pedestrian interaction as the boundary between life and death upon impact is around the 30mph mark.


That's a very optimistic point of view - I see a lot more camera vans on the M4 then I ever do anywhere else, indeed the M4 is where I got caught doing 90 (3 points and a £60 fine). You'd think they would patrol around schools and accident blackspots, but of course you'll raise a lot more revenue on the motorways because there is more traffic, and generally it's assumed a safer place to speed. Camera vans in this country have a lot less to do with road safety than they do with revenue generation.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

There are two types of enforcement; static enforcement with fixed speed cameras or mobile speed camera teams, or (undercover) police that is patrolling the roads. The latter may not be interested in you if you're doing 80, but the first will capture your plate and send you a bill. 

Unfortunately, the first is the best in terms of revenue, the second the best in traffic safety (pulling the guys over who are actually driving dangerous).


----------



## abritishguy

Comfortably Numb said:


> Call me wild, but I have also always felt that London always needed its motorways to go into the semi-heart of London, ending at an inner ring road, much like Paris's Peripherique.


You do know that something like that was planned during the 60's/70's, right?

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/ringways/


----------



## jandeczentar

abritishguy said:


> You do know that something like that was planned during the 60's/70's, right?
> 
> http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/ringways/


It's a pity most of the ringways plan was never built. Now I know why the M25 is so congested: it's taking the traffic intended for at least 2 roads.

Technically, London does have an inner ringroad: the north and south circular roads. In places the A406 north circular road could pass for a motorway, however, in reality it is not even a dual carriageway for its entire length. The A205 south circular road is mostly single carriageway and was largely cobbled together from existing streets. No one could ever mistake it for a motorway.

As I understand it, inner London's road network is mostly derived from a 17th century design (after the Great Fire) which, in turn, was derived from the medieval design. It's not surprising London is so congested.


----------



## CairnsTony

jandeczentar said:


> It's a pity most of the ringways plan was never built. Now I know why the M25 is so congested: it's taking the traffic intended for at least 2 roads.
> 
> Technically, London does have an inner ringroad: the north and south circular roads. In places the A406 north circular road could pass for a motorway, however, in reality it is not even a dual carriageway for its entire length. The A205 south circular road is mostly single carriageway and was largely cobbled together from existing streets. No one could ever mistake it for a motorway.
> 
> As I understand it, inner London's road network is mostly derived from a 17th century design (after the Great Fire) which, in turn, was derived from the medieval design. It's not surprising London is so congested.


The irony is, when the first plans for London's rebuild after the Great Fire were drawn up, broad Boulevards, rather like those in Paris today, were planned, along with a more grid-iron layout. 

In the end, they decided to largely reconstruct the city along the original mediaeval street patterns, a historic error I think, as it has exacerbated congestion and left that part of London with a less than impressive architectural legacy (not that WWII exactly helped either...)

The South Circular is a joke. Something really needs to be done about that...


----------



## ea1969

^^
As they did not catch the opportunity at the time of the "Ringways" planning, I do not think that anything could be done in the future. The trend in Britain is clearly against road construction.

South London is a problem by its geography, there is no chance for a wide road passing through borough high streets and poor public transport comparing with North London.


----------



## abritishguy

jandeczentar said:


> It's a pity most of the ringways plan was never built. Now I know why the M25 is so congested: it's taking the traffic intended for at least 2 roads.
> 
> Technically, London does have an inner ringroad: the north and south circular roads. In places the A406 north circular road could pass for a motorway, however, in reality it is not even a dual carriageway for its entire length. The A205 south circular road is mostly single carriageway and was largely cobbled together from existing streets. No one could ever mistake it for a motorway.
> 
> As I understand it, inner London's road network is mostly derived from a 17th century design (after the Great Fire) which, in turn, was derived from the medieval design. It's not surprising London is so congested.


Technically, half the ringways plan was built. The M25 as it stands today was part Ringway 3 and part ringway 4. They even built the eastern half of Ringway 1.

The major problem the ringways faced, as was mentioned in the link I posted, was NIMBYism, especially as the southern half of the ringways plan would essentially destroy vast parts of London. This, and the general cost (Ringway 1 would've cost £1 billion IN 1970) spelt the end of the ringways, even if it did end up being watered down to the M25 as we have it today.


----------



## ea1969

^^
The problem is that the M25 is a bit far away for local movements within Greater London. For example driving from Ealing to Greenwich could last for ages using the A205. 

Although there was certainly the NIMBY-movement, they could have constructed in the south something like the A406 (although it has its problems as well - ie. Hanger Lane).


----------



## IndigoJo

JeremyCastle said:


> Does anyone have any idea why primary dual carriages(expressways) have the same speed limit as motorways if, they are not quite up to the same safety standards such as raised kerbs(curbs), lack of hard shoulder, shorter entrance ramps, etc...?
> 
> I would assume that if the safety standards are not quite as high as motorways, the speed limit would be a bit lower, such as 65 or something.


The speed limit for cars and small vans is the same as for motorways. The speed limit for larger vehicles is 10mph lower (50 for large trucks, 60 for small trucks, large vans and coaches).

Also, some dual carriageways have had their speed limits reduced to 50 or 60 in the last few years. There is a bit of the A24, for example, south of Horsham where there is a 60mph speed limit because the road is windy despite being a dual carriageway.


----------



## kramer81

CairnsTony said:


> Interestingly, Scotland appears to be the exception. There, quite a few proper motorways have appeared in the last couple of decades. They're building a few other extensions as I type this. Any Scottish posters wish to enlighten us as to why this should be?


Well I'm by no means an expert but I am Scottish. 

The M74 is finally being completed 40 years late. The problem is that when the M8 was built in the 60/70s it ploughed right through Glasgow destroying historic parts of the city that wouldn't even be contemplated now. The masterplan was abandoned half complete, the "ski jumps" at the Kingston Bridge are evidence of flyovers that go nowhere. 

However, the Kingston Bridge deals with something like 150k-200k vehicles a day so the extension really is necessary. There was a lot of protests and the public inquiry rejected it but it was pushed through by the Scottish Government. I suppose a six lane motorway on stilts will be pretty imposing but it's going through a pretty grotty part of the city atleast.

As for the other projects I guess it's because we have a pretty feable motorway network so most motorist atleast think they are necessary. Even Glasgow to Edinburgh isn't motorway standard all the way, for example. Dundee and Aberdeen don't have bypasses either. In more rural parts there is more public demand for road upgrades and dualing because of the amount of serious accidents on the existing A roads, as well as traffic problems obviously.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## CairnsTony

kramer81 said:


> Well I'm by no means an expert but I am Scottish.
> 
> The M74 is finally being completed 40 years late. The problem is that when the M8 was built in the 60/70s it ploughed right through Glasgow destroying historic parts of the city that wouldn't even be contemplated now. The masterplan was abandoned half complete, the "ski jumps" at the Kingston Bridge are evidence of flyovers that go nowhere.
> 
> However, the Kingston Bridge deals with something like 150k-200k vehicles a day so the extension really is necessary. There was a lot of protests and the public inquiry rejected it but it was pushed through by the Scottish Government. I suppose a six lane motorway on stilts will be pretty imposing but it's going through a pretty grotty part of the city atleast.
> 
> As for the other projects I guess it's because we have a pretty feable motorway network so most motorist atleast think they are necessary. Even Glasgow to Edinburgh isn't motorway standard all the way, for example. Dundee and Aberdeen don't have bypasses either. In more rural parts there is more public demand for road upgrades and dualing because of the amount of serious accidents on the existing A roads, as well as traffic problems obviously.


Thanks for that. I guess what surprises me is that some seriously congested routes in England have not received similar upgrades. There can of course be obvious reasons sometimes: a motorway between Manchester and Sheffield for example, would plough straight through the Peak District National Park. But there are other more surprising omissions which may be purely due to local opposition, such as a South Coast motorway between Portsmouth and the Channel ports, or motorway links to Plymouth, Norwich and Ipswich for example. Do the exisiting dual carriageway upgrades do the job anyone?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

A few photos I took on Tuesday:

Damn I forgot to resize them, i'll re do them, which'll take another hour :lol:

Ok, here we go again

The very short, not very good and strange *M271*




































*M27, followed by the M3 and other roads and then again the M3*


----------



## PortoNuts

Good pics Daniel :bow: 

Why don't they repair a motorway all together? In some of the pics some lanes look smoother than others but then they all look fine in the following pic. Isn't it a waste of money to do parcial repairings?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Thank you, I don't really know why, there must be a reason, for example I believe that it is possible that a part of the M271 is owned by the Highways Agency, whereas other parts of it is owned by Southampton City Council. I'm not sure of that one, but I know that the M275 is owned by Portsmouth City Council.
Here's a bit of information on the M271



> This is a troubled little motorway. It doesn't ask for much, it just shifts traffic around the west of Southampton, connecting the M27 bypass to the docks and providing a few local connections. It isn't a big job, and yet somehow the M271 gets it all wrong.
> 
> Take, for example, its number. It lies entirely west of the M3, so surely it should have a number beginning with a 3? No, apparently not.
> 
> *Worse, take its interchange with the M27. It's a roundabout with peak time traffic signals, and only one lane on the southbound flyover. Not exactly a motorway standard route.*
> 
> In fact, it has only one junction on its route that isn't just a flat roundabout (two of which are grade separated to give priority to another route). Its one full junction fails entirely to meet a classified road. Oh dear.
> 
> Its number, and the existence of the M275 near Portsmouth, suggests a number of other M27 spurs were planned (and also explains the numbering anomaly).


and



> Where is it?
> 
> Junction diagramM27 junction 3, where Southampton's bypass and part of the south coast trunk route crosses a short spur motorway, leading to the city and docks.
> What's wrong with it?
> 
> If you've looked at the junction diagram already you should know. The M271 - not much of a road, but still a motorway - is interrupted by a roundabout. If the route of the M271 is busy enough to warrant a motorway, surely the motorway built there should be built to the correct standards. There's only one actual grade-separated junction on the M271; the other three (this and the termini) are roundabouts. It's a motorway alright, but only because it has an "M".
> Why is it wrong?
> 
> This should have been the northern end of the M271 - a roundabout is an acceptable ending for a motorway. However, building a junction here on the M27 meant that there wasn't room for another to serve the local area. Rather than making the locals go without, or - god forbid - drive an extra mile to reach the junction on the M271, the planners decided to add a new link road to the A3057. But because this roundabout had motorway restrictions, and the only other connecting roads were motorways, the new spur road had to be a motorway too. So the M271 continues to the north, interrupted by a roundabout. More joined up planning from the people who brought you the A601(M).
> What would be better?
> 
> If you're going to build a motorway, make it motorway standard. If you can't make it motorway standard, don't make it a motorway. Let's downgrade the M271 to an A-road, since it's wrongly numbered anyway (it should have a number beginning with a 3). That way, it has a valid number and the junctions are up to scratch.
> Right to reply
> 
> Hate this junction? Or do you think it hasn't had a fair trial? Make yourself heard! Post a comment.
> 
> These are the most recent comments on this junction. You can see all comments if you prefer.
> October 2009
> 
> An anonymous contributor has come to a complete stop:
> 
> There was never a major problem at this junction, coming from Portsmouth direction, until they added traffic lights. There used to be a dedicated lane to go straight onto the M271 and one for Romsey access. Now everyone has to stop, causing tailbacks onto the motorway which never existed before they decided to "improve" the junction. Madness.
> May 2007
> 
> Jim Champion notes the latest changes:
> 
> Back in March 2006 some changes were made to this bad junction. And to be honest the traffic flow has improved in the early morning rush hour, but I don't have any evidence for a causal link.
> 
> The changes:
> 
> * northbound side of the roundabout (over the M27) is now three lanes.
> * southbound side of the roundabout (over the M27) is now two lanes, with a new set of traffic lights controlling traffic going straight on (onto M271 towards southampton) or right (onto M27 slip westbound).
> * westbound slip off the M27 up to the roundabout now starts earlier, meaning no hard shoulder for some distance on the M27 (a blue sign announces this).
> * no longer a dedicated slip at the roundabout from M27 westbound onto M271 southbound - instead all traffic coming off M27 is controlled by traffic light at the top.
> * Its still a busy junction, but I think its a little less "bad" than before. I'd give it a bit more time though.
> 
> The slip down onto the M27 eastbound is still ridiculous: two lanes off the roundabout go into one before joining the uphill motorway, lots of lorries from the docks & industrial estate... fun and games.
> November 2006
> 
> Peter sees the bigger picture:
> 
> The reason that this is a bad junction is that Portsmouth city had the sense to fight for the budget for a 'proper' junction [for the M275] as they realised this would make their port more attractive (Southampton no longer has cross channel ferries partly as a result).
> 
> Southampton still has a huge container and vehicle terminal, and this junction should attract funding as this is the route for all port traffic, which is set to grow.
> July 2006
> 
> Jim Champion finds his days cursed by this junction:
> 
> This junction makes my morning journey very frustrating. I want to travel up the M271, turning left at this bad junction to travel west on the M27. The M271 is two lanes, both of which become blocked with traffic (cars, lorries leaving the docks and the Nursling Industrial Estate) that wants to turn right to travel east on the M27 and are held up by the roundabout traffic lights and congestion eastbound on the M27. The usual situation is that we sit there in a queue knowing that we would save 5-10 minutes by driving along the hard shoulder to the roundabout (where another lane appears for those turning left onto the M27). On occasions we take an alternative route to junction 1 of the M27 (through Totton on A and B roads) because it takes less time than waiting on the "M"271.
> 
> Another amusing why-is-the-M271-a-motorway? story... almost every day I see cyclists riding north along the hard shoulder of the M271 between the Redbridge Roundabout and the Nursling Junction, probably because it's the quickest/shortest route. I've seen the cyclists stopped by the police, but they're still back there the next day.
> June 2005
> 
> Steve points the finger of blame:
> 
> The problem with this junction is the Highways Agency and their incompetence. Firstly white hatching has been painted onto the M27 eastbound entry slip on leaving the roundabout, narrowing two lanes to one-and-a-half before widening again after the bend. Secondly, the traffic lights where the M271 northbound meets the roundabout aren't required as there are very few vehicles heading from the M27 (east of the junction) northbound up the M271. Even in rush hour there are only a handful of vehicles travelling in this direction. Off peak the lights often turn red for traffic heading out of Southampton, in order to let no cars pass through. Maybe Southampton City Council gave them the idea!
> 
> See all 7 comments about this junction »


----------



## Exethalion

The M271 spits in the face of motorway orthodoxy. At least its Portmouth cousin makes a decent job of being of a good standard with a grade separated roundabout in a very urban area. The M271 can't even do it in the suburbs.


----------



## Pansori

I took a couple of photos on the M27 near Portsmouth a couple of weeks ago

Note the number plate of that Audi A5 








http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613752266/in/set-72157623950942267/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613134681/in/set-72157623950942267/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613134525/in/set-72157623950942267/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613751740/in/set-72157623950942267/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613751608/in/set-72157623950942267/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613751458/in/set-72157623950942267/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613751312/in/set-72157623950942267/

















http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613133819/in/set-72157623950942267/


----------



## Comfortably Numb

As a former British citizen, i'm going to be blunt: the UK needs to build more motorways, screw the nimby's. It's a disgrace that there is no motorway link between Manchester and Sheffield or Newcastle and Edinburgh. It is a disgrace that London doesn't have an inner ring road. It is a disgrace that there is no south coast motorway. It is a disgrace that East Anglia has no motorway. It is a disgrace that people justify the fact that the UK lacks motorways by claiming that A roads do the job, when they do not (France, Germany and the Netherlands have high quality dual carriageways too). To my British friends: just build. It'll create jobs and you really need to have an integrated transport policy, which includes the car as well as good public transport. I lived in the West Midlands and I was one of the few who wanted the "Blue Route" (western orbital extension of the M42). I was so sick of the NIMBYism that I moved to a country that is the other extreme LOL.


----------



## niterider

Comfortably Numb said:


> As a former British citizen, i'm going to be blunt: the UK needs to build more motorways, screw the nimby's. It's a disgrace that there is no motorway link between Manchester and Sheffield or Newcastle and Edinburgh. It is a disgrace that London doesn't have an inner ring road. It is a disgrace that there is no south coast motorway. It is a disgrace that East Anglia has no motorway. It is a disgrace that people justify the fact that the UK lacks motorways by claiming that A roads do the job, when they do not (France, Germany and the Netherlands have high quality dual carriageways too). To my British friends: just build. It'll create jobs and you really need to have an integrated transport policy, which includes the car as well as good public transport. I lived in the West Midlands and I was one of the few who wanted the "Blue Route" (western orbital extension of the M42). I was so sick of the NIMBYism that I moved to a country that is the other extreme LOL.


Sshhh you're not allowed to have such opinions in 21st century Britain....they'll heckle you as a climate change denier lol ...hno:


----------



## Comfortably Numb

niterider said:


> Sshhh you're not allowed to have such opinions in 21st century Britain....they'll heckle you as a climate change denier lol ...hno:


Dude, I held these opinions in 20th century Britain; when I lived there. I tell you what's worse for the environment than building a motorway: often NOT building one and having clogged up roads as a result, stewing in exhaust fumes from cars doing the whole "stop-start" thing.


----------



## Pansori

Harsh opinion here but... true. South East England is in a desperate need for a new East-West motorway... or at least some decent upgrades (= removals of roundabouts) to the existing 2+2 A roads.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Pansori said:


> Harsh opinion here but... true. South East England is in a desperate need for a new East-West motorway... or at least some decent upgrades (= removals of roundabouts) to the existing 2+2 A roads.


Didn't mean to sound harsh. On the flipside, the UK's motorways are of a very high standard IMO. The lanes are nice and wide, you have plenty of time to merge, the signage is clear and British drivers are among the best and safest in the world.

....I just wish there were more of them (motorways).


----------



## Stainless

Pansori said:


> I took a couple of photos on the M27 near Portsmouth a couple of weeks ago
> 
> Note the number plate of that Audi A5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnas/4613752266/in/set-72157623950942267/


I was impressed that I managed to see a '10' plate car on March 1st at 9:30. Has to be the quickest I have ever seen a new registration car. I do find it a bit sad that some people go to a great effort to have as 'new' a car as possible.


----------



## bleetz

Gareth said:


> Indeed, I've been caught up in queues at the toilets on a service station somewhere in France. Not pleasant.
> 
> That said, the food is far, _far_ superior. You get baguettes and other things. The best you hope for in the UK is that a reputable chain such as KFC or McDonalnds is present, but then, still expect to pay extortionate prices.
> 
> I rarely buy anything at service stations. I just buy a drink and a packet of crips before I set out.


Yes, they are very overpriced. A decent Burger King meal is about £7. Insane.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## ttownfeen

Looking at pictures from the internet, the gantries in Britain are often overstuffed with information.

For example:










That's from http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/


----------



## Comfortably Numb

ttownfeen said:


> Looking at pictures from the internet, the gantries in Britain are often overstuffed with information.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's from http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/


I agree. Bexleyheath isn't worthy of being signposted from a major motorway.


----------



## piotr71

Some pictures and links of Trafalgar Gate Link Road's construction in Portsmouth.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Drivers-gear-up-for-traffic.5371679.jp

http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/17120.html

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Work-begins-on-new-Trafalgar.6257627.jp














































Looking North:









and South- West:


















Going from the City centre towards North:









Some more to come soon 


]


----------



## piotr71




----------



## piotr71

M275 going out of the city;


















In the place where the green lorry and orange digger are, tunnel's entrance/ exit will be constructed: 




































Currently existig tunnel. For bicycles and pedestrians only, so you can see concrete and plastic poles on both ends:



























Scaffolding below, climbs straith up from the middle of the old tunnel:









Finally we have a last shot towards Portsmouth town centre:


----------



## piotr71

Let's see some pics of M3 from M27 near Southampton to junction 12 on M25. Pictures were being made very early in the morning(about 4am) so, with my compact camera, I could not get better quality of them.


----------



## piotr71

Quite interesting thing on that photo. In Britain warning triangle can't be put behind broken down car on motorways, but must be used on any other road.


















There is quite long section with only two lanes on this motorway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Where is that 2x2 section exactly? Between Winchester and Basingstoke?


----------



## piotr71

Entering Surrey:









Traffic lights on slip road.













































Terrible traffic jam at 5AM just before junction with M25 and the last picture as well:


----------



## CNGL

My eyes! I can't see traffic on the left! (But yes, sometimes I see around here a British car, with the driver on the wrong side, for me).

But now, I agree that British motorway network is kinda sh**ty. They have to complete A1(M)/E15 all the way from London to Edinburgh, asides other motorways. And my star: A Channel crossing from Dover to Calais. That would be the ruin of Eurotunnel (and British and French governments, let's say hno...

And another thing: Please use kilometers instead of miles and sign European routes! Now you will see why the M1 gives bad luck (Because it's the E13 )


----------



## ChrisZwolle

M1 is probably the busiest intercity long-distance motorway in all of Europe. Traffic volumes are consistently above 100,000 vehicles per day between London and Leeds.


----------



## piotr71

ChrisZwolle said:


> Where is that 2x2 section exactly? Between Winchester and Basingstoke?


There are two 2x2 sections on M3. About 25 kilometres long altogether. They are located aproximately between Winchester and Basingstoke.


----------



## Angelos

What shame...uk motorways are the best in europe in terms of designing but with horrible concrete asphalt and jammed all the time, while i was in london M25 was jammed all the day and the worst thing is the tolls at dartford crossing that makes it even more annoying making the traffic worse... I have to say even the dutch have better motorway network with less jams ^^


----------



## PortoNuts

Great pics there piotr71! :cheers1:

Some sections are indeed amazingly busy.


----------



## Carldiff

Angelos said:


> What shame...uk motorways are the best in europe in terms of designing but with horrible concrete asphalt and jammed all the time, while i was in london M25 was jammed all the day and the worst thing is the tolls at dartford crossing that makes it even more annoying making the traffic worse... *I have to say even the dutch have better motorway network with less jams *^^


erm I think Chriswzolle will disagree with you in terms of km of traffic jams, I think the Dutch network is more prone to traffic flow problems. The M25 may be Europe's biggest car park at some points in the day but the UK network as a whole copes quite well with the amount of traffic.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Most six-lane sections of British motorways (outside the biggest metropolitan areas like London, Birmingham and Manchester-Liverpool) receive between 80.000 and 110.000 vehicles per day. A six-lane motorway should be able to cope with that kind of traffic without much problems. 

I do have the idea though that M8 through Glasgow equals London's M25 in traffic congestion. It drops from 10 to 4 lanes within 3 miles.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I made a video of the same section of road as Piotir, although in the opposite dicrection, but it came out all red . The M3 can be a very busy motorway and infact has a section underneath the M25 where it is one lane per direction, as 2 lanes become on-ramps for the M25 and then 2 lanes are off-ramps from the M25 and return the M3 to 3 lanes. 

However, AFAIK, it is legal to put up a triangle on a motorway, but not required, and the law is the same for all roads.


----------



## piotr71

DanielFigFoz said:


> However, AFAIK, it is legal to put up a triangle on a motorway, but not required, and the law is the same for all roads.


Nope!

Regular road:


> put a warning triangle on the road at least 45 metres (147 feet) behind your broken-down vehicle on the same side of the road, or use other permitted warning devices if you have them. Always take great care when placing or retrieving them, *but never use them on motorways*


Motorway:


> leave the vehicle by the left-hand door and ensure your passengers do the same. You MUST leave any animals in the vehicle or, in an emergency, keep them under proper control on the verge. *Never attempt to place a warning triangle on a motorway*


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069863


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ Amazing!


----------



## PortoNuts

And great volumes of traffic there as well :yes:


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## Mateusz

M74 in Glasgow, possibly the last urban motorway ever built in this country ?


----------



## PortoNuts

Hopefully not.


----------



## Jonesy55

Angelos said:


> What shame...uk motorways are the best in europe in terms of designing but with horrible concrete asphalt and jammed all the time, while i was in london M25 was jammed all the day and the worst thing is the tolls at dartford crossing that makes it even more annoying making the traffic worse... I have to say even the dutch have better motorway network with less jams ^^


The M25 is not typical of most UK motorways.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Mateusz said:


> M74 in Glasgow, possible the last urban motorway ever built in this country ?


That is very likely


----------



## Harry

PortoNuts said:


>


The 'M32(M) (at about 1:50) is a road I was previously unaware of!


----------



## poshbakerloo

Mateusz said:


> M74 in Glasgow, possibly the last urban motorway ever built in this country ?


That could be true. I wouldn't know where to fit in any large roads anyway, they take up loads of space!


----------



## PortoNuts

*M60*









http://www.flickr.com/photos/dean_capri_2-8/3909963140/sizes/l/


----------



## jandeczentar

Harry said:


> The 'M32(M) (at about 1:50) is a road I was previously unaware of!


I think he meant the A38(M) which connects the M6 to the centre of Birmingham via Spaghetti Junction.

On a separate, though related, note; the A38(M) has no central reservation. Instead traffic lane flow is controlled by signs on the overhead gantries. Apparently it works quite well (no collisions). As far as I know it is the only road in Britain with this arrangement but, just out of interest, are there roads anywhere else in the world that do that?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

jandeczentar said:


> On a separate, though related, note; the A38(M) has no central reservation. Instead traffic lane flow is controlled by signs on the overhead gantries. Apparently it works quite well (no collisions). As far as I know it is the only road in Britain with this arrangement but, just out of interest, are there roads anywhere else in the world that do that?


Yes, for example the A49 bridge in Sevilla across the Rio Guadalquivir, the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and the Avinguda Diagonal in Barcelona.


----------



## Carldiff

The A38M is special though because it the only motorway with no central reservation and a tidal flow system. None of the roads Chris listed are motorways or freeways (I don't think). Tidal flow roads like that aren't too uncommon in the UK, we have one in Cardiff (North Road from Maindy to the University is three lanes with the centre lane changing direction around 2pm from towards the city centre to away). It works pretty well.

http://goo.gl/maps/e3tG
http://goo.gl/maps/zMvE
http://goo.gl/maps/nqRi


----------



## Penn's Woods

ChrisZwolle said:


> Yes, for example the A49 bridge in Sevilla across the Rio Guadalquivir, the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and the Avinguda Diagonal in Barcelona.


And at least some Delaware River Port Authority bridges: the Benjamin Franklin and Walt Whitman bridges (Philadelphia to New Jersey). I think it's also true of the Commodore Barry Bridge (DRPA again, but a bit south of Philadelphia) and I suspect the Betsy Ross Bridge (which I don't know that I've ever been on, because it doesn't do much that's useful at the New Jersey end). There are variable signs: reading "X Lanes to N.J." (or "to Phila."), with the number that's appropriate at the moment being lit up where the X is. Don't ask me how the lanes are marked - I'm sort of visualizing dashed double yellow on both sides of the lanes that vary. And they may put down cones, which is something that they'd have to do in the middle of the day when traffic is light and they can close a lane to play with it....

EDIT:
Found a picture: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/28898708
No idea if they actually move that divider twice a day....


----------



## DanielFigFoz

The A470 in Cardiff










The whole article;

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/photo/a470/

is a very interesting read.


----------



## Stainless

Carldiff said:


> The A38M is special though because it the only motorway with no central reservation and a tidal flow system. None of the roads Chris listed are motorways or freeways (I don't think). Tidal flow roads like that aren't too uncommon in the UK, we have one in Cardiff (North Road from Maindy to the University is three lanes with the centre lane changing direction around 2pm from towards the city centre to away). It works pretty well.
> 
> http://goo.gl/maps/e3tG
> http://goo.gl/maps/zMvE
> http://goo.gl/maps/nqRi


It is a very odd setup, there is always one empty lane to separate the traffic which is usually evenly divided. However the centre lane has a drainage channel meaning that motorcycle are not allowed in it. Also as a pointless piece of trivia, it used to have a pipe going across it carrying vinegar, which once leaked and ruined the paint on a few cars.


----------



## ttownfeen

PortoNuts said:


> *M60*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dean_capri_2-8/3909963140/sizes/l/


This is what I was talking about in my earlier post. This gantry has way too much information given the size of the signs. Do you UK natives agree or disagree?


----------



## Carldiff

I don't really agree, I can still read it all. It's a bit cluttered but we live in a densely populated island, so lots of towns to point out.


----------



## Penn's Woods

What's the little yellow-and-black thing next to "Warrington" on the sign in ttownfeen's post (from Porto's post)?


----------



## Carldiff

It's a triangle pin-pointing a detour route.


----------



## PortoNuts

ttownfeen said:


> This is what I was talking about in my earlier post. This gantry has way too much information given the size of the signs. Do you UK natives agree or disagree?


I find it perfectly acceptable. And even if it had too much information, it's better too much than little information.


----------



## niterider

I raised this previously. Here's the deal - UK signage in general is excellent. BUT on motorways (particularly at major junctions) as ttownfeen said, the gantry has too much information on it - given its size. 

Yes - its readable. But it could be much clearer if destinations were not squeezed together (often with commas separating them) and simply if the signs were LARGER with bigger font sizes making the signs visible from further back - particularly important on high speed roads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I think most foreigners only base their opinion about British signage on the gantries, which are indeed not the best feature in the United Kingdom. It would help if they would put destinations above each other, not next to each other. France does this as well, but it only works with short names (Metz - Nancy). I also think that the road numbers in plain text (if not combined with brackets) add to the gantry problem. It feels like reading a sentence.


----------



## niterider

jandeczentar said:


> As far as I know it is the only road in Britain with this arrangement but, just out of interest, are there roads anywhere else in the world that do that?


There's also the Aston Expressway in Birmingham..I'd upload a photo froom google sreetview but I'm clueless how to :banana:


----------



## PortoNuts

ChrisZwolle said:


> I think most foreigners only base their opinion about British signage on the gantries, which are indeed not the best feature in the United Kingdom. It would help if they would put destinations above each other, not next to each other. France does this as well, but it only works with short names (Metz - Nancy). I also think that the road numbers in plain text (if not combined with brackets) add to the gantry problem. It feels like reading a sentence.


But if they didn't mentioned certain places people would complain there was little information in the signage. It's always damn if you do, damn if you don't.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts

*M5 looking North.*









http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockmanzym/4005088721/sizes/l/in/set-72157622570903118/


----------



## Carldiff

PortoNuts said:


>


WEBUYANYCAR.COM!!! OMG that is so annoying, did you plant that there deliberately? What shit commercial radio station are you listening to anyway?


----------



## Comfortably Numb

PortoNuts said:


> *M5 looking North.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockmanzym/4005088721/sizes/l/in/set-72157622570903118/


The M5 is pretty scenic, especially as it passes close to Malvern and Worcester.


----------



## Stainless

niterider said:


> There's also the Aston Expressway in Birmingham..I'd upload a photo froom google sreetview but I'm clueless how to :banana:


The A38(M) is the Aston Expressway.


----------



## poshbakerloo

ttownfeen said:


> This is what I was talking about in my earlier post. This gantry has way too much information given the size of the signs. Do you UK natives agree or disagree?


I think its fine. Motorways are wide and quite straight for much of the route so you can see the signs from a distance...


----------



## Mateusz

I also noticed people in the UK don't drive so fast as in Germany for example, maybe because of traffic volumes I haven't seen people going faster than 90-100 MPH


----------



## geogregor

Mateusz said:


> I also noticed people in the UK don't drive so fast as in Germany for example, maybe because of traffic volumes I haven't seen people going faster than 90-100 MPH


Well, maybe because there is 70mph speed limit on UK motorways.
Lot of people drive 80-90mph but higher speed can get you into trouble


----------



## Comfortably Numb

geogregor said:


> Well, maybe because there is 70mph speed limit on UK motorways.
> Lot of people drive 80-90mph but higher speed can get you into trouble


I regularly did +120mph on (empty) motorways and never got in trouble with the law.


----------



## Harry

They probably couldn't catch you!

The 70 mph speed limit is a great example of a rule that gets broken in practice, but still serves a useful purpose so is left as it is. I know that if I pass a police car at 75 mph, he won't give me a second look. At 80 mph, he'll give me a hard stare and at 85 mph I could be in trouble. As a result, I usually stick to 80 mph, sometimes less. People who are calling for the limit to be raised to 80 mph are missing the point a little. If it ain't broke (and it isn't) don't fix it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Britain is slightly weird with speed limits. It's non-urban and truck limits are among the highest of Europe, but the motorway limits are among the lowest in Europe. Denmark recently went from 70 to 80 miles per hour, maybe the UK can follow


----------



## Rebasepoiss

A speed limit is working when most people are ready to follow it. When we were driving on the A4 in Italy, we were usually going at 125-130 km/h (by GPS) and very few cars overtook us. That's better than having a speed limit of 110km/h and most people driving +15km/h.


----------



## CairnsTony

ChrisZwolle said:


> Britain is slightly weird with speed limits. It's non-urban and truck limits are among the highest of Europe, but the motorway limits are among the lowest in Europe. Denmark recently went from 70 to 80 miles per hour, maybe the UK can follow


Perhaps, but it wouldn't be for safety reasons as the UK has an excellent safety record. If it would increase capacity, then that would be a good reason I guess.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Actually the fatality rate on the Danish motorvej went down after they increased the speed limit.


----------



## Gareth

Jonesy55 said:


> Didn't napoleon change most of continental Europe to the right? I'm not sure what the reasoning behind the change was though.


Yes and Nazi Germany also changed over a lot of countries it invaded.


----------



## Jonesy55

Gareth said:


> Yes and Nazi Germany also changed over a lot of countries it invaded.


I thought so.

Driving on the right = fascism, hate and evil

Driving on the left = democracy, freedom and love

:yes:


----------



## ssh

No, no no! You don't want to steer too far right, that would be fascist. Too far left would be communist. Best stay somewhere in the middle. And avoid oncoming traffic.


----------



## geogregor

Penn's Woods said:


> Wikipedia, true to form, has an article on it:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic
> 
> If they're right, the change in the US has something to do with the driver of wagons pulled by teams of horses sitting on the left so he could use his right hand for the whip, in which case it made sense to pass oncoming wagons on the left so you could see that your wheels weren't coming into conflict with them.


I know exactly the same explanation.


----------



## PortoNuts

So the driving side is now an indicator of the political position of countries? :lol:


----------



## PortoNuts

*M90 - Junction 11*









http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-burn/4728390900/sizes/l/


----------



## Morjo

Harry said:


> They probably couldn't catch you!
> 
> The 70 mph speed limit is a great example of a rule that gets broken in practice, but still serves a useful purpose so is left as it is. I know that if I pass a police car at 75 mph, he won't give me a second look. At 80 mph, he'll give me a hard stare and at 85 mph I could be in trouble. As a result, I usually stick to 80 mph, sometimes less. People who are calling for the limit to be raised to 80 mph are missing the point a little. If it ain't broke (and it isn't) don't fix it.


In Australia you will get fined by a Police officer for doing a few km's over the limit even on a Motorway. It just causes frustration as you get many motorists doing well under the advertised speed limit in fear of being fined, plus they're constantly looking at their speedometers. :nuts:


----------



## PortoNuts

Morjo said:


> In Australia you will get fined by a Police officer for doing a few km's over the limit even on a Motorway. It just causes frustration as you get many motorists doing well under the advertised speed limit in fear of being fined, plus they're constantly looking at their speedometers. :nuts:


People should be careful of course but it's really annoying when Police goes extreme over speed limits. From what I see, police officers are not exactly the most careful drivers on the planet.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ I believe that that is that motorway in Scotland with long sections without and hard-shoulder.


----------



## PortoNuts

DanielFigFoz said:


> ^^ I believe that that is that motorway in Scotland with long sections without and hard-shoulder.


Yes, and if when it exists, it's rather small. And btw the M90 is the most northerly motorway in Britain.


----------



## PortoNuts

*M4*









http://www.flickr.com/photos/copseman/4804730347/sizes/l/


----------



## Uppsala

What is the next motorway opening in the UK?


----------



## sotonsi

M80 or M74 completion. A1(M) Dishforth - Leeming is the only other scheme being built (obviously there's widening and ATM works) at the moment.


----------



## nerdly_dood

Jonesy55 said:


> I thought so.
> 
> Driving on the right = fascism, hate and evil
> 
> Driving on the left = democracy, freedom and love
> 
> :yes:


*I beg to differ!*


----------



## Jonesy55

nerdly_dood said:


> *I beg to differ!*


You have been brainwashed by the right-driving fascists, at least American Samoa has seen the light and broken free of tyranny.


----------



## CNGL

Jonesy55 said:


> I thought so.
> 
> Driving on the right = fascism, hate and evil
> 
> Driving on the left = democracy, freedom and love
> 
> :yes:


No. For me, driving on the right means democracy and union of all people, and driving on the left means fascism and jackasses, besides that hurts my eyes!

But I think that British will change distances from miles to km and speed limits from mph to km/h (They have already kmposts) soon...


----------



## Jonesy55

CNGL said:


> No. For me, driving on the right means democracy and union of all people, and driving on the left means fascism and jackasses, besides that hurts my eyes!
> 
> But I think that British will change distances from miles to km and speed limits from mph to km/h (They have already kmposts) soon...


The Indian and Samoan people have told me they are very offended by you slandering them as jackasses.

I can see us maybe changing to kms in my lifetime (though I have never seen a km signage in the UK :dunno: ) but we will never drive on the right, our hard-won liberties are too important for that.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Switching to the right is a waste of money, especially these days. It made sense for example in Sweden in 1967 when traffic was still relatively limited. It would also make sense if neighbouring countries would drive on the right, but this is not the case with the United Kingdom, which is a group of islands.


----------



## sotonsi

Switching to the right would cost something in the order of half the national debt - Sweden had it much easier (ditto Samoa), due to being smaller and having less developed road networks. It's not only moving signs, but changing sight lines, junction geometry and such like - fine with a network which doesn't have many grade-separated junctions.

Anyway, I think Jonesy was being sarcastic and some of you guys have taken it too seriously.

As for metrication, highly unlikely - the benefits outweigh the costs - things like height and weight limits where there might be damage to the road network/vehicles is dual-units anyway.

We have the metric debate every few months on SABRE and the only people for it are those who are basically metric fundamentalists - religiously devoted to getting rid of customary measurements because they massively challenge their world-view (they don't fit with the scientific, global, modern community - they are great heresy!). There are only a handful of people on there (say 1 or 2) who are ideologically opposed to metrication, but most people are apathetic or see it purely as too expensive for the gain that will come about. There's next to no political capital and if it really was going to be done, it would have been done given we've been metricating for 40 years now!


----------



## flierfy

poshbakerloo said:


> What is the point of a concrete surface over normal asphalt?


Better durability and greater visibility. And most importantly it is more cost-effective if properly done.


----------



## PortoNuts

But there are some sections of mixed asphalt and concrete pavement. Probably concrete over asphalt to cover some damaged parts.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Or the other way around. You can easily fix some potholes with asphalt.


----------



## PortoNuts

I particularly don't like concrete in motorways, its very noisy.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## Pansori

PortoNuts said:


> I particularly don't like concrete in motorways, its very noisy.


I have also been sceptical about concrete but after having some fun in Germany (which has plenty of concrete autobahns) I somewhat canged my mind. It may be a little more noisy but you will only feel it if you're driving a lower class car which means you won't have much comfort anyway (so it won't matter).

If concreate really means saving money then I say yeah let's build it.


----------



## PortoNuts

I personally prefer asphalt. It's smoother and aesthetically more pleasing.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts

*M50 near Dymock*









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/508595161/sizes/l/in/photostream/


----------



## Jonesy55

^^ the M50 passes by some lovely scenery, its one of my favourites.

As for concrete vs asphalt, I wouldn't mind the slight extra general noise of concrete but the thump, thump, thump, thump as you pass over the joins between sections on some concrete stretches is very annoying. 

Black also looks better than gray imo, could an additive be put into the concrete to make it at least dark gray if not pitch black?


----------



## Uppsala

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ the M50 passes by some lovely scenery, its one of my favourites.


Junction number 3 at M50 is funny. :happy:


----------



## Turbosnail

I quite like this photo - it shows the six lane section of the M25. Police are trying to get a fathers for justice protester down off the gantry


----------



## PortoNuts

Well, after Buckingham Palace they are now trying the motorways. :yes:


----------



## sotonsi

I like it how the M25 is wide enough there to allow for four lanes to still be open - normally the whole road gets closed.

Of course, that bit of the M25 is not pleasant with only 4 lanes, but 4 is better than 0!


----------



## DanielFigFoz

How much of the M25 is 3 lane?


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## ChrisZwolle

DanielFigFoz said:


> How much of the M25 is 3 lane?


Pretty much the entire northern section, plus a significant portion of the eastern section, and a section of the southern section until M23. I'd say the majority of M25 is only 2x3 lanes.


----------



## piotr71

DanielFigFoz said:


> How much of the M25 is 3 lane?



Simplifying, most of Southern and Western part of M25 has at least 4 lanes, Northern and Easternmost no more than 3  So, it's around 50/50.

I drove around whole M25 2 weeks ago and there are some parts of it being rebuilt and some already finished. All between junctions with M40 and A1.


----------



## piotr71

Today we are on planned and never finished stretch of M27 between Portsmouth and Chichester, which actually is numbered as A27.
Until Chichester, this road is close to motorway standard apart from some details. What distinguish it from proper motorway? It's not hard to find out watching this short report.

What makes me most impressed of this road is a lay-out quality, which between Havant and first roundabout in Chichester is just perfect. Originaly A25 here, was built with concret. Joints still can be seen, but not feel at all, under the asphalt's coat. This stretch is incredibly smooth and quiet. I wish every roads in Britain had such good surface. 

A map:









Approaching J12 from South.













































M27 ends up here.


----------



## sotonsi

Sorted by the number of lanes each way (and including the A282):

2 lane:
at junction 5
between the west-facing slips at J21a and the east facing ones at J21 (they overlap and this has had earthworks to widen it to 3-lanes done recently)
through junction 27

3 lane:
J2-5
J5-7 (J6-7 is 4 lanes anti-clockwise)
through J8, J9, J10, J11, J12, J15 and J16
J18-21a (widening to 4-lanes well underway - 18 to 19 will be done in the next couple of months)
J21-27 (J21-J23 widening to 4-lanes started)
J27-31 (being widened to 4-lanes between junctions - no first hand idea on progress, but IIRC it's quite far on)

4 lane:
J31-2 (Dartford Tunnel is 2+2, but one-way, with the 4-lane bridge going the other way)
J7-8
J8-9
J9-10
J10-11
J11-12
through J13 and J14
J16-18 (unofficially - they did do some work on Saturday involving lane closures, but it's very much 4-lanes each way most of the time, even if it is supposedly still being widened)

5 lane:
J12-13
J13-14

6 lane:
J14-15


Taking just inter-junction distances, you get:
3-lanes each way: 71 miles (37 miles when the widening schemes under construction are finished)
4-lanes each way: 43 miles (77 miles when the widening schemes under construction are finished)
5-lanes each way: 5 miles
6-lane each way: 2 miles


----------



## piotr71

As I said old concrete joints still are visible.































































Almost Chichester.


















Signs direct to a place called Bosham. There is nothing special about that village except one thing. Locals pronounce name Bosham not in typical way like inhabitants of neighbouring Cosham do, but they say _bozzom_.


----------



## piotr71

Next roundabout ahead.



























Will continue soon


----------



## sotonsi

piotr71 said:


> Until Chichester, this road is close to motorway standard apart from some details. What distinguish it from proper motorway? It's not hard to find out watching this short report.


After the A3(M) in Havant, hard shoulders (though there's none on the far eastern end of the M27). Before Havant, supposedly the hard shoulders and/or alternative route (depending on which engineer you speak to) aren't up to scratch for full D3M/D4M cross-section (or "motorway standards" if you want to use that inaccurate term). The real reason is that making it into a motorway would cost too much for the consultation, signage and legal stuff for the paltry benefit that motorway status for it brings.

For the whole thing, secondary legislation - ie a Special Road Order and other such things. The A27 here a right of way (quite why it opened as such beats me - it's all new build and part was built exactly to the motorway plans) - anyone can use it (peds, cyclists, horses, learners, mobility scooters), unless banned by some secondary legislation (TRO, IIRC), rather than Motorways/Special Roads, which no one can use unless given permission for that class of road user to use the road.

As I've said recently on here, Motorway is a very specific legal term. It requires the right paperwork, rather than the right standards.


----------



## Harry

ChrisZwolle said:


> Pretty much the entire northern section, plus a significant portion of the eastern section, and a section of the southern section until M23. I'd say the majority of M25 is only 2x3 lanes.


I am _fairly_ sure I heard recently that plans are already in place to add a 4th lane to the entire remaining 3 lane section of the M25. When this is complete (and I'm not sure when this would be complete by), the M25 would consist of 4 lanes for approx 105 miles, 5 lanes for 6 miles and 6 lanes for 2 miles...so the almost all 4 lanes with the exception of the very wide section between the M3 and M4 interchanges.


----------



## piotr71

Next set from A27:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

It's a shame that the M27 isn't much much much longer.


----------



## piotr71

Last set and map.









































































Chichester by-pass aerial map:










Cheers


----------



## piotr71

I promised to post some night's pictures of M25. They do not show any quality but recently added 4th lane can be recognized.

Pics were taken somwehere here:


----------



## PortoNuts

Thanks for the pictures. The A-roads really resemble motorways and upgrading them would be a bliss for the network.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

PortoNuts said:


> Thanks for the pictures. The A-roads really resemble motorways and upgrading them would be a bliss for the network.


Indeed some do, and indeed it would change the map totally.


----------



## PortoNuts

And they are definitely needed. The insane level of traffic registered is some sections is the evidence of that.


----------



## sotonsi

PortoNuts said:


> Thanks for the pictures. The A-roads really resemble motorways and upgrading them would be a bliss for the network.


How do you mean upgrade them? More lanes? or is it just the paper and different colour signs job to make them motorway?


PortoNuts said:


> And they are definitely needed. The insane level of traffic registered is some sections is the evidence of that.


If they resemble motorways, why would a legal order and blue, rather than green signs make a difference with the traffic flows?


----------



## PortoNuts

Build more lanes if possible, at least in some of the busiest sections. And lots of repavement to make them as uniform as possible (the mix of asphalt and concrete can make a joruney quite bumpy as I've said here previsouly).


----------



## Angelos

and get rid of roundabouts, sorry but the section of A27 between Portsmouth and Brighton can only be seen in a 3rd world country


----------



## CairnsTony

Angelos said:


> and get rid of roundabouts, sorry but the section of A27 between Portsmouth and Brighton can only be seen in a 3rd world country


You've obviously never been to Australia. If you take the dual carriageway north out of Cairns to the northern beaches, you have to go past nine roundabouts in quick succession. The traffic jams can be horrendous.


----------



## PortoNuts

Removing some roundabouts would definitely have to part of a future upgrade.


----------



## Angelos

My 2 year experience in London was horrible, whenever i went to france it was a completely different country, excellent food excellent roads. I would prefer to pay 20 euros to go from Calais to Paris at least their motorways are empty with top notch quality. On the other hands british one are always jammed , there is concrete pavement of some sections and many key routes are missing, i will say it agian and again get rid of roundabouts at busy junctions!!!!!!!!! who the heck had the idea to build a roundabout juction between A1M and M25 ??? i can give many examples how bad the british roads are compared to the europeans...


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Angelos said:


> and get rid of roundabouts, sorry but the section of A27 between Portsmouth and Brighton can only be seen in a 3rd world country


I take it you've never been to an actual "third world country" then?


----------



## geogregor

DEL


----------



## Pansori

Comfortably Numb said:


> I take it you've never been to an actual "third world country" then?


He's got a point about A27. hno:


----------



## Angelos

Not only A27 but maaaaaaaany roads in England :rant:


----------



## Angelos

Comfortably Numb said:


> I take it you've never been to an actual "third world country" then?


do you agree that the situation on A27 is unacceptable for a country like UK ?


----------



## sotonsi

Chichester needs re-bypassing, and Worthing and Arundel need bypassing, but that's it really.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Angelos said:


> do you agree that the situation on A27 is unacceptable for a country like UK ?


Of course it is, but I'm not about to call it "third world". Britain's road network also varies by region. While the south coast may be poorly served, the northwest has an excellent motorway / major trunk road network.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

sotonsi said:


> Chichester needs re-bypassing, and Worthing and Arundel need bypassing, but that's it really.


Disagree...

ALL of the roundabouts need to be got rid of and replaced with proper grade separated junctions junctions for the entire stretch. The road doesn't necessarily need to be brought up to full motorway standards, but it should be built to the same quality as the A14 or A34.


----------



## sotonsi

Almost all the roundabouts are bypassed with my three bypasses. You have the 2 A29 ones and that's it - I guess you can add grade-separate them to the list.

The A34 - where do you mean? - I guess just the M3-M40 bit, which has roundabouts at the ends, a crappy section near Oxford and a lot of not great junctions. The A14 has three at grade roundabouts, and several right turns. I feel that just those three bypasses would make the A27 from Portsmouth - Lewes at least as good as those routes, and with grade-separation of the A29 junctions, better.

You actually don't disagree at all, but then you live 3000 miles from the A27, so it's no surprise you just knee-jerk generalisation rather than realise I proposed bypassing all the pinch points.

Interestingly, I've just read a study on the Chichester bypass - very little traffic travels the length of it - it's in effect a local distributor - I knew that bit of my scheme was less urgent than the other two, but I didn't realise how much less.

It's worth noting that the rail services along the (central) south coast are turn up-and-go and ought to be the envy of most other 1st world countries.


----------



## Stainless

sotonsi said:


> The A34 - where do you mean? - I guess just the M3-M40 bit, which has roundabouts at the ends, a crappy section near Oxford and a lot of not great junctions. The A14 has three at grade roundabouts, and several right turns. I feel that just those three bypasses would make the A27 from Portsmouth - Lewes at least as good as those routes, and with grade-separation of the A29 junctions, better.


I think the A34 is as close as it could get to being a motorway. There are several villages that can only be accessed easily from it meaning it can't be entirely a motorway. However doesn't have anything to impede the main road traffic for most of it and I once managed to do the 30 miles from Winchester to the M4 in under 20 minutes.


----------



## sotonsi

You've forgotten the one or two right turns. Also in terms of cross-section and geometry of the mainline and junctions, it is not amazing. It's about the same as the A1 from Doncaster - Peterborough, a reasonably decent road, but it would make a crappy motorway compared with 95% of the network. Both require no stopping, however there's some really tight sliproads, some places with less good forward visibility, narrow lanes in places and so on.

If you want an A road that is as close as you can get to being motorway - try the various non-motorway special roads (A55 around Conwy, some roads in Scotland) - they have the legal stuff, but not the blue signs. In terms of high standards, then you have the A282, the A27 at Portsmouth, the A2 from somewhere near London to the M2. You also have, that are better than the A34 things like the A14 from the A1(M) to M11 and from the M11 to Felixstowe. Also the bits of A1 they are upgrading to motorway in Yorkshire are higher standard.

The A34 is a good road, but "as close as it could get to being a motorway" - no way!


----------



## 896334

Talking about the A27, yes it is in need of a few upgrades here and there, but in what way can you compare it to a cross-country route like the M40-M3 section of the A34 or the A14? It isn't a major route when you consider freight transport, anything coming in from Portsmouth or Southampton will take the A3(M) and A3 or M3, A34, etc. The primary use of the A27 I would imagine is the same as the A38 Devon Expressway or A30 into Cornwall and that is to cater for the high volumes of tourists during the summer months. At any other time of the year those two examples function perfectly. As for the A27, everyone knows it should be motorway past Havant, but for petty government policies it's been designated as such. Further on from there it simply serves its purpose of linking the large towns on the south coast. It's only really important section has been dealt with by the M27, the rest of it justifies it's current state in my opinion. Naturally a few bypasses here and there would go amiss, but I'd rather see taxpayers money going into schemes that benefit real centres of population, like the motorway upgrade of the A1, and improvements to the A14.


----------



## 896334

Sorry to double post, I just thought I'd comment on the A34 standard, having used it many times for various journeys over the years.

It's a great road, incredibly useful and judging by the amount of lorries on it, one of the key routes in the country that isn't of motorway standard, along with (as discussed) the A14, as well as the A1, A50 and A66.

The section around Botley in Oxford isn't great, though that part is one of the oldest sections of D2 on the route and the side streets coming off it definately wasn't the greatest of ideas. 

However compare that to the recent section over the M4 and down to Newbury, it's D4 for a good while and over engineered to an extent, which is a good thing, having additional capacity for the future. 

The roundabouts at either end are appalling though, and the HA are upgrading M40 J9 with an additional lane on the roundabout from M40S round to the A34 exit but it clearly isn't enough. Both ideally need to be freeflow, at the very least M40S>A34 and A34>M3S but whether that will ever happen is another thing entirely... 

The rest of the route though is pretty well done, considering it's been built in lots of stages over a fairly long period of time. By and large it does its job and with the exception of Peartree up to M40 J9 largely remains congestion free from my experience on it.


----------



## sotonsi

Map Guy said:


> However compare that to the recent section over the M4 and down to Newbury, it's D4 for a good while and over engineered to an extent, which is a good thing, having additional capacity for the future.


It's less than a mile, so not really that long. It's also the newest bit. If only the rest of the route had the same high quality slip road alignments, consideration for weaving and enough lanes to deal with the traffic, including truck traffic (thinking Peartree-M40 there)

Botley/North Hinksley is 1930s IIRC, though it did get upgraded. The lanes are narrower there as they had to squeeze in two parallel roads to serve the houses.


----------



## 896334

Yeah they want to upgrade the section around Oxford perhaps, either offline or online, they need to close the accesses, right turns, etc and yes at the very least an additional lane from Peartree to the M40.


----------



## Jonesy55

Angelos said:


> My 2 year experience in London was horrible, whenever i went to france it was a completely different country, excellent food excellent roads. I would prefer to pay 20 euros to go from Calais to Paris at least their motorways are empty with top notch quality. On the other hands british one are always jammed , there is concrete pavement of some sections and many key routes are missing, i will say it agian and again get rid of roundabouts at busy junctions!!!!!!!!! who the heck had the idea to build a roundabout juction between A1M and M25 ??? i can give many examples how bad the british roads are compared to the europeans...


Firstly it isn't true to say that motorways in the whole of the UK are 'always jammed', the M25 at peak hour is not typical just as the perepherique is not typical of traffic levels on French roads. Likewise you can't say that Britain is bad compared to 'the Europeans', Europe is a big place containing dozens of countries with many varying examples of road quality and traffic levels, some with much better networks than the uk, others not.

Finally I would say that if you couldn't find good food in London in two years then you can't have been trying very hard! 

But yes, a programme of junction improvements, upgrades and the insertion of some missing links in the network would be very welcome.


----------



## 896334

And I'll just add to that previous post about the French autoroutes supposedly being 'so good' if you have indeed travelled down the A26 to Paris you will have noticed the substandard curves in the road clearly not designed for speeds of upto 120kph, and also the intermittent hard shoulder which even when it does exist, is nowhere near wide enough for a broken down lorry. Now compare that with the M25, which when it does loose it's hard shoulder, gives large, clear warnings of it and for how long it isn't there, whilst when it does return, it is always at full width and capable of providing (relatively) safe refuge for stationary vehicles. 

British motorways have some of the best design standards in the world, hence why they cost so much to build. Whilst there's plenty of holes in it, we should be very proud of the good, safe network that we do currently have.


----------



## Gareth

Indeed, I think UK roads compare well to much of the developed world. Seems some people desperately want to believe the UK sucks at things more than it actually does, for some weird reason.


----------



## Angelos

Map Guy said:


> And I'll just add to that previous post about the French autoroutes supposedly being 'so good' if you have indeed travelled down the A26 to Paris you will have noticed the substandard curves in the road clearly not designed for speeds of upto 120kph, and also the intermittent hard shoulder which even when it does exist, is nowhere near wide enough for a broken down lorry. Now compare that with the M25, which when it does loose it's hard shoulder, gives large, clear warnings of it and for how long it isn't there, whilst when it does return, it is always at full width and capable of providing (relatively) safe refuge for stationary vehicles.
> 
> British motorways have some of the best design standards in the world, hence why they cost so much to build. Whilst there's plenty of holes in it, we should be very proud of the good, safe network that we do currently have.


Still the asphalt in french autoroutes are far more superior compared to english motorways.
Curves not designed for 120 km... so what? i ve seen hairpins on Italian autostradas where you ahve to go like 80 km, THe section between Genova and Torino to be exact but its an exceptional scenic road.

Shoulder width, Continetal motorways have different design standards than english 

I agree that the UK network is very well designed but for such a populated country you need far more dense network, hence check CBRD to see how many key routes are missing, we all know what happend in 60's and the cancellation of thousands of miles of motorway

You miss quantity, not quality although i disagree for the roundabout junctions that were built that time


----------



## Angelos

Jonesy55 said:


> Firstly it isn't true to say that motorways in the whole of the UK are 'always jammed', the M25 at peak hour is not typical just as the perepherique is not typical of traffic levels on French roads. Likewise you can't say that Britain is bad compared to 'the Europeans', Europe is a big place containing dozens of countries with many varying examples of road quality and traffic levels, some with much better networks than the uk, others not.
> 
> Finally I would say that if you couldn't find good food in London in two years then you can't have been trying very hard!
> 
> But yes, a programme of junction improvements, upgrades and the insertion of some missing links in the network would be very welcome.


I am saying that the traffic levels in UK motorways are too high because they lack at quantity

Edit: Have you seen how a English motorway rest area is and how a french is ? food in london was alright


----------



## PortoNuts

Angelos said:


> Edit: Have you seen how a English motorway rest area is and how a french is ? food in london was alright


I remember seeing a set of pics on flickr about good rest areas and bad rest areas on British motorways. That sums it up. Generalisations are very dangerous.


----------



## piotr71

I do not find any particular issue with British rest places, apart from one thing. There is not enough of them and if they are, are too massive for me. They lack, I do not know, kind of atmosphere. Car parks are usually fulled up, there is a bit too much rubbish and not enough benches around. I just can't relax there. For that reason, I really prefer peaceful rest areas by 'A' roads which consist of everything what is missing in those by motorways. 

I like to stop in a simple lay-by hidden in wood where I can eat and drink my own food (I obey some feeding rules). They can be seen anywhere alongside European motorways but England's.
Fortunately, they can be found in more than reasonable number by dual carriageways' 'A' roads.


----------



## sotonsi

that traffic (not technically on the M62) is stopped at traffic lights, but yes, the M62 has high traffic flows along most of it's length, even for 3+3. The former section that's now M60 could have really done with the Relief Motorway alongside and the current ATM plans are surely only going to work as a stop gap.

Better alternative Pennine crossings/parallel routes (eg Flockton link / Manchester-Sheffield upgrades) wouldn't go amiss, as well as some more radical widening plans (3+2+2+3 for J26 to J27, for instance)


----------



## PortoNuts

It goes through a very populous region, so it's only natural it has high volumes of traffic. That would be more than reason enough for widening some sections.


----------



## piotr71

Another piece of A27. This time from Chichester to Brighton[A23].


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Are city names abbreviated often like that on the pavement?


----------



## piotr71

On the picture above we can see never finished Arundel's by-pass.
Same place taken by an airplane passenger:










I'd bet I have seen that aerial image somewhere on this forum with well explained reason why the project of mentioned by-pass has been scrapped, unfortunately I could not find it.


----------



## piotr71

ChrisZwolle said:


> Are city names abbreviated often like that on the pavement?


Yes, they are. This is not the high quality picture, though you possibly can recognize shortened name of one of the most important bus-coach-train station in London, which is named after queen Victoria (I suppose)










 Guess the abbreviation for Harrow and Heathrow.


----------



## piotr71




----------



## piotr71

_A top secret missile bunker could be located within Southwick Tunnel, it has been claimed.

The 490 metre tunnel, opened in 1996, is an entrance point to the installation, experts believe.

Some even think the closure of the tunnel during crashes or at regular periods for "maintenance" could be a cleverly constructed lie to allow senior officials access to the bunker._
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3615616.Southwick_Tunnel_is__secret_military_installation_/


----------



## piotr71

Brighton itself:








































































Next to come A23/M23. 








I'll post more pics soon.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

ChrisZwolle said:


> Are city names abbreviated often like that on the pavement?


Yes, thats standard.

Thanks for the pics, piotr.


----------



## PortoNuts

Thanks for the pictures, piotr, your updates are greatly appreciated. :bow:

The scenary right before Brighton is great.


----------



## piotr71

Thank you for paying interest to my reports and for the words of appreciation. However, I am not satisfied with the images' quality. My camera is too poor to take nice and well contrasted pictures through a car's windscreen, so it's time to buy a new DSLR. Hopefully, with remote control.

It's time for the first A23 set. In my opinion, A23 is located among these most motorway-ish or most motorway-like 'A' roads and its quality does not differ much from 'M' signed roads (after *sotonsi* comments, I wouldn't dare to use the term 'motorway standard' ). There are 6 and 4 lanes sections on it, as well as one, pretty much 'alpine' bit.

The map:


----------



## Tom 958

This is an interesting sign:









I guess they were too cheap to provide an overhead sign. hno:

It would've been zippier to make the line between the dropped lane and the through lanes short dots like the pavement makings.

Still, nice road-- and nice pics.


----------



## piotr71

Mentioned Alpine's stretch starts here:


----------



## piotr71




----------



## Angelos

:redx:

edit: Fixed now


----------



## piotr71

Yes, fixed 

Well, we have been watching M23 for some time. Let's continue, then:























































Entering Surrey:




































Last set to come later on.


----------



## piotr71

Have you noticed the way junctions are numbered on M23?

The map below shows that it starts with J7 ascending to the South. Where are the junctions 1 to 6 then?














































Approaching interchange with M25:





















































































































That's it, Ladies and Gentlemen.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

piotr71 said:


> _A top secret missile bunker could be located within Southwick Tunnel, it has been claimed.
> 
> The 490 metre tunnel, opened in 1996, is an entrance point to the installation, experts believe.
> 
> Some even think the closure of the tunnel during crashes or at regular periods for "maintenance" could be a cleverly constructed lie to allow senior officials access to the bunker._
> http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3615616.Southwick_Tunnel_is__secret_military_installation_/


Uh huh.... :nuts::rofl:


----------



## Pansori

Great report of A27. That road may be quite a nightmare at times. Quite scenic though.


----------



## ttownfeen

Great report - I really enjoyed it!


----------



## CairnsTony

piotr71 said:


> Have you noticed the way junctions are numbered on M23?
> 
> The map below shows that it starts with J7 ascending to the South. Where are the junctions 1 to 6 then?


There was a plan to extend the M23 into London about as far as Streatham, but it would've involved pushing it through Tory constituencies which it was perceived would've been unpopular hence it was abandoned by the then Tory government. Odd that they didn't renumber it though.


----------



## sotonsi

CairnsTony said:


> There was a plan to extend the M23 into London about as far as Streatham, but it would've involved pushing it through Tory constituencies which it was perceived would've been unpopular hence it was abandoned by the then Tory government. Odd that they didn't renumber it though.


Why the party political crap?

In fact it was Ringway 2 (which ran through mostly Labour consistencies) cancellation that meant that the M23 would be pretty pointless - nothing but a traffic magnet, with nowhere to go at the end.

The M23 was kind of relying on something at the far end to take traffic (the DfT were going to built Ringway 2 from the A24 to the A23, with the M23 junction, as part of the M23, but it still needed the GLC to build more Ringway 2 to not be an incredibly expensive traffic jam creator), given that didn't happen, there was not much point in extending it further in. Between J7 and J6 was to have been a big viaduct.

Unlike North London (though the Westway is unpopular to this day) where the planned motorways ran along 1930s built roads with nice wide space and a lack of winding up residential areas too much, South London had many motorways through residential areas and town centres, along railway corridors (due to there being few other corridors). The M23 was the exception, but it needed at least some of the rest of the network to actually be worth building, and that wasn't going to happen, so the M23 wasn't either. It took a bit more time for them to officially shut it down, but the colour of the MP's rosettes didn't make one jot of difference - it was expensive, it would have caused traffic mayhem in South London as there would have been nowhere for the traffic to go.


----------



## strandeed

Good new everyone...

According to our local newspaper, the government has finally upgraded the status of the A1 to a "route of national importance"

This opens up the way for it to be dualled all of the way up to Berwick from Morpeth when the funds become available.

It had no chance before as it was not considered nationally important


----------



## CairnsTony

sotonsi said:


> Why the party political crap?
> 
> In fact it was Ringway 2 (which ran through mostly Labour consistencies) cancellation that meant that the M23 would be pretty pointless - nothing but a traffic magnet, with nowhere to go at the end.
> 
> The M23 was kind of relying on something at the far end to take traffic (the DfT were going to built Ringway 2 from the A24 to the A23, with the M23 junction, as part of the M23, but it still needed the GLC to build more Ringway 2 to not be an incredibly expensive traffic jam creator), given that didn't happen, there was not much point in extending it further in. Between J7 and J6 was to have been a big viaduct.
> 
> Unlike North London (though the Westway is unpopular to this day) where the planned motorways ran along 1930s built roads with nice wide space and a lack of winding up residential areas too much, South London had many motorways through residential areas and town centres, along railway corridors (due to there being few other corridors). The M23 was the exception, but it needed at least some of the rest of the network to actually be worth building, and that wasn't going to happen, so the M23 wasn't either. It took a bit more time for them to officially shut it down, but the colour of the MP's rosettes didn't make one jot of difference - it was expensive, it would have caused traffic mayhem in South London as there would have been nowhere for the traffic to go.


There's no need to be rude.

I distinctly remember reading about the project's cancellation at the time pretty much mentioning what you said, but the article went on to suggest (convincingly) that the gov't of the day were very sensitive about upsetting their constituents due to marginal seats in the area. If I could remember where I read it, I would quote the source.

Thats' why I put it the way I did. If you don't see it that way then fine, but there are better ways of putting your view forward.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Is it true that the entire non-motorway stretches of the A1 from Tyne & Wear to the M62 are being upgraded to full motorway standard / A1(M)? If so, that'd mean that Tyneside will finally have a full motorway link to London and the rest of the country.

....now if only they'd upgrade it all the way to Edinburgh?


----------



## Mateusz

Comfortably Numb said:


> Is it true that the entire non-motorway stretches of the A1 from Tyne & Wear to the M62 are being upgraded to full motorway standard / A1(M)? If so, that'd mean that Tyneside will finally have a full motorway link to London and the rest of the country.
> 
> ....now if only they'd upgrade it all the way to Edinburgh?


Yeah it's true, A1 between Dishforth and Darlington is being upgraded to motorway standard.

I wouldn't put much hope in constructing A1(M) (M1?) up to Edinburgh. No chance I'm afraid hno:


----------



## PortoNuts

Does anyone have pics of that upgrade?


----------



## strandeed

Mateusz said:


> Yeah it's true, A1 between Dishforth and Darlington is being upgraded to motorway standard.
> 
> I wouldn't put much hope in constructing A1(M) (M1?) up to Edinburgh. No chance I'm afraid hno:


See my previous post...

At least it is now being considered for dualling up to Berwick 

The A1 from Berwick to Edinburgh has been considered for dualling by the Scottish parliament.


----------



## Harry

There are a number of schemes around the UK that have a fair deal of support in some quarters, but are probably being pushed back for reasons of the suppressed demand that would cease to be 'suppressed' on completion. A good example is the completion of a high quality link along the A303 corridor to provide a direct link from London to Devon and Cornwall. Much of the existing traffic on this route currently travels along the M4 and M5 and would simply shift to the 'M303', causing it to fill up on day one.

Similarly, the completion of a high quality Newcastle to Edinburgh route would shift a lot of northern England to central Scotland traffic away from the M6/M74 over to the new more easterly route. And there is very little incentive for planners to opt for this, given that the M6/M74 route north of Lancashire is possibly one of the most over-engineered routes in western Europe. (I drive it several times a year and it feels as if I frequently have it to myself.)

I am not defending the status quo. I am simply trying to explain one of the reasons why upgrading the A1 north of Newcastle is unlikely to be a high priority for transport planners - especially during a period of public spending austerity.


----------



## strandeed

So you would argue that the high number of people killed on this stretch of road does not warrant upgrading as it would alter the "balance" of traffic from the west coast to the east coast?

I would disagree, as there is a high volume of traffic flowing up the east coast already and yes I would expect more people to use the route (which would be good for local business).

The low population density of the region compared to the high cost of upgrading the road is the main reason I believe it has not been done.

Typically it's a Lib Dem stronghold and as a result it's been shunned year after year by labour and tory governments as there are not exactly many votes to be won.


----------



## sirfreelancealot

Harry said:


> There are a number of schemes around the UK that have a fair deal of support in some quarters, but are probably being pushed back for reasons of the suppressed demand that would cease to be 'suppressed' on completion. A good example is the completion of a high quality link along the A303 corridor to provide a direct link from London to Devon and Cornwall. Much of the existing traffic on this route currently travels along the M4 and M5 and would simply shift to the 'M303', causing it to fill up on day one.
> 
> Similarly, the completion of a high quality Newcastle to Edinburgh route would shift a lot of northern England to central Scotland traffic away from the M6/M74 over to the new more easterly route. And there is very little incentive for planners to opt for this, given that the M6/M74 route north of Lancashire is possibly one of the most over-engineered routes in western Europe. (I drive it several times a year and it feels as if I frequently have it to myself.)
> 
> I am not defending the status quo. I am simply trying to explain one of the reasons why upgrading the A1 north of Newcastle is unlikely to be a high priority for transport planners - especially during a period of public spending austerity.


Harry, this is not a go at you as such, but more of a rant at the whole attitude towards roadbuilding in the UK. 

The reasons as mentioned amount to using the good old fashioned ‘new roads fill up with traffic’ argument. It comes from The Book of Anti-Road/Car Chiche Phrases which the Campaign for Better Transport (as long as its public transport. F**k car drivers) and other environmental groups came up with. If this assumption was so true in all cases, the M74/A74(M) would be chokka, but it isn’t, neither is the M62 east of the A1(M), the northern end of the M6, or the A1(M), and many other routes. 

It’s a very negative and defeatist way of thinking, and essentially it’s this sort of sweeping propaganda that gets churned out which provides a perfect excuse for the government to cut out or infinitely delay badly needed road schemes which should have been completed decades ago. The A1(M) between Dishforth and Barton would have been 10 years old by now had it not been abandoned from the programme back in 1995. The A1 may also have been motorway from the M25 all the way up to Ferrybridge as well by now, but it isn’t, and it’s clear that it won’t be. It’s also this type of regressive politics which has resulted in transport policy, based on the ‘New Realism’ model going in the opposite direction: cutting road space, increasing driving costs, and further cutting roadspace when traffic levels fall to ‘engineer-in’ more congestion, to justify further measures and so on, etc. In general making driving a more miserable and expensive experience for motorists. 

There is one big reason why a lot of roads fill up with traffic. Any schemes that are lucky enough to make it from the drawing board to ground are badly watered down, often so that they are more politically acceptable. This is why the M74 completion project through Glasgow is 3 lanes, instead of the 4 that was originally planned. This is why the M80 completion is 2 lanes, instead of the 3 that were planned. This is also why a lot of new roads that were planned as dual carriageway and even motorway become single carriageway. If roads are lucky to be built as dual carriageway, they are now littered with horrible small roundabouts with the tightest ever deflections and traffic lights instead of proper expressway junctions. They are also poorly linked into the wider network with crappy junctions. The approach is a bit like using duct tape to hold two pieces of metal together and expect it to hold several tonnes of metal. A good example of such a bad junction is the M1/M6/A14 Catthorpe interchange. Another is how the A421 has been connected to the A1 at one of its most overloaded junctions: the Black Cat Roundabout (duuuurrrr!!!)

This is how we’re slowly ending up with a road network that is even worse than some third world countries. And some day in the future, when we realise that personal mobility isn’t going to go away soon and deserves to be integrated into a balanced mix of transport infrastructure, transport thinking will change, but then billions will have to be spent putting right the spectacular lack of forward thinking that is going on today. Maybe this period of austerity will allow transport planners to stand back, smell the coffee and design some proper schemes that will work when the money finally becomes available.


----------



## sotonsi

sirfreelancealot said:


> Another is how the A421 has been connected to the A1 at one of its most overloaded junctions: the Black Cat Roundabout (duuuurrrr!!!)


Where else would you put it? Given that the Black Cat Roundabout was only overloaded as it intersected with the A428 that the A421 bypassed - it's the same traffic flows on the roundabout, just the route to the west is a better one now. They enlarged the roundabout to cope with predicted traffic flows for the next bit, and acknowledged that it was a temporary solution, as the A428, and perhaps the A1 as well, will very likely get upgrades in the next 10 years that haven't yet been planned, and will likely be offline around there. They didn't want to build an expensive temporary junction that would get ripped down, so they made the roundabout bigger.

It also avoided the argument about which way to have the grade-separation - a good case strategically and traffic-wise could be made for the A421 - A1 N instead of A1 S - A1 N, but there's a good case for that as well.


----------



## Pansori

sirfreelancealot said:


> Harry, this is not a go at you as such, but more of a rant at the whole attitude towards roadbuilding in the UK.
> 
> The reasons as mentioned amount to using the good old fashioned ‘new roads fill up with traffic’ argument. It comes from The Book of Anti-Road/Car Chiche Phrases which the Campaign for Better Transport (as long as its public transport. F**k car drivers) and other environmental groups came up with. If this assumption was so true in all cases, the M74/A74(M) would be chokka, but it isn’t, neither is the M62 east of the A1(M), the northern end of the M6, or the A1(M), and many other routes.
> 
> It’s a very negative and defeatist way of thinking, and essentially it’s this sort of sweeping propaganda that gets churned out which provides a perfect excuse for the government to cut out or infinitely delay badly needed road schemes which should have been completed decades ago. The A1(M) between Dishforth and Barton would have been 10 years old by now had it not been abandoned from the programme back in 1995. The A1 may also have been motorway from the M25 all the way up to Ferrybridge as well by now, but it isn’t, and it’s clear that it won’t be. It’s also this type of regressive politics which has resulted in transport policy, based on the ‘New Realism’ model going in the opposite direction: cutting road space, increasing driving costs, and further cutting roadspace when traffic levels fall to ‘engineer-in’ more congestion, to justify further measures and so on, etc. In general making driving a more miserable and expensive experience for motorists.
> 
> There is one big reason why a lot of roads fill up with traffic. Any schemes that are lucky enough to make it from the drawing board to ground are badly watered down, often so that they are more politically acceptable. This is why the M74 completion project through Glasgow is 3 lanes, instead of the 4 that was originally planned. This is why the M80 completion is 2 lanes, instead of the 3 that were planned. This is also why a lot of new roads that were planned as dual carriageway and even motorway become single carriageway. If roads are lucky to be built as dual carriageway, they are now littered with horrible small roundabouts with the tightest ever deflections and traffic lights instead of proper expressway junctions. They are also poorly linked into the wider network with crappy junctions. The approach is a bit like using duct tape to hold two pieces of metal together and expect it to hold several tonnes of metal. A good example of such a bad junction is the M1/M6/A14 Catthorpe interchange. Another is how the A421 has been connected to the A1 at one of its most overloaded junctions: the Black Cat Roundabout (duuuurrrr!!!)
> 
> This is how we’re slowly ending up with a road network that is even worse than some third world countries. And some day in the future, when we realise that personal mobility isn’t going to go away soon and deserves to be integrated into a balanced mix of transport infrastructure, transport thinking will change, but then billions will have to be spent putting right the spectacular lack of forward thinking that is going on today. Maybe this period of austerity will allow transport planners to stand back, smell the coffee and design some proper schemes that will work when the money finally becomes available.


:applause::applause::applause:

This must be the best comment in this whole thread so far. I just wish everyone could think and evaluate the situation from such point of view as this.


----------



## Harry

sirfreelancealot said:


> Harry, this is not a go at you as such, but more of a rant at the whole attitude towards roadbuilding in the UK.


No offence taken. As it happens, I think we're broadly in agreement. I also agree that lack of investment in road infrastructure (using environmental concerns as a get out clause) will come to haunt us in the decades ahead. The point I was making regarding suppressed demand was simply an explanation as to how planners and government would find it easy to argue against one off improvements.

Using Newcastle-Edinburgh as an example once again, if improvements to HQDC or better were made along that corridor, you would also have to simulataneously have to sort out the Western Bypass section at Newcastle itself, which is already suffering from lack of capacity and would become much worse with improvements further north. So it starts getting very expensive. Assume that does happen - and then it becomes very difficult to avoid improving the lower quality sections of the A1 further south.

Completing improvements in isolation does not really work. The choice facing politicians is that they either provide funding for a lot of schemes at the same time, or they do nothing. Sadly, the latter option is often the easier path...especially when you know your job is safe for a period of no more than 5 years at a time.


----------



## sotonsi

sirfreelancealot said:


> The reasons as mentioned amount to using the good old fashioned ‘new roads fill up with traffic’ argument. It comes from The Book of Anti-Road/Car Chiche Phrases which the Campaign for Better Transport (as long as its public transport. F**k car drivers)


Given they are the lobbying group for the Public Transport Industry, then it's a no brainer as to why they love PT. They aren't quite as anti-road as they sound - they like good roads, but they don't like you not going down them in buses - recently having a go at the M6 Toll for not filling up with traffic and thus losing money that could have been spent maintaining the current road network, and funding better PT as well (well, duh!). Their London group's Brent Cross Light Railway plan isn't bad either. They seem to be returning to their more realistic than idealistic roots in the past couple of years.


> The A1(M) between Dishforth and Barton would have been 10 years old by now had it not been abandoned from the programme back in 1995.


We were pretty bankrupt as a country in '95 (though not as much as now), but I thought that D2B stayed in until '97 thanks to pressure from Hague, who is from that area.


> It’s also this type of regressive politics which has resulted in transport policy, based on the ‘New Realism’ model going in the opposite direction: cutting road space, increasing driving costs, and further cutting roadspace when traffic levels fall to ‘engineer-in’ more congestion, to justify further measures and so on, etc. In general making driving a more miserable and expensive experience for motorists.


Indeed the change of philosophy from "predict and provide" to "bodge and make do" (which isn't as bad as you make out) has cost us dear - odd how, while it started under Major's Tories because they couldn't afford predict and provide, 'progressive' Labour went gung ho for it (with trains as well), despite not caring about not spending more than they were getting.


> There is one big reason why a lot of roads fill up with traffic. Any schemes that are lucky enough to make it from the drawing board to ground are badly watered down, often so that they are more politically acceptable.


You forgot that they need to be busy to justify themselves to get built - that they have been watered down is really just exacerbates the situation.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## 896334

In response to the comments on the M23 route, here it is in full:


----------



## Uppsala

Map Guy said:


> In response to the comments on the M23 route, here it is in full:


How old is this map? Only a few pats of M25 in this map and a little of M20. This map must be from 1970s.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The southern section of M25 wasn't completed until 1986. (between J3 M20 and J5 M26). But considering the sections shown as "under construction", I would date this map to the mid-1970's.


----------



## Fatfield

Comfortably Numb said:


> ...in exchange for switching to driving on the right and using 'E' numbering and kilometers rather than miles to measure distances.


As long as the EU pays for the transition. Although it would probably bankrupt the EU. Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea at all.


----------



## sotonsi

I was going to say that metricating (in the tens of billions ballpark), E numbers (next to nothing, given you'll be changing signs anyway), and changing to drive on right (in the hundreds of billions ballpark) would get us all the money we've dumped into that sinking ship over the years back, but Fatfield is much more succinct.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Why on earth should EU fund an UNECE project?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ Indeed, it's not a EU project.

Anyway, I agree with full metrification, but not with changing the side of the road, I think that thats just pointless.


----------



## Harry

DanielFigFoz said:


> ^^ Indeed, it's not a EU project.
> 
> Anyway, I agree with full metrification, but not with changing the side of the road, I think that thats just pointless.


Full metrication raises its head every so often on this forum...but never gets raised seriously in public debate. Not going to happen. Lots of cost, very little benefit. It would keep a few standardisation geeks happy, but I sense that most people are fairly happy with things as they are. Metrication is well down the national 'to do' list.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I think metrication will be a slow progress. Many units are already in metric.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Yes, Chris, I think that everyone in the UK knows that :lol:. On road signs only height and one give way in 100metre sign in Feltham are in metric. Motorway milestones are put every kilometre, but say x.y miles. 

Harry, I understand that road sign metrification is down the "to-do" list, but that doens't mean that I don't want it to happen


----------



## ea1969

DanielFigFoz said:


> Motorway milestones are put every kilometre, but say x.y miles.


If you mean these small marker posts that also indicate the direction to the nearest emergency telephone, somehow they are in km. For example 1.1 means 1,100m from the start of the motorway etc.

When I first saw them in a British motorway, I was puzzled and asked my co-driver to check these markers with our car's km indicator (it was a continental car) and it was proved that this is the case.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

The thing is, pretty much everything in the UK is in metric, except _most_ road signs.


----------



## sotonsi

Only the dumb people who can't deal with two unit systems actually remotely think that full metrication is worth the cost. It's draft beer and road signs that are the only things allowed to officially be in imperial, but, because metric isn't inherently a better system for everything (especially not everyday stuff), people use imperial for other things.

I know that I was joking when I suggested that it was a good idea to get the EU to pay for pretty much forcing us to use our right hand as left-handedness is 'other' (metrication and switching sides). E routes (I know they aren't an EU thing) will cost not a great deal, and actually would be in some way useful.

Bankrupting the EU would also be fun, but I'd rather we got our money back on something worthwhile than what are basically vanity schemes for the cult of "we should all be the same" - some useful, but expensive to build (due to high construction costs) schemes (both motorway/expressway and rail/tram). Grand Central Station in Birmingham, High Speed Rail network, trams for Leeds, Liverpool and South Hants, South Coast expressway, A303 and A9 upgrades, M67, those kinds of things.


----------



## havaska

I don't understand why we can't _start_ metrification of road signage though.

They should make it so that when a new sign is erected or an old one replaced they just put both measurements on there. No extra cost and starts the process. Eventually, after a certain period of time, they'll ALL be in metric, and then you can just phase out imperial if need be.


----------



## Coccodrillo

> ...but, because metric isn't inherently a better system for everything (especially not everyday stuff), people use imperial for other things.


Metric system is far better than any other for scientific (and school) purposes and indifferent for everyday use. So why not change? You have only to learn than a standard box of butter is 500 g, that a km is two third of a mile, and that's all. When I went to the USA I survived.


----------



## sotonsi

But given metric is (at best) indifferent in this matter, why bother changing the signs, given it costs money? The only argument for changing road signs seem to be standardisation, which just seems plain illiberal - "we must be the same - no differences allowed".

I can convert - have no problem with using either system, though for some uses I prefer one system over the other, playing to their strengths.

Given you survived in the USA, that's just support for not changing - if you can survive the USA, then surely those from outside the UK can deal with different units for road signs, which is far less of a hassle than dealing with everything being in different units.


----------



## Fatfield

havaska said:


> I don't understand why we can't _start_ metrification of road signage though.
> 
> They should make it so that when a new sign is erected or an old one replaced they just put both measurements on there. No extra cost and starts the process. Eventually, after a certain period of time, they'll ALL be in metric, and then you can just phase out imperial if need be.


Are you going to pay for it?

The British people don't want it and we certainly don't need it.


----------



## Fatfield

DanielFigFoz said:


> The thing is, pretty much everything in the UK is in metric, except _most_ road signs.


Really? Such as? All road signs are in Imperial.


----------



## sotonsi

Even doing what havaska says will cost extra money - both measurements would need bigger signs, which cost more!


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Fatfield said:


> Really? Such as? All road signs are in Imperial.


Both Metric and Imperial is used for overhead clearances, while speed limits are in M.P.H only.


----------



## Fatfield

Fargo Wolf said:


> Both Metric and Imperial is used for *overhead clearances*, while speed limits are in M.P.H only.


Aye, forgot about them. Then again, I never take much notice of them as they're largely irrelevant to me as I don't drive high sided vehicles.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Fatfield said:


> Aye, forgot about them. Then again, I never take much notice of them as they're largely irrelevant to me as I don't drive high sided vehicles.


I once drove in the Netherlands through a low tunnel: 3.4 m clearance. Of course this is no problem for a passenger car, but one guy forgot he had bicycles mounted on top of his car :lol: Luckily I left some distance.


----------



## Fatfield

sotonsi said:


> Even doing what havaska says will cost extra money - both measurements would need bigger signs, which cost more!


There was a feasibility report done some years ago by DfT about changing signs from Imperial to Metric. The jist of this was that it would cost at least £750m.

Knowing the way we go about things like this, it would take 12 years to implement, and cost about £5bn in the end.

And for our European viewers  that's €879m & €5.9bn respectively.


----------



## Highwaycrazy

Fatfield said:


> You want to learn to read as you clearly don't have a clue what you're on about. Look further up the board. Post #1608 to be exact.


^^

Now I realize you don't know the meaning of 'Soft drink'.... Go look it up.


----------



## piotr71

del pls


----------



## piotr71

seem said:


> *M50 - yestarday about 10:00 *


Very nice pictures, however a bit too artistic.


----------



## CNGL

seem said:


> *M50 - yestarday about 10:00 *


Too dark for being 10:00... or it's 22:00??? I believe it's the latter...


----------



## seem

piotr71 said:


> Very nice pictures, however a bit too artistic.


Yeah, but there is no way cos it`s really dark place and I didn`t want to take unclear picture.

CNGL, yes, 2200 :nuts:


----------



## tbh444

On a pedantic note, it is not legal to sell bottled or canned beer in pints as the actual measure - while some brands are 568ml and can get away with mentioning 'pint' as part of the packaging, it is far more common for bottles & cans to be 500ml, 440ml or 330ml.

Milk I think is allowed to be sold in either litres or pints. Ironically draught beer has to be in pints (or half, third), i.e. it is illegal to sell a 500ml glass of beer - I guess this is to prevent deliberate under-selling, but can cause problems for e.g. some Belgian imports which have their own metric measured glasses.

Personally not too bothered either way in general but this would be my main gripe if it all went metric, inevitably pints of beer would be downsized to 500ml and without a corresponding price change. In the end the pint of milk & beer is probably too much of a cultural phenomenon, and it would be political suicide to change them.


----------



## sotonsi

Fatfield said:


> Actually, we don't. Draught, canned, bottled beer and milk comes in pints or multiples thereof. There are some milk and beer 'bottles' that are exactly 2l but not many.


Nope, only draft beer is sold in pints. Milk (which is a soft drink!) and other stuff is sold in ml, but often (normally in the case of milk) comes in multiples of 568ml, because, while illegal to sell it in pints, people want to sell it in pints and buy it in pints. The metric equivalent must also come first, and milk labels often have a big 1, 2, 4 or 6 on them, without units to get round the metric must be supreme rule. The effort to rid us of the pint hasn't worked - interestingly, pint bottles/cans of beer only really took off after selling it by the pint was banned (the only way to get Brits to metricate is to suppress other units).

You can get special dispensation to sell 500ml of draft beer or at least there are pubs that do


CNGL said:


> Too dark for being 10:00... or it's 22:00??? I believe it's the latter...


We use the 12 hour clock and Imperial measures - because we don't use SI/metric, we live in the dark ages and it doesn't get light here at all! 

Seriously, it's 2200 if you use a 24 hour clock, but that's not SI time, or metric time (the biggest unit failure ever? - Lobster _Thermidor_ is the only remnant of it's existance and the French quickly changed it back) only seconds are SI. Given Highwaycrazy wants us to use only SI units, we have to give it as something like 63422078400 seconds CE (which is the time at 8pm/2000 tonight, using the common era as it's the easiest zero point to use).


----------



## Fatfield

sotonsi said:


> Nope, oinly draft beer is sold in pints. Milk (which is a soft drink!) and other stuff is sold in ml, but comes in multiples of 568ml, because, while illegal to sell it in pints, people want to sell it in pints and buy it in pints. the effort to rid us of the pint hasn't worked - interestingly, pint bottles/cans of beer only really took off after selling it by the pint was banned (the only way to get Brits to metricate is to suppress other units).


Milk is sold in pint measures. There's no denying it.


----------



## niterider

FFS - whatever your opinion is the fact is the majority of the British public prefer their pints and mph and would resist a move to kph, especially with its connotations (rightly or wrongly) as 'European'. Deal with it.


----------



## sotonsi

Fatfield said:


> Milk is sold in pint measures. There's no denying it.


It's (generally) sold in multiples of 568ml, not pints. This is because it's illegal to sell milk in pints, as I said, due to metrication failing unless you suppress other units by force of law. That 568ml is a pint is definitely not a coincidence, people want to buy pints of milk, and people want to sell milk to people in the units they want to buy it in. Clearly the stick to force people to use metric isn't big enough and the grand re-education project is stuttering.

Anyway, can we get back to motorways in the UK...

The M50 looks reasonably busy in those photos, but then it's the route from South Wales to the Midlands and North, so it's not going to be empty, even if it's not going to be rammed packed with traffic.


----------



## seem

sotonsi said:


> Anyway, can we get back to motorways in the UK...
> 
> The M50 looks reasonably busy in those photos, but then it's the route from South Wales to the Midlands and North, so it's not going to be empty, even if it's not going to be rammed packed with traffic.


Please believe me I had to wait for cars because they were going in a groups. Anyway, it was 30 sec.


----------



## Fatfield

sotonsi said:


> It's (generally) sold in multiples of 568ml, not pints. This is because it's illegal to sell milk in pints, as I said, due to metrication failing unless you suppress other units by force of law. That 568ml is a pint is definitely not a coincidence, people want to buy pints of milk, and people want to sell milk to people in the units they want to buy it in. *Clearly the stick to force people to use metric isn't big enough and the grand re-education project is stuttering.*
> 
> Anyway, can we get back to motorways in the UK...
> 
> The M50 looks reasonably busy in those photos, but then it's the route from South Wales to the Midlands and North, so it's not going to be empty, even if it's not going to be rammed packed with traffic.


And therein lies the problem. It actually creates more anti-eurpoe sentiments than anything else.

Anyway, great win for England in that game that is played with 5 pieces of wood at either end of a chain. The roads around the ground will be chocka now. Tomorrow I'm off down the A1M to Pontefract for the racing. Some interesting races over 5 & 6 furlongs and a couple of good milers. Got decent odds on one horse at 9/2 and have a 100/30 double on with another two. 

M50 pics? Where!?


----------



## seem

^^ There you go 



seem said:


> *M50 - yestarday about 10:00 *
> 
> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.947598,-2.450294&spn=0.014946,0.038581&t=h&z=15
> 
> _to M5_
> 
> 
> _direction Ross on Wye/Wales_


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Fatfield said:


> Milk is sold in pint measures. There's no denying it.


Depends on the supermarket. Some say x pints, others say x litres.


----------



## Harry

A teacher I know recently pulled a brilliant stunt on his form class of 12 & 13 year old pupils in his final assembly with them before the summer break. Just before they were about to leave for the holidays, he wished them all a good time and went on to say...

_'and when you return time will, of course, look a little different to the way it does now. In keeping with the spirit of European integration, this summer we will be moving to European Standard Time in which each minute is divided not in to 60 seconds but, instead, in to 100 centiclics. Have a great holiday.'_

A few of the kids fell for it...and there were a few red faces (and a lot of laughter) when they tried to inform their parents of the change!


----------



## Jonesy55

Beer bottles and cans are pretty much always metric, 500ml, 330ml etc. Milk is usually pints but everything else in a supermarket is metric.

I much prefer the metric system, its more logical, easier to do calculations in, internally consistent etc.

But having said that I don't think its worth the cost of changing all road signs, most people can figure out what a mile or yard is, its the more obscure units like furlongs, hundredweight and gills that people are quite understandably confused by.

Having said that I know quite a few proponents of the imperial system who wouldn't know how many yards are in a mile or how many pints are in a gallon if you asked them which just exemplifies why the system is so silly.


----------



## Fatfield

Harry said:


> A teacher I know recently pulled a brilliant stunt on his form class of 12 & 13 year old pupils in his final assembly with them before the summer break. Just before they were about to leave for the holidays, he wished them all a good time and went on to say...
> 
> _'and when you return time will, of course, look a little different to the way it does now. In keeping with the spirit of European integration, this summer we will be moving to European Standard Time in which each minute is divided not in to 60 seconds but, instead, in to 100 centiclics. Have a great holiday.'_
> 
> A few of the kids fell for it...and there were a few red faces (and a lot of laughter) when they tried to inform their parents of the change!


This was done by Dave Lee Travis on Radio 1 on April 1st some time in the late 80's. Whether some of the callers were in on it I don't know but some of them were hilarious.


----------



## Gareth

Jonesy55 said:


> Beer bottles and cans are pretty much always metric, 500ml, 330ml etc. Milk is usually pints but everything else in a supermarket is metric.


As has been said, milk is sold as multiples of 568ml. It tells you how many millilitres are in the carton and 568ml is a metric number of a metric measurement. Likewise, a nickel in US currency is 5 cents, but people are allowed to call it a nickel and it is written on the coin as 'one nickel'. You wouldn't argue that the US currency isn't metric though.

568ml is metric and just because we call it a pint doesn't change this. That's why I don't see any need to get rid of pints of beer, though some documentation that it is 568ml wouldn't do no harm at all.


----------



## Fatfield

Gareth said:


> As has been said, milk is sold as multiples of 568ml. It tells you how many millilitres are in the carton and 568ml is a metric number of a metric measurement. Likewise, a nickel in US currency is 5 cents, but people are allowed to call it a nickel and it is written on the coin as 'one nickel'. You wouldn't argue that the US currency isn't metric though.
> 
> 568ml is metric and just because we call it a pint doesn't change this. That's why I don't see any need to get rid of pints of beer, though some documentation that it is 568ml wouldn't do no harm at all.


Whenever a scouse opens its gob, the whole world shuts its ears.


----------



## Jonesy55

Gareth said:


> As has been said, milk is sold as multiples of 568ml. It tells you how many millilitres are in the carton and 568ml is a metric number of a metric measurement. Likewise, a nickel in US currency is 5 cents, but people are allowed to call it a nickel and it is written on the coin as 'one nickel'. You wouldn't argue that the US currency isn't metric though.
> 
> 568ml is metric and just because we call it a pint doesn't change this. That's why I don't see any need to get rid of pints of beer, though some documentation that it is 568ml wouldn't do no harm at all.


Yes, but the reason it's sold in multiples of 568ml rather than multiples of 471ml or 619ml is because 568ml = 1 (british) pint.


----------



## Jonesy55

Fatfield said:


> Whenever a scouse opens its gob, the whole world shuts its ears.


Play nicely please :nono:


----------



## ed110220

At the end of the day, any switchover will be political and I believe these switchovers usually are. South Africa's switchover from pounds shillings and pence to rands and cents, from miles to kilometres etc in the early 1960s was heavily political and associated with symbolically cutting ties to the British Empire. A British switchover would be associated with Europe. I don't believe it would be popular, so it probably won't happen in the forseeable future.


----------



## Stainless

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nacy-EU-replace-watts-continental-lumens.html

Look down at the comments to see the sheer idiocy some people will show if the EU attempts to change the units used for something. It is one of the odd things about the UK that we buy fuel in Litres and work out our miles per gallon. We also use Centigrade when it is cold and some people use Fahrenheit when it is warm (ie 'it is up into the 90s). Personally I have barely any idea about Fahrenheit and the weather forecast has been in Centigrade all my life, only when it is hot does the newspaper linked to above will start using Fahrenheit.

I think it is 95% likely we will stay with miles forever and over 99% that we will drive on the left forever, mainly as there are many emerging economies throughout the world who do the same.


----------



## Stainless

Double post, oops.


----------



## sotonsi

The weather used to be dual units - it only became Celsius (which is no more metric than Farenheit, but is more widely used, and Kelvin gets used in science, rather than Rankine) only about 9 or 10 years ago.

Before that, we, as a country, conspired to make our weather more changeable than it is - so we'd use the lower Celsius in Winter, and the higher Fahrenheit in summer - we seemingly did this for about 30 years. Farenheit now is just not used, with the exception of the occasional reference in summer in the papers. This is despite giving numbers that 99.99% of British Weather falls in the range of 0 to 100 - no negative fun, more definition while keeping whole numbers (as degrees C are 1.8 times the size of deg F).

wrt mpg, miles per litre would make a lot of sense, yet no one wants to give it - instead it's litres per 100km, which is backwards to the way we think - we go with economy (distance/amount of fuel) rather than consumption (amount of fuel/distance).


----------



## Jonesy55

Or we could use L/100 miles 

Miles per gallon really annoys me as a gallon is something that hasn't been used for two decades in fuel sales and bears no relation to what people actually think of.

The only place you will still see a gallon is in the more reactionary newspapers when they STILL sometimes go with headlines like "Now petrol to cost more than £5 per gallon"

I love the way the Daily Express starts its front page headline with "Now" about twice a week, so obviously implying "first this, then that, and NOW this has happened!" as if we are in a perpetual and accelerating downward spiral into hell :laugh:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> The only place you will still see a gallon is in the more reactionary newspapers when they STILL sometimes go with headlines like "Now petrol to cost more than £5 per gallon"


And conveniently forget the inflation over 2 decades was something like 50%...


----------



## Fargo Wolf

ChrisZwolle said:


> I once drove in the Netherlands through a low tunnel: 3.4 m clearance. Of course this is no problem for a passenger car, but one guy forgot he had bicycles mounted on top of his car :lol: Luckily I left some distance.


Around here, it's truckers who forget the height of the large, round hay bales... or worse, don't stop to check that the boom on an excavator hasn't lifted up due to the hydraulic oil getting really warm (can be a real problem with the hot summers here).



Fatfield said:


> There was a feasibility report done some years ago by DfT about changing signs from Imperial to Metric. The jist of this was that it would cost at least £750m.
> 
> Knowing the way we go about things like this, it would take 12 years to implement, and cost about £5bn in the end.
> 
> And for our European viewers  that's €879m & €5.9bn respectively.


I think that all went to court and UK's top court threw out the proposed requirement to convert to Metric. That was a few years ago though, now.


----------



## geogregor

sotonsi said:


> wrt mpg, miles per litre would make a lot of sense, yet no one wants to give it - instead it's litres per 100km, which is backwards to the way we think - we go with economy (distance/amount of fuel) rather than consumption (amount of fuel/distance).


Liters per 100km makes perfect sense to calculate economy of the trip. If you know that you have to drive, let say, 200km and know your car uses 6l/100km, it is easy to calculate you will burn 12 liters which will cost you certain amount of money. Easy.
How do you do it with mpg if fuel is priced in liters??


----------



## nerdly_dood

One might think that us Americans are a possible reason you've kept certain random bits of your life in the Imperial system. We mostly use them, they work just fine for us, so we'll keep using them until we find that they don't work for us anymore - which probably won't be anytime soon. I'm perfectly familiar with metric units, I just don't think in terms of them.

So I'll be quite happy to allow the United States to take the blame for some British measurements to still be in the old system. We share a language, why not share a measurement system?


----------



## nerdly_dood

geogregor said:


> Liters per 100km makes perfect sense to calculate economy of the trip. If you know that you have to drive, let say, 200km and know your car uses 6l/100km, it is easy to calculate you will burn 12 liters which will cost you certain amount of money. Easy.
> How do you do it with mpg if fuel is priced in liters??


Remember that it's (I think) 3.89L = 1 gal


----------



## ChrisZwolle

3.79 L = 1 gallon
4.40 L = 1 dry gallon
4.55 L = 1 imp gallon


----------



## GeertjeC

nerdly_dood said:


> So I'll be quite happy to allow the United States to take the blame for some British measurements to still be in the old system. We share a language, why not share a measurement system?


But we don't. US measurements are different, especially in volumetric units. A gallon and a pint for example are both good examples of that; US units are considerably smaller than Imperial ones. (And I think recently some journalists haven't quite realised this and they sometimes use US gallons. Of course when no one bar sensationalist newspapers actually uses gallons, it's not really a surprise that people don't know how big a gallon is!)

I agree we should absolutely be converting into kilometres on the roads. Gradually of course - when signs eventually get replaced, I think they should put up metric signs. One DfT proposal which I liked was that km/h speed limits would be on a yellow background and so could easily be identified. (As a scientist, I guess I'm slightly biassed in favour of SI.)

But by far the more important issue I have with UK road signs is that they don't take into account standard restriction cancellation by intersections. Since the UK isn't party to the Vienna Convention of Road Signs and Signals, of course it's allowed to do it, but it always confuses pretty much everyone from the continent who drives with me in the UK. I think standardising this, and potentially removing the vast number of textual signs (e.g. there was one on my way to the lab for a while saying 'Compulsory diversion for HGVs', which admittedly I don't think is a legal sign, but still - how on earth is someone who doesn't speak English meant to understand this?) would be much more beneficial to road traffic than metrication (even though I'd like to see both happen some day).


----------



## Fatfield

nerdly_dood said:


> One might think that us Americans are a possible reason you've kept certain random bits of your life in the Imperial system. We mostly use them, they work just fine for us, so we'll keep using them until we find that they don't work for us anymore - which probably won't be anytime soon. I'm perfectly familiar with metric units, I just don't think in terms of them.
> 
> So I'll be quite happy to allow the United States to take the blame for some British measurements to still be in the old system. We share a language, why not share a measurement system?


I don't think that's the case tbh. I think its more a case of people not being used to to metric. Remember that Europe has been using metric since the Napoleonic times whereas its a (relatively) new system for us Brits.

Metrification is being done one bit at a time and eventually will replace Imperial although how long this will take is anyone's guess. Driving on the wrong side of the road will never happen but I do think Km will replace Miles eventually but it will need a deal doing with the EU on how its going to financed and implemented.

I'm from the generation that can do both metric & imperial calculations. The current generation is more Metrified than mine and the next generation after will be even more Metrified. eg My niece cannot measure anything in Imperial. She is completely Metrified in that department. She doesn't need or use pints or miles as she's only 12. I'm not sure how much Imperial is still taught at schools these days but I'll be surprised if its more than 5% compared to Metric.

One more thing, give us €1.50 to the £ and we'll swop to the Euro.


----------



## sotonsi

geogregor said:


> Liters per 100km makes perfect sense to calculate economy of the trip. If you know that you have to drive, let say, 200km and know your car uses 6l/100km, it is easy to calculate you will burn 12 liters which will cost you certain amount of money. Easy.
> How do you do it with mpg if fuel is priced in liters??


It makes absolutely no sense to calculate economy with l/100km. It is a stupid unit for measure fuel economy (because it measures the inverse - consumption) in the UK (which doesn't use km). That's two minus points, the first one being a biggy, whereas mpg at least only has one! OK, you can measure consumption with it, but it's just as useless as mpg, as it uses units we don't!

In the UK we work with fuel economy. I have x litres of fuel: how far can I go before filling up again? The other way of thinking just seems totally backwards - you never go "I want to drive 30 miles, how much fuel should I get?", because you just fill up the tank, or put in £30 or whatever. Of course, if you do fill up the tank, it's probably got the amount of gallons somewhere in the literature, so mpg can work with that, though mpL would also work, but l/100km is giving you the wrong variable (and it's also not l/km, meaning having to effectively convert the km of your journey into hecto-kilometres to work out how much fuel you'll need).

mpg doesn't work - I said that (read my post), but litres/100km isn't the metric equivalent or a unit that makes sense to us in a practical way, so mpL is the unit that we want and need, but don't get - we either get a unit that is backwards and uses distance units we don't use, or we get one where we don't use the capacity unit.

As I said in my post above, Miles per Litre is the logical UK measure when it comes to the fuel usage-distance relationship. Yet no one gives it - that's my point.

mpg is right idea, but we don't get fuel in gallons any more. l/100km is just totally useless at conveying the information - we don't use km and the unit is the reciprocal of what we want. We want economy, with big numbers meaning better, not consumption, with small numbers being better. More bizarrely, in car ads, they treat both units as if they were equivalent - x mpg (y l/100k) - when they aren't! They do work as comparison units between cars, but you'd be able to do that with mpL as well.


----------



## csd

sotonsi said:


> It makes absolutely no sense to calculate economy with l/100km. It is a stupid unit for measure fuel economy (because it measures the inverse - consumption) in the UK (which doesn't use km). That's two minus points, the first one being a biggy, whereas mpg at least only has one! OK, you can measure consumption with it, but it's just as useless as mpg, as it uses units we don't!


Have you read this article? Makes a very strong case for l/100km (or a US/Imperial equivalent).

/csd


----------



## ChrisZwolle

In the Netherlands we use km per liter to indicate the fuel consumption. For example "my car consumes 1 liter per 18 kilometers".


----------



## sotonsi

csd said:


> Have you read this article? Makes a very strong case for km/100l (or a US/Imperial equivalent).


It makes a stupid case for it - why would anyone need to compare two different economy savings? Surely you have "my car does 20mpg, this car does 32mpg, and this one 35mpg - clearly the latter is a better move wrt fuel economy.

I guess you would if you owned two cars and could only change one. You'd have to look at other factors like usage as well, you'll end up doing a reasonable bit of maths anyway and spot the problem that the consumption savings aren't linear (there's a reciprocal relationship) if your are looking at economy. Average Joe here is only dumb, because he doesn't need to do it.

Anyway, my point was that l/100km measures consumption (which is actually what the article is arguing for, not l/100km), not economy - perhaps consumption is a more useful thing for buying cars, but less useful when you are actually using one.


ChrisZwolle said:


> In the Netherlands we use km per liter to indicate the fuel consumption. For example "my car consumes 1 liter per 18 kilometers".


km/l is a measure of economy, not consumption. However, that way of phrasing it is basically just turning it into l/km (which is consumption), with the distance still the variable. Still a better way of looking at it than litres/100km, given you buy certain amounts of fuel, and have a fixed quantity, and drive variable amounts of distance. l/100km fixes the distance (at an awkward amount - no one drives 0.5x100km, they drive 50km).


----------



## csd

sotonsi said:


> perhaps consumption is a more useful thing for buying cars


I think that's the point the author is trying to make.

/csd


----------



## makita09

We do use metric in all liquid and weights. It just happens that beer and milk often comes in multiples of 568ml because thats the size it always has been. It isn't because it is an imperial size, because it isn't, it is because that is the size we are used to. We drink our drinks in pints because we always have done. Apart from of course when we don't....

If I go to my local corner shop the most common canned beer size is 440ml. followed by 500ml, and there's a couple of 568ml labelled PINT CAN! to dupe people into paying more per litre.

Likewise the most common bottled beer size is 330ml, followed by 500ml, with some 568ml, a few 660ml and a few 750ml.

Indeed this was the case 10 years ago when I worked in Threshers, and still is.

Beer comes in pints in pubs, I imagine because there is no point throwing out all the glasses and getting new 500ml ones. Its not as if it affects anything other than the size of the drink.

None of which has any relevance to a discussion about the use of metric on road signs.


----------



## sotonsi

Beer in pubs, out of the taps, must be sold in either 1/3 pint (normally not offered other than at beer festivals), 1/2 pint or pint quantities. There was some talk about allowing 2/3 pint for a smaller measure that wasn't quite a half, and also some pubs seem to have exceptions. However, milk and pint bottles of beer are sold as 568ml, as they cannot be sold in pints.

We've established that though.

A lot of bottled beer comes from Europe and is often imported - hence the 330 and 500 sizes - British beer is more often canned. Most bottled British beer come in bottles that are 568ml. 440ml is a bit odd (4/9 of a litre), metrically speaking, but when you realise it's 14 fl oz, it begins to make sense - it's 0.7 pints - this is why cans in the UK are that size, it's like all those cans of food that are 375g - that's 12 oz, or 3/4 of a pound. OK, the conversions aren't exact, but they are close enough not to have to change much in the canning process. 315g is 10 oz - see that sometimes on tinned food

Of course, none of this is relevant, but is useful background to the quasi-metric world we have in the UK, which explains somewhat why metrication is a long way away.


----------



## sotonsi

csd said:


> I think that's the point the author is trying to make.


But, of course, my point in the bit you quoted and gave the article for was the l/100km is a dire unit for economy 1) because it's a unit of consumption and 2)as we don't use kilometres.

That said, even if I agreed with the author of that article fully (I see his point, but see a lot of straw man there), there's still two things getting in the way of me saying l/100km is a good thing:
1)the author was taking about consumption, which might not be in l/100km
2)it doesn't get rid of the problem that l/100km is an awful unit given the fixed nature of the distance, rather than the fuel - l/km is much better, but doesn't give nice numbers - all fractional or odd decimals.


----------



## Fatfield

sotonsi said:


> Beer in pubs, out of the taps, must be sold in either 1/3 pint (normally not offered other than at beer festivals), 1/2 pint or pint quantities. There was some talk about allowing 2/3 pint for a smaller measure that wasn't quite a half, and also some pubs seem to have exceptions. However, milk and pint bottles of beer are sold as 568ml, as they cannot be sold in pints.
> 
> We've established that though.
> 
> A lot of bottled beer comes from Europe and is often imported - hence the 330 and 500 sizes - British beer is more often canned. Most bottled British beer come in bottles that are 568ml. 440ml is a bit odd (4/9 of a litre), metrically speaking, but when you realise it's 14 fl oz, it begins to make sense - it's 0.7 pints - this is why cans in the UK are that size, it's like all those cans of food that are 375g - that's 12 oz, or 3/4 of a pound. OK, the conversions aren't exact, but they are close enough not to have to change much in the canning process. 315g is 10 oz - see that sometimes on tinned food
> 
> Of course, none of this is relevant, but is useful background to the quasi-metric world we have in the UK, which explains somewhat why metrication is a long way away.


You know, I've never seen beer sold in 1/3 of a pint. I'm 47.


----------



## piotr71

I am really sorry to interrupt this fascinating discussion about beer and milk sold in the UK, but I feel deep need to post some pictures taken on M25. It was bad weather that day (rain, clouds, fog and wind) so the images are not perfect, however they give brief overview what's going on between junction 10 and 27 on the mentioned motorway.










We start at the J10 and go clockwise to the J27. All we need to know about M25's widening progress can be read clicking on the link below:

*http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/documents/B070139wec.pdf*


----------



## piotr71

J10































































It's 10am, so the congestion has gone to places of work.


----------



## piotr71

That sign 'end of motorway' isn't put in most fortunate place.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Set your picasa album to public  Otherwise the pictures don't show.


----------



## piotr71

Over-overhead signage:










Impressive six lanes:


























































































Already rebuilt stretch:


----------



## piotr71

ChrisZwolle said:


> Set your picasa album to public  Otherwise the pictures don't show.


Thanks Chris, but it is set to public. Do you really can't see them now?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I can see them now


----------



## Tallsmurf

My supermarket only sells in litres - never seen anyone complain or not understand.

I have always thought that the solution to the problem is to designate a few pseudomeasures which would be allowed for naming purposes only, such that a Pinte = 500ml and a Pounde = 500g. You could ask for a Halfpinte of beer, but you could not have a two Pinte containier - it would be called a Litre.

Sorted.


----------



## piotr71

That's good 


























































































































































To get M1 one must not drive on offside lane which is for M25 only.


----------



## piotr71




----------



## piotr71




----------



## piotr71

Approaching 'Bell common tunnel'.



"_M25 Bell Common Tunnel Refurbishment is a major maintenance scheme to replace mechanical and electrical equipment that was installed when the tunnel was constructed in the early 1980's. The refurbishment will also upgrade the safety equipment in the tunnel to current European Standards. Construction commenced on the 24th October 2008 with completion scheduled for March 2010.
_"

All done!























































The end


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Great photos piotr71.

Out of curiosity, when was this section of the M25 between the M40 and M1 widened to 4 lanes?










Last time I used the M25 (probably 8 years ago LOL), this section was always 3 lanes. Are they planning to make the entire M25 4 lanes or more wide?


----------



## Pansori

Piotr I can only see a few pictures. Most of them won't show up.


----------



## Grisent

The pics don't show up for me, either... response from server is "403 Forbidden". Picasa doesn't allow hotlinking, perhaps?


----------



## Pansori

Grisent said:


> The pics don't show up for me, either... response from server is "403 Forbidden". Picasa doesn't allow hotlinking, perhaps?


Not as far as I know. Otherwise why would anyone use paid Flickr-pro accounts or even some shoddy unpaid hostings like Imageshack?


----------



## sotonsi

Fatfield said:


> You know, I've never seen beer sold in 1/3 of a pint. I'm 47.


I have, several times. Only when it's offered though (Wetherspoons Beer Festivals, and such like). If stopping for just a pint with friends, it makes some sense to try three different beers for the same price (maybe a smidge more) as a pint. It's purely a beer festival thing, which I did say it was.


> Out of curiosity, when was this section of the M25 between the M40 and M1 widened to 4 lanes?


It hasn't been...

All the signs still say that the J16-19 roadworks isn't open - the HA haven't said that 16-18 is all but finished. IIRC, they have been doing a couple of bits and bobs on weekend nights, even though the roadway and signage is finished in both directions (I guess it's verge work now - just cleaning up and planting)

I haven't been on the newly widened bit, using J18 for coming through Herts, and j16 for coming from Heathrow/Surrey. However, I'm surprised you weren't caught in a jam at J18 - you have 5 lanes go into 3 lanes in a short space, due to the roadworks to the north, and finished nature of the road to the south. a temporary lane drop wouldn't have gone amiss, but I guess you'll have to sign it.

J18-19 should be done before Christmas, at that point they'd 'open' the widened section south of there officially and turn on the Variable Speed Limits.

J19-21 is well underway, but still some time (a year?) off. They've done a little bit on J21-23 - you can see this from the photos.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> I am reasonably sure that in as little as 50 years from now, mass travel by car (or equivalent) within large cities will very much be a thing of the past.


I'm not so sure, these type of predictions have been made since the 1970's, and never turned out a reality. Personal transport will always be the most efficient form of transport, especially if your origin or destination is not in the central city.


----------



## Harry

Sorry, Chris - I should have made my point a little clearer. I was referring only to journeys made within the limits of very large, built up areas where population density causes more of a conflict between road space and other land uses. Cross city journeys by car, I believe, are likely to become even less frequent by car than they are at present. But outside of these conurbations, I agree that personal transport will be more likely to remain prevalent.


----------



## Nikolaj

ChrisZwolle said:


> ^^ Is that Johannesburg?


Yep, You are right. It is the De Villiers Graf Motorway (M1) going north-south, just west of downtown Johannesburg towards Sandton


----------



## bleetz

Harry said:


> Sorry, Chris - I should have made my point a little clearer. I was referring only to journeys made within the limits of very large, built up areas where population density causes more of a conflict between road space and other land uses. Cross city journeys by car, I believe, are likely to become even less frequent by car than they are at present. But outside of these conurbations, I agree that personal transport will be more likely to remain prevalent.


So are you saying that Londoners don't need to travel to other cities? I never use my car for commuting within London but I still get up to an hour added to my journey time due to the lack of a ring road.

I also disagree with your previous post. The inner ring is not in the city centre and finishing it would not be as hard as people from the TfL say. It is also silly to claim that it would just clog up. No it wouldn't. Dual carriageway sections of the A406 are fine, extremely busy, but fine. A406 is only at standstill in places where it narrows down to 1+1 and has single level junctions. Elsewhere it is acceptable. There are no reasons to claim that it would just suddenly miraculously clog up if those dual carriageway sections were extended and especially if the motorways started at the circulars and not at the M25. To me it sounds like a dodgy excuse and nothing else.

The place where it was impossible to build a ring road was Prague. Their ring road has miles of massive bridges, miles of tunnels. On the inner ring road they are currently building a 5.5 km. tunnel. They will have two ring roads by 2017. That's a city with a metro population that is 6 times smaller. Beijing is a bit bigger than London and it has 5 ring roads. London is much richer than any of these cities but it's road infrastructure is the worst of any big city in the developed world. It is a real shame that such silly excuses are accepted as valid.


----------



## Stainless

bleetz said:


> London is much richer than any of these cities but it's road infrastructure is the worst of any big city in the developed world. It is a real shame that such silly excuses are accepted as valid.


The problem is how rich London is. It is full of very rich people who live in nice areas that they don't want to be torn up to build a road through. Beijing is expanding so fast that the land was probably farms when it was built so moving people around wasn't an issue (being a one party state where protesting won't get you anywhere might have helped a little). The issue is that you cannot just improve one bit of road, you just move the congestion further along and the population has lost it's appetite for enormous road projects.


----------



## ed110220

Stainless said:


> The problem is how rich London is. It is full of very rich people who live in nice areas that they don't want to be torn up to build a road through. Beijing is expanding so fast that the land was probably farms when it was built so moving people around wasn't an issue (being a one party state where protesting won't get you anywhere might have helped a little). The issue is that you cannot just improve one bit of road, you just move the congestion further along and the population has lost it's appetite for enormous road projects.


I don't think that is a good excuse: plenty of wealthy cities have relatively good infrastructure; Los Angeles is not known either for its poverty or lack of freeways.

Also, many of the places that would be impacted by road improvements in London are extremely banal, for example around the North and South circular roads. Many may even be improved (i'm thinking of the absurd situation where suburban houses seem to have their living rooms facing straight onto the North Circular Road where a semi-motorway has been crammed into the space originally intended for a suburban road).

The photos earlier were indeed Johannesburg, the De Villiers Graaff Motorway (part of the M1) in the section that cuts through near the city centre. They are an example of a scheme that must be roughly the same width as the 2x2 section of the M4.

I disagree that in large urban areas the motorcar will be largely abandoned within 50 years. The fundamentals of transport aren't going to change. Buses may run on electricity or hydrogen or some new fuel in 50 years but they will still have the essential characteristics of a bus (ie a vehicle that runs on a fixed route to a fixed timetable and carries many passengers). The car will still be a car and metro systems will still be metro systems despite any improvements in technology. Their relative benefits will remain unchanged.

Therefore barring things like drastic government restrictions on private transport or a catastrophic drop in living standards people will still want to drive.


----------



## sotonsi

ed110220 said:


> I don't think that is a good excuse: plenty of wealthy cities have relatively good infrastructure; Los Angeles is not known either for its poverty or lack of freeways.


Though of course, the Los Angeles basin wasn't that populated until the 50s and 60s and has several shortish gaps where the neighbourhood is old and stopped construction of the freeway through it. Plus LAs vast amount of freeway lane-miles are rather congested. South London is mostly 20s and 30s - before the motor car kicked off in a big way.

Oh, and wrt the North Circular, you have a better radial rail network, better radial roads - there isn't as much suppressed demand.

With South London you'd need to make sure the A2, A20, A23 and A3 corridors have bottlenecks removed, else the South Circular, plus probably something along the A21, A24 and A316 as well to make sure you don't have people overloading the good radials. You might then actually make journeys faster, rather than just move them onto a road that requires a load of demolition and costs a ton.

With the money though, I think some tube extensions through South London (Victoria, Bakerloo and Northern Charing X branch), some rail improvements - higher frequencies, rationalised services, tunnel under Croydon for Brighton and Gatwick fast trains, that kind of thing. Plus improve orbital links - Tramlink could do a lot here, and the DLR from Woolwich can go Eltham - Mottingham - Grove Park - Bromley, giving a decent SE London Orbital link (that hopefully wouldn't overload that branch). Heh, the road network would cost £10 billion or something to be of any use, so that's all sorts of fun for PT.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Los Angeles is NOT a freeway heaven, it has one of the lowest amount of lane miles relative ton population in the United States.


----------



## flierfy

ed110220 said:


> I disagree that in large urban areas the motorcar will be largely abandoned within 50 years. The fundamentals of transport aren't going to change.


One fundamental is inevitable to change, the price for energy. Cheap energy once made excessive road traffic possible. And so will the end of cheap oil restrict the use of private cars again. I wouldn't say that private cars will have been gone in 50 years altogether. But the cars as we know them today certainly will.


----------



## sirfreelancealot

flierfy said:


> One fundamental is inevitable to change, the price for energy. Cheap energy once made excessive road traffic possible. And so will the end of cheap oil restrict the use of private cars again. I wouldn't say that private cars will have been gone in 50 years altogether. But the cars as we know them today certainly will.


I would'nt be too sure about that. Yes oil prices will go up and there's likely to be a few painful spikes along the way, but all this will do is bring on alternative fuels and technologies quicker, as they will become more viable. Non-conventional oil is also very plentiful (about twice as much as conventional 'easy to get oil') and that too will become more viable. So in reality, yes oil will rise but it will level off as other sources for what I would term 'liquid fuels' begin to replace them over the next few decades.

The technology is there to capture CO2 but also to convert it into hydrocarbons. Plus hydrocarbons can also be produced from gas and coal (this has been happening in South Africa for years). Obviously produing hydrocarbons from CO2 would be the preferred route for obvious reasons.

There's also biofuels, which have been criticised for their environmental credentials, but only because much of it at the moment is coming from land crops, whereas in the future, its mainly likely to come from biomass residues and significantly algae.

In terms of vehicle technology, there is, of course hybrids and also the prospect of electric vehicles. Personally, I think there's a long way to go before they become anything near as attractive as petrol and diesel cars. Why? The biggest problem is range and the associated 'range anxiety' that will put people off, then there's cost. I'm also a bit wary of something that is silent and likely to hit pedestrians who don't bother to look properly before crossing the road. 

From a societal perspective, there's a bit of a paradox with electric cars which makes them far from being a panacea for solving transport issues. Policy appears to be favouring an eventual large scale adoption of electric cars with subsidies for car production, puchases and charging infrastructure. However, if their range is limited, it is pretty obvious that they are going to be used for urban commuting - the sort of journeys that are clogging up London. Therefore I think a massive wave of electric vehicles is the last thing that any major city needs for solving congestion, when public transport can do a better job.


----------



## bleetz

1. The current tragic situation with traffic in London is _not_ the result of some well thought-out long-term strategy that was masterminded by the TfL. Such claims look hilarious. It is like Cambodia claiming that the only reason their infrastructure is so shit is because people will be teleporting themselves from place to place in the future anyway. What needs to be established before any plans are made is that this situation is a plane and simple ****-up by the TfL and people who were responsible for this should get sacked. Such "strategy" of ignoring the road network and spending everything on the inefficient, greedy rail people should not be continued.

2. There are literally _hundreds_ of places were the roads can be improved in London, not just the "circulars". Saying that London roads can not be improved because it is too built up is extremely superficial and downright irresponsible, especially when you hear it from someone who works for the TfL. There are dozens of roads in London that are dying for more two level junctions and overpasses, a few of which would improve the situation significantly.

3. Private transport is not going anywhere. Yes, some fuels are getting more expensive, some are getting cheaper. There are lots of technologies (electric powered cars, hydrogen powered cars, even LPG, etc.) that are waiting for their turn. Once current fuel prices rise to a certain level, the infrastructure for the new fuels will be put in place and private transport will continue to dominate, no doubt about that.


----------



## NCT

SE London's infrastructure has considerably lagged economic development. It is always more difficult to persuade people to accept big infrastructure projects in developed cities than developing ones. It's not Shanghai where people in old dilapilated housing are dying for the government to move them out into new housing districts - Londoners on the other hand are quite happy with their Victorian town houses and gardens.

Also British people are quite protective of their idea of small winding high streets, and they also want small roads that are *part* of the urban landscape rather than some concrete alien of a highway. I do agree that big highways do to some extent divide communities and the physical landscape - when you have to cross one of those on a footbridge or a tunnel you do feel you are in some sort of no man's land, and in a way London is quite fortunate not to have that i.e. everywhere is so permeable.

It's not just roads that are sub-par in Southeast London, the railways are too, which I think is part of the reason that the roads are particularly bad. There are plenty of lines but in the era of disorganised competition the infrastructure were not well designed - too many flat junctions, missing interchanges and mixed running between slow and fast trains. IMO upgrading the railways lines would be much more effective than trying to widen the trunk roads, since as soon as you modify the flat junctions you can achieve a much more user friendly timetable (simpler and more frequent routes), which will do a lot to get people out of their cars.


----------



## Mateusz

Does someone have a link 'Roads for Prosperity' white paper ?


----------



## sotonsi

University and big libraries are very likely to have a copy somewhere that you can peruse.

If you do enough searching around the net, you can pin together the maps.

I don't know of any internet copy and it's under Crown Copyright until the 2030s.


----------



## geogregor

ChrisZwolle said:


> I'm not so sure, these type of predictions have been made since the 1970's, and never turned out a reality. Personal transport will always be the most efficient form of transport, especially if your origin or destination is not in the central city.


Even now with crap London roads it took me less to drive from Wimbledon area to Acton than it would take on public transport. 
It was Monday morning rush hour. Imagine any other time.


----------



## PortoNuts

Road infrastructure will always be a good investment, most people can't give up on cars and you can't make them use public transportation.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I saw yet another metric sign today, this time it was a sign like this:










that said: Hump in 120m.


----------



## seem

Video from today - 1820 :wave:







_and 9 days ago I sent some pictures but I don`t know if anybody have seen it  - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=64743611&postcount=1720_


.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## rob793

*M56 Bowdon View Bridge, Cheshire*

From the Highways Agency:

The M56 Bowdon View Bridge is a two lane single direction bridge over the M56 Motorway. The bridge was constructed in 1971 and is owned by the Highways Agency.

Bowdon View Bridge carries westbound traffic from Manchester off the M56 at Junction 7 and over the M56 to Bowdon Roundabout, where it links to the A556.

In 2006 surveys conducted in preparation for a maintenance scheme to strengthen the bridge found defects on the bridge deck. 

We made the decision to replace the deck of Bowdon View Bridge, as it would not be cost effective to repair the existing deck. 

We will be using the existing abutments for the new deck and so the bridge will be in the same location. 


From me: Pictures from demolition work today.




























The new bridge awaits positioning next weekend in a field adjacent to the carriageway.








































































The motorway is closed eastbound from junction 9 at Lymm to 7 at Bowdon, and westbound from junction 6 at Hale Barns to junction 8 on the A556 at Bowdon.


















A deathly silent carriageway.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Maybe the councils are scared of being sued by nimby's for no particular reason that anyone else would find credible


----------



## niterider

well it's partly true. for example council highway departments may be hestitant to approve a scheme to provide a shared-use street (without yellow lines or streets signs but visual cues instead) due to the risk of someone coming along, having an accident etc, and then blaming the council. It's beginning to change these days as agreements are set beforehand to prevent the blame falling on the highway engineers for example.


----------



## csd

*Northern Ireland: Newry Bypass*

*NI A1: Newry Bypass*

The Newry bypass opened in July of this year, and replaced the last non-dual section between the NI/RoI border and Belfast. It is built to "High Quality Dual Carriageway" standard, which (in the RoI at least) is equivalent to motorway standard (but without motorway restrictions).

Here's a map of the route (heading north). Had to use OSM, as Google Maps hasn't been updated yet.









1. Just after the merge of the northbound on-ramp at the Newry south exit. Lots of blasting was done in this area to make space for the northbound carriageway we're on.









2. RCS northbound after the Newry south exit. There should really be a reminder here that these distances are in miles.









3. Check out the view over Newry city to the Mournes from this viewpoint.









4. Approaching the junction with the A25. This is the exit I'd use for Newry on a Sunday morning, as the Newry south one has fairly long tailbacks on the old A1 when entering the city.









5. Signage at the exit.









6. We're now offline from the old A1. Up until the Camlough Road exit, the existing A1 was dualed. North of here it's all new build.









7. The countryside around here is quite rolling.









8. Note the viaduct on this bend.









9. Quite bendy here.









10. Approaching Sheepbridge junction.









11. On-slip at Sheepbridge. We're approaching the route of the old A1, north of Newry.









12. RCS north of Sheepbridge.









13. Newry bypass section ends shortly after this bridge. The next few km until Banbridge are a recently-completed upgrade of the low-standard road that existing previously. However, the upgrade still has at-grade crossings, the first you'll have encountered since the traffic lights at Whitehall in Dublin city.


----------



## sotonsi

What I don't get is why the Cloughogue Roundabout junction got put on signs as Newry South, but the others didn't have similar treatment. Why no Newry West and Newry North (I know that leaves you either Sheepbridge or Carnbane to rename)? I prefer Cloughogue to be called just that myself (and numbered either 21 or on some A1 junction numbering system), but some consistency would be nice.

Aren't Sheepbridge and Carnbane totally new junctions as well. Tsk...


----------



## Grisent

Nice road and very picturesque landscape. 

Does anyone have a clue what might be the purpose or reason of this graffiti?



csd said:


>


----------



## DanielFigFoz

csd said:


> *NI A1: Newry Bypass*
> 
> The Newry bypass opened in July of this year, and replaced the last non-dual section between the NI/RoI border and Belfast. It is built to "High Quality Dual Carriageway" standard, which (in the RoI at least) is equivalent to motorway standard (but without motorway restrictions).


This road, despite being good, would not comply to modern motorway standards.


----------



## Uppsala

So the Newry Bypass means also there is at least dual carriageway all the way from Belfast to Dublin now?


----------



## csd

Uppsala said:


> So the Newry Bypass means also there is at least dual carriageway all the way from Belfast to Dublin now?


Yes, that is correct.

/csd


----------



## csd

DanielFigFoz said:


> This road, despite being good, would not comply to modern motorway standards.


Why not?

/csd


----------



## DanielFigFoz

In the UK, despite that technically I supose they could make it a motorway, they couldn't really because.

a) The centrebarrier is not very big, combined with the central reservation not being a not to wide grass strip.
b)The size of the acceleration lane in picture 11.
c)The design of the exit in picture 3.

However, there are old motorways, or basically the British M50 in the UK with these characteristics, may be the M90 too, but 
I don't know whether the M90 has such tight exits though.

UK M50:










I think that I've seen this pic somewhere in this thread before though.


----------



## csd

Hmm, interesting. I hadn't thought of the barrier, though south of the border there are sections of the M1 with a similar barrier.

Similarly, there are LILO (left-in, left-out) style junctions (albeit with concrete kerbing) on some of the new motorway sections down south too (M18 and the under-construction part of the M7).

I think the acceleration lane in picture 11 is unnaturally shortened by the zoom on the camera.

Overall, while maybe not 100% perfect, much less perfect stretches of road in the UK have been designated motorway in the past, so I don't see it much of a stretch to classify the Newry bypass as motorway. With the possible exception of the centre barrier (and the missing SOS phones), it would seem to meet the Republic's standards for a motorway anyway.

/csd


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Standard have gone up a lot since the 1950's, it would pass as a new motorway then, but not now


----------



## PortoNuts

csd, thanks for the pictures, really smooth pavement!


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## Fargo Wolf

DanielFigFoz said:


> UK M50:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I've seen this pic somewhere in this thread before though.


I think you're right. Come to think of it, I think I also remarked on how the lorry could be headed for a crash (overturning) trying to turn at the speed it's going.


----------



## Fargo Wolf

PortoNuts said:


>


I counted 117 chevrons in that vid...


----------



## Harry

Would anyone be able to point me in the direction of a website that shows where major roadworks are taking place? I make trips up to the north of England and Scotland about 3 or 4 times a year, so not frequently enough to know when & where the major projects are taking place. Last weekend, I drove up to Harrogate via the M3, M25, M1, M18 and A1 - but the journey took longer than it needed to because I ran in to the widening works on the north western stretch of the M25 and on the M1 near Luton. I did check Traffic England before I left, but that only showed congestion due to accidents...and not the longer term roadworks. Any advice greatly appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## sotonsi

You need to tick the box on the right labelled "Roadworks on" on Traffic England.


----------



## 896334

CBRD still has it's 'Futures' section which details pretty much every large-ish scheme taking place on the main roads of the UK. It's updated by regular visitors too so there's new information on there practically every week. 

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/


----------



## PortoNuts

Thanks for the links, I had asked the same question a few months back and the answers were negative.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Why are the tolls on the M6Toll so excessive for a flatland motorway? I don't think there are more expensive toll roads in Europe (excluding toll bridges and tunnels). 5 pounds for 20 miles! Who pays that?


----------



## Harry

sotonsi said:


> You need to tick the box on the right labelled "Roadworks on" on Traffic England.





Map Guy said:


> CBRD still has it's 'Futures' section which details pretty much every large-ish scheme taking place on the main roads of the UK. It's updated by regular visitors too so there's new information on there practically every week.
> 
> http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/


Thanks for the answers, fellas.


----------



## Harry

ChrisZwolle said:


> Why are the tolls on the M6Toll so excessive for a flatland motorway? I don't think there are more expensive toll roads in Europe (excluding toll bridges and tunnels). 5 pounds for 20 miles! Who pays that?


Very few people. Haulage firms who make the journey every day might do - but private motorists tend to avoid it. I head up that way a few times a year, and will only use the M6 Toll when I know that there are serious problems on the other route _and_ on the A50 (if I'm heading north up the M1). Some have suggested that, if removing long distance traffic from the West Midlands conurbation was an objectove, it would have made more sense to toll the old road and make the new road free. As it is, most of the time the M6(T) is lying empty. Bit of a waste...because it is actually quite a nice road to drive on.


----------



## snowman159

sounds a lot like Lexus lanes:



> Tom Fanning, from Midlands Expressway said: "The toll road remains excellent value for money considering the benefit of bypassing the congestion on the M6."


(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11642180)


----------



## Harry

I think the quote from the chap from Midlands Expressway tells you everything you need to know about the market they are targetting. Outside of peak times, you might save 5 mins by taking the M6 Toll...which makes it a luxury route for all but the very wealthiest.

The statement that _'the toll road remains excellent value for money considering the benefit of bypassing the congestion on the M6'_ is marketing bullshit and is simply not true most of the time. If the local population back in the 1990s knew then what people know now about usage patterns for this road, it simply would not have stood the test of public opinion. One day, when this road is de-tolled, it will form a valuable addition to the motorway network. It isn't doing that yet.


----------



## sotonsi

ChrisZwolle said:


> Why are the tolls on the M6Toll so excessive for a flatland motorway? I don't think there are more expensive toll roads in Europe (excluding toll bridges and tunnels). 5 pounds for 20 miles! Who pays that?


The company running it (MEL) want to spend as little money as possible on upkeep of the road, given they've realised they won't be able to turn a profit on it.

Originally it was £3, which still had it pretty empty, with many of people paying the £3 doing so for the ability to head along the road at high speed. IIRC MEL tried to get the police to not enforce the limit often, so you could do 90-100mph with ease and there would be time savings on the longer toll road than on the old road.

I once joked that if you needed services heading down the M6 and you'd gone past Stafford, then it's almost worth the £3 to stop at Norton Canes (a nice service area) rather than Hilton Park (a not very nice one).

There's almost no lorries on the road - it seems to have been the plan from day 1 to make it very very expensive for them. It's mostly business people on expenses that use it, though people who live in Lichfield and Brownhills use it, and there's some local traffic.

This damage limitation idea, keeping costs down and getting a lot of money from each person that uses it might work as a business model, but it's not great for transport policy!

The M6 Toll has taught us one thing - tolled routes that have viable alternatives don't work. They plan on tolling the new Mersey crossing between Runcorn and Widnes, but they will also toll the old crossing as well.


----------



## IndigoJo

ChrisZwolle said:


> Why are the tolls on the M6Toll so excessive for a flatland motorway? I don't think there are more expensive toll roads in Europe (excluding toll bridges and tunnels). 5 pounds for 20 miles! Who pays that?


They are expensive because the government did it under contract to a private company which had already made the deal with the John Major government which had a mania for such schemes. A similar thing happened with the Skye toll bridge, which resulted in an existing ferry service being scrapped and carried huge tolls for both locals and tourists who needed to get to and from the mainland. The Scottish Parliament sorted that out, but the M6 Toll remains -- albeit, with an alternative route.

I've worked as a small truck driver and I've been told I won't be reimbursed for M6 toll charges, and any time my family has gone up that way since the M6 Toll has been built, we've taken the old M6 which isn't all that congested most of the time.

I have, however, been up the A38 between Spaghetti Junction and Lichfield which runs parallel to part of the M6 Toll. There are signs on the A38 which direct people onto the M6 Toll while the signpost to the next bit of the A38 points only to Sutton Coldfield, an obvious attempt to trick people into using the M6 Toll to screw money out of them (and the rate is the same, to my knowledge, as if you took the M6 Toll from end to end), rather than use a perfectly serviceable dual carriageway.


----------



## Harry

IndigoJo said:


> There are signs on the A38 which direct people onto the M6 Toll while the signpost to the next bit of the A38 points only to Sutton Coldfield, an obvious attempt to trick people into using the M6 Toll to screw money out of them (and the rate is the same, to my knowledge, as if you took the M6 Toll from end to end), rather than use a perfectly serviceable dual carriageway.


The other signage that gets up my nose are the gantry notices on the M6 southbound on the approach to the split with the M6 Toll that read *'M6 Toll Clear'*. That may be the case...but what they should also inform drivers of, in order that they can make an informed decision, is whether the M6 is also clear.

Of course *'M6 Clear'* signs would not be permitted because Midlands Expressway Limited would complain that they were being robbed of revenue. All of which goes to show that the construction of this road was always going to be about serving the interests of the private consortium that built it, and not the interests of the tax paying motorist.


----------



## piotr71

I have been to Hindhead recently to check how is the construction of the tunnel going on. I must say, there is noticeable progress in works comparing to what I had seen in May this year.

May 2010. 









November 2010.









I'll post some more pictures soon.


----------



## piotr71

The same bridge in May:


>


in November:


















Hazel grove junction before:


>


and now




































Looking to the South from the top of that junction.









In between Hazel Grove and Miss James footbridge. 

May.


>


November.


----------



## piotr71

May.


>


November.




































Slip road connecting A3 with Hazel Grove junction in May.


>


in November.









A3 then. Just one carriageway open to the traffic.


>


Now both are perfectly paved and partly in use. Average speed cameras has been removed since then.


----------



## piotr71

This is what A3 in Hindhead look like now.


----------



## piotr71

M27 nr Portsmouth.


----------



## CairnsTony

Sorry Piotr I can't see your pics here in Aus.


----------



## csd

CairnsTony said:


> Sorry Piotr I can't see your pics here in Aus.


Strange, I can see them just fine. Looks like the same random Picasa problem that affected my pictures on the Ireland thread. Does anyone know what might be causing this?

/csd


----------



## CairnsTony

csd said:


> Strange, I can see them just fine. Looks like the same random Picasa problem that affected my pictures on the Ireland thread. Does anyone know what might be causing this?
> 
> /csd


I use a mac. Would that make a difference?


----------



## Davodavo

CairnsTony said:


> I use a mac. Would that make a difference?


I don't think so.


----------



## csd

Davodavo said:


> I don't think so.


Yes, you're right, I use Macs too!

/csd


----------



## CairnsTony

csd said:


> Yes, you're right, I use Macs too!
> 
> /csd


Then I'm stumped! Usually I can see anyone's pics from any part of the world, so I've no idea what it's down to. I might just google it and find out about progress on the A3 that way.


----------



## piotr71

Sorry, I have no idea what may cause the problem. Some users just cannot see pisasa's pictures. I usually check visibility calling someone in Poland, Germany or England. None of the called people noticed any trouble with seeing pictures. Only trouble with reading images had place using IE, though once switched to another browser the problem disappeared. For that reason I am going to paste a link to my albums. Here you are:


Newest set.
*http://picasaweb.google.com/109480072698896029207/HindheadTunnel20101121#*

Older one.
*http://picasaweb.google.com/109480072698896029207/Hindhead#*

M27 just outside Portsmouth.
*http://picasaweb.google.com/109480072698896029207/M27ZKrzakowM27FromBushes#*


----------



## Uppsala

^^
I had used the M6/A74(M)/M74 since it was finished in 2008. And I still think this is one motorway with three numbers. It just change from M6 to A74(M) without any reasons and that's the same when it change number from A74(M) to M74. And I know that was a plan to renumber everything to just M6 to Glasgow. And it is still possible to renumber it all to M6.

But one problem of cause is the people around the motorway are used to those funny numbers. Maybe some people don’t know it's the same motorway if the renumber it all to M6.


----------



## sotonsi

Uppsala said:


> And I still think this is one motorway with three numbers.


Even though it's two motorways linked by a third one? Sure the third one was about making it a single motorway (and has three numbers). At least the M6 ends pretty much at the border, and the M74 and A74(M) are only different numbers for those in the know. So for most people you cross the border and the road changes number and that's it, so it's not a problem, given you get these transitions all over Europe.

I still don't get why the route south out of Glasgow/north from Preston gets so much, when the French Autoroute thread gets no moaning about all those motorways that meet end-to-end (A6/A7, A216/A26, A71/A75, A61/A62, A11/A844/A82...) - plus the French are much more happy with large scale renumberings/flitting numbers back and forth.


----------



## Uppsala

sotonsi said:


> Even though it's two motorways linked by a third one? Sure the third one was about making it a single motorway (and has three numbers). At least the M6 ends pretty much at the border, and the M74 and A74(M) are only different numbers for those in the know. So for most people you cross the border and the road changes number and that's it, so it's not a problem, given you get these transitions all over Europe.


Many motorways around here in Europe are built like "two motorways linked by a third one" and the result after that is one longer motorway. So M6/A74(M)/M74 is only one of a lot of European motorways with that sort of history. 

The only difference is what number a motorway in that situation should have. And that is a little bit special to have those three numbers on one motorway. Most of the people don't notice that they are driving on an old motorway and then it's coming a new part and then a old part again. For most of the people it's only one motorway. But when we are talking about M6/A74(M)/M74, that's one motorway with three numbers and it looks like no reason why it change the numbers at the same motorway.

So renumber this motorway to M6 up to Glasgow should be the most logic. But it would also be more logical if they are numbered on the A74(M) to M74 if they nowwant a separate Scottish numbering system on a Scottish motorway.


----------



## havaska

Uppsala said:


> Many motorways around here in Europe are built like "two motorways linked by a third one" and the result after that is one longer motorway. So M6/A74(M)/M74 is only one of a lot of European motorways with that sort of history.
> 
> The only difference is what number a motorway in that situation should have. And that is a little bit special to have those three numbers on one motorway. Most of the people don't notice that they are driving on an old motorway and then it's coming a new part and then a old part again. For most of the people it's only one motorway. But when we are talking about M6/A74(M)/M74, that's one motorway with three numbers and it looks like no reason why it change the numbers at the same motorway.
> 
> So renumber this motorway to M6 up to Glasgow should be the most logic. But it would also be more logical if they are numbered on the A74(M) to M74 if they nowwant a separate Scottish numbering system on a Scottish motorway.


They're extending the M74 in Glasgow so that it meets the M8, and this is going to mess up the junction numbering, so there's potential for them to renumber the whole motorway M6 when the sort the numbering out. It's not likely to happen though.


----------



## sotonsi

Uppsala said:


> Many motorways around here in Europe are built like "two motorways linked by a third one" and the result after that is one longer motorway.


Really? AFAICT most of them were planned as one motorway, with section 1 and 3 being build before section 2, rather than having section 1 and section 3 being planned as totally different roads, never meant to be extended and then someone had the idea to link them afterwards.

Definitely doesn't happen in France - in fact, they'll even have motorways change number for no reason, but exit numbering carry on the same (A61-A62, A71-A75).


> So renumber this motorway to M6 up to Glasgow should be the most logic. But it would also be more logical if they are numbered on the A74(M) to M74 if they nowwant a separate Scottish numbering system on a Scottish motorway.


No, it's more logical than any renumbering scheme to not spend money on something so pointless as making a few anal-retentive people, most of which don't use the road much, if even get within 200 miles of it and wouldn't have any problem navigating with the current set up other than the normal problems of wanting to destroy things that don't conform to their little world. It's not logical to fix what ain't broke.

Perhaps you'd like to troll on the French thread, who have lots of more egregious examples, or lobby your own government to give E47 and E55 their right numbers which they didn't want as they (and Norway) didn't want to renumber them because of the cost, rather than singling out something that really isn't bad - one join is on the border (sort of) and the two numbers north of the border both share the same number, just different letters, which is also fine.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

What I don't get is why motorway speed limits were set at 70 and not 80.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yes, British motorways are on the low side of the speed limit spectrum in Europe, but they are on the higher end of the scale for non-motorways.


----------



## geogregor

DanielFigFoz said:


> What I don't get is why motorway speed limits were set at 70 and not 80.


Most of people drive in 80-90mph range even when highway police is around. It's probably one of the least respected laws in Europe. 
It would be nice if they change it but it will never happen. With all the road safety idiots running campaigns against the speed no politician will ever touch the subject. For some of them (the campaigners) roads would be safest with 0 mph speed limit. British motorways are no worse than German, French or Italian. There could be higher limit.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ True. I think that the least respected rules in Europe are

a) (In the London region, especially the M25) Do not undertake.

b) (In Portugal) When you approach a village, slow down :lol:


----------



## Comfortably Numb

DanielFigFoz said:


> ^^ True. I think that the least respected rules in Europe are
> 
> a) (In the London region, especially the M25) Do not undertake.
> 
> b) (In Portugal) When you approach a village, slow down :lol:


When I visited home last year (the UK), I was kind of shocked at the standard of driving on the M25 (and London in general). It seems to have deteriorated drastically in the space of 7 years and driving on the M25 was quite a hair-raising experience, much akin to driving in South Florida, but not quite as bad! The biggest complaint I have - the tailgating. I don't remember it being that bad?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I never really noticed tailgating much here, but thinking about it, there is a lot of tailgating, and at a pretty fast pace as well. 

I think a lot of the tailgating is due to high levels of traffic combined with people not slowing down, thus producing "high speed congestion", which people say is common in Detroit. 

On single carriageway city streets people also seem to be parking left right and centre, however they don't drive to fast but when they reach dual carriadgeways it's :crazy:


----------



## poshbakerloo

DanielFigFoz said:


> "high speed congestion", which people say is common in Detroit.


That sound dangerous!


----------



## Comfortably Numb

DanielFigFoz said:


> I never really noticed tailgating much here, but thinking about it, there is a lot of tailgating, and at a pretty fast pace as well.
> 
> I think a lot of the tailgating is due to high levels of traffic combined with people not slowing down, thus producing "high speed congestion", which people say is common in Detroit.
> 
> On single carriageway city streets people also seem to be parking left right and centre, however they don't drive to fast but when they reach dual carriadgeways it's :crazy:


I usually praise British drivers in general, but on my last visit, it seemed as if standards had slipped BIG TIME. I don't recall people overtaking (undertaking) from all lanes at such frequency and at such high speeds, tailgating and the weaving in/out, which is more common in the part of the world where I live now. I felt like people in general in London were driving a lot more aggressively than I remember, but it had been a while and I was struggling to get used to driving on the left again in an uncomfortable rental car. It seemed to improve once I got north of High Wycombe on the M40 LOL, as did my own driving.


----------



## havaska

Comfortably Numb said:


> I usually praise British drivers in general, but on my last visit, it seemed as if standards had slipped BIG TIME. I don't recall people overtaking (undertaking) from all lanes at such frequency and at such high speeds, tailgating and the weaving in/out, which is more common in the part of the world where I live now. I felt like people in general in London were driving a lot more aggressively than I remember, but it had been a while and I was struggling to get used to driving on the left again in an uncomfortable rental car. It seemed to improve once I got north of High Wycombe on the M40 LOL, as did my own driving.


I live in north-west England, and whenever I drive down to the London area (I try to avoid it!) I've noticed that motorway driving is far, far worse than what I experience elsewhere in the country.

I'd guess it's just the volume of traffic in that area.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The more saturated a road is, the more people tailgate. The Netherlands is, like Britain, an example of where roads exceed their design capacity on a large scale. A study found 70% of the drivers keep less than 2 seconds distance.


----------



## Jonesy55

havaska said:


> I live in north-west England, and whenever I drive down to the London area (I try to avoid it!) I've noticed that motorway driving is far, far worse than what I experience elsewhere in the country.
> 
> I'd guess it's just the volume of traffic in that area.


+1 I find that driving standards on motorways tend to deteriorate beyond High Wycombe as the megalopolis approaches, it must be the extra congestion, but then I don't find the M6 around Birmingham as bad and that is usually just as crowded :dunno:


----------



## Jonesy55

sotonsi said:


> And the Southern Coastal Motorway isn't the most needed by a long shot. Dover - Portsmouth is just as short (distance-wise) via the A3 and M25 (and Southampton is shorter via the M25). I don't think access to Brighton and infra-regional/local traffic along the coast is the countries most needed thing.


So a south coast motorway would take pressure of the southern M25? That has to be a good thing imo.


----------



## sotonsi

Jonesy55 said:


> So a south coast motorway would take pressure of the southern M25?


No it wouldn't - read what I said. The jist is that long distance traffic wouldn't use the south coast motorway as the M25 is shorter than the coastal route.


> That has to be a good thing imo.


It would be if it would actually do it, but it won't as the M25 is a shorter route for South East Kent to Hampshire. It doesn't need to be motorway and east of Brighton it doesn't have to be Dual Carriageway even - sure stretches can be, but a well-aligned single carriageway, with wide lanes and few roundabouts (and a lack of busy right turns), that bypasses towns with little development on the road itself (retail parks, garden centres, etc) will be plenty sufficient.


----------



## Jonesy55

But the M25 is often congested, I'd probably take a south coast alternative even if it was a couple of miles longer.


----------



## 896334

Jonesy55 said:


> But the M25 is often congested, I'd probably take a south coast alternative even if it was a couple of miles longer.


But where do you live? Anyone north of about Basingstoke would find a south coast motorway to Dover a completely unacceptable alternative (I'm assuming that we're considering an extension of the M27 eastwards as our south coast motorway). You'd have to drive due south on either the M3, A3 or from London the M/A23 to reach it, which is miles out of the way compared to taking a direct route along the M25, M26 and M20.

Even when you consider the combined populations of Bournemouth, Southampton, Portsmouth and Brighton, a grade seperated D2 would suffice between them with the M27 in the middle at the busiest part. There's a reason why the Department of Transport has never seriously considered a south coast motorway.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

I just realised something. There is a city in the UK which is much more badly connected than Norwich. There is not a single intercity motorway or dual carriageway that goes to Derry!

To my previous list I now add, as the top priority;



> *-Belfast-Derry motorway*
> 
> *-Derry-Southbound motorway*, with an cross border link to Athlone, to serve traffic to the Republic
> 
> -The M27 should go from Plymouth to Dover
> 
> -The North Wales Motorway should actually be built.
> 
> -There should be a London-Southend motorway
> 
> -The M2 should be extended to Dover to meet the M27 and north to at least the M25, to actually link it to the rest of the motorway network.
> 
> -The A23 south of Gatwick should be the M23
> 
> -The A3 should become the M3
> 
> -The M3 should become the M30
> 
> -There should be two motorway ring roads inside the M25, one around the congestion charge zone and one roughly following the Northern Circular Road and one a bit further out than the Southern Circular Road, the latter being the most urgent.
> 
> -Since the M10 number has been freed up, the A1 should become the M10.
> THE WHOLE OF IT!!!
> 
> -The M4 should be extended to Pembroke
> 
> -There should be a M36 from Bournemouth to Salisbury and through to Bristol via Bath
> 
> -The M8 shoud be 3x3 and the M8 the whole way
> 
> -There should be an M50 from Stoke to Derby and Nottingham
> 
> -The M11 to Norwich would meet an M134 from Kings Lynn to Ipswich which would then go through Colchester and Chelmsford to London, to link Ipswich to the capital.
> 
> -The Cambridge branch of the M11, presumably renamed M14, would meet the M10 in Peterborough.
> 
> -The M180 should be extended to Grimsby in the East to the M62 at Huddersfield in the West.
> 
> -There should be a series of links between cities on the would be M10 to cities on the M6.
> 
> -The M65 should be extended through Bradford to the M10 to Leeds (also serving as a northern ringroad)


----------



## Fatfield

^^

Its Londonderry.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Does it matter? Most Slash City inhabitants refer to it as Derry in general speech, even if its officially Londonderry


----------



## PortoNuts

Does Belfast has good motorway connections?


----------



## scragend

DanielFigFoz said:


> Does it matter? Most Slash City inhabitants refer to it as Derry in general speech, even if *its officially Londonderry*


It probably matters to a heck of a lot of people!


----------



## sotonsi

Belfast has good motorway connections.

Derry, County Londonderry (that's, AFAICS the way it tends to roll if you don't put a slash in) is rather small - moaning about Derry (which is getting decent roads over the next few years) not having a motorway ought to mean moaning about larger places on the island of Britain - Inverness is larger and further away from the motorway network, and a more important regional hub. Derry doesn't need a motorway connection, nor any roads connections above what's already planned (A5 and A6 dualling). Then again, the old Motorway plans for Northern Ireland, even toned down around Belfast, would have been great to see, and the province would have better roads than the Republic.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Wikipedia says:

Derry
85,016 
Urban
93,512 
Metro
237,000 

Inverness:

56,660



> Does Belfast has good motorway connections?


It has a couple of motorways though the city centre, so it's okay


----------



## sotonsi

Sorry, I thought Inverness was bigger than that - however it's more important as a regional hub.

That Derry Metro area is anything within 20 miles. It's a completely meaningless figure.

Still, Derry doesn't need anything more than what's planned, and only then because of it's importance, not it's population - and I'd argue that the traffic levels don't really deserve those DCs for much of the length.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

So did I :lol:

I'm not denying that Inverness needs better connections, although I still think that Northern Ireland has the least suitable infrastructure in the country, however apparently they are already dualling the A2 within the city, or something like that.


----------



## IndigoJo

Derry and Londonderry are pretty much interchangeable. Derry is the original name based on the Irish name Doire, while Londonderry is the official name. It is the commonly used name in Ireland; people on the mainland tend to call it Londonderry because that's the name that's on the map and was, at least until fairly recently, the name it was referred to as on the news (which was quite often during the Troubles).

Londonderry is used on road signs in the North (Doire/Derry in the South) and is used by Protestants when they want to be sectarian about it. Catholics regard it as something as an absurdity, which you might understand if you add "London" onto the front of any other place name.

It's actually quite a small city, which may well explain why there isn't a motorway reaching it from Belfast. It's nowhere near the size of Norwich.


----------



## Mateusz

It would be much easier to to know where new motorways should be constructed if we knew the traffic volumes. Where are they published ?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^

http://www.dft.gov.uk/matrix/Default.aspx


----------



## DanielFigFoz

ChrisZwolle said:


> ^^
> 
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/matrix/Default.aspx


It says "this page is unsupported" but thanks


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Here's a direct link to the interactive map:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/matrix/Map.aspx


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Same result :lol:


----------



## Mateusz

Try it with Internet Explorer. I am using Opera 11 and it wasn't working.


----------



## 896334

Let's take a closer look at your proposals Daniel, with my comments in italics:

-Belfast-Derry motorway
_As already pointed out, a D2 upgrade would suffice perfectly_

-Derry-Southbound motorway, with an cross border link to Athlone, to serve traffic to the Republic
_The A5 has in planning a D2 upgrade to the border which is being mostly financed by the Republic. Anything south of there, barring upgrades to the N2, are completely unnecessary._

-The M27 should go from Plymouth to Dover
_As I've pointed out many times in this thread, it is completely pointless. Proper D2 upgrades between Pool and Brighton yes, but nothing more is needed._

-The North Wales Motorway should actually be built.
_The A55 seems to be coping quite well just now._

-There should be a London-Southend motorway
_As in the M13? I happen to think the A13, A12 and A127 function well enough for this location._

-The M2 should be extended to Dover to meet the M27 and north to at least the M25, to actually link it to the rest of the motorway network.
_Again pointless, the A2 is of a better standard to the west of the M2 than the motorway preceeding it. At the eastern end, the A2 copes fine as the M20 deals with most Channel traffic._

-The A23 south of Gatwick should be the M23
_The D2 and in parts D3 A23 is fine for a southern arterial to Brighton, no need for motorway._

-The A3 should become the M3
_With the Hindhead Tunnel nearing completion, this route is fine as it is, with no reasonable justification to upgrade to motorway status._

-The M3 should become the M30
_See above._

-There should be two motorway ring roads inside the M25, one around the congestion charge zone and one roughly following the Northern Circular Road and one a bit further out than the Southern Circular Road, the latter being the most urgent.
_Sigh...I presume you've seen the Westway? Whilst being an amazing feat of engineering, somehow I don't think the rest of it will be finished anytime soon. A ring further out is needed on the southern side, but it won't happen without widespread home clearance, and I wouldn't recommend holding your breath for that to happen. On the North Circular, some upgrades in specific areas like the S2 section for example would work wonders. It doesn't need a complete overhaul._

-Since the M10 number has been freed up, the A1 should become the M10.
THE WHOLE OF IT!!!
_The most heavily used part is being upgraded to motorway through Yorkshire, yet a coupe of gaps will remain. It certainly doesn't need renumbering, but a complete motorway from Doncaster to Newcastle would be ideal._

-The M4 should be extended to Pembroke
_Considering the A48 is D2 to the A40 anyway, I think only a few small improvements to the A40 beyond here are required, and one is being built as we speak._

-There should be a M36 from Bournemouth to Salisbury and through to Bristol via Bath
_D2 bypasses and stretches along busier parts would suffice more than enough in comparison to ploughing a motorway through rural Wiltshire._

-The M8 shoud be 3x3 and the M8 the whole way
_Newhouse to Baillieston will get the go ahead soon, as for further widening, that's probably only a matter of time also._

-There should be an M50 from Stoke to Derby and Nottingham
_You mean the M64. The A50 was the replacement for this and despite poor designs at either end, performs well considering. Junction upgrades on both the M6 and M1, or even an alternative route round Stoke to the M6 would solve most of the problems this route suffers._

-The M11 to Norwich would meet an M134 from Kings Lynn to Ipswich which would then go through Colchester and Chelmsford to London, to link Ipswich to the capital.
_The upgraded A11, again taking place as we speak, will provide a D2 link to Norwich. A motorway driving down the heart of East Anglia wouldn't go down well I imagine and isn't really necessary, after Ipswich, your route is unnecessary due to the A12 which is also undergoing some junction improvements and is all but motorway in name for much of its length._

-The Cambridge branch of the M11, presumably renamed M14, would meet the M10 in Peterborough.
_Probably the first realistic suggestion in this list that isn't already being built. It doesn't have to be a motorway, but an upgraded A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon is one of the most required upgrades in the country._

-The M180 should be extended to Grimsby in the East to the M62 at Huddersfield in the West.
_Apart from being virtually empty except for port traffic, and the A180 doing absolutely fine, the eastern extension is completely unnecessary, whilst your western extension would get little use until crossing the M1, where it would be useful in cutting the M1-M62 corner at Leeds. In theory then what is needed is not an M180 extension but a corner-cutting route that could probably take the number M68._

-There should be a series of links between cities on the would be M10 to cities on the M6.
_I don't quite know what to say to this..._

-The M65 should be extended through Bradford to the M10 to Leeds (also serving as a northern ringroad)
_Would probably see a fair bit of use, but the North Yorkshire moors and dales might be a bit of an issue, being part of a National Park._

In essence, what we can deduce from these proposals is that you've taken a look at a main road map of the UK, seen where the gaps in the blue lines are, and filled them in. You severely underestimate the usefulness of D2 A roads and yet at the same time completely ignore some of the most congested parts of the country in dire need of improvements. All in all, a very mis-guided examination of the UK road network. 

What I suggest is to listen to what some of the other contributors here and on SABRE say in regard to needed projects, and brush up on some UK road history at both CBRD and Pathetic Motorways. That way you'll have a rough and ready knowledge that will allow you to have a decent debate with other road enthusiasts on the requirements of the British network. Don't take any of this the wrong way, I value your opinions as it's interesting to hear what other people have to say on this subject, I'd just rather you know a little more for your own sake before someone comes along and calls you a complete idiot or whatever, you know what forums are like!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The current British motorway network is pretty good in connecting all major population centers. It may need some more spurs or some missing links. The geography doesn't require a large motorway network, but it does require ample roadway capacity. Look at the number of large (100.000+) cities M1 serves for example.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Okay, you may be right in a lot of things but one of those websites, I don't remember which, does talk about the unsuitability of links towards Southend, for example.


----------



## piotr71

Map Guy said:


> Let's take a closer look at your proposals Daniel, with my comments in italics:
> ]
> 
> -The M27 should go from Plymouth to Dover
> _As I've pointed out many times in this thread, it is completely pointless. Proper D2 upgrades between Pool and Brighton yes, but nothing more is needed._
> 
> -The A23 south of Gatwick should be the M23
> _The D2 and in parts D3 A23 is fine for a southern arterial to Brighton, no need for motorway._
> 
> -The A3 should become the M3
> _With the Hindhead Tunnel nearing completion, this route is fine as it is, with no reasonable justification to upgrade to motorway status._
> 
> -The M3 should become the M30
> _See above._


I know all these roads quite well and must say your answers are very reasonable. Actually, more than reasonable. Only thing I would consider again is A27. Actually, A27 and A259. I would really see a need for a D2 by-pass for Bexhill and Hastings and would love to see(not counting D2 extension to Brighton) some plans of reconstruction existing Chichester's by-pass(just get rid of most roundabouts on it).

M3 should not get any new number indeed, however if it had extra lanes from J14 to J8 and from J3 to J2 wouldn't bad idea.


----------



## sotonsi

You mean the M12/M13? There's no Schipol-sized airport sitting on Maplin Sands, which was the justification for the routes to the airport beyond-Southend (and at least 1 four-track railway).

You have the A13 and A127 which don't cause any problems.

With 2 mostly grade-separated DCs to the edge of the urban area, as well as two decent railway routes.


----------



## poshbakerloo

I would like a Manchester-Sheffield motorway. The M67 was meant to do this?

Another thought I had would be another cross route similar to the M62 but further south...

*M6 at Newcastle/Stoke - Derby - M1 at Nottingham -Newark - Lincoln...*

For part of this the A50 could be used/upgraded...M50?


----------



## Comfortably Numb

ChrisZwolle said:


> *The current British motorway network is pretty good in connecting all major population centers*. It may need some more spurs or some missing links. The geography doesn't require a large motorway network, but it does require ample roadway capacity. Look at the number of large (100.000+) cities M1 serves for example.


I disagree. The network is pretty good, but there are many gaps to be plugged and there are many major cities without a motorway (or even major trunk road connection at all), for example Newcastle-Edinburgh, Manchester-Sheffield and London-Norwich & East Anglia.


----------



## 896334

DanielFigFoz said:


> Okay, you may be right in a lot of things but one of those websites, I don't remember which, does talk about the unsuitability of links towards Southend, for example.


It does indeed, Pathetic Motorways discusses the M13 which was designed to go to the south of Southend! Sotonsi has it wrapped up nicely in his post above.



poshbakerloo said:


> I would like a Manchester-Sheffield motorway. The M67 was meant to do this?
> 
> Another thought I had would be another cross route similar to the M62 but further south...
> 
> *M6 at Newcastle/Stoke - Derby - M1 at Nottingham -Newark - Lincoln...*
> 
> For part of this the A50 could be used/upgraded...M50?


Yes the Ministry of Transport felt much the same in the early 70s, hence the planning of the M64 which never ended up being built, instead we have an upgraded A50 which is only let down at it's two ends by poor junction designs, and the M6Toll which I think we can all agree was a complete waste of time.


----------



## PortoNuts

ChrisZwolle said:


> The current British motorway network is pretty good in connecting all major population centers. It may need some more spurs or some missing links. The geography doesn't require a large motorway network, but it does require ample roadway capacity. Look at the number of large (100.000+) cities M1 serves for example.


Fortunately the 1950s planners were visionary and made 3-lanes motorways. It would be far worse today otherwise.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Indeed, a lot of motorways had 3 lanes, but many have since been expanded to that.


----------



## poshbakerloo

Map Guy said:


> Yes the Ministry of Transport felt much the same in the early 70s, hence the planning of the M64 which never ended up being built, instead we have an upgraded A50 which is only let down at it's two ends by poor junction designs, and the M6Toll which I think we can all agree was a complete waste of time.


Using google maps I can created this to show the route I thought of. I've tried to make it as realistic as possible by missing as many buildings as possible, which is what I'm sure they would do anyway...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl...d=215974363525272264143.0004999775118469f834a


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Not by me.


----------



## sotonsi

Some brilliant things on that video from one of our Overseas Territories - a 25 speed limit sign (as well as a 30 one), a lack of official signs leading to a ton of unofficial ones for restaurants and such. And there's more Cayman Islands from that youtube user.

There's also the sideways traffic lights on gantries, the head height green street name signs and centre turning lanes from the USA, which it has close links, being their Tax Haven of choice...

There's capital letter direction signage and a lack of the road numbers that are there.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Indeed, that user has a few videos. The signs and markings are an interesting mix of US and UK. I don't get how the Cayman turning lanes are any different from those on Britain


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

Honestly aside from a few signs and cars and the other side of the road it would like look Florida, very similar to the US indeed.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Gibraltar:






Bermuda:


----------



## CNGL

DanielFigFoz said:


> Gibraltar:
> 
> 
> Bermuda:


NO! Gibraltar is SPANISH! (Sorry for the comment, but it's the only thing I can say)


----------



## g.spinoza

CNGL said:


> NO! Gibraltar is SPANISH!


It's not, since 300 years. Get over it and stop being chauvinistic.


----------



## Steel City Suburb

CNGL said:


> NO! Gibraltar is SPANISH! (Sorry for the comment, but it's the only thing I can say)


:lol: Its a British territory. Its residents are hugely supportive of British rule too.


----------



## harryj79

CNGL said:


> NO! Gibraltar is SPANISH! *(Sorry for the comment, but it's the only thing I can say)*




Actually you could have said nothing at all.


----------



## PortoNuts

Just saw your pics now piotr, thank you. Even though this says motorways, I suppose we could include A Roads as well.


----------



## Fatfield

PortoNuts said:


> Cool video, I really like motorway timelapses.


Whilst not a motorway the A19 is probably the most important road for commerce in the NE of England. It links with the A1/A1M at junction 49 to the south (the first few miles its the A178 until Thirsk) and the Seaton Burn Interchange to the north. It also connects the three main cities & town in the region, Sunderland, Middlesbrough & Newcastle along with various other conurbations in Teesside, Wearside & Tyneside.

There's also some major improvements being made on Tyneside to the Tyne Tunnel. Another tunnel is being built which runs parallel to the existing tunnel. It will mean that there will be two tunnels each having 2 lanes. This is due for completion in December 2011. More info can be found here and here.


----------



## PortoNuts

I know that's not a motorway, I was saying it in general.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I've put B roads in here before so :lol:


----------



## PortoNuts

These threads should be about roads in general, it doesn't make sense to be exclusive for motorways.


----------



## Penn's Woods

PortoNuts said:


> These threads should be about roads in general, it doesn't make sense to be exclusive for motorways.


Maybe they meant to create a motorways and a non-motorways thread, like they did for the U.S. If this is the only British roads thread, it seems appropriate to me to put anything about British roads in it.


----------



## Penn's Woods

DanielFigFoz said:


> I've put B roads in here before so :lol:


All the more reason to build a B2748(M), then!

(Number made up at random; have no idea where the B2748 is....)


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Penn's Woods said:


> Maybe they meant to create a motorways and a non-motorways thread, like they did for the U.S. If this is the only British roads thread, it seems appropriate to me to put anything about British roads in it.


The US threads are the only exception. Many threads have "motorways" or "freeways" in their titles, but they are not restricted to talking only about this. We have discussed non-motoways and posted photos of non-motorways in the past, I don't really see why its come up now.



Penn's Woods said:


> All the more reason to build a B2748(M), then!
> 
> (Number made up at random; have no idea where the B2748 is....)


Judging by the number, somewhere in the South-East, South of London and East of the A3.

Edit: I looked it up, and the highest B road number in the "2" zone is the B2237, so unfortunately the B2748 does not exist.


----------



## piotr71

Have you ever mentioned this:



> A new 13 km dual carriageway has been built alongside the old carriageway between the M1 Junction 13 and the Bedford Southern bypass and a new bridge over the M1. Changes to the A6 were also included in the scheme. The older carriageway was retained as a local access road. The road opened on 1 December 2010.[2]


I had an undoubtful pleasure of driving there several days ago and have to say that the new section of A421 made me really impressed. This road represents highest possible standard among British A roads.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## ChrisZwolle

Aerial view of M6/A38 Spaghetti Junction by Highways Agency, on Flickr


----------



## PortoNuts

Spaghetti Junctions are the masterpieces when it comes to motorway building. :applause:


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts

> *Full speed ahead for £180m A8 upgrade*
> 
> *MSPs approved the final piece in the west of Scotland roads jigsaw as they voted to upgrade a stretch of the A8, east of Glasgow, to motorway status.*
> 
> Transport Minister Keith Brown said the long awaited Baillieston to Newhouse link was one of the last roads needed before Scotland could concentrate on maintaining not building it motorway network.
> 
> The Transport Committee approved the building of the new roads and approach roads, east of Monklands interchange, with only Glasgow Green MSP, Patrick Harvie, abstaining in the vote.
> 
> The plan was approved by the seven Labour, SNP, LibDem and Tory members of the committee.


http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/editor-s-picks/full-speed-ahead-for-180m-a8-upgrade-1.1086815


----------



## PortoNuts

M74 works.



leadensky said:


> Caught this snap from Cathcart Road overbridge, west of Junction 1 before it rises up onto the Eglinton viaduct. Looks like it will be an impressive entrance to the city, with the Uni tower and the Cooperative building visible on the horizon.


----------



## piotr71

A M25 report from J10(A3) to Dartford crossing (anticlockwise). I was caught by heavy rainfalls, so some pics are not perfect.










Leaving A3.




























There are significant roadworks beteen J10 and J9 and this section of M25 is being closed overnight.









There is 50 miles speed limit applied, so the reminder makes its hard job.


----------



## piotr71

Will continue soon.


----------



## Harry

I think there's a change of mindset happening. The M25 and M1 used to be standing jokes as a result of demand enormously outstripping supply in terms of of roadspace. However, both motorways have seen a significant increase in road space in recent years to thr point where, outside of rush hour, they are no longer seen (for the most part) as roads to avoid. I drive the southern sections of the M1 and the western section of the M25 now several times a year on my way back down from the north of England...and both motorways are, for the most part, modern 8 lane motorways (and 10 or 12 lanes in sections on the M25).

The major complaint in the UK is that we do not have enough motorways. (A French/German style network would be preferable in certain regions, I agree.) However, I maintain that those that we do have are, on the whole, of excellent quality.


----------



## piotr71

This is an engineering masterpiece. There are 2 of this kind on M25.


----------



## piotr71




----------



## piotr71




----------



## piotr71

Will post more soon.


----------



## piotr71

Entering Surrey.






















































Busiest part of A31 starts just around here.


----------



## piotr71

Just a couple of miles before Guildford we are pulling off A31 to join A3 and go back home, actually I am coming back alone  I used B3000 which works as a connecting road between those 2.










Thanks.


----------



## IndigoJo

JeremyCastle said:


> First, here in the UK, I've noticed that most petrol stations don't even allow people to use a debit/credit card, regardless if the station is open or closed. I rejoice every time I get to one that lets me, as it allows me to avoid the pointless queue inside.


I've never seen a petrol station in the UK where they didn't accept credit and debit cards. The only ones that refuse them are probably small, family-owned ones in tiny villages, and there are hardly any of them left now. The big-name stations don't accept cheques, but hardly any major retail businesses take cheques anymore.


----------



## sotonsi

I think Jeremy is talking about pay-at-pump, which we've had for about 17 years without it taking off in any real way - some places have it (and some only PAP, with no kiosk), most don't have it.


----------



## Harry

Thanks for the update, Piotr. The A31 is a great drive, and I often use it as an alternative to the M3. Even with the single lane sections, it does not add much time at all to the journey.

The final section of your trip shows the Hog's Back, as the section of the A31 between Farnham and Guildford is known. On a clear day (so like the one you had) you can see right across to the far side of London if you're lucky. The skyscrapers at Canary Wharf are clearly visible from over 30 miles away.


----------



## PortoNuts

The quality of the pavement seems really good and like Harry said, it's probably a cheaper alternative to M3.


----------



## JeremyCastle

sotonsi said:


> I think Jeremy is talking about pay-at-pump, which we've had for about 17 years without it taking off in any real way - some places have it (and some only PAP, with no kiosk), most don't have it.


Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. In Switzerland, Norway and other countries, when a petrol stations closes for the night, people can still fill up their cars. They simply use the card reader at the pump, fill up, and away they go.

Could this be due to the sometimes insane "health and safety" regulations that don't allow the British people to do this unlike in other countries?


----------



## sotonsi

JeremyCastle said:


> Could this be due to the sometimes insane "health and safety" regulations that don't allow the British people to do this unlike in other countries?


Nope, a petrol station near me has been doing it since the mid-90s.

It's not really taken off here, that's all.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

That dual carriageway without a barrier in the central reservation is a bit old fashioned! I better go there before they put a barrier, just like I didn't with that motorway near Maidenhead, but I think theres a barrier there now


----------



## JeremyCastle

DanielFigFoz said:


> That dual carriageway without a barrier in the central reservation is a bit old fashioned! I better go there before they put a barrier, just like I didn't with that motorway near Maidenhead, but I think theres a barrier there now


In the States, that's very common, though of course the median between the two sides of the road is much wider. Even on motorways(interstates) you'll just have a big grassy area in the middle. I like when British roads have it, I think the trees and bushes in the middle add a bit of a scenic touch. I wonder if stats show these roads have a higher rate of accidents. I would think so(here in the UK) but I could be wrong.


----------



## PortoNuts

I think the largest chunk of car accidents happens in single carriageways, not in dual carriageways but Britain has a pretty low overall crash rate.


----------



## Tom 958

I think they need one more signal head. :lol:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

JeremyCastle said:


> In the States, that's very common, though of course the median between the two sides of the road is much wider. Even on motorways(interstates) you'll just have a big grassy area in the middle. I like when British roads have it, I think the trees and bushes in the middle add a bit of a scenic touch. I wonder if stats show these roads have a higher rate of accidents. I would think so(here in the UK) but I could be wrong.


It might actually scare people into slowing down, as they aren't common here as you know. I'm aware of the situation in the US, but it doesn't look strange there because it's normal


----------



## JeremyCastle

I am curious about UK car insurance. In The States, it is the car that is insured, not the person driving it. So, friends and family can usually borrow each others car, as long as they have the car owner's permission and a valid licence.

It seems to be different here in the UK. I keep reading how the person borrowing the car needs to have insurance themselves, regardless if they own their own car, and also, the person borrowing the car needs to have comprehensive insurance.

I've Googled and Googled, and have been unable to find out much info about this. As I am using a company from the US that covers me in the UK(driving my UK car), anyone, as long as they're licenced, can borrow my car; so this is not much of an issue for me. Is this not the case if I had UK car insurance for my car?

If this is indeed the case, then US car insurance seems a bit more flexible and slightly more "friendly".


----------



## DanielFigFoz

In the UK its the person that is insured for a particular car.

People can borrow the car, but the insurance will only be 3rd Party insurance, thus although it can be driven, the insurance company only covers theft and fire, as far as I know, but as the car isn't insured to the driver, and you can't really prove if it was taken with authorisation or not it might be a bit troublesome and not such a good idea. 

Indeed, the US insurance does sound more friendly, and would be very very handy for my family.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

Lots of lorries for a mountain pass!

From _1958IanM_


----------



## PortoNuts

^^Beautiful scenery, careful on those turns.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## Jonesy55

JeremyCastle said:


> I am curious about UK car insurance. In The States, it is the car that is insured, not the person driving it. So, friends and family can usually borrow each others car, as long as they have the car owner's permission and a valid licence.
> 
> It seems to be different here in the UK. I keep reading how the person borrowing the car needs to have insurance themselves, regardless if they own their own car, and also, the person borrowing the car needs to have comprehensive insurance.
> 
> I've Googled and Googled, and have been unable to find out much info about this. As I am using a company from the US that covers me in the UK(driving my UK car), anyone, as long as they're licenced, can borrow my car; so this is not much of an issue for me. Is this not the case if I had UK car insurance for my car?
> 
> If this is indeed the case, then US car insurance seems a bit more flexible and slightly more "friendly".


So in the US if a 50 year old woman with perfect driving record insures her Lexus for presumably a pretty low premium she can give it to a 16 year old boy to drive and he will be comprehensively insured at no extra cost?


----------



## snowdog

DanielFigFoz said:


> In the UK its the person that is insured for a particular car.
> 
> People can borrow the car, but the insurance will only be 3rd Party insurance, thus although it can be driven, the insurance company only covers theft and fire, as far as I know, but as the car isn't insured to the driver, and you can't really prove if it was taken with authorisation or not it might be a bit troublesome and not such a good idea.
> 
> Indeed, the US insurance does sound more friendly, and would be very very handy for my family.


What I wondered about the UK in terms of insurance, is why people put up with the quite high insurance costs when they're young, how can the companies not make MASSIVE profits with the prices they charge.

I'm a 19 year old guy with no NCB and I insure ( not my parents, cars are on my name and I'm the main driver) a 1997 Mitsubishi Galant 2.5 v6 for 390€ per year and a 1996 Volvo V40 2.0 for 360€ per year ( and it wasn't that much more when I was 18, 580 per year then), 3rd party only but if I wanted to insure my cars in the UK I'd pay 3-4x as much, if not more.

And yeah the insurance is on the car with the main driver paying for it ( and the quote is being made on the main driver). Any one of my mates can always drive my car without me needing to pay extra for special insurance or them being named drivers. afaik only the UK and Ireland have a ''named driver'' system in Europe.


----------



## Jonesy55

dp


----------



## Jonesy55

Well young inexperienced drivers especially men are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of serious motor accidents so that's why they pay much higher premiums.

The insurance companies probably don't make massive profits from that segment of the market, in fact some try to avoid young drivers altogether despite the high premiums.

A serious accident that leaves a third party permanently disabled can cost the insurer several million pounds by the time they have paid for nursing and care packages for the rest of the victim's life, loss of earnings compensation for a whole career etc, paying for a new car is a very minor part of the costs involved.


----------



## snowdog

Jonesy55 said:


> Well young inexperienced drivers especially men are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of serious motor accidents so that's why they pay much higher premiums.
> 
> The insurance companies probably don't make massive profits from that segment of the market, in fact some try to avoid young drivers altogether despite the high premiums.
> 
> A serious accident that leaves a third party permanently disabled can cost the insurer several million pounds by the time they have paid for nursing and care packages for the rest of the victim's life, loss of earnings compensation for a whole career etc, paying for a new car is a very minor part of the costs involved.


So, erm, what is different about that there than here ?

Afaik you can't even insure a 2.5 v6 for such a low price at 25 with 7 years NCB in the UK, let alone at 19 like me...

I must admit, I get 50% off from my employer for my cars insurance, BUT, even then I'd pay around 1k-1.25k for my first year of insurance, there is no way in hell an 18 year old can insure a 6 cyl car as cheap as me in the UK, but anywhere else in Europe ( or well, I'm not sure about the rest tbh, but In the NL and Poland anyhow) there is no prob, sure it's more expensive than a fiesta or saxo, but easily affordable. A Saxo VTS for example would only be 26 euros per month for me to insure. While in the UK, because of the boy racer image, an 18 year old would have to pay 3k per year probably.


An yeah, about half of the young drivers crash in the first year, but there's also a half that doesn't, I'm in that half, even though I drive more than average privately ( >30k per year) and I'm a driver for work too I haven't even touched anything with my car. Why should people like me pay for the damages of some moron who ploughs his car into someone else ? I'm far from a neat driver, I'm a boy racer too I guess and I love to drive fats, but the point is I haven't made any accidents. I would have to drive a crap car in the UK with no power at all, but here, my first car had 140 bhp, now I have 163, and soon I'm buying a new car again with well over 200 bhp, I feel I'm lucky I don't like in the UK in that view, the cars there are cheap as hell, but insurance is a rip off and I don't believe they don't make a massive profit.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Very few 17 year olds would be able to afford to insure your cars in the UK


----------



## Jonesy55

snowdog said:


> So, erm, what is different about that there than here ?
> 
> Afaik you can't even insure a 2.5 v6 for such a low price at 25 with 7 years NCB in the UK, let alone at 19 like me...
> 
> I must admit, I get 50% off from my employer for my cars insurance, BUT, even then I'd pay around 1k-1.25k for my first year of insurance, there is no way in hell an 18 year old can insure a 6 cyl car as cheap as me in the UK, but anywhere else in Europe ( or well, I'm not sure about the rest tbh, but In the NL and Poland anyhow) there is no prob, sure it's more expensive than a fiesta or saxo, but easily affordable. A Saxo VTS for example would only be 26 euros per month for me to insure. While in the UK, because of the boy racer image, an 18 year old would have to pay 3k per year probably.
> 
> An yeah, about half of the young drivers crash in the first year, but there's also a half that doesn't, I'm in that half, even though I drive more than average privately ( >30k per year) and I'm a driver for work too I haven't even touched anything with my car. Why should people like me pay for the damages of some moron who ploughs his car into someone else ? I'm far from a neat driver, I'm a boy racer too I guess and I love to drive fats, but the point is I haven't made any accidents. I would have to drive a crap car in the UK with no power at all, but here, my first car had 140 bhp, now I have 163, and soon I'm buying a new car again with well over 200 bhp, I feel I'm lucky I don't like in the UK in that view, the cars there are cheap as hell, but insurance is a rip off and I don't believe they don't make a massive profit.


Maybe compensation payments are lower in other countries I don't know. But forcing inexperienced young drivers to drive 10 year old Nissan Micras rather than 5l V10 supercars is probably not a bad thing for society as a whole! 

We do have one of the lowest rates of road deaths in Europe, maybe if young people could get insured cheaply for 250bhp cars that wouldn't be the case :dunno: 

It's not the end of the world to drive a small car for a few years until you get more experience and learn to manage testosterone better, I drove my mother's 1.0l Austin Metro for a few years after passing my test, it's no problem.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

The thought of some or most of my colleges and friends, even getting near the drivers seat makes me fear for society


----------



## snowdog

Jonesy55 said:


> Maybe compensation payments are lower in other countries I don't know. But forcing inexperienced young drivers to drive 10 year old Nissan Micras rather than 5l V10 supercars is probably not a bad thing for society as a whole!
> 
> We do have one of the lowest rates of road deaths in Europe, maybe if young people could get insured cheaply for 250bhp cars that wouldn't be the case :dunno:
> 
> It's not the end of the world to drive a small car for a few years until you get more experience and learn to manage testosterone better, I drove my mother's 1.0l Austin Metro for a few years after passing my test, it's no problem.


Don't you think it's unfair though ? I can see your point but in my view it's authoritarian BS and discrimination of age... I guess I'm a liberal conservative junkie and the UK doesn't know of such a political way but I think it's very unfair for young drivers not to be able to drive decent(ish) cars rather than shopping carts...

I have to drive 2.0 tdi diesels for work, and they feel really **** slow compared to my own cars, I would hate to have that as my own car.


----------



## Des

snowdog said:


> Don't you think it's unfair though ? I can see your point but in my view it's authoritarian BS and discrimination of age... I guess I'm a liberal conservative junkie and the UK doesn't know of such a political way but I think it's very unfair for young drivers not to be able to drive decent(ish) cars rather than shopping carts...
> 
> I have to drive 2.0 tdi diesels for work, and they feel really **** slow compared to my own cars, I would hate to have that as my own car.


Insurers calculate risk based on certain variables like age, postal code etc. If young people wouldn't crash or die as much insurance rates would be much lower. So in fact it's not a bad system. If all young people would show they can drive carefully rates should go down, but even with the slow cars they are forced to drive because of the high insurance premiums they still cost the insurance companies more money per million km driven than other age groups so the insurance premiums stay the way they are. 

I paid over 12k euro in insurance for my car in the last 4 years and never had the slightest accident or claimed anything in 120.000km and only after 4 years the rate dropped to an acceptable sub 100 euro a month level.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

My current all-risk / full coverage insurance is cheaper than my first liability-only insurance when I was 18 years old... But in the Netherlands we can't complain much, motor vehicle insurances are one of the lowest in the region.


----------



## Jonesy55

snowdog said:


> Don't you think it's unfair though ? I can see your point but in my view it's authoritarian BS and discrimination of age... I guess I'm a liberal conservative junkie and the UK doesn't know of such a political way but I think it's very unfair for young drivers not to be able to drive decent(ish) cars rather than shopping carts...
> 
> I have to drive 2.0 tdi diesels for work, and they feel really **** slow compared to my own cars, I would hate to have that as my own car.


Meh, life isn't fair  If young people as a group start driving better they will start getting cheaper insurance.

My full comprehensive car insurance is £285/year :smug:


----------



## snowdog

Des said:


> Insurers calculate risk based on certain variables like age, postal code etc. If young people wouldn't crash or die as much insurance rates would be much lower. So in fact it's not a bad system. If all young people would show they can drive carefully rates should go down, but even with the slow cars they are forced to drive because of the high insurance premiums they still cost the insurance companies more money per million km driven than other age groups so the insurance premiums stay the way they are.
> 
> I paid over 12k euro in insurance for my car in the last 4 years and never had the slightest accident or claimed anything in 120.000km and only after 4 years the rate dropped to an acceptable sub 100 euro a month level.


In Holland? What do you drive, a Ferrari ? :uh: Or do you spend a lot extra on fully comp. insurance rather than 3rd party only ?



> My full comprehensive car insurance is £285/year


Now that is cheap I guess, but you pay the price when you don't have too much money. I'd rather pay more when I'm older and have a decent job than while being a student .


----------



## Penn's Woods

Jonesy55 said:


> So in the US if a 50 year old woman with perfect driving record insures her Lexus for presumably a pretty low premium she can give it to a 16 year old boy to drive and he will be comprehensively insured at no extra cost?


I'm not sure (because I don't have kids), but I don't think it's that simple. I _think_ the person insuring the car needs to list everyone who drives it habitually, so if you've got teenagers, that will affect your rate.


----------



## snowdog

Penn's Woods said:


> I'm not sure (because I don't have kids), but I don't think it's that simple. I _think_ the person insuring the car needs to list everyone who drives it habitually, so if you've got teenagers, that will affect your rate.


I can answer that question for here ( Holland), and it's yes. Once the main driver is insured anyone can drive it with his permission. An 18 year old girl at work always turns up in her dads brand new 530d . I'm jealous .
No need to list anyone, on the older insurance cards you used to have a field that said ''name everyone who is permitted to drive this vehicle (only required for driving in the UK& Ireland)'' so I assume most of Europe's system works like the Dutch one.


----------



## lafreak84

I can confirm that for Slovenia also. Anyone can drive your car.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts

> *Motorway speed limit could be increased to 80mph within months *
> 
> *The motorway speed limit could be raised to 80mph in months. Ministers want to push the 10mph rise through Parliament before MPs leave for summer holidays in July. The Government is still undecided on whether it should be 80mph on all motorways or just quieter ones.*
> 
> The new law could mean the M4 and M5 to popular West Country holiday destinations may get an 80mph limit. But it is understood the maximum on London's M25 is likely to stay at 70mph.
> 
> Roads minister Mike Penning said: "We need to look at the economic benefits of shorter journey times as well as considering implications for road safety." MPs will also decide if the new limit will only apply at night, when there is less traffic, or in good weather. Britain's top speed limit has been 70 since 1965. Back then, that was the fastest family cars could go but now they can easily do 90mph and safety features have greatly improved.
> 
> Drivers are eight times less likely to crash on a motorway than in a built-up area but the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety is against raising the limit, claiming it would increase casualties by up to 10 per cent. The Association of British Drivers, however, said international evidence showed no relation between motorway speed limits and accident rates.
> 
> And the RAC says 80mph would be "perfectly safe in good conditions". The top limit in France and Italy is 81mph (130km), while in Ireland, Spain and Portugal it is 75mph (120km). And long stretches of German motorways - known as autobahns - have no speed limit.
> 
> Bad drivers pass on road rage habits to their learner-driver children, an AA poll found. Many set a bad example by tailgating and getting angry with others motorists, the study says.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/u...reased-to-80mph-within-months-86908-22988986/


----------



## DanielFigFoz

That is a notorious motorway, I'd like to go there.


----------



## piotr71




----------



## piotr71

It begins on roundabout and ends up in the same way.









Could not do any better, sorry.



























Cheers.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Thank you! I want to go down there even more now :lol:


----------



## Uppsala

M50 is very special. I like that motorway too. :happy:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Most of M50 opened in 1960. It is indeed one of the older motorways of Britain, and one of the few that has not been changed much since opening.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ Indeed, apparently it was built due to a mistake in a traffic count, and ended up not being so busy


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It would've made more sense if it was extended to Newport. This could save some tolls, and a (relatively minor) detour via Bristol.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

Now that's a motorway exit :lol:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...d=yTyq19oB_erkWXiyJpG6CQ&cbp=12,75.38,,0,5.18


----------



## JeremyCastle

One thing I realized today. Cars in the UK has 'GB' on their number plate, while the driving licence's have 'UK'. I'd always thought that the EU had a regulation that a member state's licence's and number plates must match with the same country identification letters. For example, Germany is 'D', Austria is 'A', Spain is 'ES', Denmark is 'DK', etc... It's ok for a country to not have different letters on the car's number plate and their driving licence's? I find that strange. How come the UK doesn't want to have the same lettering?


----------



## Pickle33

Its all part of the same name anyway, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"...I guess Ukraine or somewhere already has "UK" for their number plates?? Techincally GB for the purposes of identifing a country of origin is wrong because its a geographical reference to the Island of Great Britain, rather than a country (United Kingdom). I suppose its like referring to "America", rather than United States.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ukraine has UA.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

UK is less political I guess. I presume that the international code is older than the placement of "UK" on driving licenses, I'm not sure that everybody in Northern Ireland would appreciate "GB", or for half it's population "UK" for that matter


----------



## kramer81

Also, Northern Ireland have different plates from the rest of the UK iirc.

Edit: I wrote this before I saw the post above me.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

But legally, eurobands on NI plates are only valid if they have "GB", but as I aid I guess its an earlier development.


----------



## Uppsala

JeremyCastle said:


> One thing I realized today. Cars in the UK has 'GB' on their number plate, while the driving licence's have 'UK'. I'd always thought that the EU had a regulation that a member state's licence's and number plates must match with the same country identification letters. For example, Germany is 'D', Austria is 'A', Spain is 'ES', Denmark is 'DK', etc... It's ok for a country to not have different letters on the car's number plate and their driving licence's? I find that strange. How come the UK doesn't want to have the same lettering?


Spain has E, not ES.


----------



## Botev1912

JeremyCastle said:


> Spain is 'ES'


spain is E


----------



## sotonsi

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ Motorways in the UK are often quite busy so I think a speed limit of more than 80mph might not actually make traffic go any faster.


You've never been on the M1 near Watford Gap in fairly heavy (but not overloaded) traffic, have you? Tailgating in the inside lane at indicated speeds of 80+ mph. 80mph won't raise the average speed that much, mostly as when people can safely do it, most of them do an indicated 80mph or more anyway.

Also, it's been proven in studies that altering the speed limit (and doing nothing else) doesn't affect traffic speed by much (3mph tops)


DanielFigFoz said:


> ^^ Indeed, apparently it was built due to a mistake in a traffic count, and ended up not being so busy


No mistake in the traffic count. 50 years ago, there was major coal mining industry in South Wales, and major industry in Birmingham and the North, so made a lot of sense to get freight traffic out of the Malvern hills by bypassing the poor bits of the A449 through Malvern (with the bonus of the A38-A40(-A48) route as well) to give a better South Wales - Midlands route. Now there's less demand for freight traffic on that axis, the M50 looks a bit silly, but as a new build road, linking in with the M5, to fairly high (for 1960) standards, what would be the reason to not have it as motorway?


ChrisZwolle said:


> It would've made more sense if it was extended to Newport. This could save some tolls, and a (relatively minor) detour via Bristol.


The rest of the route to Newport is good enough - other than the traffic lights at Monmouth, and the roundabouts at Ross it's the same standard throughout (if not better aligned south of Ross). Anyone who wants to save tolls and a detour via Bristol takes it unless they ignore the signage and don't look at a map. I know the Netherlands has few non-autosnelweg expressways, but that doesn't mean everything has to be a blue line on maps.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Pickle33 said:


> Its all part of the same name anyway, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"...I guess Ukraine or somewhere already has "UK" for their number plates?? Techincally GB for the purposes of identifing a country of origin is wrong because its a geographical reference to the Island of Great Britain, rather than a country (United Kingdom). I suppose its like referring to "America", rather than United States.


Yes, but Ukraine is not part of the EU. If they were, then using UK might be an issue.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Uppsala said:


> Spain has E, not ES.


 Yup, you're right. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## ed110220

Harry said:


> Interesting, yes, but it doesn't give the full story. What the analysis does not allow for are:
> 
> 
> capacity increases arising from the widening of existing motorway carriageways; and
> construction of non-motorway classified strategic routes.
> Regarding the first point, there has been a significant degree of carriageway widening over the last 20 years. Large parts of the M25 and M1, for example, are now 8 lane motorways, with further widening planned. And regarding the second point, the UK (for some reason) does not tend to give a motorway classification to routes as readily as many other countries. There are a great many 4 lane (and sometimes 6 lane) non-motorway routes that drivers treat as motorways, with driving speeds to match, but which do not show up as a blue line on a map. A good number of these have been constructed or upgraded during the last 20 years.
> 
> This distorts the picture somewhat, to the extent that analyses such as yours (28% increase in capacity vs negligible increase in motorway mileage) do not stand up to detailed, quantitative scrutiny. (If improvements had genuinely come to a standstill since 1990, the network would be in permanent state of gridlock - and that, clearly, is not the case.)
> 
> None of that detracts from the overall point, however, that capacity improvements are certainly needed in many areas. I think we all agree on that.


It would be interesting to plot the increase in motorway lane kilometres rather than the increase of motorway length, but I guess that would be very difficult. For example 100km of 2x3 motorway would be 600 lane km, but if it was widened to 2x4 it would be increased to 800 lane kilometres.


----------



## PortoNuts

British motorways are already pretty wide compared to most European contries. Increasing the length of the network would be far more important.


----------



## poshbakerloo

PortoNuts said:


> British motorways are already pretty wide compared to most European contries. Increasing the length of the network would be far more important.


There aren't many places which need a new motorway. All I can think of is the completion of the Birmingham Ring motorway, another east-west motorway and bypass for the M60/62 and some parts of the M25. I think some places need express/collect which would help. 

Pretty much all the places that need a motorway have one which means that not many entire new routes are needed, just increased capacity on existing routes...


----------



## ed110220

poshbakerloo said:


> There aren't many places which need a new motorway. All I can think of is the completion of the Birmingham Ring motorway, another east-west motorway and bypass for the M60/62 and some parts of the M25. I think some places need express/collect which would help.
> 
> Pretty much all the places that need a motorway have one which means that not many entire new routes are needed, just increased capacity on existing routes...


I'm not really sure of that. The UK has a lot less motorway per capita than almost all other advanced countries. Some say this is because it's an island, but I do not believe that international traffic makes _that_ much of a difference in mainland Europe.

For a start, London is in desperate need, though politically it's probably a non-starter for the foreseeable future as banal 19th and early 20th century buildings that exist in the hundreds of thousands are thought to _all_ be worthy of saving.


----------



## bleetz

poshbakerloo said:


> There aren't many places which need a new motorway. All I can think of is the completion of the Birmingham Ring motorway, another east-west motorway and bypass for the M60/62 and some parts of the M25. I think some places need express/collect which would help.
> 
> Pretty much all the places that need a motorway have one which means that not many entire new routes are needed, just increased capacity on existing routes...


Currently, way too much traffic in Britain goes via the M25. Sussex to Dover? M25. Dover to Cambridge? M25. Oxford to Cambridge? M25. Milton Keynes to Chelmsford? M25.

There should be an alternative to that, and it should look like something this:










(M27 Dover to Portsmouth, A34 upgraded to M34 from M3 to Oxford, brand new motorway from Oxford to Cambridge, brand new motorway from Cambridge to M2 [would need a massive bridge]).

This would solve most of the problems around London, however, unfortunately, it is completely unrealistic.


----------



## -Pino-

ed110220 said:


> I'm not really sure of that. The UK has a lot less motorway per capita than almost all other advanced countries. Some say this is because it's an island, but I do not believe that international traffic makes _that_ much of a difference in mainland Europe.


I agree that "island" is unlikely to be a major contributing factor. What I do see as a major contributing factor is the shape of Britain: a standing rectangular. The bulk of the major population centers are within 20 kms from one of the two major North-South axes, namely London - Birmingham - Glasgow - Edinburgh and London - Leeds - Newcastle. Two backbone roads with branches every now and then will inevitably form a much shorter motorway network than a country like Germany or France, where long routes to all corners of the country are required (in grid or radial form). As such, Britain is very much comparable to Italy and Japan. Both countries with two major North-South axes but a relatively low number of motorways.

Probably for the same reason, both Britain and Italy rely quite heavily on expressways. As these are below motorway standard, they are out of the motorway statistics; yet mostly adequate in the regions where they have been built. Even though the latter point is one for a long discussion, as everyone has his wish list for upgrades ...


----------



## bleetz

You clearly haven't driven in in Britain. E.g. A27 near Chichester has 54k AADT and 7 roundabouts in 4 miles. It is a complete mess that looks more like India than western Europe! Lines of trucks, tractors, bicycles queueing up at tiny roundabouts and single-level junctions with local farms. England is absolutely desperate for new roads.


----------



## poshbakerloo

Harry said:


> .
> 
> 
> I tend to agree - simply because journeys from the South East of England to the South West involve a fairly large 'detour' for so many users (for example M20, M25, M3 etc instead of a more direct route.) I'm no advocate of unfettered road building but, where there is a clear need, you have to take a serious look at the problem. The hidden cost of not building a route like this is the excess congestion and inconvenience suffered by users of the routes that get used as alternatives. Unfortunately, the dissenters who make themselves heard when new routes are proposed shout louder than masses who suffer on the existing, overloaded infrastructure.


I guess a lot of the A27 could be upgraded. In places it is motorway or near motorway standards anyway...


----------



## poshbakerloo

ed110220 said:


> I'm not really sure of that. The UK has a lot less motorway per capita than almost all other advanced countries. Some say this is because it's an island, but I do not believe that international traffic makes _that_ much of a difference in mainland Europe.
> 
> For a start, London is in desperate need, though politically it's probably a non-starter for the foreseeable future as banal 19th and early 20th century buildings that exist in the hundreds of thousands are thought to _all_ be worthy of saving.


More motorways isn't always better though. I'm not against them, but I feel that upgrading what we have, including several A roads should be done first before looking at entire new routes...

A lot of other western countries have a lot more urban motorways which is probably why that have more motorway miles...ours only bypass and connect, ending mostly at the city limits. I think this is right rather than demolish 1000s of homes e.g. London Ringways. People saw Westway in London and ran a mile. It only seems to be Glasgow thats building inner motorways, but then again its on old industrial land not residential areas...


----------



## Penn's Woods

bleetz said:


> Currently, way too much traffic in Britain goes via the M25. Sussex to Dover? M25. Dover to Cambridge? M25. Oxford to Cambridge? M25. Milton Keynes to Chelmsford? M25.
> 
> There should be an alternative to that, and it should look like something this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (M27 Dover to Portsmouth, A34 upgraded to M34 from M3 to Oxford, brand new motorway from Oxford to Cambridge, brand new motorway from Cambridge to M2 [would need a massive bridge]).
> 
> This would solve most of the problems around London, however, unfortunately, it is completely unrealistic.


Do people really go from Sussex to Dover via the M25 rather than just along the coast? I understand the coast road's not a motorway, but still....


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Penn's Woods said:


> Do people really go from Sussex to Dover via the M25 rather than just along the coast? I understand the coast road's not a motorway, but still....


No...

If I lived in Brighton and wanted to get to Dover, I'd still take the A27, as crappy as it is. Taking the A23/M23 up to London, then back down again on the M25 / M20 would be bottom-line retarded. The south coast motorway / M27 extension from Folkestone to Plymouth would connect the Channel Tunnel to Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth, Poole and Plymouth, perhaps merging with an extended M5, thus bridging a very big gap and alleviating the M25 / Greater London area greatly from through traffic. The economic implications resulting in this road would be enormous, opening up much of the south coast major towns and cities to new opportunities, with a "fast link" to the continent.

The road needs to be built. The south coast is Britain's longest east/west landmass, yet most of it is without any kind of motorway. It would be just as important as the M4 & M62 motorways. Add to that, it would take a lot of traffic off the M4, saving further widening of that motorway and would provide a 2nd motorway route for those heading from London to the south coast & south west.

It would connect a LOT of dots and it could be landscaped enough to have minimal impact on the countryside in counties such as Dorset.


----------



## -Pino-

bleetz said:


> You clearly haven't driven in in Britain. E.g. A27 near Chichester has 54k AADT and 7 roundabouts in 4 miles. It is a complete mess that looks more like India than western Europe! Lines of trucks, tractors, bicycles queueing up at tiny roundabouts and single-level junctions with local farms. England is absolutely desperate for new roads.


You are discussing incidents. I immediately take your word for the A27 and other A-roads that are in need of an upgrade. But imagine that they did and the UK would get, say, 1500 kilometers of new motorway (probably more new connections than you can wish for), then still the UK would be relatively low in the motorways-per-capita statistic. And that has to do with the _principle_ that I described in my previous post.

Another part of that principle is that non-motorway expressways are more likely to work in countries with the geography of Britain, Italy and Japan than they are in a country with the geography of Germany, France or Spain. That is not to say that every route that does not form part of the backbone can be a dual carriageway A-route, but a large number of them can. And as I mentioned, upgrading the black spots in that A-network is not going to bring the UK to anything remotely close to a top spot in the motorway-per-capita statistic.


----------



## -Pino-

The M4 between Windsor and London Heathrow. Pics were made using my telephone, so the quality is not too high - but acceptable in my view. See Panoramio for the pictures at full size.


----------



## sotonsi

Comfortably Numb said:


> The south coast motorway / M27 extension from Folkestone to Plymouth would connect the Channel Tunnel to ... Southampton, Bournemouth, Poole and Plymouth, perhaps merging with an extended M5, thus bridging a very big gap and alleviating the M25 / Greater London area greatly from through traffic. The economic implications resulting in this road would be enormous, opening up much of the south coast major towns and cities to new opportunities, with a "fast link" to the continent.


All these places have a shorter route via the M25 than via Brighton (and Portsmouth is about the same), so it's not really a "fast link" to the continent as it wouldn't be any faster than the current route, especially once they've done the widening between J5 and J6 on the M25 (I think they might have gone with ATM, but even that would make the traffic flow a lot better on this, the peak-time problem with the M25 route from Dover to Southampton)

The South Coast Route is about Sussex traffic and is only of regional, not national importance - by all means it needs upgrades, but I think you are over selling the case massively.


----------



## ed110220

sotonsi said:


> All these places have a shorter route via the M25 than via Brighton (and Portsmouth is about the same), so it's not really a "fast link" to the continent as it wouldn't be any faster than the current route, especially once they've done the widening between J5 and J6 on the M25 (I think they might have gone with ATM, but even that would make the traffic flow a lot better on this, the peak-time problem with the M25 route from Dover to Southampton)
> 
> The South Coast Route is about Sussex traffic and is only of regional, not national importance - by all means it needs upgrades, but I think you are over selling the case massively.


Just from looking at the map Southampton-Dover via the South coast is significantly more direct than via the M25. Google maps shows that it is slightly shorter, even given all the twists, turns, corners etc that would be ironed out if replaced by motorway.

Besides, I think the M25 is going to be congested whether it is widened or not if alternative routes aren't made. Often more than one route is needed, simply to avoid congestion.


----------



## sotonsi

ed110220 said:


> Just from looking at the map Southampton-Dover via the South coast is significantly more direct than via the M25. Google maps shows that it is slightly shorter, even given all the twists, turns, corners etc that would be ironed out if replaced by motorway.


M3-A31-A3-M25: 144miles
A27-A259 all the way along the coast:145 miles Avoiding Bexhill and Hastings will remove some mileage, as would sorting out the kinks, but you'd divert to avoid Hythe, Folkestone, etc.

The M3 all the way is 150 miles, compared to 149 miles along the South Coast trunk road, via Ashford.

It's closer than I thought, but it is certainly not significantly shorter via the coast - if a South Coast motorway is shorter, then it'll be by an insignificant amount.

Dover is about 10 miles more north than Southampton (level with Winchester), Brighton about 10 miles more south than So'ton. The M25 is about the same distance north of Dover's northing than Brighton is south of it - don't let that coastline deceive you into thinking it's a better route if the roads are the same quality.


----------



## PortoNuts

ed110220 said:


> For a start, London is in desperate need, though politically it's probably a non-starter for the foreseeable future as banal 19th and early 20th century buildings that exist in the hundreds of thousands are thought to _all_ be worthy of saving.


London is investing heavily in public transportation (Tube upgrade, Crossrail, Thameslink), I doubt they will give any attention to motorways anytime soon.


----------



## bleetz

Penn's Woods said:


> Do people really go from Sussex to Dover via the M25 rather than just along the coast? I understand the coast road's not a motorway, but still....





Comfortably Numb said:


> No...
> 
> If I lived in Brighton and wanted to get to Dover, I'd still take the A27, as crappy as it is. Taking the A23/M23 up to London, then back down again on the M25 / M20 would be bottom-line retarded.


M25 is definitely the quickest way to Dover from Sussex. Definitely West Sussex, but my friend from Brighton also goes to Dover via M25. A27/A259 is not an option. Trust me on this one. I know those roads like the back of my hand, used to live there for quite a while.


----------



## bleetz

sotonsi said:


> All these places have a shorter route via the M25 than via Brighton (and Portsmouth is about the same), so it's not really a "fast link" to the continent as it wouldn't be any faster than the current route, especially once they've done the widening between J5 and J6 on the M25 (I think they might have gone with ATM, but even that would make the traffic flow a lot better on this, the peak-time problem with the M25 route from Dover to Southampton)
> 
> The South Coast Route is about Sussex traffic and is only of regional, not national importance - by all means it needs upgrades, but I think you are over selling the case massively.


You completely ignore congestion and the M25 is always congested. If you factor in the traffic numbers and the amount of time that M25 is at a standstill then nobody in his sane mind would EVER choose to go to those places via the M25 over the "proposed" south coast motorway. The new south coast motorway would undoubtedly be the fast link to the continent for those places, absolutely not a single doubt about it. It would be about 20 miles shorter and less congested. It would also take lots of congestion off the M25. I am not even talking about benefits for the "local" (Sussex/Hampshire) traffic (it can take a couple of hours to go from Brighton to Portsmouth nowadays, which is ridiculous given the distance).


----------



## sotonsi

bleetz said:


> You completely ignore congestion and the M25 is always congested.


No I don't - partially as that isn't true. Certainly it it's perfectly fine outside of rush hour - busy, but not going to hold you up. And most of the rush hour hold ups will be sorted by the J5-6 improvements, hence why I mentioned it.


> If you factor in the traffic numbers and the amount of time that M25 is at a standstill then nobody in his sane mind would EVER choose to go to those places via the M25 over the "proposed" south coast motorway.


So what you are saying is that there won't be lots of traffic using the SCM? Don't forget that the SCM won't justify D3M (and it would be too difficult to widen the Brighton bypass, so there's little point in having the empty bits as 3-lanes each way), so you'd have the problem of lorries overtaking each other and lots of travelling at 56mph on the SCM.


> The new south coast motorway would undoubtedly be the fast link to the continent for those places, absolutely not a single doubt about it.


I'd have thought that the train, or a fast boat from Portsmouth would be quicker to large parts of continent. And what is your estimate for additional delays on the M25 compared with the SCM?


> It would be about 20 miles shorter


It would only just be 20 miles shorter from Brighton to Dover - and even then that depends on it's route being a few miles shorter than the current route. And given we're talking about Southampton and places westward here, and not Portsmouth and Brighton, saying something stupid like it being 20 miles shorter really makes me question whether you've looked at a map, or my last post where I blew this stupid argument out of the water with actual evidence.


> It would also take lots of congestion off the M25.


Not really - there's not a huge amount of traffic on the M25 doing those journeys - at least compared to total traffic on those bits of the M25. You're overselling the case for this road, and undermining the case for it in the process.


> I am not even talking about benefits for the "local" (Sussex/Hampshire) traffic (it can take a couple of hours to go from Brighton to Portsmouth nowadays, which is ridiculous given the distance).


Please do talk about local and regional benefits - there's a much much better case for a South Coast expressway (motorway won't happen) in those benefits than in false tales of national importance - in fact those false tales undermine your case as it makes it sound like you are stupid.

The strength of the case for an SCM is in the currently poor road links to Hastings and Eastbourne compared to other towns their size, the sillyness of trunk traffic heading through central Bexhill and Hastings, the sheer amount of traffic on the A27 in Worthing and on the Arundel and Chichester bypasses and journey times from Brighton to Portsmouth and Hastings. It's not in removing a small fraction of the traffic from a busy road that is being upgraded anyway, and it's certainly not in shortening a route by not actually shortening it, but that's what you are using as the main selling point.

I'm not against upgrading the South Coast Route at all - in fact I'm very much for it. What I am against is dumbass reasons to build a motorway, especially if they are being put front and centre, undermining support for it as people see the falsehood in these reasons and think you have no grasp at all on reality and road needs.


----------



## Harry

lafreak84 said:


> Because the difference between 80mph and 90mph is tremendous, right?


Yes.



lafreak84 said:


> Speed doesn't kill, incompetent drivers kill.


I agree. And sadly, there are rather a lot of those around.

An increase of 10 mph in the speed limit is just about plausible. But the politics of the situation dictates that concessions will need to be made to those with serious reservations about the change - not least, the road safety lobby. I think you're being a little naive if you think that we will move in a single step from a speed limit of 70 mph to anything higher than 80 mph (or towards a much more liberal German approach). It simply will not happen.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^I wish that was true (map)


----------



## poshbakerloo

Motorways for Manchester...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl...53.464667,-2.21132&spn=0.137551,0.363579&z=12


----------



## ed110220

poshbakerloo said:


> Pretty much just a pipe dream I'm guessing, and a lot of it is a scaled down version of the London Ringways, but there is some outside of the city aswell...
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl...=51.46513,0.024719&spn=0.579202,1.454315&z=10


Fantastic! London could really do with something like that. How though do you do the Google Map overlays, they're really good.


----------



## poshbakerloo

ed110220 said:


> Fantastic! London could really do with something like that. How though do you do the Google Map overlays, they're really good.


You have to have a Google account, then you can make your own, click on my maps.

London nearly did have something like that, but it got cancelled as the plans in place where much bigger and much more destructive! The plan I have shown follows existing big roads and rail lines so it would be elevated. Some parts would have to be double stack to reduce demolition of homes which I think is important to to reduce!


----------



## CNGL

80 mph? You are lucky, that's a 16 km/h raise if finally gets signposted. It's better than the pattetic *68 mph* limit we have in Spain, I want the 75 mph limit back!


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Between you, me and the gatepost, I would regularly drive at 100+ mph on certain motorways back in Blighty, particularly the M40 between London and the West Midlands. I never got stopped and I only did it during times of sparse traffic. I remember getting my old Astra GTE up to 142mph for quite a long stretch.


----------



## Sarepava

If the UK raises the motorway speed limit to 80, then it should also adopt lower speed limits for the wet like France does -say 65, which corresponds to 100km/h. By 'wet' I don't mean just a few specks of rain because that would give jobsworth policemen the ability to make some very dubious speeding convictions, but the law should be that if you need continuous wipers on, the lower limit comes into force (anybody know what the criteria are in France?). Also, using dipped headlights should be made compulsory in precipitation.

That said, I'm not sure this is what the country wants particularly. People are sticking to 70 a lot more as they try to be more fuel efficient, and the current system of cops using their discretion if somebody is doing 80 but clearly not being a greater danger seems to work rather well. The authorities are rightly much more concerned about people speeding in urban areas than on the safest motorway network in the world.

Lowering the limit on single-carriageway roads is bit of a mixed bag. The most dangerous ones already have 50 or even 40 limits anyway, and it is sufficiently safe to do 60 if the road is wide, or one of the former 3-lane ones where the middle lane is now hatched to separate the carriageways. Most sensible people, myself included, actually do around 50-55 as 60 does feel about as quick as you want to go most of the way. It also allows you to be in top gear with the speed a good compromise between economy and having enough torque to slow a little and accelerate without changing down (which also helps fuel economy). 50 is an annoying speed if there appears to be little good reason for it, and slow drivers would push it down to 45. It also means its harder to legally overtake lorries - and yes I know overtaking is inherently dangerous, but if a sufficiently powerful car _can_ get round it would be safer to do it more quickly at 60 than at 50.

Also, this won't make people suddenly like the Tories overnight.

PS. At the risk of descending into rant, if the police are going to clamp down on 'undertaking' they should get equally tough on people not using the overtaking lanes for overtaking. The reason why people go past on the inside is as often as not that there is some idiot who doesn't understand that the empty lane on their left is the one to move back into _as soon as_ they have passed the slower vehicle; and that they should stop bleating to their passenger, pay attention to what's going on around them and stop treating controlling a ton of speeding metal the same way as cooking a microwave meal.


----------



## 896334

Sarepava said:


> PS. At the risk of descending into rant, if the police are going to clamp down on 'undertaking' they should get equally tough on people not using the overtaking lanes for overtaking. The reason why people go past on the inside is as often as not that there is some idiot who doesn't understand that the empty lane on their left is the one to move back into _as soon as_ they have passed the slower vehicle; and that they should stop bleating to their passenger, pay attention to what's going on around them and stop treating controlling a ton of speeding metal the same way as cooking a microwave meal.


Absolutely spot on. The amount of times I've gone on the inside lane past dozy idiots (both male and female) who've just parked it in the middle lane to wake them up whilst on my bike is getting rather silly.

Funny to watch them pull over all embarrassed though afterwards! :lol:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Nor undertaking nor middle lande hogging are illegal as such, although you can get done for dangerous drivign depending on the circumstances


----------



## poshbakerloo

Sarepava said:


> If the UK raises the motorway speed limit to 80, then it should also adopt lower speed limits for the wet like France does -say 65, which corresponds to 100km/h.


They do that anyway, with the electronic signs. They also do it for fog and snow, but I think they bring it to 50mph


----------



## kramer81

Map Guy said:


> Absolutely spot on. The amount of times I've gone on the inside lane past dozy idiots (both male and female) who've just parked it in the middle lane to wake them up whilst on my bike is getting rather silly.
> 
> Funny to watch them pull over all embarrassed though afterwards! :lol:


I'm surprised they do move in afterwards, it seems like 80% of cars up here only use the inside lane when entering and exiting the motorway.


----------



## Jonesy55

I have to admit I don't always pull into the inside lane from the middle, if I can see something ahead that I'm going to overtake in the next minute or so and there isn't anything approaching behind I can't see the point pulling in only to have to pull straight back out again.


----------



## Sarepava

> They do that anyway, with the electronic signs. They also do it for fog and snow, but I think they bring it to 50mph.


Those signs are only advisory and are not legally enforcible (except on the M25 and M42, and they are primarily for congestion anyway). Sensible motorists are gentle with the throttle in bad weather anyway.



> I have to admit I don't always pull into the inside lane from the middle, if I can see something ahead that I'm going to overtake in the next minute or so and there isn't anything approaching behind I can't see the point pulling in only to have to pull straight back out again.


That's fine, because you have a legitimate reason for being in an overtaking lane. If you had 'taken a lorry and stayed in the middle lane even though the next one was a mile ahead it wouldn't be, especially if lanes 2 and 3 were congested but lane 1 underused. That said, there's nothing worse than pulling back in and a minute later getting stuck right behind a lorry, whilst everyone behind you overtakes you _and_ it, blocking your chances of getting out.


----------



## PortoNuts

> *Drivers want 80mph motorway limit*
> 
> *A new survey by Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM) has found that nearly three-quarters (over 70%) of drivers and riders want the speed limit on motorways in the UK to be lifted to 80mph from the current 70mph.*
> 
> Of the more than 2,000 people questioned, nearly three in five said they are more likely to stick to the limit if it is raised to 80mph. Almost 60% confessed that they travel above 70mph when traffic is free-flowing, with a fifth driving at 80 mph or faster.
> 
> A study on free-flowing motorway speeds by the Department for Transport showed that over half (52%) of cars break the 70mph limit, while 16% travel at 80mph or faster.
> 
> Neil Greig, director of policy and research at IAM, said: "Even though motorways are the safest roads, increasing the motorway speed limit is a controversial subject. This is why we want to see a trial to test its impact on road safety, fuel consumption and driver behaviour. A new 80 miles per hour limit would need to be properly enforced to make sure that it does not become an excuse to drive at 90."


http://www.rac.co.uk/news-advice/motoring-news/post/2011/5/drivers-want-80mph-motorway-limit/


----------



## Sarepava

The IAM and RAC should be a reliable and unbiased source (i.e. not some petrolhead group who want all speed limits everywhere to be raised to 190mph) However, as there are approx. 40 million adults with a driving licence in the UK, a sample of around 2000 does not really produce a representative result - the 75% who are in favour of the 80mph limit corresponds to approx. 0.00004% of British drivers...

(In fact the figure does not even say 75%, just 'over 70' so the total percentage may be even lower - but this is somewhat academic).


----------



## Attus

Sarepava said:


> The IAM and RAC should be a reliable and unbiased source (i.e. not some petrolhead group who want all speed limits everywhere to be raised to 190mph) However, as there are approx. 40 million adults with a driving licence in the UK, a sample of around 2000 does not really produce a representative result - the 75% who are in favour of the 80mph limit corresponds to approx. 0.00004% of British drivers...
> 
> (In fact the figure does not even say 75%, just 'over 70' so the total percentage may be even lower - but this is somewhat academic).


Since I've worked several years in public opinion research, I can say for sure that you're wrong. It is really a kind of science where sometimes researchers can fail of course but, beleive me, basically it is possible to create a very confident report by asking only 2,000 people.


----------



## ed110220

Sarepava said:


> The IAM and RAC should be a reliable and unbiased source (i.e. not some petrolhead group who want all speed limits everywhere to be raised to 190mph) However, as there are approx. 40 million adults with a driving licence in the UK, a sample of around 2000 does not really produce a representative result - the 75% who are in favour of the 80mph limit corresponds to approx. 0.00004% of British drivers...
> 
> (In fact the figure does not even say 75%, just 'over 70' so the total percentage may be even lower - but this is somewhat academic).


Actually, providing that the sample is representative (ie not self-selected, selected from one place etc etc), 2 000 sampled is ample. It is absolutely normal to sample in this way on everything from TV viewing figures to voting intentions as it is impractical to ask every TV viewer what programme/channel they watched, ask every voter etc.


----------



## sirfreelancealot

ed110220 said:


> Actually, providing that the sample is representative (ie not self-selected, selected from one place etc etc), 2 000 sampled is ample. It is absolutely normal to sample in this way on everything from TV viewing figures to voting intentions as it is impractical to ask every TV viewer what programme/channel they watched, ask every voter etc.


Its a very confident report compared to the so called reseach evidence presented in the smallprint of hair and skincare ads which poll only about 80 people and consider a 90% yes to be a success!!


----------



## PortoNuts

A good survey has much more to do with the criteria used in choosing the sample than the numbers themselves.


----------



## PortoNuts

> *Kenny commits to motorway in North*
> 
> *TAOISEACH Enda Kenny publicly pledged yesterday to spend hundreds of millions of euro to build a motorway in the North. There have been more than 2,400 objections to the planned €928m A5 motorway from Derry to Aughnacloy, on the Monaghan-Tyrone border. *
> 
> Its opponents have branded it a vanity project and a "political road" which will not deliver promised economic benefits and which will "cripple" transport budgets north and south. But Mr Kenny said his Government is committed to co-funding the project with the Northen Assembly because it would "significantly improve" access from the north-west to Dublin.
> 
> "I've travelled that on many occasions and it does need to be developed. The previous government had committed to put money in there and we will honour that commitment," he said at the annual conference of the Institute for British-Irish studies in UCD.
> 
> But the Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland environmental group reacted with surprise to Mr Kenny's announcement.
> 
> Its director James Orr said the A5 motorway was not projected to bring about any increase in traffic to the north-west despite its enormous cost. "Since the public inquiry has started, there's even more evidence to suggest it's an ill-thought out, vainglorious scheme. At the end of the day we all know this is a political road," he said.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kenny-commits-to-motorway-in-north-2659629.html


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ Nice video!


----------



## PortoNuts

> *Peak District route claims title of Britain's most dangerous road *
> 
> *A perilous 12km road running through the Peak District National Park has been officially named Britain's most dangerous highway.*
> 
> The A537 from Macclesfield to Buxton in Derbyshire, dubbed the Cat and Fiddle, has seen crashes rise by 62 per cent in the past three years, with the equivalent of three fatal or serious injury collisions for every 3km stretch of road, according to a report by the Road Safety Foundation (RSF).
> 
> The 50mph single carriageway, which tourists are often forced to negotiate, takes in severe bends, steep falls and is edged by dry stone walls or rockface for almost all of its length. While the Cat and Fiddle comfortably tops Britain's 10 most dangerous routes, even without counting motorcycle crashes, the report found that drivers across the north-west and East Midlands have to negotiate the most hazardous roads in Britain, with particularly dangerous stretches in Bolton, Wakefield, Worksop and Nantwich. Routes in these areas are frequently rural and challenging to drive, with numerous blind corners and sweeping bends.
> 
> The RSF claimed that hundreds of deaths could be prevented with practical, inexpensive solutions, such as resurfacing and better road markings and signs. It said more than 300 people in the UK are alive today because just 15 roads have put such simple improvements in place.
> 
> On these 15 roads, fatal and serious-injury crashes dropped from 494 between 2004 and 2006 to 190 between 2007 and 2009. The most-improved road is a 6.9-mile stretch of the A4128 from Great Missenden to High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, where fatal and serious crashes went down from 19 to just two.
> 
> Dr Joanne Hill, director of RSF, said: "These are practical, largely inexpensive solutions which will pay back the costs of investment in an average of 10 weeks – a 500 per cent rate of return in the first year alone – and go on saving lives and saving money for the nation for many years to come. Much of this remedial work can be done as part of routine maintenance."
> 
> More than 30,000 people have been killed and 300,000 seriously injured in crashes on Britain's roads in the past decade. Britons are four times more likely to die on the roads than in any other daily activity. Road crashes remain the leading cause of death among young adults.
> 
> Dr Hill said that A roads remained the most dangerous routes. "While motorways and dual carriageways are moving towards the 'low risk' benchmark, the risk levels on non-primary single carriageway A roads in particular remain a cause for concern," she said.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-of-britains-most-dangerous-road-2287812.html


----------



## poshbakerloo

^^

And I drive down that road almost every week and have done for several years lol
But really, I've never seen any accident. They did about a year ago add some average speed check cameras which I'm sure have helped...


----------



## DanielFigFoz

A3 Guildford Bypass






A3 Hindhead


----------



## PortoNuts

They did it quickly, nine months ahead of schedule.



> *M74 extension opens to cyclists, walkers and runners*
> 
> *The new M74 extension in Glasgow has been opened to cyclists, walkers and runners for a one-off charity day. About 20,000 participants will take part in Bike-n-Hike before the section of motorway opens to cars on 28 June.*
> 
> The route starts at Shields Road car park, and involves a 14km round trip to Fullarton Roundabout, or a 4km route to and from Polmadie Road.
> 
> The £657m M74 completion project links the end of the existing M74 with the M8 southwest of the Kingston Bridge.
> 
> Work on the extension began in 2008, and it will open almost nine months ahead of schedule. The cost of the project is being met by the Scottish government through Transport Scotland and Glasgow, South Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire councils.
> 
> The work was carried out by Interlink M74, a joint venture comprising Balfour Beatty, Morgan Est, Morrison Construction and Sir Robert McAlpine.


:cheers:


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts

poshbakerloo said:


> ^^
> 
> And I drive down that road almost every week and have done for several years lol
> But really, I've never seen any accident. They did about a year ago add some average speed check cameras which I'm sure have helped...


They rank roads as the worst based on accident rates but that isn't necessarily true.


----------



## poshbakerloo

PortoNuts said:


> They did it quickly, nine months ahead of schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> :cheers:


I wonder when it will show on Google Maps


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ Nine months behind schedule probably


----------



## DanielFigFoz

In Figueira da Foz, they rebuilt a section of the EN109 in the north of the city ( both the olnd and new section visible from my balcony :lol, anyway, it was on google maps about 2 years before they built it :lol:


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^In France (at least the places I spot-checked), the imagery, as opposed to the maps, is several years behind (the new A4 bypassing Reims and the A19 where it crosses the A77 aren't even visibly under construction on the imagery, whereas they opened in 2010 and 2009).


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Yes, my block in Figueira didn't appear on google maps (satelitte) until six years after it was built :lol:

Anyway,





A3(M) Waterlooville Bypass


----------



## mcarling

poshbakerloo said:


> I wonder when it will show on Google Maps


Google Maps get their roads data from TeleAtlas. They will update their data if you report a new road opening here:
http://mapinsight.teleatlas.com/mapfeedback/


----------



## PortoNuts

poshbakerloo said:


> I wonder when it will show on Google Maps


Btw, isn't the M74 extension part of the 2014 Commonwealth Games thing? And they usually encourage people to use public transportation for these events.


----------



## havaska

PortoNuts said:


> Btw, isn't the M74 extension part of the 2014 Commonwealth Games thing? And they usually encourage people to use public transportation for these events.


Nope, was planned long before the Commonwealth Games.


----------



## poshbakerloo

mcarling said:


> Google Maps get their roads data from TeleAtlas. They will update their data if you report a new road opening here:
> http://mapinsight.teleatlas.com/mapfeedback/


Well I'd imagine the already know or 1000s have already reported it lol
Its not as if its a small country track


----------



## 896334

havaska said:


> Nope, was planned long before the Commonwealth Games.


It was, though on a slightly different alignment, along with a whole host of other motorways that snaked around the Glasgow urban area:

A history of Glasgow's motorways



poshbakerloo said:


> Well I'd imagine the already know or 1000s have already reported it lol
> Its not as if its a small country track


I reported some issues with the mapping of Ireland's new motorways which was horrendous about a year or two ago. It was only last month that I got an email from Teleatlas telling me they'd acknowledged my comments and made the relevant changes! I think they like to take their time with such updates!


----------



## PortoNuts

havaska said:


> Nope, was planned long before the Commonwealth Games.


Thanks.



> *A8 upgrade finally gets green light*
> 
> *Proposals to sell land for a major motorway upgrade on the outskirts of Glasgow have been given the go ahead for later this year. The work, including a six-mile section of the A8 on the eastern side of the city will began after compulsory purchase orders were passed without objection.*
> 
> Transport Scotland confirmed the process for the A8 upgrade between Baillieston and Newhouse, the last remaining non-motorway section of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road, as well as improvements to the M74, M73 and Raith Interchange would start at the end of the year.
> 
> But it faced renewed calls from opposition parties to spell out a timetable for the project amid anxiety that the "missing link" of central Scotland’s motorway network will not be completed in time for Glasgow 2014. The sale of dozens of plots of land around the motorways will represent the first tangible sign of progress since an independent reporter concluded in 2008 that the upgrade could go ahead.
> 
> The recommendation then awaited government approval until December last year when Finance Secretary John Swinney announced the scheme would go ahead, funded by the SNP’s non profit distributing (NPD) financing scheme, a model similar to the PFI borrowing favoured by Labour and the Tories.
> 
> A spokeswoman for Transport Scotland confirmed that, since compulsory purchase orders were published in January, no formal objections had been received by the end of the official consultation period last month. "After Parliamentary approval of the Orders for M8 Schemes, the affirmative process has now passed without any objections being received. It is anticipated commencing the procurement process towards the end of this year," she said.
> 
> "Along with the M74 Completion scheme which opens to traffic on 28 June, and the M80 Stepps to Haggs upgrade, programmed to be completed later this year, this Government is committed to completing the Central Scotland motorway network."
> 
> The cost of the improvements was originally £310 million, though it is expected to have increased due to inflation. A clearer figure is expected to emerge following a government review which will spell out an exact timetable. To date, the government has only committed to starting the scheme "between 2011 and 2012".
> 
> Businesses and motoring organisations have long pressed for the A8 upgrade, which was approved by the then Scottish Executive in 2003.
> 
> The project is expected to lead to journey savings of around 20 minutes between Glasgow and Edinburgh on one of Scotland’s busiest roads, which is used by around 100,000 vehicles a day. Improvements to the M74 and M73 are also seen as vital to avoid pinch points forming once the new M74 extension opens later this month, diverting traffic away from the M8 into Glasgow.
> 
> A spokesman for Labour called for a "clear guarantee" that the upgrade would be completed in time for the Commonwealth Games. The spokesman said: "We need to see a definitive timetable set out and a definitive source of finance in place. This is an important part of Scotland’s road network and it would be disappointing if improvements were still incomplete when Glasgow hosts the Games."
> 
> A spokeswoman for the LibDems added: "The Transport Minister needs to give assurances that this project will completed in the agreed time scale because of its importance for transport links in Scotland."
> 
> Other major motorway projects suggest that completing the A8 upgrade before 2014 would be difficult. The first road orders for the £320m M80 Stepps to Haggs project were first published in 2006 and work is expected to finish later this year.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/a8-upgrade-finally-gets-green-light-1.1105393


----------



## Dan

Good stuff! 

Anyone have any updates on the N1 in Northern Ireland?


----------



## sotonsi

There's no N1 in NI - do you mean the A1? There's photos upthread of the Newry bypass bypass but there's not been anything since that.


----------



## Dan

Ah yes that is what I meant. Is it near motorway standard to the border or is it still pretty basic?


----------



## sotonsi

from the border northwards to the end of the new Newry bypass bypass, it's what is often called 'motorway standard'.

North of there, there's no stopping until the junction with the A101 (where the A1 ceases to be part of the Dublin-Belfast route), but there's still a couple of right turns, lots of 'tight' bends and 'steep' hills, and there's some driveways and such.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts

Historic opening in 1959.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

The 1959 video is quite interesting


----------



## PortoNuts

The fascination with the motorway at that time is very nostalgic.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## ed110220

That 1959 footage is fantastic! It reminds me of a wonderful 1960s postcard I once saw of a restaurant built over the M1 somewhere. Not sure where or if it is still there?

I find British motorway signage not too good though, aesthetically and from the point of view of clarity.

The gantries look like something from a Soviet shipyard and the short downward-pointing arrows look dated. Often it isn't very clear which lane you should be in for which destination and often the different elements seem jumbled up.


----------



## bleetz

Personally, I have never had any problems with British signage. I heard lots of people complaining about it but I really don't know what you guys are talking about.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^I find the motorway overheads ugly, and the little lane arrows are hard to see. This is mostly a matter of esthetics, and once you've grasped that the different signs on a given gantry line up with the lanes they serve it's probably perfectly easy to navigate.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Yeah, they are a bit ugly, but I'm just used to it so I don't really notice


----------



## NCT

Indeed. It's a motorway, and motorways are not meant to be aesthetically pleasing, so get over it (not directed at you Daniel).


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^Opinions were invited. "Get over it," indeed.


----------



## ed110220

Maxx☢Power;79626620 said:


> Why exactly do so many signs in the UK have that grey background? I've seen regular roadside signs like that too..


I don't know, but here's an example: Google Street View M23/M25 interchange. Why are there separate blue signs on a grey background? This is what I meant by a jumbled effect.

A motorway's purpose isn't to be aesthetically pleasing, but usually some care goes into making sure they are (on the lighting, signage, landscaping etc).


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Yeah I think so. The blue signs can be affixed to the grey bits I believe, so if they want to change the signs they don't have to change the whole thing. Also they are small and such


----------



## flierfy

Penn's Woods said:


> ^^I find the motorway overheads ugly, and the little lane arrows are hard to see. This is mostly a matter of esthetics, and once you've grasped that the different signs on a given gantry line up with the lanes they serve it's probably perfectly easy to navigate.


British direction signage is one of the best signage systems in the world. It is aesthetical and informative which is rarely achieved elsewhere on this planet.



Maxx☢Power;79626620 said:


> Why exactly do so many signs in the UK have that grey background? I've seen regular roadside signs like that too..


British road signage uses several direction signs on gantries. It is, however, rather difficult to mount signs individually in different heights on a gantry. Thus, they create one large grey backed auxiliary sign and place the direction signs in the shape of panels on it.


----------



## flierfy

sotonsi said:


> Next is that the distinction between standard exits and interchanges is meaningless to Brits, so adding the logos adds clutter and no meaningful information - ignoring additional ugliness.


I disagree with this. I already explained on SABRE why these symbols are indispensable of any accomplished motorway signage system. These symbols distinguish junctions in access points to the network and nodes of the network itself, which helps navigating a lot.


----------



## urbanlover

Maxx☢Power;79925136 said:


> This,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> looks so much better than this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still a little messy and short on information, but a big improvement. I don't like the exit number being placed outside of the main sign, if they were going to change it that much they might as well get rid of all the gray stuff and extend the blue to the edge. Most important (aesthetically) change: Getting rid of the gray.


That first sign is 1000x better, it'd be far easier to read pick the correct lane quickly


----------



## sotonsi

flierfy said:


> I disagree with this. I already explained on SABRE why these symbols are indispensable of any accomplished motorway signage system. These symbols distinguish junctions in access points to the network and nodes of the network itself, which helps navigating a lot.


And as we explained on SABRE, it would only be of use to less than 1% of road users, and we could barely understand how you would navigate like this - it's like you were discussing some obscure bit of Germanic culture, probably as you were.

In fact, looking on the blog, there's normally some good reason/excuse used for making the signs fit the Vienna convention (which from what I can make out is the true aim of the project, hidden under talk of clarity and reducing clutter), but there wasn't really one there other than it could be used to tell the difference between new metric signs and old imperial signs.


----------



## -Pino-

A distinction between simple access points and network nodes makes sense in a grid structure like the German network, but much less so in countries like the UK and Italy, where the network is much more based on a few major North-South routes with branches turning off every now and then. Many of these branches will not end up as motorways, but their importance as a branch is a fact.

In Germany, too, I think that the distinction between so-called network nodes and simple access points has become blurry. Many access points have been constructed as cloverleafs now and are therefore signposted with the interchange symbol. But the network importance of that interchange is as limited as the network importance of an interchange with a three-digit motorway. The only thing that a German interchange symbol tells me is that I am approaching an exit that I can take at a higher speed. Not the idea of a stand-out symbol for important points in the network.

My main point of criticism on the UK style is at the same level as MaxxPower's, namely the gantries. I don't really bother about the types of arrows, but lane allocation signs have to work visibly and I consider the UK lane allocation signs to be below par on that point. Separating focal points by a comma is not fantastic from a legibility perspective either. And maybe this is where you also run into an issue with the Transport font. Conceptually, it is very clear. But it is also so broad when compared to its height, that sign makers are often forced into using a smaller size which, clearly, does not enhance legibility.


----------



## Penn's Woods

sotonsi said:


> We saw this blog on SABRE a few months back...


Your link doesn't work. If that was the discussion on SABRE (which I'm not a member of but I've lurked on occasion), it'd be interesting to read.


----------



## -Pino-

^^ http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26247&p=525232


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^That's brilliant! Cheers! [he said Britishly]


----------



## flierfy

sotonsi said:


> And as we explained on SABRE, it would only be of use to less than 1% of road users, and we could barely understand how you would navigate like this - it's like you were discussing some obscure bit of Germanic culture, probably as you were.


There is nothing obscure about it. It is a simply way to indicate the importance of a junction. Way more than 1% use this information to navigate once it is reliably signposted.


----------



## sotonsi

Perhaps the Germans would like to use fractions and sign miles - far more than 1% of people would use them once reliably signposted...

You have some of the people who can navigate the British road network best on SABRE, and no one understood why someone would navigate the way you described based on those little symbols, or how it would not get you lost unless you are lucky. Compare that to the reaction to distance-based numbering - even those who don't want it could see how it works.

Fundamentally, your navigation method is bizarre and unintelligible to the British mind and that being the case, the take up of such a thing - even if the symbols were rather large - would be very small by natives as such a way of thinking is alien to us.

What I also don't get is that you have to remember two numbers (how many interchanges and how many exits after that), rather than a single junction number. You talked about just ignoring exits until you've passed the right number of interchanges (surely you'd have to look at each one's signs to see if it's an interchange or not?), but you can do the same with junction numbers - 'oh that junction is #8, I want #22 so I don't have to care about leaving the motorway for a while'. I can't see people changing to a more complex system.


----------



## -Pino-

Don't worry, it's not only about the British mind. If the Germans created their interchange symbol on the basis that it would serve as a distinction between important intersections and non-important intersections, they did a bloody poor job in my opinion. At least 50% of the cloverleaf symbols are placed at places that are of no importance in the Germany network, namely interchanges with a three-digit Autobahn or a Bundesstrasse.

You have to rely on other messages spread by the German signposting to quickly grasp the importance of an upcoming intersection. The fact that they start signposting them early, for instance. But not on the cloverleaf symbol.


----------



## NCT

I don't think there's any need to differentiate different types of junctions either. There are only so many main routes and branches, and junction numbers are surprisingly easy to remember. The British driver uses a combination of main routes and control cities, so, say someone were driving from Nottingham to Hull, they'd be looking for Junction 32, M18 and Hull. There is plenty of redundancy in this way of thinking already, and I sincerely doubt anyone would give a flying monkey what type of junction symbol they use. What is more, minor junctions often take the form of a roundabout, and British motorways are free, so there is usually very little time and expense incurred as a result of taking a wrong turn.


----------



## flierfy

sotonsi said:


> Perhaps the Germans would like to use fractions and sign miles - far more than 1% of people would use them once reliably signposted...


No thanks. Germany and almost every other country on this planet turned metric long ago. There is no need to introduced obscure measures of which nearly no-one has a concept of. Neither do we need fraction as they look fvck ugly.



sotonsi said:


> You have some of the people who can navigate the British road network best on SABRE, and no one understood why someone would navigate the way you described based on those little symbols, or how it would not get you lost unless you are lucky. Compare that to the reaction to distance-based numbering - even those who don't want it could see how it works.


I don't expect the SABRE members to understand anyone who doesn't navigating by numbers as this and the British direction signage is pretty much sacred there. But to assume there was luck involved in navigating is rather stupid.



sotonsi said:


> Fundamentally, your navigation method is bizarre and unintelligible to the British mind and that being the case, the take up of such a thing - even if the symbols were rather large - would be very small by natives as such a way of thinking is alien to us.


Bizarre is actually your assumption that there were just one universal British mind.



sotonsi said:


> What I also don't get is that you have to remember two numbers (how many interchanges and how many exits after that), rather than a single junction number.


Who needs numbers. Junctions have names which are far more easily remembered than numbers.



sotonsi said:


> You talked about just ignoring exits until you've passed the right number of interchanges (surely you'd have to look at each one's signs to see if it's an interchange or not?),


Yes, but symbols are significantly larger and therefore easier to spot from the distance.



sotonsi said:


> but you can do the same with junction numbers - 'oh that junction is #8, I want #22 so I don't have to care about leaving the motorway for a while'.


If you navigate this way you are just a totso away from going the wrong way.


----------



## Penn's Woods

flierfy said:


> No thanks. Germany and almost every other country on this planet turned metric long ago. There is no need to introduced obscure measures of which nearly no-one has a concept of.


*Almost* every other country. But I find it bizarre that the rest of Europe is perfectly happy to turn often-bad English into its Esperanto on the grounds that it's a - no, the - universal language, but dismisses as "obscure" and nearly unknown a measurement system that was used within living memory by every country where that language is actually spoken natively.



flierfy said:


> Neither do we need fraction as they look fvck ugly.


Fraction*s* are ugly? That's a new one.



flierfy said:


> Who needs numbers. Junctions have names which are far more easily remembered than numbers.


There are countries - including some quite large ones in fact* - where junctions aren't named. And the notion that names are more easily remembered than numbers is a matter of opinion.

*But of course, since some of the countries in question are inhabited by benighted barbarians who prove their benightedness and barbarity by - gasp - not doing things the way Continentals do, I guess they don't count.


----------



## -Pino-

flierfy said:


> I don't expect the SABRE members to understand anyone who doesn't navigating by numbers as this and the British direction signage is pretty much sacred there.


I don't expect you to understand anyone who does not navigate the German way (or worse, the way you think that the German system works). The German directional signage is pretty much sacred with you.

In other words, please stop being a pot that calls the kettle black.


----------



## geogregor

flierfy said:


> Who needs numbers. Junctions have names which are far more easily remembered than numbers.


For me numbers are easier to remember, and I'm not even British


----------



## sotonsi

flierfy said:


> No thanks. Germany and almost every other country on this planet turned metric long ago. There is no need to introduced obscure measures of which nearly no-one has a concept of. Neither do we need fraction as they look fvck ugly.


So you get why I don't want our signs cluttered with ugly things that are obscure ways of navigating which nearly no-one has a concept of...


> But to assume there was luck involved in navigating is rather stupid.


As far as I can see, your system is count big interchanges and then count exits after the last interchange you pass - you need to be lucky that there aren't things you thought would be exits, but are interchanges, you need to be lucky that you don't miss an interchange when counting them off, etc 


> Bizarre is actually your assumption that there were just one universal British mind.


I never suggested there was, but there's near universal education, a common culture and a load of other things that means that our brains work in similar ways.


> Who needs numbers. Junctions have names which are far more easily remembered than numbers.


I likely know more motorway junction names than 99.9% of people in this country, but I can't list them off in order for, say, the M6 - or even something shorter like the M56. I want to turn off at Croft and have just passed Wednesbury - the name 'Wednesbury' tells me nothing about it's relative position on the motorway, so it doesn't even give a vague ball park idea of how far away my junction is. I may also know that I've just passed Ray Hall, which is an interchange and that that Croft is now the 4th interchange ahead - could it be the 4th junction I meet, or the 400th? I have no idea, and I may forget to count J11a as an interchange (more likely is 10a Southbound). A sequence of (near) consecutive numbers is far more easy to remember than a sequence of the same amount of words - this is clearly the case as counting to 30 is far easier than being able to recite the first names off a register for a class of 30 people.


> If you navigate this way you are just a totso away from going the wrong way.


I can't see how you wouldn't be either by going based on the counting interchanges and then exits after the last interchange, unless you know where the TOTSOs are (and they are rare in on the UK Motorway network), in which case, if driving from Gatwick to Tilbury (say), you know you need to turn off at junction 5 to stay on the M25.


----------



## NCT

You know what, you know a 'big' junction is coming up when you see one of the massive gantries over your head, which is far more visible than a little 'interchange' symbol.


----------



## ed110220

> Who needs numbers. Junctions have names which are far more easily remembered than numbers.


I agree with this, with the proviso that in order to be memorable you have to be at least somewhat familiar with the language of the name. For example, I would not find many Polish names to be memorable because I don't have much of an idea how they are pronounced.

South African exits are numbered too, but in everyday speech people tend to talk of the names rather than the numbers, which I find logical. For example people will talk about the _Elands Interchange_ rather than _N3 Exit 105_ or the _Marlboro offramp_ rather than than _Exit 124_.


----------



## flierfy

sotonsi said:


> I can't see how you wouldn't be either by going based on the counting interchanges and then exits after the last interchange, unless you know where the TOTSOs are (and they are rare in on the UK Motorway network), in which case, if driving from Gatwick to Tilbury (say), you know you need to turn off at junction 5 to stay on the M25.


You misunderstand me. I don't count junctions. I never did. I identify them by the symbol and their name. So I neither miss TOTSOs nor is it luck.

And I do know where the TOTSOs are, at least in the countries I venture. But I don't perceive TOTSOs as such as I follow control destinations rather than road numbers.


----------



## -Pino-

I do not think that there is one definite way to navigate along motorways. It will make a great difference how familiar one is with the road in question. For instance, when I drive home along the Dutch A1 I will only look at exit names. Barneveld tells me that I have some time to go and Diemen tells me that I'm almost there. I don't ever look at exit numbers. But directional signage is primarily there for the motorist unfamiliar in the area. So how would I approach a drive on the British M6? Well, I may be looking for a sign containing my destination but I cannot be sure whether it will appear on the sign at all. Most maps (including online ones) only show the junction number of the exit that I'm supposed to take. And even where exit names are identified on maps, exit numbers are the only means of establishing whether I am getting anywhere near my exit (which I consider quite important information, as it tells me whether I don't need to bother with exits for another while or whether I should start paying attention to approaching exits). The names of intermittant exits are not telling me anything, except maybe that they are not the exits that I am to take.

So one road user, different use of the information typically provided on all road signage. I am sure that I am not alone in this approach. Many Germans will rely on exit numbers in areas where they are less familiar and many Britons will rely on exit names on routes that they know well. This is why numbers AND names do make sense. But why the discussion? Both the German style of signage and the British style of signage feature both, as sign designers in both countries have understood the use of this dual information. The main difference is in the absence of a simple exit / interchange symbol. And on that point, I fully subscribe to NCT's point. The importance of a junction follows from the general way in which it is signposted, not from one symbol. And most definitely not from that one symbol in the way the Germans use it.


----------



## flierfy

-Pino- said:


> The main difference is in the absence of a simple exit / interchange symbol. And on that point, I fully subscribe to NCT's point. The importance of a junction follows from the general way in which it is signposted, not from one symbol. And most definitely not from that one symbol in the way the Germans use it.


This is pretty daft to be honest. The importance of a junction is simply not reflected by the way the signs are mounted. The main reason to erect gantries is visibility on highly frequented carriageways. Which means that all junction on 6 lane wide motorways get gantries these days.


----------



## sotonsi

flierfy said:


> You misunderstand me. I don't count junctions. I never did. I identify them by the symbol and their name. So I neither miss TOTSOs nor is it luck.


Why couldn't you identify them by name alone? And why couldn't you identify them by number?


> And I do know where the TOTSOs are, at least in the countries I venture. But I don't perceive TOTSOs as such as I follow control destinations rather than road numbers.


But would the average joe know where the TOTSOs are? And you still have TOTSOs, in effect - turning off to stay following that destination.

I can't see how control destination, rather than number is better - at best it's simply different like being left-handed rather than right-handed. If I was a tourist heading from Dover to Bath, and we had Continental control destinations, how would I know which big city on the map that's near Bath would be signed - it could be Bristol, it could be Cardiff. I'd have to anticipate which one, or look out for both. The M4 could even be to Swansea as that's the far off destination - if I'm not familiar with the country, how would I know to follow that, without prior knowledge of what place is signed along the M4? At least with numbers, it's clear that you'd want the M4, rather than not knowing which one of three options will be on the signs.

I'm very sympathetic to having a pluralism of navigation techniques (eg putting the names of motorway junctions on signs on the motorway and on maps, doing control destinations better to help foreign drivers), but I cannot see what knowing what type of junction it is would add to navigation - can anyone tell me a practical purpose knowing what type of interchange it is gives? Can anyone tell me what is so wrong with using numbers (both road and junction), and why doing so makes me an _Untermensch_ that must be re-educated? And finally can anyone tell me why Britain must acquiesce to Contential customs, but not vice versa, even when it comes to travelling around Britain herself?


----------



## Penn's Woods

flierfy said:


> Which means that all junction on 6 lane wide motorways get gantries these days.


Not here, they don't....

And can someone tell me what a TOTSO is?


----------



## sotonsi

A TOTSO is where you have to 'turn off to stay on', ie the route number doesn't follow the mainline of the road.


----------



## geogregor

sotonsi said:


> Why couldn't you identify them by name alone? And why couldn't you identify them by number?But would the average joe know where the TOTSOs are? And you still have TOTSOs, in effect - turning off to stay following that destination.
> 
> I can't see how control destination, rather than number is better - at best it's simply different like being left-handed rather than right-handed. If I was a tourist heading from Dover to Bath, and we had Continental control destinations, how would I know which big city on the map that's near Bath would be signed - it could be Bristol, it could be Cardiff. I'd have to anticipate which one, or look out for both. The M4 could even be to Swansea as that's the far off destination - if I'm not familiar with the country, how would I know to follow that, without prior knowledge of what place is signed along the M4? At least with numbers, it's clear that you'd want the M4, rather than not knowing which one of three options will be on the signs.
> 
> I'm very sympathetic to having a pluralism of navigation techniques (eg putting the names of motorway junctions on signs on the motorway and on maps, doing control destinations better to help foreign drivers), but I cannot see what knowing what type of junction it is would add to navigation - can anyone tell me a practical purpose knowing what type of interchange it is gives? Can anyone tell me what is so wrong with using numbers (both road and junction), and why doing so makes me an _Untermensch_ that must be re-educated? And finally can anyone tell me why Britain must acquiesce to Contential customs, but not vice versa, even when it comes to travelling around Britain herself?


kay: Agree 100% 
I use mostly numbers to navigate. Here in UK as well in USA where I have driven a lot.
I don't get at all how some pople are so fascinated by the German signage so they see it as the only "proper" solution.


----------



## flierfy

sotonsi said:


> Why couldn't you identify them by name alone? And why couldn't you identify them by number?


I did. But once symbols were added there is now a preliminary criteria to judge whether a junction is relevant or not.



sotonsi said:


> I can't see how control destination, rather than number is better - at best it's simply different like being left-handed rather than right-handed. If I was a tourist heading from Dover to Bath, and we had Continental control destinations, how would I know which big city on the map that's near Bath would be signed - it could be Bristol, it could be Cardiff. I'd have to anticipate which one, or look out for both. The M4 could even be to Swansea as that's the far off destination


With control destinations you get to Bath by general geographic knowledge. Going there by numbers requires a specific road related knowledge.
And there is something else. Very few places ever changed their names. Even though they existed over several hundred years. Road and junction numbers do change although they are relatively new.



sotonsi said:


> if I'm not familiar with the country, how would I know to follow that, without prior knowledge of what place is signed along the M4? At least with numbers, it's clear that you'd want the M4, rather than not knowing which one of three options will be on the signs.


If you're not familiar with the country you wouldn't know either where the M4 get you nor what the prefix M stands for.



sotonsi said:


> And finally can anyone tell me why Britain must acquiesce to Contential customs, but not vice versa, even when it comes to travelling around Britain herself?


Britain doesn't have to do anything. But one wonders why so many countries can agree on the improvement of standards while Britain stand aside.


----------



## NCT

Quite frankly, if you are not familiar with the general geography and the road system, haven't done your homework and memorised your route, you _shouldn't_ be driving at all. It's not that hard, and once you've done your homework the British signage system is _extremely_ easy to understand.


----------



## -Pino-

flierfy said:


> This is pretty daft to be honest. The importance of a junction is simply not reflected by the way the signs are mounted. The main reason to erect gantries is visibility on highly frequented carriageways. Which means that all junction on 6 lane wide motorways get gantries these days.


A simple junction on a wide motorway in Germany gets one full gantry at 500 meters and then an overhead exit sign not at full width at the actual exit. Which can be distinguished from what happens at an important motorway interchange, where the first announcement sign comes at 2000 meters and you get three or four full-width gantry signs between that first approach sign and the actual exit. And you're telling me that the importance of a junction is not reflected in the use of gantries?



> Once symbols were added there is now a preliminary criteria to judge whether a junction is relevant or not.


Before the introduction of symbols, I would read the word Kreuz or Dreieck to identify what was relevant. As a result of the introduction of symbols, the word Kreuz or Dreieck has started to disappear in favour of the symbol. That in itself was not too bad, but not much of an advance either. What is bad is that the interchange symbol now also gets used at lots of intersections with Bundesstrassen with very limited relevance. So the old clarity of the German system when it comes to establishing relevance has diluted as a result of the introduction of symbols.



> Britain doesn't have to do anything. But one wonders why so many countries can agree on the improvement of standards while Britain stand aside.


Britain was the first country in Europe that implemented the improved standard of exit numbers. Germany stood aside for 15 years. But apart from that, you suggest that there is more or less unanimous consent in Europe about the approach in terms of symbols and numbering of motorway interchanges. That unanimous consent exists in your dreams only. You have the countries that do not number motorway interchanges yet only use the interchange symbol on the first approach sign to the interchange (France, The Netherlands), you have countries that do number motorway interchanges yet where the symbol only returns on the first approach sign (Germany), you have the countries that do not use the exit symbol at all (Belgium, Denmark) and you have countries where interchanges get an ordinary exit symbol (Spain). Any suggestion that we on the Continent are already educated and that only the Brits are stupid savages is proposterous. 

The only point where you might establish some kind of a consent on the Continent is well beyond the realm of numbering. It is that the local word for interchange (Kreuz, Knooppunt, Echangeur) has been replaced with the symbol. But that is mostly on first approach signs, and definitely not as something that should necessarily affect the way exits and interchanges are numbered throughout the country. I'm only guessing but I have a feeling that the replacement of the word "Interchange" with a symbol on a few British approach signs is not halfway as controversial as having to use exit and interchange symbols in the context of straightforward exit numbering. In other words, where the use of the symbol is limited to the type of signs below (albeit that I don't like any of the specific replacement signs; I would pick the middle column but maintain both road numbers in the interchange).


----------



## sotonsi

flierfy said:


> I did. But once symbols were added there is now a preliminary criteria to judge whether a junction is relevant or not.


so these symbols are basically an extra bit of stuff that serves little purpose other than making your life a tiny bit easier...


> With control destinations you get to Bath by general geographic knowledge. Going there by numbers requires a specific road related knowledge.


How many foreign visitors have that general geographic knowledge without looking at mapping, off which they can pick up the road numbers needed for their journey? Both require special knowledge obtained from maps.


> If you're not familiar with the country you wouldn't know either where the M4 get you nor what the prefix M stands for.


But you wouldn't plan on driving in a country you are unfamilar of without looking at a map at where you need to go. With destinations, you need to know the rough whereabouts of several different places, any of which might be what's signed off the M25 in the direction you want to go, whereas you only need to know to take the M4 away from London until you see signs for Bath.

My mum once got horribly lost when trying to get to Irthlingborough - she was fine until she saw Kettering on the sign at Wellingborough (approaching there from the Milton Keynes direction). She knew she had to follow Kettering at some point (having made the journey a couple of days before) so followed it here - she ended up at Northampton before realizing that she had gone in totally the wrong direction. She didn't realize that Kettering is due north of Wellingborough and Irthlingborough is SE of Kettering and E of Wellingborough and I don't think anyone should be expected to. She really needed to know that she had to take the A6 to Kettering.

I'm not sure navigation by destination is worse, it's that there's different problems (and the demand that you have to have a rough geography of the country in your head, as you don't know quite what destination will be signed - which is fine for me, but not fine for others, like my mum). However, you seem to be suggesting that we are all inferior people for using numbers and must change to the Germanic way, like some pumped up Prussian general or a Cyberman.


> Britain doesn't have to do anything. But one wonders why so many countries can agree on the improvement of standards while Britain stand aside.


We have several questions here:
1)We are different peoples, why should we conform to some standard for the sake of conforming to standards?*
2)Why fix what isn't broken?
3)Is this an actual improvement, or something equally good but different, or even making things worse?
4)Are the standards a compromise being all parties, or are our views left out?

You are probably also thinking of things like the Euro - the Euro wouldn't exist (it's on really shaky ground anyway at the moment, propped up by large illegal bailouts, including from the UK) as we'd have been unable to devalue our currency and Ireland, Greece and Portugal combined would have looked like a picnic compared to bailing out the UK. We couldn't stay in the ERM in 1992, as our economy isn't tied into some insular European economy like 'Old Europe', but is global, with strong ties to the USA, how could we have coped with the Euro?

*Perhaps an especially British thing - Scots, Welsh etc don't want to be tarred with the English brush, with regional English things too - added to over 200 years of us (often, but not always solely) defending a lot of Europe from oppressive regimes trying to create a Europe united by conformity to some ideal (and going back a lot further, the start of the Magna Carta declared that the Church of England was independent and free).


----------



## Penn's Woods

sotonsi said:


> ....


General response to this: HEAR, HEAR!

Specific points: 



sotonsi said:


> How many foreign visitors have that general geographic knowledge without looking at mapping, off which they can pick up the road numbers needed for their journey? Both require special knowledge obtained from maps.
> But you wouldn't plan on driving in a country you are unfamilar of without looking at a map at where you need to go. With destinations, you need to know the rough whereabouts of several different places, any of which might be what's signed off the M25 in the direction you want to go, whereas you only need to know to take the M4 away from London until you see signs for Bath.


Exactly! Also, I like to pick my own routes, and getting off at US-whatever even though it'll take a bit longer but I'll see some country I haven't before, or because I'll avoid the construction I hit the last three times I used Pa.-whatever is only possible if US-whatever is actually posted, not just a French-style green sign with the name of a town (or, worse, a white sign with a couple of insignificant villages) and no route number at all.




sotonsi said:


> We have several questions here:
> 1)We are different peoples, why should we conform to some standard for the sake of conforming to standards?*
> 2)Why fix what isn't broken?
> 3)Is this an actual improvement, or something equally good but different, or even making things worse?
> 4)Are the standards a compromise being all parties, or are our views left out?


Questions 1, 2 and 3 in particular should always be asked whenever it's an issue of conformity to some supposed universal model (if it were really universal, we'd already be using it). Which doesn't mean we can't learn things from each other. But local (or national) authorities saying, "you know, they do this well in Germany, let's try it" is a far cry from the EU deciding that the German way (or the French way or the British way, whoever's - this isn't about Germany) is good and therefore mandating that it be adopted by everyone (regardless of whether the way they do it already is equally good, or better). Some degree of conformity is desirable, I suppose, but the EU seems to have an absolute fetish for it. I'm glad I'm 3000 miles out of its jurisdiction.



sotonsi said:


> *Perhaps an especially British thing - Scots, Welsh etc don't want to be tarred with the English brush, with regional English things too - added to over 200 years of us (often, but not always solely) defending a lot of Europe from oppressive regimes trying to create a Europe united by conformity to some ideal (and going back a lot further, the start of the Magna Carta declared that the Church of England was independent and free).


I think it's human to want to be able to make one's own decisions (France did vote against the EU Constitution in 2005, after all, over what for a lot of people was a discomfort with ceding control to a distant bureaucracy with little answerability to the public). Which I suppose is why I'm getting involved in this conversation even though I'm not British. (That, and the fact that I think you're generally right on the substance.) Harmless local differences - even this country sticking to "obscure" measurements (which I admit we couldn't get away with if we were Luxembourg, rather than a large country with oceans on two sides) - are, well, harmless, and we're at the point where I almost think they're worth actively defending. (Maybe I have a local-differences fetish to counter the EU's uniformity fetish, which is perhaps no better.) And even if they're not worth defending for their own sake, I'm certain it's worth defending keeping decision-making at a level that's close to the public.


----------



## -Pino-

Local differences: people tend to love them when they can use 'em in order to make others yield to their local customs, hardly ever the other way around. But you will need to get over that where you identify a real upside in adjusting yourself. The discussion should therefore be about upside, not about any basic need to conform or harmonise. I can think of a few points where I think that the UK would be better off to copy other countries, but I wouldn't think of maintaining them if Britain did not see any upside.


----------



## flierfy

-Pino- said:


> A simple junction on a wide motorway in Germany gets one full gantry at 500 meters and then an overhead exit sign not at full width at the actual exit.


Many junctions are equipped as you say. But there are also junction which got a full width gantry for their directional sign additional to the gantry of the ADS. The number of gantries is not particular helpful there. Especially when you have to make the decision whether a junction is relevant to you well in advance and not just when you already see the diverge.



-Pino- said:


> What is bad is that the interchange symbol now also gets used at lots of intersections with Bundesstrassen with very limited relevance. So the old clarity of the German system when it comes to establishing relevance has diluted as a result of the introduction of symbols.


And which junction are these? I don't know of any junction where the interchange* symbol is misplaced. On the contrary, I would make use of it at junction which haven't got it yet.

*motorway to motorway interchange to be precise. The English language lacks of definite terms as all GSJ are technically interchanges. This might be the reason why British are so reluctant to categorise motorway junctions.



-Pino- said:


> Britain was the first country in Europe that implemented the improved standard of exit numbers. Germany stood aside for 15 years. But apart from that, you suggest that there is more or less unanimous consent in Europe about the approach in terms of symbols and numbering of motorway interchanges. That unanimous consent exists in your dreams only. You have the countries that do not number motorway interchanges yet only use the interchange symbol on the first approach sign to the interchange (France, The Netherlands), you have countries that do number motorway interchanges yet where the symbol only returns on the first approach sign (Germany), you have the countries that do not use the exit symbol at all (Belgium, Denmark) and you have countries where interchanges get an ordinary exit symbol (Spain).


Junction numbering is not my point. I just expressed my favour for junction symbols.



-Pino- said:


> Any suggestion that we on the Continent are already educated and that only the Brits are stupid savages is proposterous.


The only authority that needs teaching in the correct use of these symbols are the Polish ones. But as I have overheard elsewhere in this forum some Polish road enthusiasts do exactly this already. But any other country uses these symbols for what they were intended.



-Pino- said:


> The only point where you might establish some kind of a consent on the Continent is well beyond the realm of numbering. It is that the local word for interchange (Kreuz, Knooppunt, Echangeur) has been replaced with the symbol. But that is mostly on first approach signs, and definitely not as something that should necessarily affect the way exits and interchanges are numbered throughout the country.


I wouldn't signpost it anywhere else.



-Pino- said:


> I'm only guessing but I have a feeling that the replacement of the word "Interchange" with a symbol on a few British approach signs is not halfway as controversial as having to use exit and interchange symbols in the context of straightforward exit numbering. In other words, where the use of the symbol is limited to the type of signs below (albeit that I don't like any of the specific replacement signs; I would pick the middle column but maintain both road numbers in the interchange).


The British signage system doesn't have introduction sign although they exist on some random junctions. Instead there are two ADS. And there lies the problem. One had to introduce a complete new sign there or turn the first ADS into an introduction sign. In both cases they will cry murder.

I leave it at that. I'm sick of a discussion that went far beyond two little symbols and where minor changes of direction signage are construed as a foreign invasion.


----------



## -Pino-

flierfy said:


> And which junction are these? I don't know of any junction where the interchange* symbol is misplaced. On the contrary, I would make use of it at junction which haven't got it yet.
> 
> *motorway to motorway interchange to be precise. The English language lacks of definite terms as all GSJ are technically interchanges. This might be the reason why British are so reluctant to categorise motorway junctions.


There you go. The interchange symbol is used at many places that are not motorway-to-motorway but where a motorway to non-motorway connection takes the form of a cloverleaf (random example). 

On top of that, I believe that the relevance of many three-digit motorways is so limited that they would deserve a treatment that does not suggest a major junction.


----------



## NCT

The fact is, M-roads are treated in an integrated fashion with A-roads in Britain, and the boundary where an A-road becomes 'near motoway' is fuzzy at best. For example, M1's junction 21A for the A46, is it a simple junction or an interchange? It's a simple junction yet the A46 is a core route - one can debate it till the next millennium.

The simple answer is, with a combination of junction numbers and destinations, if you still can't find your way you shouldn't be driving. Different symbols or not won't make an ounce of a difference.


----------



## -Pino-

NCT said:


> The fact is, M-roads are treated in an integrated fashion with A-roads in Britain, and the boundary where an A-road becomes 'near motorway' is fuzzy at best. For example, M1's junction 21A for the A46, is it a simple junction or an interchange? It's a simple junction yet the A46 is a core route - one can debate it till the next millennium.


This is particularly relevant in Britain where, as a result of the country's geography, many branch routes of the main North-South connectors are not at motorway standard yet form important connections. 

And more generally throughout Europe, the distinction between motorways and non-motorways is blurring. You have German Gelbe Autobahnen, Italian superstrade, English dual carriageways and French voies expresses that are all signposted like non-motorways but, in their network function and profile, are closer to a motorway than to a non-motorway. A distinction that once was logical is no longer logical, and the distinction of motorway interchanges as the important nodes from other interchanges that are not follows suit. I would say that such a blurring distinction can be tackled relatively easily via the use of gantries, extra AD signs etc, and much less so via that single symbol. The bad news for the German style is that it pushes them into a mandatory distinction where numbering junctions in UK style without any form of symbol (or in the Spanish style, where everything is under one symbol) leaves flexibility.


----------



## geogregor

flierfy said:


> The only authority that needs teaching in the correct use of these symbols are the Polish ones. But as I have overheard elsewhere in this forum some Polish road enthusiasts do exactly this already. But any other country uses these symbols for what they were intended.


There are a lot of problems with Polish signage, the biggest being signing of some stupid small villages just because they happen to be the nearest settlement to particular exit or first one after crossing the border. Exit symbols is minor problem comparing to that.
In my opinion after major roads are built we should name exits correctly and give them numbers, preferably based on distance. I wish for Poland good mix of road numbering and destinations.

But knowing our inferiority complex to Germany we end up with copy of German signage pushed by road enthusiasts who learned about modern roads mostly from driving in Germany. It will have its advantages and drawbacks as well. 

And to clarify. I don't have problem with Germany or German signage or other solutions for that matter. But it is not the only possibility. There are other ways of doing things, some of them equal or even better. 

Sorry for little OT but I felt dragged to the subject 

And please keep Brussels bureaucrats as far as possible from road signing in Britain.


----------



## Tom 958

I think British motorway signage should remain as it is so we can amuse ourselves by arguing over it. :lol:


----------



## flierfy

-Pino- said:


> There you go. The interchange symbol is used at many places that are not motorway-to-motorway but where a motorway to non-motorway connection takes the form of a cloverleaf (random example).


The intersecting road is grade-separated and dualled. It provides a high-capacity link between two motorways. The symbol is rightly chosen.



-Pino- said:


> On top of that, I believe that the relevance of many three-digit motorways is so limited that they would deserve a treatment that does not suggest a major junction.


They aren't surface roads either. That alone warrants to emphasise their junctions with other motorways.


----------



## Penn's Woods

-Pino- said:


> Local differences: people tend to love them when they can use 'em in order to make others yield to their local customs, hardly ever the other way around....


That's not the case with me, at all. If anything, switching to metric at the Canadian border adds to the sense of being somewhere else. I've always had an interest in...I'm struggling for what to call it...the details of daily life. My favorite travel book when I first went to Europe wasn't a guidebook at all, but a book called How to Europe, with chapter after chapter (written amusingly, which helps, by an American living in Holland) about things like currencies and how to use public transportation...photos of the signs you might encounter...that sort of thing. Like an extended and less dry version of the Practical Information pages you'd find in the front or back of a guidebook. In history, it's the same way; I'd be interested in how a particular crisis (the American Civil War, say) played out to civilians, and also in what normal life was during the period - what did people eat and where, what were shops like, what did things cost.... There was a time when I could have told you what denominations of currency and what particular coins were in use in the U.S. in any given year, and part of me still regrets the Euro (although I admit the advantages of it are obvious, particularly to a traveler).

I'm babbling, but even little things like signage quirks add to the sense of place to me, and I think sense of place is something worth preserving. I like it that a French streetscape doesn't look quite like a German one even in a border area where the architecture wouldn't tell you which country you're in.


----------



## CairnsTony

Penn's Woods said:


> I'm babbling, but even little things like signage quirks add to the sense of place to me, and I think sense of place is something worth preserving. I like it that a French streetscape doesn't look quite like a German one even in a border area where the architecture wouldn't tell you which country you're in.


Which is why I've found this whole debate about signage so baffling. 

Maybe I'm just adaptable, but I find the differences as you say, part of the adventure. If you've travelled around Africa as I have and coped with signage there than just about anywhere else is a doddle by comparison.


----------



## -Pino-

flierfy said:


> The intersecting road is grade-separated and dualled. It provides a high-capacity link between two motorways. The symbol is rightly chosen.


The Heidelberg/Schwetzingen gives you a connection to these towns only, not to any other motorway. You can of course use the exit to reach the A6, but why would anyone drive through Schwetzingen when the A656 is a few kilometers to the North. High capacity and non-surface road? Not for more than 1.5 kilometers on both sides of the exit. Whichever increase in capacity that may generate, its network importance is slight.

So it depends on the message that you want to spread. You said that it was so bloody important to highlight network nodes, i.e. the points where through traffic makes its key decisions. If you think that Heidelberg / Schwetzingen or a three-digit motorway between the A5 and Darmstadt-Zentrum are such places, you're wrong. If you have changed your mind and believe that network importance is not key in choosing the interchange symbol but high-capacity is, then the Germans are doing the right thing. But I definitely prefer the former approach, as was signposted pre-exit numbering (using words like Kreuz and Dreieck) but that is not signposted anymore now.


----------



## Road_UK

My two cents about the motorway system in the UK:

They are among the worst in Europe. While the quality of the road surface is adequate - apart from stretches on the M25 and M20 - they lack clear road signing. Major interchanges are very confusing for the satnav lacking driver. Good example is the M6 around Birmingham. A plus is that you always know when you're going north, south, east or west. 

I like to fill up first and then eat, like pretty much anywhere in Europe. Not in the UK you don't, unless you stop at the next services. The services are amongst the worst in Europe anyway (Knutsford on M6, Trowell on M1 really take the biscuit, Southwaite on the M6 makes up for them though)
There is a charge when you park longer then 2 hours. Totally obsessed with health and safety, but they still make you pay if you're in need of a proper rest....hno:

70 MPH limit should be upgraded to 80 MPH, but again the health and safety freaks won't allow it. Volume of traffic and slow speeds encourages traffic to stack up like it does now, and there is no adequate encouragment to keep overtaking lanes clear for overtaking only. Too many Brits hog middle and even outside lanes forcing traffic to stack up behind them. Only in britain do you get strange situations with an inside lane full of lorries, an empty middle lane and lane 3 full of cars.....


----------



## flierfy

-Pino- said:


> The Heidelberg/Schwetzingen gives you a connection to these towns only, not to any other motorway. You can of course use the exit to reach the A6, but why would anyone drive through Schwetzingen when the A656 is a few kilometers to the North. High capacity and non-surface road? Not for more than 1.5 kilometers on both sides of the exit. Whichever increase in capacity that may generate, its network importance is slight.


By the end of next year you won't have to go through Schwetzingen anymore. Then the B 535 will be the high capacity road that the junction symbol promises.



-Pino- said:


> So it depends on the message that you want to spread. You said that it was so bloody important to highlight network nodes, i.e. the points where through traffic makes its key decisions. If you think that Heidelberg / Schwetzingen or a three-digit motorway between the A5 and Darmstadt-Zentrum are such places, you're wrong. If you have changed your mind and believe that network importance is not key in choosing the interchange symbol but high-capacity is, then the Germans are doing the right thing. But I definitely prefer the former approach, as was signposted pre-exit numbering (using words like Kreuz and Dreieck) but that is not signposted anymore now.


The words Kreuz and Dreieck are still used at some motorway to motorway interchanges. Elsewhere they have been dropped. The signage guidelines still requires them though. But then again guidelines aren't strict rules.


----------



## -Pino-

flierfy said:


> By the end of next year you won't have to go through Schwetzingen anymore. Then the B 535 will be the high capacity road that the junction symbol promises.


So what is the symbol promising? You started telling your missionary work with statements that the symbol promises important network nodes. Heidelberg/Schwetzingen is not and will in the future, at the very best, be of an importance that stands out a bit over ordinary junctions but is a looooooooooooooong way down from intersections between motorways with one or two digits. Your posts suggest that you now understand that the interchange symbol gets used a lot in non-important situations, so you have adapted your justification for the symbol to high-capacity roads. Fine, but I can't be bothered to have that type of information on a sign. 

And to revert to your original point that almost all of the civilised World bar Britain signposts interchanges like this, I'm very glad that this approach is limited to Germany. Deutschland unter alles, so to say.


----------



## Copperknickers

Glasgow M74 completion opening next week, giving us a full inner ring road.


----------



## geogregor

Penn's Woods said:


> I'm babbling, but even little things like signage quirks add to the sense of place to me, and I think sense of place is something worth preserving. I like it that a French streetscape doesn't look quite like a German one even in a border area where the architecture wouldn't tell you which country you're in.


On on hand I understand it but I also understand practicality of standardization. If Europe is about to integrate more that's the way to go. Imagine if every state in the US used different junctions, signs, directions, currencies etc. Such differences are lovely and charming for out of Europe tourist but annoying for locals, especially those living close to the border (I know as I grew up in place right on Polish - Czech border) 
At the end it all depends where we want to see Europe, as more federal organism with increased trade and movement between countries or more of group of independent nations. At the moment most people are probably not sure where are we really going.
Whatever happens I can't see Britain happily jumping into more integration. 

As it is an island nation there is no pressing need about road system integration with continental Europe. Transit traffic is way, way smaller than on continent. And locals (and people like me) seems to have no problems with current signage. 




Road_UK said:


> My two cents about the motorway system in the UK:
> They are among the worst in Europe. While the quality of the road surface is adequate - apart from stretches on the M25 and M20 - they lack clear road signing. Major interchanges are very confusing for the satnav lacking driver. Good example is the M6 around Birmingham. A plus is that you always know when you're going north, south, east or west.


Are you kidding?? To get lost on UK motorway one have to be drunk or brainless. It never happen to me.
I think motorways in UK are excellent and one of the safest in the world. They are mostly 3 lane, drainage is excellent, curvature allows for high speeds, most drivers are actually well behaved and polite.
I find grade separated roundabout type exits especially great. It's easy to turn around for example. 
What needs improvement is crash barriers, they are often very flimsy and easy to breach. For example on M11 from London to Stanstead sometimes it's often just one metal bar between the lanes. It's rather illusory protections. Fortunately all new schemes (which unfortunately are rare) and reconstructions will see concrete barriers. 



> I like to fill up first and then eat, like pretty much anywhere in Europe. Not in the UK you don't, unless you stop at the next services. The services are amongst the worst in Europe anyway (Knutsford on M6, Trowell on M1 really take the biscuit, Southwaite on the M6 makes up for them though)


It seems we both write about completely different country. I find UK services one of the best in Europe, definitely better than in Germany where they usually contain gas station only, sometimes some small place to eat. Of course French services, even if often smaller, offer better food but I don't think we going to discuss cuisine here 
You like fill first, some might prefer to eat first. Irrelevant to quality of the services. I like ample toilet facilities, free showers, a lot of space. You don't feel you are at cramped gas station as it is the case in most of Europe.



> There is a charge when you park longer then 2 hours. Totally obsessed with health and safety, but they still make you pay if you're in need of a proper rest....hno:


It is more of deterrent from overnight camping, I never heard about anyone fined for parking longer than 2 hours. Never.




> 70 MPH limit should be upgraded to 80 MPH, but again the health and safety freaks won't allow it. Volume of traffic and slow speeds encourages traffic to stack up like it does now, and there is no adequate encouragement to keep overtaking lanes clear for overtaking only. Too many Brits hog middle and even outside lanes forcing traffic to stack up behind them. Only in britain do you get strange situations with an inside lane full of lorries, an empty middle lane and lane 3 full of cars.....


Speed limit is low but fortunately not really enforced as long as you drive under 85-90MPH. And hopefully it is going to be raised to 80MPH. I find lane discipline mostly OK, maybe not as much as in order crazy Germany but definitely much better than for example Poland.
One thing I can agree with is national obsession with health & safety. Well, no country is perfect.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ I agree with all of that.

I was shocked when I went to Germany and people wouldn't cross on a red man. I know that that is the reputation that the Germans have here but I had never seen anything like that in my life, I wonder why it is like that there? I guess their road safety in comparison to most countries doesn't come out of nowhere.


----------



## tall_dreams

You people are talking too much and posting very few pics.


----------



## Tallsmurf

I was in Tokyo a few years ago - on a deserted street without a car in sight - but none of the locals would cross the road until the green man was showing. Bizarre.


----------



## sotonsi

I'm so sorry, Tall Dreams, that this thread isn't a photo-fest at the moment but actual discussion. Such a horror! After all this is a photo gallery, not a discussion forum. Oh, wait...

If you want some pictures, here's some of the A494 that goes across Wales - just click the flags for a thumbnail and click that to get the full size photo. Type any British road number into the search bar and it works (though many roads have typos in their gridrefs and thus don't render quite properly).


----------



## ed110220

DanielFigFoz said:


> ^^ I agree with all of that.
> 
> I was shocked when I went to Germany and people wouldn't cross on a red man. I know that that is the reputation that the Germans have here but I had never seen anything like that in my life, I wonder why it is like that there? I guess their road safety in comparison to most countries doesn't come out of nowhere.


Apparently it is the same in the Netherlands. A friend of mine said he crossed before the green man showed and an old woman told him off and shook her umbrella at him :lol: Perhaps it is illegal to?


----------



## Road_UK

ed110220 said:


> Apparently it is the same in the Netherlands. A friend of mine said he crossed before the green man showed and an old woman told him off and shook her umbrella at him :lol: Perhaps it is illegal to?


That woman might have been German. It''s getting to a stage now in Holland, and particulary in Amsterdam, that it's illegal to cross when the light is on green. Ask any cyclist in Amsterdam, and they will tell you that stop lights are there for decoration purposes only!


----------



## Road_UK

This is on my delivery trip from the UK to Mo-i-Rana in northern Norway. Travelling through the UK, France, Belgium, Holland (stopped over in Schiedam to see relatives, then went to Sneek to pick my granddad up, he wanted to come to Norway) , Germany, Denmark, Sweden and finally Norway. 

Here is the British section of my journey......














































And my van at Dover:


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Can't you/isn't faster to take the Eurotunnel shuttle?


----------



## Road_UK

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Can't you/isn't faster to take the Eurotunnel shuttle?


We only use Eurotunnel if either every minute counts, or if Dover or Calais is blocked (mostly due to French on strike). Eurotunnel costs a lot more, and we get special prices with SeaFrance. And it really doesn't cost that much extra time...


----------



## g.spinoza

I just went to the Eurotunnel website, out of curiosity... does a ticket for car shuttle really cost more than 200€? :O


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It depends on the time of the day, and the day of the week, but the Eurotunnel really is quite expensive. Makes the € 30 tolls on the Danish bridges a joke...


----------



## Road_UK

We don't even use the Danish bridges. We always use Scandlines from Puttgarden to Roedby and Helsingor to Helsingborg. Just as expensive and just as quick...


----------



## geogregor

Road_UK said:


> We only use Eurotunnel if either every minute counts, or if Dover or Calais is blocked (mostly due to French on strike). Eurotunnel costs a lot more, and we get special prices with SeaFrance. And it really doesn't cost that much extra time...


And ferry crossing is much, much nicer than in cramped claustrophobic Eurotunnel shuttle. In good weather views can be stunning, especially approaching Dover, you can also get meal, do shopping etc.
Ferry wins, no doubts.


----------



## IndigoJo

geogregor said:


> It seems we both write about completely different country. I find UK services one of the best in Europe, definitely better than in Germany where they usually contain gas station only, sometimes some small place to eat. Of course French services, even if often smaller, offer better food but I don't think we going to discuss cuisine here
> You like fill first, some might prefer to eat first. Irrelevant to quality of the services. I like ample toilet facilities, free showers, a lot of space. You don't feel you are at cramped gas station as it is the case in most of Europe.


I use the motorways a lot in the UK and find the services not to be all that great. (I've not had much experience of continental services.) I recently had to stop for an extended period (several hours) at Clackett Lane services on the M25, which is just south of London. The services on offer are pretty good -- a cafe, several fast food joints, toilets (including two disabled toilets), showers, some phones, a newsagent which also sells food, and a phone and travel accessories shop. The problem is that it's all so expensive -- there is a huge mark-up compared to high street prices, which seems to come from a combination of the high rents the companies pay to occupy the sites, and the fact that there is no competition -- you can't just go to the nearest town (Westerham) as it's miles away (there is an exit to Clacket Lane itself, but I believe it's for staff vehicles only to stop people using it as a motorway exit).



geogregor said:


> It is more of deterrent from overnight camping, I never heard about anyone fined for parking longer than 2 hours. Never.


You wouldn't get fined; you'd get charged. The free parking is two hours; if you want to stay there overnight, you have to pay a charge. However, if you are waiting for recovery (as I was when I had to wait there for several hours two weeks ago) you can arrange that with the staff and you may not have to pay.




geogregor said:


> Speed limit is low but fortunately not really enforced as long as you drive under 85-90MPH. And hopefully it is going to be raised to 80MPH. I find lane discipline mostly OK, maybe not as much as in order crazy Germany but definitely much better than for example Poland.
> One thing I can agree with is national obsession with health & safety. Well, no country is perfect.


The speed limits are enforced, and they sometimes have vans parked on bridges with speed cameras inside. They also have cameras on the better-used stretches such as the south-western part of the M25. There is no serious possibility of the speed limit being raised any time soon. The road safety and fuel efficiency arguments would be used against it in any debate.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

You so have to slow down if you see a camera, but a police car won't pull you over for doing 80. 

British service stations are much bigger than the continental ones generally, although there are exceptions of course.


----------



## Road_UK

British motorways are horrible. They are big, noisy and dirty. And yes, you do get fined if you park longer then 2 hours without paying the charge. A while back I was on the M1 in the middle of the night. Got off the ferry, was heading up north, and I felt I needed to stop for a few hours. That turned into 6 hours at Toddington, a few weeks later I got a letter with an 80 pound fine. They register you numberplate with camera's now. It probably won't affect you if you park with a foreign numberplate, but you're screwed if you got a British one....


----------



## Mackem

Road_UK said:


> British motorways are horrible. They are big, noisy and dirty. And yes, you do get fined if you park longer then 2 hours without paying the charge. A while back I was on the M1 in the middle of the night. Got off the ferry, was heading up north, and I felt I needed to stop for a few hours. That turned into 6 hours at Toddington, a few weeks later I got a letter with an 80 pound fine. They register you numberplate with camera's now. It probably won't affect you if you park with a foreign numberplate, but you're screwed if you got a British one....


Find it difficult to disagree, fortunately you're in a van, try an artic and you have more problems as the parking areas are small to say the least. Services are pretty foul as you say, very expensive and ill cared for, hence the operators no longer use their own names, just those of the shops within. 

Must admit, I am intrigued how you can drive for a Bradford company (phone number) but live in Mayrhofen. Works sounds interesting tho.


----------



## NCT

In my experience, the best thing about British service stations is the huge toilets. The last two times I was travelling through France on coach trips there were queues for the BLOKES' toilets!!


----------



## Road_UK

NCT said:


> In my experience, the best thing about British service stations is the huge toilets. The last two times I was travelling through France on coach trips there were queues for the BLOKES' toilets!!


Toilets are ok and fairly clean. Showers are a nightmare, unless you enjoy standing onto your waste in pubic hair....
Best showers are in Germany and Austria....


----------



## Road_UK

Mackem said:


> Find it difficult to disagree, fortunately you're in a van, try an artic and you have more problems as the parking areas are small to say the least. Services are pretty foul as you say, very expensive and ill cared for, hence the operators no longer use their own names, just those of the shops within.
> 
> Must admit, I am intrigued how you can drive for a Bradford company (phone number) but live in Mayrhofen. Works sounds interesting tho.


I was stilll fully living in the UK (Stevenage) when I started this job back in 2001, but being anywhere in Europe it doesn't matter where you live, so I got myself an appartment in Mayrhofen. Still got my place in Stevenage though.


----------



## geogregor

IndigoJo said:


> I recently had to stop for an extended period (several hours) at Clackett Lane services on the M25, which is just south of London.


I know it well. Couple of years ago I have spent night or two over there while hitchhiking in the UK



> The speed limits are enforced, and they sometimes have vans parked on bridges with speed cameras inside. They also have cameras on the better-used stretches such as the south-western part of the M25. There is no serious possibility of the speed limit being raised any time soon. The road safety and fuel efficiency arguments would be used against it in any debate.


Speed cameras (including in parked vans) are well marked so you only have to slow down for a moment, you can hardly call it enforcement 
Of course M25 with variable speed limit is a bit of special case.
I usually drive around 85mph and never got ticket. 
And there are now quite serious efforts to increase the speed limit. I suspect it will be used by politicians to please drivers a bit. Government has very bad press among the drivers due to high fuel prices and very little road building. Raising speed limit is easy way for some good press among millions of drivers.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Dude you're a concrete cowboy  Just roaming Europe.


----------



## MattN

Copperknickers said:


> Glasgow M74 completion opening next week, giving us a full inner ring road.


It won't give a full inner ring road, as there is no link between the M74 and the M8 over the Kingston Bridge.


----------



## poshbakerloo

MattN said:


> It won't give a full inner ring road, as there is no link between the M74 and the M8 over the Kingston Bridge.


I think the reason for that is to discourage people using the M74 extension for short distance trips from/to the city centre via the M8


----------



## MattN

Indeed it is.


----------



## sotonsi

The M74 had a lot of it's justification based on relieving the Kingston Bridge - to send all SE <-> City Centre traffic, that doesn't currently use it, over it (though removing E/SE <-> Airport and West traffic from it - depending on how much diverts off the M80 and M8) would undermine that!


----------



## poshbakerloo

To be honest, I think the M8 was misplaced. Running a motorway thought a city centre is never a good idea as it just attract shit loads of cars, then you need another motorway to help congestion (M74) etc. Before you know it Glasgow is Scotland's LA. 

Its the only city in the UK with a proper urban motorway network. A 1960s transport planners dream!


----------



## ed110220

poshbakerloo said:


> To be honest, I think the M8 was misplaced. Running a motorway thought a city centre is never a good idea as it just attract shit loads of cars, then you need another motorway to help congestion (M74) etc. Before you know it Glasgow is Scotland's LA.
> 
> Its the only city in the UK with a proper urban motorway network. A 1960s transport planners dream!


I disagree. If the M8 hadn't been built, Glasgow would be at least as congested as it is (I would say more so) while taking much less traffic than it does. A huge number of the business trips, leisure and social trips etc that add to the economy and benefit of society would not take place and that would be a major loss.

The main problem with a setup such as Glasgow's was is that in general a single motorway does not function well as both an access to a city centre _and_ as a through route. Birmingham and the M6 fall into the same category in my opinion.


----------



## sotonsi

If the full plans (map) had come about, most through traffic wouldn't be on the IRR as there would have been lots of alternative motorway/expressway options.


----------



## gorgu

*Road Porn *


----------



## Mateusz

A very rare view in this country  Anyway this case of gantries on M74 seems interesting. They do look outdated and somehow different to those installed in England.


----------



## sotonsi

they are different gantries - Glasgow has it's own gantry style - look at the M8 on Streetview for instance.

You can walk (bent over) inside the gantries, which are all backlit - hence the chunky and old-fashioned look.


----------



## gorgu

*......more road porn *


----------



## the_sage

Looks to nice to let traffic drive on it and mess it up!


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Penn's Woods said:


> Is there a rule in the UK about interrupting a route number? By which I mean, if you did change the A1(M) into the M-something (and remind me whether there's more than one segment called A1(M)), thus creating gaps in the A1, would you have to do something about the gaps - rerouting the A1 along older roads, say?


No


----------



## CairnsTony

Map Guy said:


> And of all them, I'd only really say that Bournemouth could use an improved link to the M27. The A338 works well, but the A31 beyond is sub-standard and I'd like to see a motorway extension to the A338 junction just after Ringwood. No I'm not advocating the daft 'South Coast Motorway' ideas, I just think the A31 through the New Forest is particularly poor, heavily trafficked and consequently could use an upgrade, so why not make it motorway? After the A338 junction traffic is much lower (hence the fall in quality of the road) and as such doesn't need an upgrade.


I'm pretty sure this has something to do with the fact that the New Forest is a National Park, and before that was a National Forest.

You can only imagine the uproar from the ultra-conservative constituents of West Hants to the idea....


----------



## sotonsi

Map Guy said:


> I just think the A31 through the New Forest is particularly poor, heavily trafficked and consequently could use an upgrade, so why not make it motorway?





CairnsTony said:


> I'm pretty sure this has something to do with the fact that the New Forest is a National Park, and before that was a National Forest.


The M27 used to end right on the edge of the Forest (which was expanded in the change to National Park, which is reckoned to have reduced the protection the area has, hence local uproar at the creation of the National Park). However, it wouldn't be that hard to skirt it to the north, leaving a rump bit of M27 heading into the forest.


> You can only imagine the uproar from the ultra-conservative constituents of West Hants to the idea....


I think the uproar would just be as bad if we were talking about people who weren't strongly blue-rinse Tories who seem to dislike modernity and like ponies and cream teas and fast cars going slowly (well that's what Lyndhurst is). Look at the reaction to dualling the Acle Straight in Norfolk - the urban people of Norwich and the rural people living in the Broads were all pretty against it.


> After the A338 junction traffic is much lower (hence the fall in quality of the road) and as such doesn't need an upgrade.


I massively disagree with that - the A31 west of Ringwood is worse than east of Ringwood - east of Ringwood has some sub-standard bits (curves, houses right next to the road, lowered speed limits) and the D3 to D2 causes a bottleneck, but at least the road moves once past that. West of Ringwood doesn't need to be a motorway, but it needs to be an awful lot better than it is.


----------



## CairnsTony

sotonsi said:


> The M27 used to end right on the edge of the Forest (which was expanded in the change to National Park, which is reckoned to have reduced the protection the area has, hence local uproar at the creation of the National Park). However, it wouldn't be that hard to skirt it to the north, leaving a rump bit of M27 heading into the forest.I think the uproar would just be as bad if we were talking about people who weren't strongly blue-rinse Tories who seem to dislike modernity and like ponies and cream teas and fast cars going slowly (well that's what Lyndhurst is). Look at the reaction to dualling the Acle Straight in Norfolk - the urban people of Norwich and the rural people living in the Broads were all pretty against it.


Fair point re: opposition, but I mentioned many pages back that Scotland seems to be able to get on with these sorts of projects more effectively (yes I know there was some strong opposition to the M74 extension for example), but they still built it. Is it an 'English' thing I wonder...

Btw, it's not as if it's unique to the UK: they want to build a freeway out of Cairns (where I live naturally) going into the hills towards Kuranda which would go through a National Park and World Heritage area. Unsurprisingly the opposition is strong and I think with the current plans with good reason...

As I understand it, the designation of the New Forest as National Park was felt would attract more attention (?!) to the place, thus more interest from developers bringing tourist facilities; more traffic etc. 

Well I'm not sure what the specific legislation is regarding this particular NP so have no idea if these fears have any grounding in reality, but seriously... how did the UK get to such an impasse so it would seem regarding development anywhere other than brownfield sites? In my experience, the UK gets it right far more often than not, with many developments. I just wish Australia (or rather I should say Queensland) was anywhere near as good at environmental impact assessments of some of the rather less well conceived crackpot development ideas that are bandied around...


----------



## sotonsi

Australia has a population density similar to Montana, England has a population density similar to Rhode Island - there's a reason why we don't like 'greenfield' development, and that's because we have a lot less 'greenfield' land to develop, so have to try and get the most out of the land we already have developed.



> As I understand it, the designation of the New Forest as National Park was felt would attract more attention (?!) to the place, thus more interest from developers bringing tourist facilities; more traffic etc.


That wasn't an issue, the New Forest was always massively popular and the National Park status, rather than the unique status would put off developers as they would understand more that it wasn't going to happen - there was already huge pressure for development (including upgrading the A31 to reasonable standards - getting it dualled was a massive problem in the first place). The issue was the transfer of powers from the (50% elected) Verderers to the National Park Authority, who might not be as strict and anti-development as the Verderers, who only let the A31 be dualled because of the problems the traffic was causing, spread out over the Forest's road network trying to avoid the jams.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Having never gone to the New Forest I decided to look at the A31. For some reason, google street view, for the images of the westbound A31 through Ringwood shows a road called Stour Road which turns out to be the B3059 in Christchurch


----------



## Chris_533976

All the mucking about in the New Forest with roads leads to Lyndhurst being a dreadful bottleneck during the summer.


----------



## geogregor

sotonsi said:


> Australia has a population density similar to Montana, England has a population density similar to Rhode Island - there's a reason why we don't like 'greenfield' development, and that's because we have a lot less 'greenfield' land to develop, so have to try and get the most out of the land we already have developed.


Fair enough, but I think all this anti-development mood went way too far.
People oppose virtually everything. Motorways, railways, airports even damn fish & chips huts. 
How the hell this country suppose to move forward and compete with the likes of Germany or France, not even mentioning Asian countries? Do Brits think their position in the world is granted forever?
Transport infrastructure in UK is so overloaded and at the same time society is unwilling to do anything about it. 
There is a lot of things I like about Britain but this aspect of British psyche drives me mad.


----------



## CairnsTony

geogregor said:


> Fair enough, but I think all this anti-development mood went way too far.
> People oppose virtually everything. Motorways, railways, airports even damn fish & chips huts.
> How the hell this country suppose to move forward and compete with the likes of Germany or France, not even mentioning Asian countries? Do Brits think their position in the world is granted forever?
> Transport infrastructure in UK is so overloaded and at the same time society is unwilling to do anything about it.
> There is a lot of things I like about Britain but this aspect of British psyche drives me mad.


It's definitely not everyone Geogregor; I'm British myself, though I now live in Australia and have an Environmental Science degree, but I also am realistic and pretty objective in what I view as 'appropriate' development. Some developments are clearly not acceptable, but it's not as if everyone just opposes every development that comes along. Considering how different the prevailing view seemed to be in the 70s, there's clearly been a swing towards the 'anti' lobby, but it's far from universal. You only have to gauge the views of many UK-based forumers here. There's clearly frustration about the current status quo.

I don't accept the notion, for example of ploughing a motorway through the Peak District to link Manchester and Sheffield. A motorway along that route would only get consent if a bloody great big tunnel was built; in other words a very expensive solution indeed...

What amazes me is that many British farmers have been allowed to carry out environmentally destructive hedgerow removal on a huge scale since the war, turning parts of the British countryside into ecological deserts, but sticking up a few new houses on a greenfield site causes uproar. Where's the consistency in that? There's often a difference between perception and reality.

Regarding the A31: I actually think here you can have your cake and eat it. The road could be upgraded in situ but a modest section could be put into 'cut and cover' as they did with the M25 under Epping Forest. The current road presents an ecological barrier to larger animals and some other wildlife. With a section in tunnel, you would actually be linking the two parts of the park together, creating a valuable ecological corridor which wildlife would use. Research backs up the effectiveness of this approach.

You would get a better road and the wildlife would benefit too. 

And as it happens, the verges along motorways and other major roads are like linear nature reserves. They are not farmed, don't usually get sprayed and have been shown to be valuable refuges for many rare species. So who says roads are all bad?


----------



## geogregor

CairnsTony said:


> It's definitely not everyone Geogregor; I'm British myself, though I now live in Australia and have an Environmental Science degree, but I also am realistic and pretty objective in what I view as 'appropriate' development. Some developments are clearly not acceptable, but it's not as if everyone just opposes every development that comes along. Considering how different the prevailing view seemed to be in the 70s, there's clearly been a swing towards the 'anti' lobby, but it's far from universal. You only have to gauge the views of many UK-based forumers here. There's clearly frustration about the current status quo.


Of course anti-development attitude is not universal but it's very common. Forumers on Skyscrapercity are usually a bit different but if you check press coverage of any major development or even attempt to build anything in the UK there is usually massive uproar from environmentalists, local residents, heritage preservation buffs etc. 
When I was following discussion about Heathrow or Stanstead new runaways I just couldn't believe what I heard. It seems like most of people want to freeze country in time. Won't build anything, won't change anything. Just keep things as they are. Stop flying, stop driving, cycle everywhere etc. 



> I don't accept the notion, for example of ploughing a motorway through the Peak District to link Manchester and Sheffield. A motorway along that route would only get consent if a bloody great big tunnel was built; in other words a very expensive solution indeed...


If tunnel is needed why not? I'm not very familiar with traffic situation between Manchester and Sheffield but tunnel there wouldn't be as difficult as many tunnels in Alps or even in relatively poorer countries like Croatia.
If they can built tunnels it why not UK? It is all due to attitudes. I hope it will eventually swing to more balanced approach because at the moment building any road in UK (or at least England) seems like impossible.


----------



## ed110220

geogregor said:


> Fair enough, but I think all this anti-development mood went way too far.
> People oppose virtually everything. Motorways, railways, airports even damn fish & chips huts.
> How the hell this country suppose to move forward and compete with the likes of Germany or France, not even mentioning Asian countries? Do Brits think their position in the world is granted forever?
> Transport infrastructure in UK is so overloaded and at the same time society is unwilling to do anything about it.
> There is a lot of things I like about Britain but this aspect of British psyche drives me mad.


I think that there is a strong element of complacency about it. Britain has had many advantages over the years, in the past the British Empire and more recently the enormous role of London as a world financial centre. I think the attitude has existed that the country can exist off financial services and housing speculation and doesn't need to lower itself to dirty controversial things like motorways or airports.

Don't get me started on Heathrow; Havana's Jose Marti international airport operates more efficiently in my experience, and that isn't saying much!


----------



## Mateusz

ed110220 said:


> I think that there is a strong element of complacency about it. Britain has had many advantages over the years, in the past the British Empire and more recently the enormous role of London as a world financial centre. I think the attitude has existed that the country can exist off financial services and housing speculation and doesn't need to lower itself to dirty controversial things like motorways or airports.
> 
> Don't get me started on Heathrow; Havana's Jose Marti international airport operates more efficiently in my experience, and that isn't saying much!


Well, too bad . Maybe it's a time then to come off this high horse ? By the way London's roads are quite appauling considering size and status of this city a capital of the world. But it's probably too late now. 




geogregor said:


> If tunnel is needed why not? I'm not very familiar with traffic situation between Manchester and Sheffield but tunnel there wouldn't be as difficult as many tunnels in Alps or even in relatively poorer countries like Croatia.
> If they can built tunnels it why not UK? It is all due to attitudes. I hope it will eventually swing to more balanced approach because at the moment building any road in UK (or at least England) seems like impossible.


I have been travelling on many occasions from Barnsley/Sheffield via A628 and it's quite filled with lorries all the way. It gets even worse in small towns near Manchester like Mottram or Hollingworth. Then it turns into one massive jam. If you are desperate then use M1 and M62 but it's not that much better due to longer distance and high levels of traffic.


----------



## poshbakerloo

CairnsTony said:


> It's definitely not everyone Geogregor; I'm British myself, though I now live in Australia and have an Environmental Science degree, but I also am realistic and pretty objective in what I view as 'appropriate' development. Some developments are clearly not acceptable, but it's not as if everyone just opposes every development that comes along. Considering how different the prevailing view seemed to be in the 70s, there's clearly been a swing towards the 'anti' lobby, but it's far from universal. You only have to gauge the views of many UK-based forumers here. There's clearly frustration about the current status quo.


Its not so much the normal people that are against development its organisations that have a big voice against them! It gets me very annoyed! A 2mile bypass takes sometimes 10 years to get approved...awful!


----------



## Highwaycrazy

geogregor said:


> Transport infrastructure in UK is so overloaded


I remember hearing in the 1990's that London could barely afford the Underground. If more people are using it, is that not a good thing?


----------



## geogregor

Highwaycrazy said:


> If more people are using it, is that not a good thing?


More people???? 
Underground trains already resemble more of the cattle transports than transportation system for humans.
Actually cattle could never be transported in such awful conditions due to animal welfare regulations. But no one gives a damn about how Londoners travel :bash:


----------



## CairnsTony

geogregor said:


> If tunnel is needed why not? I'm not very familiar with traffic situation between Manchester and Sheffield but tunnel there wouldn't be as difficult as many tunnels in Alps or even in relatively poorer countries like Croatia.
> If they can built tunnels it why not UK? It is all due to attitudes. I hope it will eventually swing to more balanced approach because at the moment building any road in UK (or at least England) seems like impossible.


I wasn't saying it can't or shouldn't be done. But you only have to look at how much it cost to build the short section of tunnel on the A3 at the Devil's Kneading Trough. Unbelievably expensive compared to just about anywhere else.

EDIT: Sorry I meant the Devil's Punch Bowl; said Kneading Trough is in Kent; Old Nick likes to get around...


----------



## Mateusz

CairnsTony said:


> I wasn't saying it can't or shouldn't be done. But you only have to look at how much it cost to build the short section of tunnel on the A3 at the Devil's Kneading Trough. Unbelievably expensive compared to just about anywhere else.


It's not a suprise, is it ? Now it will cost way more comparing to if it was done earlier hno:


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## piotr71

Nice video as usual, PortoNuts. 


---------------------


Just about...

















































































































































I assume there is no need to explain where we are.


----------



## flierfy

Looks superb.


----------



## sotonsi

They were, but it was kicked into long grass again.

If we're honest, traffic levels aren't pressing for upgrading it - widening the A1(M) in county Durham would be a better use of money.

That said, it ought to be done anyway and it's silly to postpone it again.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

They might as well make motorway regulations for the whole A1, at least as far north as Newcastle, they're gonna do it at some point in the future, if not today, tommorow


----------



## PortoNuts

I think it's only logical to have a true motorway connecting London to Edinburgh, crossing the whole thing.


----------



## sotonsi

IMV, here's the potential likelyhood of conversion to motorway of sections of the A1 in the next 50 years:
Leeming - Barton 90%
Brampton - Alconbury 90%
Doncaster - Darrington 70%
Peterborough - Stamford 50%
Stamford - Doncaster 25%
Newcastle - Edinburgh ~10% (different sections, different amounts, but still not going to happen)
Mill Hill - South Mimms 5%
Baldock - Brampton 3%
London - Mill Hill 0%

Edinburgh - London motorway route will be via Carlisle (and a bit of non-motorway in the A725), London - Newcastle motorway route will be via M1, London - Peterborough motorway route will be via Stansted.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

If they made a motorway through Mill Hill that would be interesting :lol:


----------



## PortoNuts

Better save the money then and build the South coastal motorway.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## Suburbanist

I have a question: why a network mentality has always been lacking in regard of British highways?

A look at a map will show that there are many incomplete highways major links between major cities, dotted with lesser roads, 2+2 expressways with grade crossings, 1+2 sectors plagued with roundabouts etc.

Scotland, for instance, has a severe lack of highways north of Perth. An eastern link on motorway-standard only between Edinburgh and cities southward doesn't exist (that route has grade crossings and 1+1 sectors!!!). Northern Ireland is also severely lacking a network. 

Note that I'm not talking about plenty of urban highways, just a continuous link from Inverness to Plymouth.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

PortoNuts said:


>


Hey Porto..

Nice video. Interesting that since I left in 2002, the UK's motorways now have the same overhead gantries as used over here in the US. It makes the motorways look very "American", despite driving on the wrong side of the road (because once you've driven on the right side, you can never go back!).


----------



## strandeed

Suburbanist said:


> I have a question: why a network mentality has always been lacking in regard of British highways?
> 
> A look at a map will show that there are many incomplete highways major links between major cities, dotted with lesser roads, 2+2 expressways with grade crossings, 1+2 sectors plagued with roundabouts etc.
> 
> Scotland, for instance, has a severe lack of highways north of Perth. An eastern link on motorway-standard only between Edinburgh and cities southward doesn't exist (that route has grade crossings and 1+1 sectors!!!). Northern Ireland is also severely lacking a network.
> 
> Note that I'm not talking about plenty of urban highways, just a continuous link from Inverness to Plymouth.


NIMBY'ism

Money

... that's it


----------



## CairnsTony

sotonsi said:


> IMV, here's the potential likelyhood of conversion to motorway of sections of the A1 in the next 50 years:
> Leeming - Barton 90%
> Brampton - Alconbury 90%
> Doncaster - Darrington 70%
> Peterborough - Stamford 50%
> Stamford - Doncaster 25%
> Newcastle - Edinburgh ~10% (different sections, different amounts, but still not going to happen)
> Mill Hill - South Mimms 5%
> Baldock - Brampton 3%
> London - Mill Hill 0%
> 
> Edinburgh - London motorway route will be via Carlisle (and a bit of non-motorway in the A725), London - Newcastle motorway route will be via M1, London - Peterborough motorway route will be via Stansted.


Well it just seems weird then that they numbered the junctions on the motorway sections if there is no realistic intent to link them together.


----------



## NCT

Suburbanist said:


> I have a question: why a network mentality has always been lacking in regard of British highways?
> 
> A look at a map will show that there are many incomplete highways major links between major cities, dotted with lesser roads, 2+2 expressways with grade crossings, 1+2 sectors plagued with roundabouts etc.
> 
> Scotland, for instance, has a severe lack of highways north of Perth. An eastern link on motorway-standard only between Edinburgh and cities southward doesn't exist (that route has grade crossings and 1+1 sectors!!!). Northern Ireland is also severely lacking a network.
> 
> Note that I'm not talking about plenty of urban highways, just a continuous link from Inverness to Plymouth.


The motorway network is integrated into the wider road network and a motorway is only necessary when traffic volumes exceed a certain threashold.

There's hardly anything in Scotland apart from Edinburgh and Glasgow, and I doubt there's enough traffic in the Scottish wilderness to warrant full-on motorways. There aren't any significant settlements between Perth and Inverness, and indeed between Edinburgh and Newcastle, and you can generally manage 60mph all the way, which is what you can do on a busy motorway in any case. There's no justification for a grade-separated junction or a parallel local road if it's only going to be used by a few dozens of vehicles a day. Mass 'motorisation' is Scotland would bring very little benefit.


----------



## sotonsi

Inverness is the example _par excellence_ of why the edges of the country don't have motorway - less than 75,000 people and 100 miles away from Perth with very little inbetween. Certainly the A9 needs improvements, and it's getting them. However a motorway would just be overkill (that said, I've seen documents about the Highland Motorway, which would have been converting the Far North rail line to Thurso and Wick into a road - guessing single carriageway, but as it's new build, there's no real reason why it shouldn't be a Special Road limited to class I and II traffic only).

As for A1(M) junction numbers, it doesn't seem like they are for total motorway conversion - it has been put on the cards in the mid-90s, but the junction numbers pre-date that by a few years (other than on Alconbury - Peterborough and Darrington - Dishforth, which got built later). If you look at the Dishforth (49) to Barton (56) scheme, you'll notice that there's not enough junctions for the gap in numbering. OK, mistakes get made and plans change (Aberford - Bramham's junction numbers reduced by one to fit the full Darrington - Dishforth scheme), but this strikes me as them considering the more major junctions on the all-purpose A1 as counting for the numbers.


----------



## GCarty

sotonsi said:


> Inverness is the example _par excellence_ of why the edges of the country don't have motorway - less than 75,000 people and 100 miles away from Perth with very little inbetween. Certainly the A9 needs improvements, and it's getting them. However a motorway would just be overkill (that said, I've seen documents about the Highland Motorway, which would have been converting the Far North rail line to Thurso and Wick into a road - guessing single carriageway, but as it's new build, there's no real reason why it shouldn't be a Special Road limited to class I and II traffic only).


Some sparsely populated areas (such as the middle section of the United States) still have big highways because a lot of traffic passes through in order to travel between more heavily populated areas. This doesn't apply to Great Britain, which is off the western edge of the European landmass and has no transit traffic except for a very small amount travelling between Ireland (which is itself sparsely populated) and mainland Europe.


----------



## PortoNuts

> *M1 lights switched off from Luton to Milton Keynes *
> 
> *Motorway lighting is to be permanently removed from a section of the M1, the Highways Agency has announced. The 15-mile stretch, between junction 10 at Luton and junction 13 at Milton Keynes, will retain lighting at junctions and their approaches.*
> 
> Work is currently under way to make this section a "managed motorway", with variable speed limits and the option to use the hard shoulder at busy times.
> 
> The agency said it was confident the move would not affect road user safety. "Since 2009 we've switched lighting off between the hours of midnight and 5am on 14 carefully-selected stretches of motorways and evidence so far indicates that switching off the lights hasn't had an impact on safety," said Highways Agency director Derek Turner.
> 
> "This is not about wishing to remove all lights from the motorway network.
> 
> *'Save more lives'*
> 
> "It's about carefully identifying the locations where, under the revised guidelines, we would no longer install lighting. The money saved could then be used for other measures on the strategic road network where it would have a more significant safety benefit and potentially save more lives.
> 
> "We anticipate achieving an annual reduction in carbon emissions on this M1 stretch of about 810 tonnes. Local communities will also benefit from reduced light pollution of the night sky."
> 
> Work will commence on the removal of the lighting columns on 17 August and carried out in phases until autumn 2012.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-14487969


----------



## Road_UK

sotonsi said:


> London - Peterborough motorway route will be via Stansted.


A14 upgrade?


----------



## ed110220

GCarty said:


> Some sparsely populated areas (such as the middle section of the United States) still have big highways because a lot of traffic passes through in order to travel between more heavily populated areas. This doesn't apply to Great Britain, which is off the western edge of the European landmass and has no transit traffic except for a very small amount travelling between Ireland (which is itself sparsely populated) and mainland Europe.


This is partly true, in that much of the "empty" bit of the USA is in the middle of the country, while in the UK he emptier bits tend to be around the edges, especially the north and west and so doesn't need to be crossed.

However, let's not forget that in the USA and some other countries the threshhold for dualling and grade separation is much lower than in the UK. I think the lowest AADT on a US interstate is something ridiculously low like 900 (from memory). Most of course are not that low, but even so they still use a much lower threshhold. I believe the usual figure in South Africa is around 10 - 15 thousand. I'\m not sure what it is in the UK, but I believe it would be quite a lot higher.

Different priorities, land prices, construction costs, levels of NIMBYism etc probably account for it. For example in SA, while there may be objections to a specific route based on the fact it might destroy a rare habitat etc, there rarely seem to be objections on principle.


----------



## Mateusz

Road_UK said:


> A14 upgrade?


And on top of this M11 is a joke in it its current form.


----------



## sotonsi

It's unlikely that the A14 upgrade (if and when that happens) will be suitable, or the M11 north of Stansted widened, but the thinking does seem to be that that route will become the London-Peterborough route, rather than the A1, which will be for Letchworth, Stevenage, etc in both directions.


----------



## Road_UK

Well, yes - there is not much room for a motorway at Biggleswade and St Neots.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Off-topic question: how does one pronounce "St Neots"?

Ta!


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Saint Nee/i-ots


----------



## Road_UK

St Nieots


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## bleetz

I drove through Hindhead the other day and even though I was obviously impressed by the well-needed projected, I was quite disappointed by the 40 mph limit.


----------



## Suburbanist

*Blackminster Polish and Spanish road signs 'broke rules'*

*Foreign language signs advising migrant workers of a road diversion in Worcestershire have been removed for "health and safety" reasons.*










Network Rail is carrying out work on a level crossing in Blackminster.

It was asked by Worcestershire County Council to provide diversion signs in Spanish, Polish and English.

However, they were removed by the Highways Agency which said they did "not meet the prescribed standards for such signs".

Evesham Vale is famous for its soft fruit production and attracts many migrant seasonal workers as fruit pickers, the county council said.

It added: "Local councils at district and parish level as well as businesses in the area requested the signs be put up due to a high number of Polish people living in the area and a number of Spanish businesses.

*'Prescribed standards'*

"From what we've been told there's a number of lorries and HGVs that travel from Spain to the area and they wanted to ensure the diversion was clear to cut disruption and the potential for vehicles getting lost resulting in queues or delays for motorists in the area."

*A spokesman for the Highways Agency said only road signs near ports were displayed in foreign languages in England and Wales.

It said these signs were restricted to speed limit information and drive on the left reminders.*

The agency said it had removed the Blackminster diversion signs on Monday.

It said: "Unfortunately the [Blackminster diversion] signs did not meet the prescribed standards for such signs, as set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

Work is expected to be carried out on the level crossing until 0500 BST on 22 August.
=============

From BBC News


----------



## sotonsi

Of course, English isn't the official language of England (no language is) and bi-lingual signs in Wales aren't proscribed, but exist anyway.

It's more a case that the Dft weren't informed about the signs beforehand - if they were, they'd probably been OK with it.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I'm surprised the DfT noticed it


----------



## geogregor

sotonsi said:


> Of course, English isn't the official language of England (no language is) and bi-lingual signs in Wales aren't proscribed, but exist anyway.
> 
> It's more a case that the Dft weren't informed about the signs beforehand - if they were, they'd probably been OK with it.


I'm still surprised that someone bothered with putting those signs in the first place. Nice to see someone thinking about my compatriots but in my opinion there is no need. Signs important for safety are pictorial anyway. As for additional information, how about Lithuanians, Slovaks etc? They pick fruits too 

Imagine road signs inn London. 200+ languages :lol:


----------



## Stainless

DanielFigFoz said:


> I'm surprised the DfT noticed it


Probably someone from an anti-EU party or group complained to them. A few years ago UKIP (the UK independence party, basically anti anything) tore down some signs that displayed distances in metres instead of yards (a yard is 91cm)


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Ergh bloody UKIP. Last year there was a politics day in my school, they grouped us together and we had to form political parties. One of the members of mine was very racist, so me and a colleague of mine made it very very left wing and pro-European to piss him off.

A BNP style party won the elections, and minority groups went along with some other people cheering them :lol:. It was quite a strange sight to see


----------



## GCarty

I think UKIP is in some ways the British equivalent of the US Tea Party movement...


----------



## CairnsTony

DanielFigFoz said:


> A BNP style party won the elections, and minority groups went along with some other people cheering them :lol:. It was quite a strange sight to see


Doesn't give me much hope for Britain's future if British kids see this as the way forward...


----------



## GCarty

CairnsTony said:


> Doesn't give me much hope for Britain's future if British kids see this as the way forward...


I've noticed that anti-immigration sentiment in the British press tends towards the Malthusian ("Britain is full") rather than the xenophobic or racist.

It seems to fit in with what someone wrote years back in this thread -- that many people in Britain think that the country is overdeveloped and that the solution to traffic congestion is fewer people rather than more infrastructure...


----------



## Suburbanist

England is rather full, especially Southeast England. They need to settle and develop the Scottish Highlands 

Plenty of opportunities for motorways around the Loches up there, and tunnels.


----------



## sotonsi

Stainless said:


> Probably someone from an anti-EU party or group complained to them. A few years ago UKIP (the UK independence party, basically anti anything) tore down some signs that displayed distances in metres instead of yards (a yard is 91cm)


Signs in metres are expressly forbidden by law and the design manuals.

Also UKIP aren't 'anti anything' (they are anti-stuff, but not anti-everything), they are pro-prisons - their manifesto for the general election stated that they would build prisons in order to allow them to double the prison population.

OK, I picked the example that shows them in their worst light (certainly the one that meant I wouldn't vote for them) deliberately there. Their anti-EU stance comes out of their pro-democracy and pro-economic freedom beliefs.


DanielFigFoz said:


> Ergh bloody UKIP. Last year there was a politics day in my school, they grouped us together and we had to form political parties. One of the members of mine was very racist, so me and a colleague of mine made it very very left wing and pro-European to piss him off.


The left-wing wouldn't necessarily bother racists (after all the BNP that won your mock election are, in reality, left - it's old Labour with racism and homophobia).

UKIP aren't racist (though it's likely to be the case that a sizeable chunk of members and voters are) - they have nothing against people who aren't British moving to this country - there's some issues over the number of them.


GCarty said:


> I think UKIP is in some ways the British equivalent of the US Tea Party movement...


The Tea Party is a much broader movement - simply a statement on the amount of money flowing through Government (taxation, borrowing and spending), whereas UKIP is more narrow - not least as it's taken an authoritarian stance on law and order.


----------



## GCarty

sotonsi said:


> UKIP aren't racist (though it's likely to be the case that a sizeable chunk of members and voters are) - they have nothing against people who aren't British moving to this country - there's some issues over the number of them.


Although UKIP isn't racist per se, in my view they are fairly clearly Islamophobic. Although they're less extreme than (say) Geert Wilders's PVV in the Netherlands on that score, that's still the main reason why I wouldn't vote for them, even though they're the only major party which rejects the Green agenda as far as energy generation goes...


----------



## ed110220

GCarty said:


> I've noticed that anti-immigration sentiment in the British press tends towards the Malthusian ("Britain is full") rather than the xenophobic or racist.
> 
> It seems to fit in with what someone wrote years back in this thread -- that many people in Britain think that the country is overdeveloped and that the solution to traffic congestion is fewer people rather than more infrastructure...


There is some truth in it though in my opinion. With less population density there are many advantages, such as lower housing prices/larger houses, housing with on-site parking rather than on-street parking, it is easier to build roads etc... If London had been an American city it would have a whole network of motorways already... perhaps even an urban forest like Atlanta.

Think of the reasons why many Brits move to Australia and part of the reason is the higher quality of life that goes with less overcrowding. I'm not saying that infrastructure and quality of life can't go with high population densities, but it is definitely more difficult and more expensive.


----------



## CairnsTony

ed110220 said:


> There is some truth in it though in my opinion. With less population density there are many advantages, such as lower housing prices/larger houses, housing with on-site parking rather than on-street parking, it is easier to build roads etc... If London had been an American city it would have a whole network of motorways already... perhaps even an urban forest like Atlanta.
> 
> Think of the reasons why many Brits move to Australia and part of the reason is the higher quality of life that goes with less overcrowding. I'm not saying that infrastructure and quality of life can't go with high population densities, but it is definitely more difficult and more expensive.


It's not quite that straight forward and many Poms will be surprised by what they find here.

Whilst Aus may have 22 mil. people (give or take a few hundred thousand) in an area the size of Europe, most of them happen to crowd into five very urbanised areas. As these are seen as desirable places to live, land is at a premium and house prices are very high. In fact all told, I read very recently that Sydney and Melbourne are now the world's most expensive places to live. You get a lot of house for your money (Aus builds on average the world's largest houses) but you still have to pay for it. 

Furthermore, urban motorways in Aus are now mostly built underground: whether it be the new Clem Tunnel in Brissie, or the one they're building to the airport; the subterranean motorway to Sydney airport, or the just-built cross town motorway just south of Sydney's CBD, Aussies don't want their cities criss-crossed with visually intrusive road schemes any more than anywhere else. 

If you want new urban motorways in the UK, I can't help feeling this is how you will have to build them although Glasgow appears to be an exception.

'Quality of Life' is relative to what you consider your priorities. Yes there are wide open spaces here where you can get away from people, but Aus is one of the world's most urbanised countries, so those wide open spaces are clearly not a priority for most people here.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Apart from Glasgow, I don't think that urban motorways will be built unless things change a lot in the UK, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon I don't think


----------



## Comfortably Numb

CairnsTony said:


> It's not quite that straight forward and many Poms will be surprised by what they find here.
> 
> Whilst Aus may have 22 mil. people (give or take a few hundred thousand) in an area the size of Europe, most of them happen to crowd into five very urbanised areas. As these are seen as desirable places to live, land is at a premium and house prices are very high. In fact all told, I read very recently that Sydney and Melbourne are now the world's most expensive places to live. You get a lot of house for your money (Aus builds on average the world's largest houses) but you still have to pay for it.
> 
> Furthermore, urban motorways in Aus are now mostly built underground: whether it be the new Clem Tunnel in Brissie, or the one they're building to the airport; the subterranean motorway to Sydney airport, or the just-built cross town motorway just south of Sydney's CBD, Aussies don't want their cities criss-crossed with visually intrusive road schemes any more than anywhere else.
> 
> If you want new urban motorways in the UK, I can't help feeling this is how you will have to build them although Glasgow appears to be an exception.
> 
> 'Quality of Life' is relative to what you consider your priorities. Yes there are wide open spaces here where you can get away from people, but Aus is one of the world's most urbanised countries, so those wide open spaces are clearly not a priority for most people here.


A more "forward thinking" approach is needed to tackle traffic in the UK and the need for new motorways. Rather than tear segments of UK cities up and ruin entire neighborhoods by building ugly urban motorways and rather than spending billions on expensive tunneling, I would rather see all major UK cities have ring motorways, with exits that could be built close to train stations or bus connections for anyone wishing to travel into the city that may not need to actually use their car while there. This would make a lot more sense, IMO. The M8 in Glasgow does add character to the city, but I would not like to see other UK cities torn to pieces by building ugly motorways, unless they could be effectively landscaped and somewhat hidden from street view.

An American or Australian solution would not work in the UK - the UK is far more crowded, far more densely populated and space is at a premium.


----------



## CairnsTony

Comfortably Numb said:


> A more "forward thinking" approach is needed to tackle traffic in the UK and the need for new motorways. Rather than tear segments of UK cities up and ruin entire neighborhoods by building ugly urban motorways and rather than spending billions on expensive tunneling, I would rather see all major UK cities have ring motorways, with exits that could be built close to train stations or bus connections for anyone wishing to travel into the city that may not need to actually use their car while there. This would make a lot more sense, IMO. The M8 in Glasgow does add character to the city, but I would not like to see other UK cities torn to pieces by building ugly motorways, unless they could be effectively landscaped and somewhat hidden from street view.
> 
> An American or Australian solution would not work in the UK - the UK is far more crowded, far more densely populated and space is at a premium.


As I said in my previous post, space is at a premium in Australia's major urban centres too and these subterranean motorways certainly don't come cheap. We could certainly do with far better public transport too!

Whilst 'Park and Ride' is nothing new in the UK, and it works up to a point, I have read that some people are actually using their cars _more_ to drive to the pick up point for the train, bus, tram or whatever. I'm familiar with the P&R in Canterbury and can honestly say that it didn't do much for the traffic congestion... Canterbury isn't even all that big and most of the traffic is heading into the city, not around it. The P&R would have to significantly increase its capacity to remove a large amount of that traffic. Realistically however, you can't force people to use it as the P&R wouldn't necessarily go to where they want it to go.

I would agree that the status quo is unacceptable, but when I was back in the UK in December I was reminded all too vividly just how busy even the most minor roads can be along almost any route in most reasonably built up areas. Perhaps British people are used to those levels of traffic. It can't be much fun living alongside some of those roads however or using them every rush hour. I guess 'quality of life' gets somewhat compromised at that point.

I'd be interested to gauge the opinions of our friends in the Low Countries (since it is very densely populated there) to see how they tackle congestion and whether transport policy there is any more enlightened.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

CairnsTony said:


> I'd be interested to gauge the opinions of our friends in the Low Countries (since it is very densely populated there) to see how they tackle congestion and whether transport policy there is any more enlightened.


The Netherlands is currently working on a massive expansion of the motorway capacity. They're adding 800 kilometers of new lanes in 5 years. Finally after all these years they're replacing 2x2 motorways with 2x3 / 2x4 motorways, some widenings even include 2 additional lanes each way. There are few new motorways as our network is fairly completed (a few missing links are under construction), most of it is additional capacity to existing motorways. 

Pictures like these were unimaginable 6 or 7 years ago:

A2 Abcoude-5 by Chriszwolle, on Flickr


----------



## CairnsTony

^^

Interesting photo there: a very wide motorway with an extremely broad median strip; not what I would normally associate with the Netherlands!

May I ask how does your country tackle urban congestion?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

CairnsTony said:


> May I ask how does your country tackle urban congestion?


Most traffic lights are fairly efficient. Of course there is urban congestion, but Dutch cities are not that big (Amsterdam has only 750,000 inhabitants). The main problem is excessive bus priority at traffic lights that causes more harm than good. Much more improvement could be done if they optimize traffic lights and downgrade bus priorities. Right now if a bus is near an intersection, (almost) the entire intersection gets a red light regardless of traffic flow or phases and the bus immediately gets through. 

It would be much better if they would let the existing flow get through and then give the bus priority in the following phase. This would improve traffic flow a lot, while the bus doesn't loose too much time. People who travel by bus in the Netherlands are not that time-sensitive anyway, mostly students. Even with all the bus priorities in cities, cycling is generally still faster. 

Urban traffic can be bad in some cities, but because the Netherlands is poly-centric on a relatively small area, traffic flows are distributed better across the network. Generally anti-rush hour directions are almost as busy as the "true" rush hour direction. I guess that's also why reversible lanes are not really popular (we only have one).


----------



## CairnsTony

ChrisZwolle said:


> Even with all the bus priorities in cities, cycling is generally still faster.


That might explain why I took to cycling around Canterbury! It just made sense if I actually wanted to get somewhere any time soon especially since I could duck down narrow lanes and cut-throughs inaccessible to road vehicles. I wonder if proportionately more Dutch people (much in keeping with the stereotype) cycle than British people?


----------



## Road_UK

CairnsTony said:


> That might explain why I took to cycling around Canterbury! It just made sense if I actually wanted to get somewhere any time soon especially since I could duck down narrow lanes and cut-throughs inaccessible to road vehicles. I wonder if proportionately more Dutch people (much in keeping with the stereotype) cycle than British people?


Yes they do. Cyclists have their own cycle way network in Holland, complete with road signs and traffic lights. Their interests are part of the highway code, and it's a lot safer to cycle in Holland then it is in Britain, even though more cycle ways are being constructed. But it's at a very minimum.


----------



## poshbakerloo

DanielFigFoz said:


> Apart from Glasgow, I don't think that urban motorways will be built unless things change a lot in the UK, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon I don't think


I don't want anything to change if it involves building urban motorways...

Glasgow has got its self into a bit of a hole with its motorways. It had to built a second one to bypass the other. Motorways should be used to bypass and intercity travel, not inner city commuting.

Glasgow should have build an outer ring motorway and maybe a few sections radiating in from the edge partway like London...

I do think that some inner city roads that are motorway size but not status should be upgraded such as London's Western Ave


----------



## kramer81

Road_UK said:


> Yes they do. Cyclists have their own cycle way network in Holland, complete with road signs and traffic lights. Their interests are part of the highway code, and it's a lot safer to cycle in Holland then it is in Britain, even though more cycle ways are being constructed. But it's at a very minimum.


It's also nice and flat which is conducive to cycling. I can't imagine ever cycling to work in Glasgow, if you don't arrive soaked from the rain, you'll arrive soaked in sweat.


----------



## kramer81

poshbakerloo said:


> I don't want anything to change if it involves building urban motorways...
> 
> Glasgow has got its self into a bit of a hole with its motorways. It had to built a second one to bypass the other. Motorways should be used to bypass and intercity travel, not inner city commuting.


While I wouldn't advocate any other cities copying what Glasgow did 40 years ago, especially the destruction of Charing Cross, they haven't realy built a second motorway to bypass the other. It just took them 40 years to complete the "ring" (though it is not strictly speaking a ringroad).


----------



## poshbakerloo

kramer81 said:


> While I wouldn't advocate any other cities copying what Glasgow did 40 years ago, especially the destruction of Charing Cross, they haven't realy built a second motorway to bypass the other. It just took them 40 years to complete the "ring" (though it is not strictly speaking a ringroad).


They completed the ring, but the ring that we have now wasn't part of the original plan...The original plan was a much small ring around the centre, what we have now is in response to the M8 being too busy and the centre needing a further bypass...


----------



## scotdaliney

CairnsTony said:


> It's not quite that straight forward and many Poms will be surprised by what they find here.
> 
> Whilst Aus may have 22 mil. people (give or take a few hundred thousand) in an area the size of Europe, most of them happen to crowd into five very urbanised areas. As these are seen as desirable places to live, land is at a premium and house prices are very high. In fact all told, I read very recently that Sydney and Melbourne are now the world's most expensive places to live. You get a lot of house for your money (Aus builds on average the world's largest houses) but you still have to pay for it.
> 
> Furthermore, urban motorways in Aus are now mostly built underground: whether it be the new Clem Tunnel in Brissie, or the one they're building to the airport; the subterranean motorway to Sydney airport, or the just-built cross town motorway just south of Sydney's CBD, Aussies don't want their cities criss-crossed with visually intrusive road schemes any more than anywhere else.
> 
> If you want new urban motorways in the UK, I can't help feeling this is how you will have to build them although Glasgow appears to be an exception.
> 
> 'Quality of Life' is relative to what you consider your priorities. Yes there are wide open spaces here where you can get away from people, but Aus is one of the world's most urbanised countries, so those wide open spaces are clearly not a priority for most people here.


Personally I find the main difference to be the attitude of the press, british press continually talks down the state of the country while in Australia the press does the opposite. Statistically there are many more non anglo's in Australia than the UK but the press in the UK continually enforces the belief that the UK is over run with immigrants and that the country is long past the point of ruin. 
The UK's road system makes Australia's look like a third world country, yet again the press is always talking down the state of the countries infrastructure while in Australia the press mainly only talks about roads to mention a new project or road opening. I found driving in England to be a joy compared to the over abundance of dual lane roads full of traffic lights every 30seconds. Each set of lights is fully con tolled so you only get a green 1/4th of the time. Compare that to mostly motorway or HQDC roads. The not so good roads are still mainly controlled access with efficient roundabouts ( compared to aus where main highways are full of driveways and crossroads at every possible intersecting road). I know many sections of the UK are clogged at peak times but the same is true in Australia.

I must say that I have not been back to the UK since the recession which Australia has been luckily not so damaged by.


----------



## jandeczentar

poshbakerloo said:


> I don't want anything to change if it involves building urban motorways...
> 
> Glasgow has got its self into a bit of a hole with its motorways. It had to built a second one to bypass the other. Motorways should be used to bypass and intercity travel, not inner city commuting.
> 
> Glasgow should have build an outer ring motorway and maybe a few sections radiating in from the edge partway like London...
> 
> I do think that some inner city roads that are motorway size but not status should be upgraded such as London's Western Ave


If not urban motorways then what do you suggest for all those inner city commuters? Most British cities already have a widespred public transport network and the traffic on their roads continues to increase regardless.

London's motorway network is an incomplete mess, especially south of the Thames. The original plan was never finished and never will be. London's example should not be copied by any other city.


----------



## GCarty

CairnsTony said:


> As these are seen as desirable places to live, land is at a premium and house prices are very high. In fact all told, I read very recently that Sydney and Melbourne are now the world's most expensive places to live. You get a lot of house for your money (Aus builds on average the world's largest houses) but you still have to pay for it.


Why aren't smaller, cheaper houses built then? Is it illegal to build on small lots in Australia?


----------



## GCarty

Suburbanist said:


> England is rather full, especially Southeast England. They need to settle and develop the Scottish Highlands


People crowd into SE England because that's where the jobs are...


----------



## CairnsTony

GCarty said:


> Why aren't smaller, cheaper houses built then? Is it illegal to build on small lots in Australia?


The 'average' house size is big, but that means of course that some are also quite small or absolutely huge. I live in a two bedroom apartment which is more than big enough for me.

Whilst Melbourne and Sydney are stupidly expensive, regional areas can be much more affordable. I can comfortably pay my mortgage on my wages here in Cairns, but if I wanted to stretch my budget could afford a four bedroom house in some neighbourhoods. But since I would prefer to have money to spend on other things plus a bit of a financial cushion, I happily stay put.

Land is used wastefully here in most instances with massive urban sprawl in the bigger metropolitan areas. But I guess most Aussies just want bigger houses and house builders build accordingly.

EDIT: Not trying to hijack the thread, sorry folks.


----------



## HAWC1506

Are there any British engineers on this forum?


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^



> here's even a story that the Ministry demanded that all of the bridges were built too narrow to allow for any upgrade to motorway to take place easily.
> 
> *Pathetic Motorways*


:lol:


----------



## Road_UK

Havin gone to Yorkshire and back down to Stevenage yesterday, it is nice to see that lane discipline in this country is the very best in Europe. They all drive on the right!


----------



## Harry

Road_UK said:


> Havin gone to Yorkshire and back down to Stevenage yesterday, it is nice to see that lane discipline in this country is the very best in Europe. They all drive on the right!


In general terms, I find British drivers to be among the most considerate and courteous in Europe. But when it comes to lane discipline, you have _really_ got a point. It's shocking. So bad, in fact, that some sort of public information campaign could be considered.


----------



## PortoNuts

I suppose that's caused by high rates of traffic. With so much cars and everybody driving on the left lane, the average speed wouldn't be much higher than a desert convoy.


----------



## PortoNuts




----------



## Road_UK

Harry said:


> In general terms, I find British drivers to be among the most considerate and courteous in Europe. But when it comes to lane discipline, you have _really_ got a point. It's shocking. So bad, in fact, that some sort of public information campaign could be considered.


Could be? Should be. Should have been done a long time ago. Do like the Germans do, and put posters up of an elephant on the overtaking lane, with traffic stacking up behind it...


----------



## PortoNuts

> *Charging network expands along M4 and M42*
> 
> *Electric car drivers can now travel between Bristol, Birmingham and London along the M4 and M42, safe in the knowledge that they can stop and recharge along the way. *
> 
> Green energy supplier, Ecotricity has now installed new charging points at Welcome Break services along the two motorways, as part of its plans to build an ‘electric highway’ network at service stations on the M25/M1, M40, M4 and M5.
> 
> Every single one of the firm’s charging points will be powered by electricity from its own windmill and solar farms dotted around the country-making the electricity supplied truly green -allowing the cars that charge from them to be truly zero emission.
> 
> *Five motorway ‘top-up zones’ have now been installed at Welcome Break motorway services, including:*
> 
> · Hopwood Park services (M42 at junction 2)
> 
> · Membury services (M4 between London and Bristol – between J14 and J15)
> 
> · South Mimms services (M25 and M1 junction)
> 
> · Michaelwood services (M5 between Bristol and Birmingham)
> 
> · Oxford services (M40 between London and Birmingham – junction 8a at Oxford)
> 
> A sixth ‘top-up zone’ is also located at the base of an Ecotricity windmill:
> 
> · Green Park windmill (M4 near Reading)
> 
> Twelve ‘top-up-zones’ will soon be located at motorway services around the country to complete the first phase of the network. Each post will be located outside the main entrance of Welcome Break, with two sockets that can be accessed by registering for a free swipe-card. Within 18 months, all 27 Welcome Break motorway services across Britain will have charging points.
> 
> Electric cars using rapid recharge points (32A supply) can top-up in just 20 minutes or fully charge in two hours; while those using the slower (13A supply) will be able to recharge fully if staying overnight at motorway service hotels.
> 
> With world oil prices going through the roof, you’ll now be able to get around Britain using only the power of the wind. It costs just over 1p a mile for electric vehicles, compared to 15.4p in a petrol car (at today’s prices).
> 
> The UK consumes around 23 million tonnes of oil every year in the UK to do the 250 billion miles we drive every year. But we could power all that with 12,000 of today’s windmills, or just 6,000 of tomorrow’s.”












http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk...16/charging-network-expands-along-m4-and-m42/


----------



## DanielFigFoz

An interesting crossing at the end of the M876 :lol:










From Pathetic Motorways


----------



## HAWC1506

I don't think I have seen a better traffic information page than Traffic England...

http://www.trafficengland.com/index.aspx?ct=true


----------



## niterider

Having just spent some time on the Spanish network, I can't help but notice that on the sections which reach high traffic volumes, particularly of HGVs, buses etc, the level of middle-land drivers increased greatly. Their network has the luxury of so much more capacity and less traffic and lane disciple seems better because people don't have an endless line of trucks and buses on the outside lane. 
In the UK, outside of the busier sections of the motorway network, I also notice that lane disciple increases greatly. (And it doesn't exist at all on the M25!).

Basically, I think people just get fed up here because the moment you move into the left lane you get boxed between lorrys on the busier sections of motorway, particularly the M25 and surrounds. The U.K *desperately* needs more motorway - filling in of gaps and shockingly, some new routes.


----------



## PortoNuts

With so much cars, they spread evenly between the left and middle lane, leaving just one faster lane. I can't imagine how slow it would get if everyone followed the lane rules in these situations.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Today I went to Bicester and took some photos for the people who haven't been to the UK. On the following photos are the M25 and M40



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The M4 down below



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Leaving the the M25 for the M40



Its a pretty long sliproad





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

100 to Birmingham





Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

two lanes through a junction





Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The beginning of the Stokenchurch Gap, which you might recognise from the opening credits to the Vicar of Dibley (I'm thinking of Penn here who likes British programmes)





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Shame that the view doesn't really come up well in the photo





Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

A sign that reminds be of Belgium that indicated our exit:





Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The A34 towards Oxford



And the A41 towards Bicester





Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## Ctbarn1

Nice pics of the M25/M40. The A34 junction with the M40 should really be free flowing rather than a roundabout. I hardly ever use the A43/A34 route to the south coast, but when i do you can guarentee that, there will be a queue there certainly Northbound. Lane discipline is terrible everywhere not just the M25. I think its the worse on the most quiet motorways when you get middle lane drivers, that just sit there. The few times i have used the M25 it seems to be more like a freeway in America then anything else - certainly after the usual queue from the M40-M3, as everyone races to get to their destination after what seems like a 3 week delay.


----------



## Ctbarn1

...and re the electric car network. Electric cars are pointless. I think my opinion on electric cars is heavily influenced by a decade watching TopGear. They are not green because they get power from the grid - in the UK thats dominated by Coal and Gas. The best innovation for fuel technology i think is Honda's Hydrogen powered car. Again i know that uses fuel from the grid to produce Hydrogen, but ive seen a recent article saying they can get Hydrogen from special bacteria. The only barrier of course is world politics and the major oil companies. 

On a different note, i love the tag for this forum...Nimby Land. How true. Not motorways i know, but take the proposal for High Speed 2, everyone wants it, just nobody wants it going near them. As a qualified Town Planner, that is very typical of this country as a whole.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Great pics of the M25 & M40. Being a former West Midlands resident with family and business in London, I drove this route many times. 

Interesting how signage has changed somewhat:










Like the US, it seems that the UK now let's you know what retailers & restaurants you can find at a service station, rather than just "Services". Is this a recent thing, bearing in mind I haven't been back for over 9 years?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I think that the M25 is to wide and too busy for lane discipline.

As for the service station thing, I have no idea. I think that there have been both signs saying "services" and signs with knives and forks etc. for a long time but I may be wrong


----------



## sotonsi

The service area operators all tweaked their names so as to show a brand they have. Other than that, the signs haven't changed.


----------



## GCarty

Ctbarn1 said:


> Electric cars are pointless. I think my opinion on electric cars is heavily influenced by a decade watching TopGear. They are not green because they get power from the grid - in the UK thats dominated by Coal and Gas. The best innovation for fuel technology i think is Honda's Hydrogen powered car. Again i know that uses fuel from the grid to produce Hydrogen, but ive seen a recent article saying they can get Hydrogen from special bacteria. The only barrier of course is world politics and the major oil companies.


Electric cars may not be in themselves a solution to the problem of climate change (although they would, if we replaced our coal- and gas-fired power stations with nuclear ones a la France). They _are_ on the other hand a good response to the Peak Oil threat, as almost none of our electricity is now generated using oil.

As for hydrogen, that's just a con in my view. Most hydrogen is currently produced from gas, and using such hydrogen as a fuel is lunacy as it would be far more efficient to just burn gas directly (and methane also has a higher density, a higher boiling point and less leakage problems than hydrogen).


----------



## Ctbarn1

I think Nuclear Power is probably the one thing more unpopular than Motorways, hence why when the government announced the replacement of the current plants, they were all located (or i think they were all located) close or next present plants.


----------



## GCarty

Ctbarn1 said:


> I think Nuclear Power is probably the one thing more unpopular than Motorways, hence why when the government announced the replacement of the current plants, they were all located (or i think they were all located) close or next present plants.


Not really, we're not Germany you know! It just makes sense to build new power stations (of whatever type) close to existing ones, so that you can re-use the existing transmission lines instead of having to build new ones.


----------



## Penn's Woods

PortoNuts said:


> http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk...16/charging-network-expands-along-m4-and-m42/


"just 20 minutes" to top off! Does that get you any farther than the next top-off point? The Top Gear where Jeremy and James tour, and spend the night in, Lincoln because they were out of juice just aired last night here.

Seriously, electric cars will never make a dent in oil consumption, except for people who only use them to get to work or do local errands, if they can't get past this issue.


----------



## poshbakerloo

sotonsi said:


> In an almost unbelievable event, 2 miles of motorway opened in England yesterday - the A1(M) between Dishforth (49) and Baldersby (50). One expects the opening ceremony to happen when the whole scheme to Leeming is open, though the M80 this summer didn't really have one.


Google maps needs to hurry up and update! M8 in Glasgow still doesn't show up!


----------



## sotonsi

You mean the M74. That's more important than the other motorways open this year, as it provides a route planning alternative.

IIRC, the street view update (and probably a related mapping update) happened the day before they opened the M74 and not long before the Hindhead tunnel opened.


----------



## poshbakerloo

sotonsi said:


> You mean the M74. That's more important than the other motorways open this year, as it provides a route planning alternative.
> 
> IIRC, the street view update (and probably a related mapping update) happened the day before they opened the M74 and not long before the Hindhead tunnel opened.


Yeah M74! And M80 aswell


----------



## PortoNuts

> *Major M62 work begins at Junction 27 *
> 
> *Major construction work on a £150m scheme to increase capacity, reduce congestion and improve safety on the M62 through Morley has officially started.*
> 
> The managed motorway scheme - the first of its kind in the north - covers a 15-and-a-half-mile section of the M62 between Junction 25 at Brighouse and Junction 30 at Rothwell. It is one of 14 schemes due to start before 2015 being delivered as part of a £1.4bn government package of strategic road projects to boost the economy.
> 
> Roads Minister Mike Penning was in Morley this morning to view the start of the work from the vantage point of the M62 road bridge on Howden Clough Road at Bruntcliffe.
> 
> He said: “While this will be Yorkshire’s first managed motorway, experience elsewhere in the country shows that they deliver significant safety and journey time benefits. That’s why I am delighted work is getting underway today to provide much-needed additional capacity for more than 140,000 road users that travel on this key route daily.
> 
> “This start of work shows the Government is delivering on its promise to invest in transport schemes that reduce congestion, improve safety, and support economic growth. It’s also good news for jobs. At the height of construction, around 400 people will be working on this scheme.”
> 
> The first phase of construction will focus on the stretch between Junction 27 at Gildersome and Junction 28 at Tingley, with construction on other sections starting in phases from next month. The scheme will include overhead gantries and the construction of emergency refuge areas alongside the hard shoulder.
> 
> Three lanes will be kept available for traffic in both directions during the works with a 50mph speed limit, enforced with average speed cameras, in place for the safety of road users and the workforce. Some overnight lane closures will be required during the scheme and full motorway closures (normally overnight) will be required from Spring next year for gantry installation. Work on the scheme is expected to be completed in October 2013.
> 
> Highways Agency project manager David Pilsworth said: “In order to minimise delays to road users, we are carrying out this work in phases and keeping three lanes available to traffic in both directions at peak times throughout the construction. We are also working closely with residents in the area to address any questions they may have.”
> 
> Preparatory work - site clearance and the installation of traffic management - started in late September.


http://www.morleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/major_m62_work_begins_at_junction_27_1_3868820


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A "managed motorway scheme" is shoulder running?


----------



## sotonsi

^^ and variable speed limits, yes.


----------



## poshbakerloo

sotonsi said:


> ^^ and variable speed limits, yes.


I hate this managed motorway shit that they keed on using as an excuse for apparent progress!

Hard shoulders are there for a reason! Safety, if you have cars driving on them then you might aswell just make them into a proper lane! And variable speed limits...well they can only make people drive slower which is only what happens anyway when its busy...

...managed motorway = cheap aka URGH!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Well, shoulder running is better than no widening at all (which is the most likely alternative unfortunately).


----------



## Mateusz

ChrisZwolle said:


> A "managed motorway scheme" is shoulder running?


British newspeak, does my head in.


----------



## Road_UK

That stretch of the M62 is congested at peak hours every single day, and long delays are not uncommon. Something had to be done. And it had to be done a long time ago. This goes to show that Britain is lacking well behind on its European partners when it comes to motorway management. Last week they've implemented another trial scheme on the M11 that prohibits lorries from overtaking. It's only a mile long, and they've been doing these for years now all over the UK, without any actual HGV overtaking bans coming into force on major 2x2 motorways and dual carriageways like the M11, M42 and A14.


----------



## PortoNuts

> *What 80mph limit means for you*
> 
> *Increasing motorway speed limits to 80mph may sound like a good idea, but will drivers benefit? Auto Express asked how the industry felt about the key issues.*
> 
> *You won’t be able to drive any faster*
> That's the opinion of Traffic Master, which monitors jams across the UK. It claims congestion and roadworks mean drivers are lucky to do more than 55mph on the motorway. “That’s the average speed on half the network during the day,” its spokesman said. And if the roadworks don’t get you, the fuel prices will, says the AA. “For the vast majority of motorists, it’s their budget and their cars’ fuel consumption that dictates how they drive, not the speed limit,” its spokesman said.
> 
> *Journey times are likely to decrease*
> Transport Secretary Philip Hammond believes this will be the case. He argues the increase “could provide hundreds of millions of pounds of benefits for the economy”, generated by lowering average journey times. However, an AA spokesman said: “It could just speed drivers into a bottleneck quicker.”
> 
> *The roads will be safer *
> There has been a 75 per cent drop in road fatalities since 1965, when the 70mph limit was introduced. And Hammond argued: “Technology advances mean cars are significantly safer than they were.” But not all cars on UK roads are new, or sporting the latest safety technology to cope with the increased stopping distances required at 80mph. It rises to nearly 30 car lengths at that speed.
> 
> *Drivers’ carbon footprints will go up*
> “The environmental impact would be quite modest,” a Department for Transport (DfT) spokeswoman claimed, adding that total vehicle emissions would increase by about one per cent. But what about the impact of cars alone, as HGVs are not included in the proposals? Tests carried out on 2007 models suggest CO2 emissions could increase by as much as 21 per cent in the jump from 70 to 80mph.
> 
> *Reprieve for speeders*
> The plan has been criticised for pandering to motorists already breaking the speed limit. Hammond said: “Raising the limit to 80mph would mean that millions of otherwise law-abiding motorists would be brought back inside the boundary.” That logic doesn’t appear to apply to rule changes proposed to increase the number of 20mph zones, which some motorists also ignore.
> 
> *You’ll use more fuel*
> The faster you drive, the more fuel you use. The AA claims economy could drop by up to 20 per cent if jumping from 70 to 80mph, which supports our figures below. The DfT hasn’t mentioned the impact of its proposed rule changes on motorists’ fuel bills, but a spokesman for charity Campaign for Better Transport claimed: “The Treasury [is] set to gain half a billion pounds in extra fuel duty and VAT payments every year.”
> 
> *No bans for 100mph*
> That's probably true, says the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. The ban normally kicks in if motorists are caught driving at 101mph or more. But a Sentencing Council spokesman said “a proportionate increase is likely”. So a ban wouldn’t be triggered until you hit 111mph.
> 
> ...


http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/273841/what_80mph_limit_means_for_you.html


----------



## ChrisZwolle

What a wonderful list of nonsense, which totally ignores the fact people drive close to 80 already anyway. It's just legalizing an already existing situation.


----------



## Fatfield

Road_UK said:


> That stretch of the M62 is congested at peak hours every single day, and long delays are not uncommon. Something had to be done. And it had to be done a long time ago. This goes to show that Britain is lacking well behind on its European partners when it comes to motorway management. Last week they've implemented another trial scheme on the M11 that prohibits lorries from overtaking. It's only a mile long, and they've been doing these for years now all over the UK, without any actual HGV overtaking bans coming into force on major 2x2 motorways and dual carriageways like the M11, M42 and A14.


There's a section of the A1M on the southbound carriageway between J63 & J62 where any vehicle over 7.5t is banned from overtaking. Strange thing is that European drivers take notice but British & Irish drivers ignore the ban.


----------



## flierfy

ChrisZwolle said:


> What a wonderful list of nonsense, which totally ignores the fact people drive close to 80 already anyway. It's just legalizing an already existing situation.


From my experience there is still a majority of British driver who stick to the 112 km/h. 130 km/h is certainly not the norm.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I have no idea where you had that experience, 130km/h is the norm, and you can easily get overtaken going at 130


----------



## Uppsala

ChrisZwolle said:


> What a wonderful list of nonsense, which totally ignores the fact people drive close to 80 already anyway. It's just legalizing an already existing situation.


I agree with that. And the motorways in the UK are built for at least 130-140 km/h.


----------



## Mackem

Fatfield said:


> There's a section of the A1M on the southbound carriageway between J63 & J62 where any vehicle over 7.5t is banned from overtaking. Strange thing is that European drivers take notice but British & Irish drivers ignore the ban.


These things are usually called "A journeytime trial". Frankly this is rubbish as the journey time of a truck - speed limited and hours limited unlike cars, is of equal importance. The only users with real necessity are the emergency services. Like hard shoulder running or long slip roads as they turn out i.e. the extra lane just runs straight up the next slip road so all you achieve is a lot of lane changing and bunching up at each junction, these are cheap ineffective solutions to congestion. The UK loves roads, I mean where else can you guarantee £36bn every year in tax ? We just don't spent it back on infrastructure.


----------



## flierfy

DanielFigFoz said:


> I have no idea where you had that experience,


On British motorways.



DanielFigFoz said:


> 130km/h is the norm, and you can easily get overtaken going at 130


Certainly. But you overtake much more cars yourself at this speed.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

A few, but not that many, mainly old people


----------



## sotonsi

In yet another unannounced opening (OK, this one is really rather late - the bank collapsed, and maps put the revised date of 'Mid 2011'), the new A16 between Peterborough and Spalding opened today.


----------



## Harry

DanielFigFoz said:


> A few, but not that many, mainly old people


I tend to agree more with flierfy, to tell the truth. I think 130kph/80mph is far from the norm - especially during the last few years where a lot of drivers are watching their fuel economy more than they used to.

Try sitting in the inside lane at 70mph. Not easy. You will need to move in to the middle lane to overtake before long. Yes - some people drive consistently at 80mph or above (when traffic conditions allow, obviously) - but I would say they're in a minority.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Then again, I'm from London, and Londoners are hardly the best of drivers, I've seen it impossible to go at 70 on the M25 sometimes, because the flow is faster


----------



## sotonsi

The M1 through the Watford Gap is another road where traffic is heavy, but very much flowing and you either do 56 behind some lorry, or 85+ with little safe wriggle room in between.


----------



## ed110220

I think a lot of drivers are not that well informed about the extra fuel costs of driving faster, and if they were they might not do it as much. So I think maybe alongside raising the speed limit for those prepared to pay extra for fuel, there should be more information to help people make an informed decision.


----------



## sirfreelancealot

The biggest killer of fuel economy is driving that involves having to slow down and speed up, and worse - stop-start conditions. This can be worse than just cruising at 75-80 mph. Personally, I prefer to cruise along at a steady 65-70 mph which I find to be a good balance between speed and economy using the inside lane when I can. If I anticipate a need to overtake and if there's traffic approaching on the next lane, usually I'll allow the traffic to pass if I know I don't have to slow down too much and I can change lanes after without blocking faster traffic.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Roundabouts in dual carriageways and the lack of motorways in some cities is a much worse problem for fuel economy than driving a few miles faster during free-flow conditions.


----------



## flierfy

ChrisZwolle said:


> Roundabouts in dual carriageways ... is a much worse problem for fuel economy ...


So you'd like to have signal controlled crossroads instead?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

No, you?


----------



## Harry

sirfreelancealot said:


> The biggest killer of fuel economy is driving that involves having to slow down and speed up, and worse - stop-start conditions. This can be worse than just cruising at 75-80 mph. Personally, I prefer to cruise along at a steady 65-70 mph which I find to be a good balance between speed and economy using the inside lane when I can. If I anticipate a need to overtake and if there's traffic approaching on the next lane, usually I'll allow the traffic to pass if I know I don't have to slow down too much and I can change lanes after without blocking faster traffic.


If everyone drove like you, motorways and other major routes would flow so much more freely than they do.



flierfy said:


> So you'd like to have signal controlled crossroads instead?


I think Chris was advocating more grade separation, not more crossroads. :lol:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

ChrisZwolle said:


> Roundabouts in dual carriageways and the lack of motorways in some cities is a much worse problem for fuel economy than driving a few miles faster during free-flow conditions.


Those roundabouts aren't as bad as they look. You have to do a driving tour of the UK one day


----------



## bleetz

DanielFigFoz said:


> Those roundabouts aren't as bad as they look. You have to do a driving tour of the UK one day


Not as bad as they look? Try driving through those many roundabouts on the A27 near Chichester where AADT is 40k+ and then tell me that they aren't as bad as they look.


----------



## Jonesy55

It depends on the road, on reasonably quiet dual carriageways they are fine but on very busy routes they just cause congestion and should be really be replaced with flyovers in time.


----------



## sirfreelancealot

Jonesy55 said:


> It depends on the road, on reasonably quiet dual carriageways they are fine but on very busy routes they just cause congestion and should be really be replaced with flyovers in time.


The A1231 Wessington Way into Sunderland is a dual carriageway with a chain of roundabouts. The dual carriageway has a 70mph speed limit, but since the roundabouts are spaced as close as a quarter of a mile between each other and at best 1 mile the roundabouts cause a lot of accelerating from each roundabout and braking towards the next roundabout. This kills fuel economy, so it's better to accelerate up to a more moderate speed (say 50 mph) and ease off to minimise braking towards the next roundabout. However, at peak times, even reaching 50mph is a wish, as the roundabouts, especially the A19/A1231 causes long queues. 

Unfortunately roundabouts are congestion causers if a) there's simply too much traffic on the same road, or b) if there's a dominant flow at a main roundabout that reduces the opportunity for traffic on other main roads to enter the roundabout. The typical UK solution is to stick a forest of lights up and hope for the best but this tends to be a "designer congestion" measure than anything else. Ideally grade separation is the best solution, but for obvious reasons its difficult to achieve if the road in question is constrained by exisiting development. There's no excuse in more open areas, yet the powers that be seem still like to build new routes with roundabouts and traffic lights when its blatantly obvious that grade separation is the answer. The road gets built, opened, then the new roundabouts/lights become famous on traffic reports for the chaos they cause. 

Roundabouts are the lesser evil compared to traffic lights though. You know when you're approaching a roundabout that you have to slow down and be prepared to give way, but you know that when its quiet you'll have a decent chance of not having to come to a complete stop. With traffic lights, you always have to be prepared to stop if the lights turn red. I don't know if its just me but I always feel that the lights always turn to red as I'm approaching the junction at the point where I have to brake quite firmly, hardly at a time where I'm further back and can afford to ease off the pedal and let the car drift towards the junction and hopefully get a green as I near the stop-line. In the UK we do seem to have pathetically short green phases - frustrating when you're at the back of a long queue and see the lights at the front let out say 2-3 cars only. 


Another good thing about roundabouts takes me back to the A1231. That stretch, when it is quiet, thanks to the 70mph speed limit, allows me to legally perform the occassional "Italian Tune-up" - accelerate hard from one roundabout to the next, through the rev range, up through the gears and brake hard for the next roundabout and repeat....does a good job of clearing any crap from the engine and keeping the brakes clean too! Its always good to do that once in a while if you adopt a smooth driving style for too long or do too much stop-start driving.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Tomorrow (October 29) it's exactly 25 years ago the M25 was finished and opened by Thatcher.


----------



## Uppsala

^^


----------



## Fatfield

Gan on Maggie lass! Best PM we've had since Churchill. Pity she didn't realise how much money the treasury could've made by charging people to park there. :doh:


----------



## devo

Wasn't she (they) talking about a dual six lane M25?


----------



## Republica

Uppsala said:


> ^^


Shame there were no cars going at 80mph in the fast lane in 1986 to mow her down.

Evil bitch.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

I remember the M25 being built very well and even as a kid, I was very excited the first time my parents drove on it, in my dad's Vauxhall Astra on the way to Kent from Luton (at the time, it terminated/began where it meets the A1 at Potters Bar). Although I generally prefer public transport (where applicable), I miss the road building days of the 80's and early 90's, which saw the M25 and M42 motorways get built and the M40 extended from Oxford to the West Midlands. Now new schemes are badly needed (they were a decade ago, when I still lived there). Widening existing motorways often doesn't really help and can make matters worse, by creating bottlenecks and increasing the amount of lane changing, which causes traffic in itself.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I just watched a programme on the BBC about the M25


----------



## Mackem

DanielFigFoz said:


> I just watched a programme on the BBC about the M25


What was it, can I watch on the iplayer ??


----------



## Fargo Wolf

Republica said:


> Shame there were no cars going at 80mph in the fast lane in 1986 to mow her down.
> 
> Evil bitch.


She's better than our current PM here in Canada. Then again, so is Tony Blair for that matter. Send them over here please.


Mackem said:


> What was it, can I watch on the iplayer ??


Same. I'd like to see too.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Republica said:


> Shame there were no cars going at 80mph in the fast lane in 1986 to mow her down.
> 
> Evil bitch.


Haha :cheers::cheers::cheers:


----------



## Mackem

Programme appears to be called "Road to Nowhere". Was shown in southern areas of UK but not for the rest of us, as we apparently don't use the M25. Can't get it on Iplayer either. Hey ho............


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Yes that was it


----------



## devo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15448801

A five-minute teaser about this programme and some promising words that it will be available nationwide on the iPlayer. They also make use of Kraftwerks "Autobahn" as background music in this teaser! :cheers:


----------



## piotr71

*"Several" people were killed and 43 injured in a 27-vehicle crash on the M5 near Taunton, Somerset, police say.*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-15603124


----------



## piotr71

*Irish government pulls £400m A5 upgrade funding*

_The Irish government has withdrawn funding for a major road upgrade in Northern Ireland._

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15658959*


----------



## geogregor

piotr71 said:


> _The Irish government has withdrawn funding for a major road upgrade in Northern Ireland._
> 
> *http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15658959*


In current financial situation it was inevitable.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^How involved is the Republic of Ireland in funding road projects in the North?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Not very apart from that I don't think


----------



## sotonsi

It gave some money to the Newry bypass bypass and promised money for the A5 and A8 projects.

Other than those 3, I imagine it's never been more than border schemes, like the A1/N1 and errr... that's it.

Until not that long ago (15 years or so), the Republic was poorer than the North.


----------



## piotr71

*Exeter-Plymouth-Redruth.*

Report begins on M5 Exeter's by-pass, then continues on so called Devon Expressway (A38) which merges with A30 near Bodmin and ends up near Redruth.










Approaching M5 near Exeter:


----------



## piotr71

The road splits here and goes uphill in both directions.


















It's quite a slope here causing huge effort for laden trucks.



























On the right carriageway we can see British built lorry "Foden" which is acually rebadged DAF. 









_Towing vehicles, reduce speed now!_









Truck's tyres made their job on left lane.









TBC soon...


----------



## Morjo

Mackem said:


> Programme appears to be called "Road to Nowhere". Was shown in southern areas of UK but not for the rest of us, as we apparently don't use the M25. Can't get it on Iplayer either. Hey ho............


Here we go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQAygr4Ghis

I Found it funny how they thought planting trees would reduce traffic noise pollution for residents near by :lol:


----------



## piotr71




----------



## Penn's Woods

Brilliant!

Now, a signage thing: About the next-to-last sign (at Marley Head), I can't find the B3210 on Google Maps, but if it's not a primary route - and I thought B roads were never primaries - I thought the number was supposed to appear on a white-and-black panel.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

That sign ins green because its still on the primary route and not yet at the junction


----------



## piotr71

Let me continue, please 



















Plymouth!



























Parking with WC does not happen to often on British roads.































































Luckily, on contrary to Severn bridges(as far as I remember one would be charged going westbound) this impressive piece of engineering is not toll westbound. 









I think there is no need to explain who Brunel was and what he made.









Welcome to Cornwall!









TBC...


----------



## sotonsi

I'd forgotten the Tamar Bridge was tidal flow. It also has one-lane add-ons either side, westbound side being the bike/footpath and the eastbound side being another lane (so it can be 3+1 into Plymouth, or 2+2).


----------



## ed110220

sotonsi said:


> I'd forgotten the Tamar Bridge was tidal flow. It also has one-lane add-ons either side, westbound side being the bike/footpath and the eastbound side being another lane (so it can be 3+1 into Plymouth, or 2+2).


What was it originally, before the widening? Was the original deck always 2+1 or was it 1+1 with pavement(s) or something like that?


----------



## Botev1912

piotr71 said:


> Let me continue, please


where are the shoulders? How do you stop in case of emergency?


----------



## sotonsi

You pull over to the hard strip, or, if you are luckier, one of the many laybys that IIRC are on the route.

This isn't a motorway (and we seem to be getting a policy of not caring much about shoulders even on motorways, other than as emergency vehicle access to incidents at the front of queues)


----------



## DanielFigFoz

You just park like a normal road, which it is legally, as Sotonsi says, its not a motorway


----------



## Corvinus

Botev1912 said:


> where are the shoulders? How do you stop in case of emergency?


Germany has expressways without speed limit that have no hard shoulders - e.g. the B469 in Northern Bavaria  Might sound weird, but it works if road quality, technical state of vehicle park and driver discipline are all sufficient ...


----------



## poshbakerloo

UK has a lot of these 'almost motorway roads' I think a lot could be upgraded to increase capacity with higher speeds etc


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Corvinus said:


> Germany has expressways without speed limit that have no hard shoulders - e.g. the B469 in Northern Bavaria  Might sound weird, but it works if road quality, technical state of vehicle park and driver discipline are all sufficient ...


The UK has dual carriageways that aren't motorways that also have hard shoulders too, but they all have speed limits :lol:.


----------



## ea1969

DanielFigFoz said:


> That sign ins green because its still on the primary route and not yet at the junction


I think the sign with both B-roads (Ch. Knighton junction) is an old one dated before the Guildford Rules modifications, while the other one on Marley Head junction is fine.

The HMSO "Know your Traffic Signs" book (2007, p. 98) states "where the junction ahead is between two primary routes, any non-primary route at the same junction is not shown on a white panel" and on another occasion "the junction ahead is with a non-primary route only, with the destination shown only in a white panel".


----------



## flierfy

DanielFigFoz said:


> You just park like a normal road, which it is legally, as Sotonsi says, its not a motorway


Parking on this road is not legal. A break-down, however, has nothing to do with parking. So parking legislation doesn't apply.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

flierfy said:


> Parking on this road is not legal. A break-down, however, has nothing to do with parking. So parking legislation doesn't apply.


Not necessarily, generally this is true, local restrictions do generally apply, but its not a separate class of road with non-parking rules from the central government, except for 'special roads' but they are very rare. Also privately owned roads or tunnels and things can have by-laws which prevent parking


----------



## piotr71

After bridge we have tunnel. Unfortunately, I used my old compact camera and the pictures of the tunnel went extremely poorly.













































































































Out of high season traffic volume is rather low here.



























I am wondering what thi overhead thing is.


















No worries, I haven't mistaken images, it's still A38.


















Eventually, we have approached A30.









Next set soon.


----------



## piotr71

A30.











































































































































































This is where I turned back and finished this part of the journey.


----------



## piotr71

*A30 on the way back.*























































That's it. It's time to say good night


----------



## Aphelion

Nice photos, the roads featured seem quite scenic!


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Thank you piotr


----------



## piotr71

You are very welcome Daniel.


----------



## scotdaliney

That overhead span is netting to run new powerlines safely over the road.


----------



## PortoNuts

> *Airport link among approved transport projects*
> 
> *Chancellor George Osborne is expected to announce a £30bn programme of infrastructure investment during his autumn Budget statement on Tuesday.*
> 
> Around £20bn of the National Infrastructure Plan will be paid for from pension funds in the National Association of Pension Funds and the Pension Protection Fund. Up to £5bn will come from public spending cuts. The rest will come from Chinese investment.
> 
> The money will be used to cover the cost of 40 infrastructure projects, including new road programmes and improvements to the rail network.
> 
> *A new dual carriageway is proposed to link M56 at Manchester airport to the A6 south of Stockport.*
> 
> The long-awaited electrification of the Transpennine rail route from Manchester to Leeds is also expected to get the go-ahead.
> 
> Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, told the BBC: "We're putting in place a new arrangement with private pension funds - which is the first time this has been done in this country -to try [to] unlock pension fund money to go into infrastructure."


http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/new...t-link-among-approved-transport-projects.html


----------



## devo

> "unlock pension fund money to go into infrastructure."


Now, where have I heard this idea before... Norway? No, they’d be utterly stupid to waste their ≈ £240 billion pension fund on something as stupid as infrastructurehno:


----------



## Mateusz

Infrastructure is not stupid although touching pension fund sounds... hmm kinda desperate.

Speaking of airport links. I'm wondering when they will start works on linking Doncaster (A1 (M)) with Robin Hood Airport)


----------



## poshbakerloo

Mateusz said:


> I'm wondering when they will start works on linking Doncaster (A1 (M)) with Robin Hood Airport)


Hopefully soon! The airport needs it! But the airport is also struggling with low usage! It may close in a few years 

They need a new big airport nearer to Sheffield!


----------



## PortoNuts

poshbakerloo said:


> Hopefully soon! The airport needs it! But the airport is also struggling with low usage! It may close in a few years
> 
> They need a new big airport nearer to Sheffield!


Competition is fierce from Manchester and Leeds Airport. Sheffield would need more destinations.


----------



## devo

Mateusz said:


> Infrastructure is not stupid although touching pension fund sounds... hmm kinda desperate.


The touch will only reduce the funds with less than it earns from interests in a year, so I’m guessing it will hold on pretty strong. Our biggest problem is that there are very few "let’s just stick the shovel in the ground and get on with it"-projects.

Then again, some process that will reduce the governments yearly administrative costs by NOK 9bn is under development. Those extra money will probably not go to improved infrastructure, but they could build ≈ 90 km motorway every year...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The British motorway turns 53 years today. On December 5th, 1958, the Preston Bypass opened to traffic. It is currently the M6 motorway.


----------



## ed110220

ChrisZwolle said:


> The British motorway turns 53 years today. On December 5th, 1958, the Preston Bypass opened to traffic. It is currently the M6 motorway.


Happy birthday M6! 

It seems that the opening of the Preston Bypass is quite a well marked historical event in Britain, but is the equivalent true of other countries? Are their first motorways opening remembered? Is Britain unique in remembering this milestone?

I have seen absolutely nothing from the time about the opening of the first freeway in South Africa, which one it was, when etc. Ron2K thinks it was what is now the M13 in Kloof, Durban in the mid 1950s and he's probably right, but I've never seen anything published about it.


----------



## sotonsi

They did a plaque and delayed the official opening of the Carlisle-Guards Mill section for the 50th anniversary (so the M6 took exactly 50 years to build), but other than a 25-year ceremony, that's all the official celebrations there's been.

Other than that, it's a few road enthusiasts. I, myself, genuinely forgot today - it's not a big thing at all.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Sometimes it's not clear which was exactly the first motorway. For instance, Italy had many Autostrade built in the 1920's and 1930's, but none of them were really motorway standard until 1958 or something. Same for Germany, where the AVUS is often cited, but it was a racetrack at first. In the United States, numerous roads where firsts, starting with the parkways in the New York area. The Merrit Parkway in Connecticut is often considered the first true freeway-standard road. 

Next year the Dutch motorway turns 75.


----------



## xrtn2

First small yellow sign i saw out of Brazil


----------



## Road_UK

DanielFigFoz said:


> Those roundabouts aren't as bad as they look. You have to do a driving tour of the UK one day


You're right, they're not as bad as they look. They are a lot worse! Try driving from Lowestoft to Yorkshire... 1000+ roundabouts!


----------



## Road_UK

ChrisZwolle said:


> The British motorway turns 53 years today. On December 5th, 1958, the Preston Bypass opened to traffic. It is currently the M6 motorway.


You see what I mean??? You see that dickhead in the overtaking lane??? These are the bastards that makes it impossible to drive properly in the UK today!


----------



## Harry

Hang on a minute...how do you know that the car in the outside lane has not just passed a car in the middle lane that's just out of shot? I'd say it's not only possible, but quite likely. It's equally conceivable that there could be a speed differential between the middle and outside lanes that would result in the car in the outside lane reaching the next car in the middle lane in a matter of seconds. Perhaps he just pulled out in good time to pass this car, having first checked his mirrors to ascertain that he would not be impeding other vehicles coming up behind. Or given that he's just passed the on slip at a junction, maybe a car joining the motorway was about to pull out in to the middle lane...so the chap in the outside lane decided to play safe and move over. The truth is - you just don't know.

I have agreed with your general point on previous occasions that lane discipline on British motorways and dual carriageways is poor. But sometimes folk are too quick to point the finger. That single photo simply does not give you enough info to make a judgement about the actions of the driver in the outside lane, let alone call him a dickhead.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Road_UK said:


> You see what I mean??? You see that dickhead in the overtaking lane??? These are the bastards that makes it impossible to drive properly in the UK today!


Driving standards have certainly slipped in the UK in the last decade. I was quite shocked at how much more aggressive drivers seemed, especially with the tailgating and lane hogging. I guess driving standards have slipped since I passed my driving test back in 1993.


----------



## Harry

Comfortably Numb said:


> Driving standards have certainly slipped in the UK in the last decade. I was quite shocked at how much more aggressive drivers seemed, especially with the tailgating and lane hogging. I guess driving standards have slipped since I passed my driving test back in 1993.


Let me paraphrase.



Comfortably Numb said:


> Driving standards have are certainly slipped more crowded in the UK in the last decade, as they are in many other countries. I was quite shocked at how much more aggressive drivers seemed, especially with the tailgating and lane hogging. I guess driving standards have slipped since I passed my driving test back in 1993.


No one is pretending that the UK is a panacea in terms of driving safety but, equally, to pretend that it's a specially case in terms of dangerous driving or difficult driving conditions is completely false. Mortality statistics remain amongst the most favourable in the developed world.


----------



## CairnsTony

Harry said:


> Let me paraphrase.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is pretending that the UK is a panacea in terms of driving safety but, equally, to pretend that it's a specially case in terms of dangerous driving or difficult driving conditions is completely false. Mortality statistics remain amongst the most favourable in the developed world.


Agreed.

Anybody who thinks British drivers are bad should try commuting in one of Australia's bigger cities. If you haven't got white knuckles first time you try it, then you've probably got your eyes closed.


----------



## GROBIN

Harry said:


> Let me paraphrase.
> 
> (...)
> 
> No one is pretending that the UK is a panacea in terms of driving safety but, equally, to pretend that it's a specially case in terms of dangerous driving or difficult driving conditions is completely false. Mortality statistics remain amongst the most favourable in the developed world.


I found drivers in Britain (I mean: between Dover & Luton :lol: ) far less aggressive than here in the Île-de-France region. Maybe they're not as "cool" as they were the previous times I went to England (in terms of courtesy, for instance), but they seem to be far less frustrated than French drivers. 

That's quite paradoxical as England is twice as much populated than France & parking in the Greater London area is even worse than in the Paris region. But driving is cooler. (Almost) no one horns you with no reason and you don't feel like the police is there only to put speed traps & fines the way you can feel it here.

I mean: British motorways are crowded, but quite wide. You have a 70mph limit, but more tolerance than here. In France, the tolerance is 5% over a 100km/h (so you can drive until 136 for a standard motorway limit), which is VERY frustrating because we pay VERY big money to use these beautiful _autoroutes_ & ADDITIONALLY there are a lot of cops & gendarmes waiting for us behind some woods, bridges to take more money from us ! 

So having such beautiful motorways (the standard of which is close to Germany's _Autobahnen_ & pay for the very hgih toll rates to watch your speedometer nonstop is just horrible ! Not counting people who drive on the left all the time (especially in metropolitan areas) because "[they] abide by it, so everybody must abide by it" forgetting he basic rules (like going back to the slower lanes, using their blinkers & mirrors).

At least - & fortunately for you guys - British roads are hardly tolled... & to me British drivers are much better than the French. What *Road_UK* described up there seems to be much less frequent in the UK than here.


----------



## Jonesy55

The Southeast is usually the worst part of the country I find for driver rudeness, tailgating, not letting people out or waving them past etc.

Drivers are generally quite pleasant and courteous in the less packed parts of the country.


----------



## Road_UK

GROBIN said:


> I found drivers in Britain (I mean: between Dover & Luton :lol: ) far less aggressive than here in the Île-de-France region. Maybe they're not as "cool" as they were the previous times I went to England (in terms of courtesy, for instance), but they seem to be far less frustrated than French drivers.
> 
> That's quite paradoxical as England is twice as much populated than France & parking in the Greater London area is even worse than in the Paris region. But driving is cooler. (Almost) no one horns you with no reason and you don't feel like the police is there only to put speed traps & fines the way you can feel it here.
> 
> I mean: British motorways are crowded, but quite wide. You have a 70mph limit, but more tolerance than here. In France, the tolerance is 5% over a 100km/h (so you can drive until 136 for a standard motorway limit), which is VERY frustrating because we pay VERY big money to use these beautiful _autoroutes_ & ADDITIONALLY there are a lot of cops & gendarmes waiting for us behind some woods, bridges to take more money from us !
> 
> So having such beautiful motorways (the standard of which is close to Germany's _Autobahnen_ & pay for the very hgih toll rates to watch your speedometer nonstop is just horrible ! Not counting people who drive on the left all the time (especially in metropolitan areas) because "[they] abide by it, so everybody must abide by it" forgetting he basic rules (like going back to the slower lanes, using their blinkers & mirrors).
> 
> At least - & fortunately for you guys - British roads are hardly tolled... & to me British drivers are much better than the French. What *Road_UK* described up there seems to be much less frequent in the UK than here.


No, trust me: lane discipline is far worse in the UK then it is in France. With exceptions of the Paris and Lille regions, the French drive rather well, since Chirac opened his war on dangerous driving. I drive in both countries equally as much in a van for my living (as well as Germany and the whole of Europe) - and I find driving in France a pleasure - even in more crowded areas. I hate driving in the UK (so do all of my UK colleagues).


----------



## GROBIN

^^

Personally I hate driving on French _autoroutes_ because of the radars everywhere. The U.K. is much more pleasant for this, but on the other hand it's overcrowded.

But I agree with you in one point: the Île-de-France region & the Lille area are particularly bad in terms of lane discipline.

Btw, *Road_UK*, what kind of areas do you drive in the UK ? (except Greater London & the Southeast ?)


----------



## Stainless

GROBIN said:


> ^^
> 
> Personally I hate driving on French _autoroutes_ because of the radars everywhere.


Cruise control. Makes driving to a strict limit much less stressful. However it can be irritating when everyone else keeps speeding up and slowing down. However in the right conditions this can be quite amusing, you overtake everyone uphill and they pass you going down.


----------



## piotr71

Road_UK said:


> No, trust me: lane discipline is far worse in the UK then it is in France. With exceptions of the Paris and Lille regions, the French drive rather well, since Chirac opened his war on dangerous driving. I drive in both countries equally as much in a van for my living (as well as Germany and the whole of Europe) - and I find driving in France a pleasure - even in more crowded areas. I hate driving in the UK (so do all of my UK colleagues).


My experience is just about the same. I consider British drivers very good and polite but only as long as they drive on single carriageways and within built-up areas. On motorways they are just pain in the ar*se. I just cannot understand what is a reason for driving 60 miles an hour on outside lane on 4 lanes stretches of M25 whilst all other lanes are clear for 1 mile ahead. In my opinion French are much more advanced motorways' drivers.


----------



## poshbakerloo

Driving is UK in general is pretty good. Things only get stressful when the roads get busy. More the most stressful motorway to drive on is the M62 across the hills...


----------



## Jackson1234

As a recently qualified driver, I don't find British motorways particularly stressful to drive on, though I find the M4/M5 around Bristol to be fairly difficult to negotiate... lots of lane-changing and high traffic volumes


----------



## GROBIN

poshbakerloo said:


> Driving is UK in general is pretty good. Things only get stressful when the roads get busy. More the most stressful motorway to drive on is the M62 across the hills...


When they get busy, you've got the feeling there's nowhere to go ! :lol:


----------



## UK86

It depends where you are and what part of the country your driving in. Motorways around the big cities can be stressful and you start to notice the traffic build up on your approach. However some motorways are great like the M6 Toll, its virtually always free of traffic build up and is a great relaxing, smooth drive, aside from the fact its a toll road.


----------



## GROBIN

^^

Haven't tried M6 yet, but I think you understood I had mostly the M25 & the A2 'inside M25' part in mind 

M20 and M1 to Derby are quite relaxing to drive on, as well as A2/M2 Dover/Canterbury to M25.


----------



## Road_UK

GROBIN said:


> ^^
> .
> 
> Btw, *Road_UK*, what kind of areas do you drive in the UK ? (except Greater London & the Southeast ?)


All areas between Dover and Scotland, most frequent: M20, M25, M1, M40, M6, M62 and A1 (M).

In France: All areas. Most frequent: All roads leading to Mont Blanc and Spain, as well as Normandy (from Calais)

Germany: All areas - most frequent: Aachen/Venlo towards Austria, Ruhrgebiet and Hannover. I live in Austria, but also have a place in the UK, and work for a UK company doing express deliveries all over Europe in a van.

Belgium and Holland: All areas. I'm a Dutch citizen. 

And being half English, but with my Europe experience - I still find the UK one of the worst places to drive in.


----------



## Jeroen669

piotr71 said:


> My experience is just about the same. I consider British drivers very good and polite but only as long as they drive on single carriageways and within built-up areas. On motorways they are just pain in the ar*se. I just cannot understand what is a reason for driving 60 miles an hour on outside lane on 4 lanes stretches of M25 whilst all other lanes are clear for 1 mile ahead. In my opinion French are much more advanced motorways' drivers.


I actually wonder that, since the french motorways are just way less crowded than the British ones. In France you also quite often see people driving awfully slow (like 70 - 80 km/h) on 130km/h motorways, but since there's less traffic there's also less annoyment for other traffic. (and thus less aggression)

In terms of equal traffic flows it might be better to compare the UK (or at least England) with countries like Belgium, the Netherlands or maybe even germany. Imo UK drivers are winning in that comparison.


----------



## geogregor

Hey guys, I have question about car insurance. So far I only drove cars rented on my name so I never worried about that.
Can you borrow other people's private vehicle and drive it? Is it car which is insured or owner/driver? My house-mate have a car and I'm not sure if I can legally drive it.


----------



## Road_UK

Yes you can, but your housemate has to phone the insurance company first, and give them your name. If it's only temporary, like a week or so, it shouldn't cost more then 5 pounds. That's all.


----------



## geogregor

Road_UK said:


> Yes you can, but your housemate has to phone the insurance company first, and give them your name. If it's only temporary, like a week or so, it shouldn't cost more then 5 pounds. That's all.


Thanks.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Road_UK said:


> Yes you can, but your housemate has to phone the insurance company first, and give them your name. If it's only temporary, like a week or so, it shouldn't cost more then 5 pounds. That's all.


I've never heard of paying extra to lend a car to someone....


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I think you could not pay any extra, but you'd get only third party cover


----------



## Road_UK

Penn's Woods said:


> I've never heard of paying extra to lend a car to someone....


Insurance wise in the UK: yes. They've got a complicated system. A lot of people have registered keeper insurance only.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^Here, as far as I know (it really hasn't come up for me), you need to report when you get your policy anyone who regularly drives your car. Because they'll want to know that person's driving record. But I've borrowed friends', let alone relatives', cars without it impacting on their rates (as far as I know). Using a housemate's car for a week seems more like that sort of one-off than a regular additional driver.


----------



## piotr71

Jeroen669 said:


> In terms of equal traffic flows it might be better to compare the UK (or at least England) with countries like Belgium, the Netherlands or maybe even germany. Imo UK drivers are winning in that comparison.


I drive in all mentioned countries regularly and still can't change my opinion. Moreover, if it comes to Belgian drivers I consider them as the most disciplined in whole Europe.


----------



## Stainless

Road_UK said:


> Insurance wise in the UK: yes. They've got a complicated system. A lot of people have registered keeper insurance only.


Is this very different in other countries? My cover is only named drivers (there are 3 on the policy) and I am not allowed to drive other cars. I had to pay about £80 to be added to my mothers insurance for 2 weeks when I was 24. Any driver cover is very expensive and can come with age restrictions. It is a pain that I can't just drive anyone's car, even though I am quite an experienced driver.

This is different for company cars. Usually any member of staff and sometimes their family are covered for all cars in the fleet.


----------



## kramer81

In the UK, your own comprehensive insurance policy will normally allow you to drive other peoples cars (but will only provide 3rd party cover). But the friend or relative's insurance policy will only cover the people named on the policy, so if you are coming from abroad you definetly will not be insured to drive it without them informing their insurance cover.


----------



## JeremyCastle

Has anyone notice that Google maps currently shows the A42 dual carriageway as a motorway? I've zoomed in an out, and the road has the blue coloring at all zoom levels. Has Google decided to label it a motorway, since it is a de facto one anyway(even without the hard shoulder) or is this just an error?


----------



## JeremyCastle

The link doesn't seem to be working... here's another try:








[/URL]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]


----------



## poshbakerloo

JeremyCastle said:


> Has anyone notice that Google maps currently shows the A42 dual carriageway as a motorway? I've zoomed in an out, and the road has the blue coloring at all zoom levels. Has Google decided to label it a motorway, since it is a de facto one anyway(even without the hard shoulder) or is this just an error?


Yeah I've noticed that. I would say that its an error however I think that the new system of road colouring is more based on a routes actual importance rather than is real classification. The road I live on is now coloured yellow when its really unclassified but its still an important route from Prestbury - Alderley Edge and gets a lot of traffic etc

The A627(M) is shown as green when it should really be blue aswell...

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=53.571256,-2.146883&spn=0.034964,0.090895&t=m&z=14&vpsrc=6


----------



## CairnsTony

Road_UK said:


> Geogregor and Sotonsi, I will reply more extensively tonight, when I'm on my computer. I'm using my phone right now. I have a lot of positive things to say about Britain, only the other week I mentioned that UK roadworks are the best and clearest in Europe. And there still are plenty of Brits who have never been abroad. A lot of them don't even have passports. Also, I'm a very pleasant guy, but especially the Poles and Belgians are so easy to wind up, when I make a comment. I like a lot of British stuff, I am just saying that the haute cuisine de Grande Bretagne is not a lot to write home about. See you guys tonight....


I'm glad to see you've calmed down and qualified some of the things you said earlier. 

I hope you come to understand that perhaps you need to think about what you post and how you post it then you won't have half a dozen people having a go at you. Peace.


----------



## CairnsTony

geogregor said:


> Statistically Brits are one of the most travelled nation in the world. There are very few of them who never really been abroad.


Indeed. Compared to Aussies and especially Yanks, British people are very well travelled.

I work with people here who've never even been outside this state! 

You will always find a bottom 20% of the human demographic who characterise the more negative stereotypes of any given nation. It is unfair to categorise a whole nation or even the majority of it based on these pond dwellers.


----------



## Road_UK

More of me tonight when I'm on my computer. Too much to reply through a mobile phone. Stay tuned... You will love this...


----------



## poshbakerloo

CairnsTony said:


> Indeed. Compared to Aussies and especially Yanks, British people are very well travelled.
> 
> I work with people here who've never even been outside this state!
> 
> You will always find a bottom 20% of the human demographic who characterise the more negative stereotypes of any given nation. It is unfair to categorise a whole nation or even the majority of it based on these pond dwellers.


Britain is such a small place though, so its pretty easy to go abroad haha
Find someone who has never gone outside Rhode Island or Delaware, there must be someone lol


----------



## Penn's Woods

CairnsTony said:


> Indeed. Compared to Aussies and especially Yanks, British people are very well travelled.
> ....


Feh. How many Brits only have a passport so they can spend August eating fish and chips in Ibiza instead of in the rain? [Still joking!]

Seriously, expecting Yanks or Aussies to be as "well-[internationally]-traveled" as people who live in a country the size of Pennsylvania with lots of really interesting other countries within easy reach is not reasonable. International travel is a hell of a lot easier for Europeans than for, say, me. The fact that I don't do more of it doesn't mean I'm not interested; I'm jealous of Europeans on this point and have a difficult time understanding anyone in Europe not traveling, assuming they don't have financial and other constraints.


----------



## piotr71

geogregor said:


> (..)What else one might need???


Properly made, fresh, hot bakery. I mean bakery, not this fakes sold in Asda, Waitrose or Morrisons. It's going to be a year when I last time experienced English fresh, handmade bread. I have bought one in Isle of Wight and it was delicious, almost as good as this one baked in my home town's bakery. 

Bigger choice in supermarkets would make me happier, especially if it comes to fish. I just can't believe there is so limited choice of sea creatures in such country as Britain. 



Road_UK said:


> (..)mentioned that UK roadworks are the best and clearest in Europe. (..).


I must admit. Roadworks are signed, marked, secured and so on, perfectly here. I'd wish have it in my country.

I even followed a piloting vehicle on a single filed roadworks on the way from Ludlow to Worcester. They were replacing surface with this stony chippings and put 10 miles speed limit on it. To make sure passing vehicles would not exceed the speed limit it was a van in front of the queue and once the green light showed it started moving towards with the legally applied speed and all vehicles followed the van politely.


----------



## Jonesy55

^^ it really depends on the supermarket, some have quite extensive fish sections, others don't. But another point is not to do all your shopping in supermarkets! Try a market or fishmonger or butcher or deli shop or bakery or ethnic food store instead for a change, they have lots of interesting stuff that supermarkets don't sell and often for not much more money and sometimes cheaper...


----------



## piotr71

geogregor said:


> Sorry, I missed that.
> I'm not saying that British roads are without problems. The biggest one of them is that in the last 15 years there is very little capacity added. (..)


Zapomniało mi się 

I think they have done a lot in the las 15 years if it comes to by-passing built up areas. I know several belt roads which seems to be newer than 15 years. Moreover, there is certain amount of being built ones, too. They are just hidden like let's say, Papworth Everard by-pass.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/gridref/TL2861


----------



## piotr71

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ it really depends on the supermarket, some have quite extensive fish sections, others don't. But another point is not to do all your shopping in supermarkets! Try a market or fishmonger or butcher or deli shop or bakery or ethnic food store instead for a change, they have lots of interesting stuff that supermarkets don't sell and often for not much more money and sometimes cheaper...


No worries, I do buy only certain fraction of my food in supermarkets when spending time in the UK.


----------



## geogregor

piotr71 said:


> Zapomniało mi się
> 
> I think they have done a lot in the las 15 years if it comes to by-passing built up areas. I know several belt roads which seems to be newer than 15 years. Moreover, there is certain amount of being built ones, too. They are just hidden like let's say, Papworth Everard by-pass.
> 
> http://www.geograph.org.uk/gridref/TL2861


Wow, I am a geographer but I have never ever heard about this metropolis 
This must be truly huge project :lol:

It's true, some things are being built but very few and far between. In years before the crisis the problem was policy of spending mostly on public transport. Nowadays when even politicians realize that you can't simply stop investing in roads there is problem of money. I think that was the reason for stopping upgrades of A1(M) from Leeming to Scotch Corner.

BTW, does anyone have any updates about Forth Replacement Bridge? Photos would be great. Anyone from Edinburgh here?

Anyway, M4 saga continues hno:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171335/M4-closed-Olympic-route-motorway-Heathrow-London-shuts-days-fix-faults-months-ago.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/11/m4-remains-closed-repair-works?newsfeed=true

It shows what will be happening more often in Britain with no proper spending on road infrastructure. So far there is only patching things here and there or small new project here and there. It will have to change sooner or later.


----------



## poshbakerloo

It wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing and many other similar viaducts like it are life expired. If they do replace it (which I don't think they would ever do) it would be better as dual 3 rather than dual 2!


----------



## piotr71

I drove on A4 and A40 within London today and noticed new, Olympics lanes there. I presume, that they are not restricted to any kind of vehicles now (I saw regular traffic on them) but probably will be soon, when the games start. However, not knowing what's the actual purpose of the lanes, I did not use them.

@ Geogregor - there is a bigger project finished last year. It's A421 connecting Bedford with M1. 

By the way, running shoulders on M1 near Luton are ready to drive on from ysterday.


----------



## sotonsi

piotr71 said:


> However, not knowing what's the actual purpose of the lanes, I did not use them.


They are effectively Zil lanes - special, high importance Θlγmρic* officials only.

In Soviet London, Θlγmρics watch you!

I'd advise strongly against trying to use a Mastercard anywhere near a venue, let alone do something more blatantly upsetting of the sponsers like drink Pepsi. Whatever you do, don't celebrate upcoming sporting events by linking 5 rings of various colours together: the Θlγmρic Gestapo will get you for sure!

*Greek letters ironically used to avoid getting into trouble for using the O-word - hyperbolic paranoia intented. Oh crap, using Greek-based words like 'hyperbolic' and 'paranoia' are probably sailing close to the wind, and using theta, gamma and rho will almost certainly be copyrighted for the duration of the games.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Is it me, or are there more advertising billboards on British motorways these days? There never used to be any as I thought it was illegal. Bear in mind, it's been well over 10 years since I last drove on the section of the M6 shown in the YouTube clip.


----------



## sotonsi

It's illegal on the motorway, but the ones seen from the M5/M6 Midlands Links Viaducts are on private land.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Brilliant!:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/s...run-into-a-dead-end.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Sort of like an episode of TwentyTwelve (running now on BBCAmerica)....


----------



## CairnsTony

Penn's Woods said:


> Brilliant!:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/s...run-into-a-dead-end.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
> 
> Sort of like an episode of TwentyTwelve (running now on BBCAmerica)....


My understanding is that they drafted in lots of drivers from outside London who didn't know the streets and thus were totally dependent on their GPS. If they couldn't work out how to operate that, then they may as well have got out and walked.

Having said that, my understanding is that all the other coach drivers knew the way and had no hitches getting to the site. Things going right isn't news however, hence most people didn't hear about it.


----------



## Harry

Road_UK said:


> More of me tonight when I'm on my computer. Too much to reply through a mobile phone. Stay tuned... You will love this...


You never did! :sad2:

I think a lot of what you post is valid stuff - and you have _a lot_ of driving experience across Europe to draw from. But your negative comments would have more credibility, certainly, if occasionally you balanced them out. As others have said, by focussing solely on the negatives, the impression gained is one of someone who has an axe to grind. Your post half way down this page from the end of last year particularly got up my nose.


----------



## SE9

Penn's Woods said:


> Brilliant!:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/s...run-into-a-dead-end.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
> 
> Sort of like an episode of TwentyTwelve (running now on BBCAmerica)....


Quite simply, if a "driver" cannot drive from Heathrow to East London without getting lost, they are a moron.


----------



## SE9

Campaign group: Newport needs a new motorway
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/ne...City_needs_new_motorway__says_campaign_group/


----------



## SE9

*M25* | London's orbital motorway


Helicopter Flight - M25 / M23 Junction by BillKatyGemma, on Flickr


Crossing the M25 by Don McDougall, on Flickr


Helicopter Flight - M25 / M23 Junction by BillKatyGemma, on Flickr


M25 J14 by diamond geezer, on Flickr










The QE2 bridge and Dartford Tunnel, not officially part of the M25, complete the orbital route:


----------



## sotonsi

The last one isn't the M25 </pedant>


----------



## SE9

^ Clarified.


----------



## SE9

*M2* | Linking the towns in North Kent


M2 motorway by Jon Agar, on Flickr





























M2 Junction 1 by Firegoat22, on Flickr


----------



## sotonsi

Lets see - M25 pictures are:
J7
J14
J7
J14
QE2 bridge

M2 pictures are:

A2 at the junction after the A227*
Medway Viaducts
Medway Viaducts
just south of the Medway Viaducts
J2*

*aren't the people who label their pictures wrong annoying!


----------



## SE9

^ Nice one!

I've added a photo of the M25 between J14 and J15.


----------



## AUchamps

SE9 said:


> Quite simply, if a "driver" cannot drive from Heathrow to East London without getting lost, they are a moron.


When in doubt, don't drive inside M25.


----------



## SE9

Sound advice.

Just park your car at the outermost London train station and use the trains. Can't go wrong :shifty:


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Amazing shot - road vs. rail.


----------



## Road_UK

AUchamps said:


> When in doubt, don't drive inside M25.


Depends where you are in east London. M11 and M25 is possible, through the City is possible, or use the North Circular. A decent satnav is the best option if you don't know your way around...


----------



## SE9

*M4* | Links London, the West Country and Wales


Junction 32 by Stuart Herbert, on Flickr


S e v e r n D a w n (Cropped) by ©ĦŘĺς ΛΨŁЩΛŘĐ - www.hdcymru.com, on Flickr


Approaching England! by stavioni, on Flickr


Motorway by logically_adam, on Flickr


----------



## sotonsi

Most of these are obvious - the bottom picture is the M4 looking away from London towards junction 2 (not on picture) if you didn't know (it took me some looking at small signs to get where on the elevated section it is).


----------



## flierfy

SE9 said:


> *M2* | Linking the towns in North Kent


The A2/M2 by-passes theses towns rather than linking them.


----------



## Nigel20

Great thread!:cheers:


----------



## devo

Wonder when they'll tear down the Chiswick flyover (last pic)... Or when it tears itself down.


----------



## IndigoJo

*A2/A227 junction*

This is a screenshot from Google Earth today, showing the A2/A227 junction in north Kent. This bit of the A2 was realigned, with a wider A2 being built a couple of hundred yards south of the old one, and the old one removed (although a service station to the north of the old road remains, accessible off the old eastbound slip road). This one shows a combination of two satellite images, the western part from when the new road was in very early construction and the old one is still in use, and the eastern half being more recently with the new road in use and the old one removed.


Google Earth screenshot by Indigo Jo, on Flickr


----------



## CairnsTony

IndigoJo said:


> This is a screenshot from Google Earth today, showing the A2/A227 junction in north Kent. This bit of the A2 was realigned, with a wider A2 being built a couple of hundred yards south of the old one, and the old one removed (although a service station to the north of the old road remains, accessible off the old eastbound slip road). This one shows a combination of two satellite images, the western part from when the new road was in very early construction and the old one is still in use, and the eastern half being more recently with the new road in use and the old one removed.
> 
> 
> Google Earth screenshot by Indigo Jo, on Flickr


Interesting picture. If you hadn't described what was going on here, I would've probably thought, "What the hell is going on here?"


----------



## Road_UK

I remember when they opened the New parallel bit of the old A2, on my satnav it showed that I was driving in a field for miles...


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Some monolingual Scottish Gaelic signs in the far north of the Western Isles. (English for Port Nis is Port of Ness and Steornabhagh is Stornoway)


----------



## piotr71

Yesterday, several matrices on M5 displayed interesting communicate:
"Salt spreading". So, Christmas is coming even early than the last year, isn't it?


----------



## piotr71

As we all know there is plenty of auxiliary text signs in the UK. In my opinion they work rather well. They are usually clear and not overloaded with information. Among all different sorts of text signs there are two which put smile on my face. It is: *Please drive carefully through our village.* on the village's entrance and *Thanks for careful driving in our village* on the exit, off course. If the massage of the first one is perfectly clear, the second one seems to be kind of unfinished and slightly ambiguous. It always makes me feel free not obey the rules and become careless  (I do not do that, though )
And then, I noticed something ingenious in a village I passed some time ago. They added something like this:
*Please still drive carefully*.


Today I drove on A34. There is an old trailer there, parked in a lay-by, covered with plenty of text in several languages. The main, typed in English in bold inscription says: 
*Beware, lorry thieves work in this area.* When I saw it, I thought to myself: _well, if they work do they pay income tax?_


----------



## piotr71

*Cobham services.*

*http://motorwayservicesonline.co.uk/Cobham*


----------



## Lijman

..


----------



## Road_UK

Probably too many junctions. It goes through the Medway urban area, and therefore functions as a expressway.


----------



## sotonsi

It avoids the Medway urban area - the M2 bypasses that. While it does have a few too many junctions, that is not a barrier to motorway status - there's no minimum standard for a motorway in the UK (though there are descriptive standards).

It's not a motorway due to not having a special roads order - simple as that. It doesn't have one of them for a few reasons - it's a online upgrade of an existing right-of-way, making it a special road would remove the right of way so a parallel road providing those accesses (and perhaps closing a couple of those junctions on the mainline while you are doing it). Far easier to work the other way, and ban unwanted traffic like pedestrians, cyclists and farm traffic.

Of course, they could have done all the expensive legal stuff and parallel road when widening to D4, but they didn't.


----------



## piotr71

A12 Chelmsford by-pass, road which would benefit with new surface.


----------



## Road_UK

I know, but they will soon. They haven't finished between Colchester and Ipswich yet, which used to be really bad as well.


----------



## IndigoJo

*Funny sign on the old A30*

I was coming back from Salisbury on the old A30 the other day, and I saw this sign facing drivers going the other way just west of the Micheldever Station junction:


Sign on the old A30, Hampshire by Indigo Jo, on Flickr

This is now an unclassified road (or at least a C-road), the A30 having been re-routed up from Sutton Scotney (about 4 miles west) along the old A34 up to the A34/A303 junction, yet it has distances to primary route destinations nearly 70 miles away. They clearly put this up some time after this ceased being the A30 as there is no route number showing - perhaps someone decided to replace the old primary route sign with an equivalent, numberless sign. When you get onto the A30 at Sutton Scotney, the only towns you'll see signposted are Stockbridge and Salisbury.

Also, if you're really going to Dorchester, this is the last sign for it you'll see until you get to Blandford. For some bizarre reason, the major towns at each end of the Salisbury-Dorchester bit of the A354 aren't signposted (even on distance signs), only Blandford is, and Blandford is tiny.


----------



## Road_UK

That brings back memories. My granddad, who died 5 years ago lived in Weymouth, and I went to visit him a lot. Love it down there...


----------



## Road_UK

From the historical photo thread:
(I can sort of see where this is going)



sotonsteve said:


> Lots of reasons, but basically all boils down to us being a retarded nation that somehow thinks a country can remain highly developed without continued investment in infrastructure.
> 
> The motorway near me was first planned in the 1930s, but not as a motorway, just as a high standard divided highway with at-grade junctions. Unfortunately, the eastern section of the road was open or under construction at the time they decided the new road should be a motorway as late as 1968. The sections that were planned, built and opened as motorway have required little improvement over the years, as they were built properly in the first place. However, the sections that were built before this decision was made, and at a time when the planners did not seem to know what they wanted, required upgrading shortly after opening, and after all that extra investment remain the worst parts of the road and still non-motorway. The non-motorway part of the road is probably about 8km in length. One section opened in 1965, then another bit opened in 1968, and another bit opened in 1970. Then in 1973 they grade separated a junction linking the 1968 and 1970 built sections, in 1979 the junction linking the 1965 and 1968 built sections got grade separated, and in 1980 the 1968 and 1970 built sections were widened by 50-100%. Then in 1985 a junction on the 1965 built section was grade separated. The end result was around 17 years of almost continuous roadworks on a brand new road so that improvements could take place. Meanwhile, the bits that opened as motorway as early as 1975 are perfectly fine to this day.
> 
> The moral of the story is to design and build the road properly in the first place, to build the road to a high enough standard at the start rather than building a road that, as a result of cheap, low standard design, will become congested straight after opening.


Even today, the infrastructure in the UK is a lot to be desired for, even though widening takes place in the worst areas. But the M1 from London to Leeds passes through some of the major city's in the UK, making it a very busy motorway, with little alternatives. Also, the UK could be doing with more east-west links. North of London, there is not much choice, apart from a very busy dual carriageway called the A14, which functions as a trunk road for freight between the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe, and a even more busy M62, which almost guarantees congestion in the Leeds area. Traveling from Norfolk and Suffolk to Derbyshire is a major nightmare. You either have to drop down to the A14, which is a long way round, or use the same amount of time to put up with single carriageways and roundabouts.


----------



## piotr71

*Top bosses back private toll roads: Pay-as-you-drive can cut congestion says CBI*

*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214375/Top-bosses-private-toll-roads-Pay-drive-cut-congestion-says-CBI.html?ito=feeds-newsxml*


----------



## Road_UK

The public won't buy it. Remember the fuel blockades back in 2000?


----------



## piotr71

I am just wondering how they are going to cut the congestion. I do not believe people will leave they cars home and start using another means of transport only because of implemented roads' charge. Some of them will use unpaid roads and some will not care about tolls. The amount of cars will not decrease, anyway.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Claiming that paying for a road means less congestion is fancy for "pricing the poor off the road". 

It's not rocket science. If traffic congestion decreases due to tolls or charges, it means people who wanted to make that trip did not make the trip because they can't afford it.


----------



## Road_UK

Well, that's the ultimate goal in the UK and Netherlands anyway, isn't?


----------



## Harry

There certainly does seem to be a consensus against large new roadbuilding schemes in the UK. There is not one single mainstream political party in favour of building new strategic routes to alleviate congestion (even during a time when the population is increasing at an unprecedented rate). Even now, with congestion on some routes starting to become the norm, a politician that put forward a material expansion of the existing network would be committing electoral suicide. So we're stuck with the stalemate.

How will this play out? In decades from now, you may well find that people organise their lives along lines that minimises the need to travel. As suggested above, it will almost certainly be the poor who start doing this first. It's going to get ugly, that's for sure.


----------



## UK86

Road improvements are being made in certain areas, but not enough is being done. At some point the government will have to bite the bullet and do something about it, people are not going to stop using their cars. They are dreaming if they think that's going to happen.


----------



## Mateusz

Speaking of building new roads... How far are from constructing missing parts of SEMMS ?

I found an interesting document from 25.07.2012. Here is a summary


> This report provides an update on the progress of the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief
> Road (the Scheme). The scheme is being funded by the Combined Authority from the
> Greater Manchester Transport Fund (GMTF) with some additional third party
> contributions. While the majority of the Scheme lies outside the City and there is no
> direct City Council financial exposure to the scheme, the Department for Transport
> requires formal confirmation from all three affected local highway authorities
> (Manchester, Cheshire East and Stockport) that they support the proposals.
> Executive approval is therefore sought to submit the business case to the Department
> for Transport (DfT) in order that the Scheme can be granted programme entry status.
> The report also updates members on proposals for consulting on the scheme. A
> similar report has been presented to Stockport Council which has agreed to adopt
> similar resolutions. Cheshire East Council is also expected to receive a similar report
> shortly.



http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/8__SEMMS_report.pdf

So as far as I understand it, an extension from Hazel Grove to Bredbury(M60) isn't a part of this particular scheme ?


----------



## PeakDistrictMotorway

The excuse given not to build more motorways is that they would be packed with cars straight away. hno:

No s**t Sherlock. That is because these motorways should have been built donkeys years ago. :bash:

If High speed 2 has great patronage from the start it will no doubt be hailed as a success, and a reasoning to build more high speed lines, and rightly so. 

Why is this logic not applied to motorways? hno: :lol:

We NEED more motorways.

I NEED answers. :cheers:


----------



## PeakDistrictMotorway

Can someone tell me why the German Autobahns are not accessible on google map?

I feel like I'm missing out. :lol:


----------



## essendon bombers

Road_UK said:


> Because when it turns A45 it goes right through the city and residential area's.


That should be no barrier to upgrade to M45. What about better/higher sound barriers?

With that type of logic why not downgrade M1, M40, M4, M11, M3, M23 inside of the M25 becuase it is in the built up area of London?


----------



## sotonsi

essendon bombers said:


> That should be no barrier to upgrade to M45. What about better/higher sound barriers?


Where would you fit the barriers here?

And what purpose would such an M45 extension serve?


----------



## Road_UK

sotonsi said:


> Where would you fit the barriers here?
> 
> And what purpose would such an M45 extension serve?


Very simple. Right alongside these houses. And it would give the phrase blocking somebody's driveway an entire new meaning!


----------



## essendon bombers

If I was upgrading the A45 to M45 I would be doing a good quality upgrade including widening, grade seperation. I would want to provide more capacity on the road network for a densely populated, industrious and highly trafficked part of Britain. I would be taking out the row of houses anyway...

Yeah I know....more expensive, more controversial, brings out the local nimbys etc.

I would also include high standard connection with Birmingham Airport, M6T North Birmingham and incorporate upgrade of A46 East Coventry Bypass to M69.


----------



## Road_UK

There is no need for a M45 extension. M6 is sufficient enough, bypassing Coventry for long distance traffic. A45 is good enough for locals wanting to get to Birmingham or surrounding motorways fast.


----------



## Penn's Woods

If someone who likes to play with mapping programs has nothing better to do, perhaps we could get some sort of map-based explanation of what this M45/A14/whatever debate is about?


----------



## IndigoJo

sotonsi said:


> Birmingham - Harwich is 185 miles vs 173 via Cambridge and Stansted and 179 for via Cambridge and IpswichGet a better sat nav?It is about 5 miles. However via Ipswich is all decent roads to Colchester, rather than the S2 bit of the A120. Google is suggesting no time difference. Certainly both routes are viable options, but obviously they would want you to take the higher capacity route via Ipswich at the moment - when they finish the A120, then we shall see about the via Stansted route being signed for Harwich.
> 
> The EU, with their Trans-European Network - Transport (TEN-T) system have the Harwich - Midlands traffic using either/both the A120 and the A14 to get between the port and Cambridge.


I'm guessing the sat-navs and online map apps (like AA Route Planner) take into account road quality and speed limit and offset these against distance. The shortest route is via Huntingdon and Stansted, but this includes the lowest quality roads (mostly dual carriageway with a bit of single carriageway); the recommended route is the longest but includes the most motorway and only one stopping point (M25 junction 28). The "official" route is slightly shorter, but includes (apart from the M6 to Catthorpe) no motorway at all and two stopping points.

Which type of vehicle you're driving will impact on which choice you make: a car can do 70mph on any dual carriageway (unless otherwise stated) or motorway, while van speed limits are reduced by 10mph (except on motorways) and trucks by 20mph and they can do 56mph max. So, the optimum route for the car may well be via Ipswich; for a van or truck, being able to drive faster on a motorway may make up for the slightly longer distance via the M25.


----------



## IndigoJo

Road_UK said:


> There is no need for a M45 extension. M6 is sufficient enough, bypassing Coventry for long distance traffic. A45 is good enough for locals wanting to get to Birmingham or surrounding motorways fast.


Not only that, the M45 has not been part of the main route from London to Birmingham any time since the M6 was built. It is for Coventry only. It was never going to be more than a spur road from the M1. And just because the A45 goes east of Northampton does not mean that the M45 was ever going to go there; the A45 was a minor road from Northampton to St Neots and now it's a B-road anyway (coast-bound traffic used the A428 via Bedford until the A14 was opened).


----------



## piotr71

What 10 cm of snow can do:



> Hundreds of drivers were stranded in their vehicles overnight as snow and sub-zero temperatures made many roads impassable. Motorists were stuck for hours in long holdups on the A23 in Kent and on the M23 in Sussex, as temperatures plummeted to -3C.





> The A23 between Crawley and Kent was at a standstill, along with the M23, A26, A27 and A29, after 10cm of snow fell. Areas around Dover and Folkestone were also badly hit, with delays on the M20 as lorries queued trying to get into the Channel Tunnel.








Read more here.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

10 cm of snow wasn't the problem, the high winds were a much larger problem. Northern France also dealt with this blizzard and had motorists stranded for hours on A1 Paris - Lille. There were very deep snow drifts.


----------



## mappero

^^ This is what I've seen from Eurostar yesterday morning  It was brilliant idea to travel from London to Belgium by train instead of car.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Indeed, it has been very very windy


----------



## Langeveldt

I had to travel from Switzerland to the UK through the worst of that storm in Northern Europe last night.. I have never seen conditions anywhere in the world like it..

After crawling through most of Belgium and northern France and witnessing a horrific accident on the A27 near Lille, we finally came to a halt and spent the night in the car on the A2 near Canterbury. We didn't move until 8.30 this morning..

The A2 was still covered in abandoned vehicles from Dover to beyond Canterbury by the time we got moving again..

The whole journey took me 26 hours.. It took me 19 hours to get from Lille to Bath


----------



## geogregor

mappero said:


> ^^ This is what I've seen from Eurostar yesterday morning  It was brilliant idea to travel from London to Belgium by train instead of car.


On Tuesday even Eurostar was suspended


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Is it me or are these signs in Snowdonia blue? There are some other ones in the junctions nearby too.










They are on this stretch of road:

https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.745411,-3.876114&spn=0.013639,0.042272&t=m&z=15


----------



## sotonsi

just faded old green


----------



## piotr71

Have you ever driven from Monmouth to Newport? I have and must say that this road is just incredible. It goes all the way uphill for about 20 miles. I do not know how high it is ranked in a longest dual carriageway's slopes rating, but I presume it would deserve good place in top ten if anything of this kind existed.


----------



## IndigoJo

DanielFigFoz said:


> Is it me or are these signs in Snowdonia blue? There are some other ones in the junctions nearby too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are on this stretch of road:
> 
> https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.745411,-3.876114&spn=0.013639,0.042272&t=m&z=15


Those are old painted dark green signs, probably from the 1960s or 70s (the A470 has only been called that since about that time; although the road has always been a trunk road, it had different numbers north of Brecon). The luminous green signs below that started appearing from the 80s onwards. Some of the old green signs are almost black now, and there are quite a few around England and Wales, although they have been replaced over the years. That one hasn't, because it's legible and everything on it is still true (none of the roads have been diverted or renumbered since it was put up, for example).


----------



## piotr71

> (..)We are building a new junction on the M275 and a 663-space park and ride facility. The Department for Transport has confirmed £19.5m funding for the project to go along with more than £8.5m of council money. Work began in January 2013.
> 
> The Portsmouth park-and-ride is vital to the city's ongoing regeneration, as it will provide sustainable transport, catering for increasing numbers of visitors generated by a redeveloped city centre and seafront, as well as for commuters and major events in the city. The motorway junction will provide access to the park-and-ride and also opens up the possibility of developing land on the western side of the motorway referred to as west Tipner. The new junction will not allow access to the existing homes in Tipner and Stamshaw as that would create a rat run for traffic accessing the motorway through the residential area...












*http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/8781.html*


----------



## Comfortably Numb

http://goo.gl/maps/Ln4KS


----------



## da_scotty

On a side note... Those Gantry Signs are pure horror, unclear, messy and way to chunky!

The regular signs on the side of the road are just fine, clear and simple!


----------



## sotonsi

ChrisZwolle said:


> The amount of grade-separated dual carriageways is circa 2700 - 2800 kilometers, or circa 1,700 miles. Not all of these will comply to rigid motorway standards though, but it gives an idea.


A great deal of them have right turns with minor roads using central reservation gaps, though, so aren't really 'fully grade-separated', just 'grade-separated much of the time'. Driveways are a less bothersome problem in rural areas, and I was excluding them (like Michelin does) to get my low figure.


Stahlsturm said:


> I'm looking for a paper map (or rather, a series of those) that'll show me those somewhat reliably.


Ordnance Survey Landrangers (see http://www.maptasm.com/ online for what it looks like)? Your best bet for a cheap hit is an Atlas that shows junction details - A Navigator, or an AZ atlas.

Though Michelin atlases do standard of the road better than anyone else (and mark GSJs like the AA, etc), no one really likes their UK mapping - the colour scheme is all wrong for the road network and the standard of road stuff isn't seen as that useful.

Even a bargain bin GB Road Atlas from Collins/AA is fairly reliable at showing where there is grade-separation (even if they don't tell you what direction it is in - only a few junctions where the priority isn't what you would have guessed).

----

Today, the Government have launched a consultation for a Lower Thames Crossing.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/series/lower-thames-crossing

The 3 options:

Another crossing at Dartford, with the tunnels being used for local traffic
A crossing between the A1089 at Tilbury and Swanscombe, with a link road passing through Ebbsfleet to the A2
A crossing between Tilbury Marshes and Chalk (so east of Tilbury and Gravesend), with access roads linking to the M2/A2/A289 at Park Pale and the M25 at North Ockendon (and I imagine a couple of intermediate junctions). This has a variant which widens the A229 between the M2 and M20.


----------



## piotr71

Stahlsturm said:


> I'm looking for a paper map (or rather, a series of those) that'll show me those somewhat reliably.


Michelin atlas shows everything precisely. Every roundabouts, junctions and their shapes and even farm entrances on single and dual carriageways. I will post some examples soon.


----------



## Road_UK

My favourite atlases (Britain, France and Europe) has always been from Phillips, not to be confused with the electronic manufacturers.


----------



## Moravian

The highway A23 Central London - Brighton (at the start and finish of the important road):


----------



## piotr71

A propos A23:



> Current Progress: April 2013
> 
> The first phase of the works is close to completion and despite some very poor weather during the later half of 2012, we have:
> 
> Completed the first phase of southbound carriageway temporary widening including rebuilding the eastern and central sections of the southbound Slaugham Bridge.
> Completed new accesses to the East Park and Stanbridge properties.
> Completed earthworks shaping, drainage and most of the surfacing to the new Warninglid northbound junction.
> Constructed two balancing ponds near the closed Slaugham junction.
> Diverted 1500 metres of water mains pipes and 900 metres of electricity cables.
> Closed Slaugham junction.


http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a23-handcross-to-warninglid/


----------



## geogregor

I had a day off today so decided to have some geeky walk around the M25/M23 junction. Here are the shots:
M25 from A23 at Merstham













































And from the pedestrian bridge













































Two shots on the London-Brighton railway line
Looking north:









Looking south:
M25 goes under the railway bridge


----------



## geogregor

Looking from Rockshaw Rd over the M23 south to M25/M23 junction









M23 north









Slip roads from M23 to M25


















Now views from the Warwick Wold Rd west at the junction



























Looking east:









Slip roads from the M25 to M23


----------



## geogregor

Walking along the south side of the M25 back towards Merstham. It looks quite rural just off such a major road.









Now views from another pedestrian bridge in Merstham.









No need of explaining where are we looking 


















Southern train


















Thameslink train









Last shot at the pedestrian bridge.


----------



## ChrisZwolle




----------



## Mackem

Most of these "announcements" are going over what has gone before. The A14 toll idea has been announced probably more times than I've driven on it (generally 4-6 times a week), in the hope that it will eventually get some support. 

So far we've built a guided busway, but how that was supposed to cure a problem for a road where much of the traffic is from the north of England trying to get to the south east is beyond me.

Problem is we have no money but we're trying to pretend we have by talking about schemes up to 30 years ahead.............


----------



## geogregor

What are all those "managed motorway" schemes? Just a hard shoulder running? I think it is trying to solve problem on the cheap, without realizing potential problems in the future. First with the capacity but also with the safety. 
So far the managed motorways were rather short stretches far between and loaded with cameras and variable signs. I read on some forum that those new schemes will have less monitoring and control. Even some police forces are concern about their proliferation. Hard shoulders exist for a good reason, so the emergency services have easy and uninterrupted access to the accident sites.

Surely all these cheap solutions might have impact on safety.


----------



## sotonsi

geogregor said:


> What are all those "managed motorway" schemes? Just a hard shoulder running? I think it is trying to solve problem on the cheap, without realizing potential problems in the future. First with the capacity but also with the safety.


Also variable speed limits.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Managed motorways are not as cost-effective as it appears. Of course the initial investment is lower because it can utilize existing pavement, but they have higher operational costs. CCTV, detection and electronic signs don't live to 30 years. 

It's quite notable that the current budget for Britains motorways and trunk road network is lower than the budget for motorways and trunk roads in the Netherlands, while Britain has 4 times more population (and tax base).


----------



## Mackem

geogregor said:


> What are all those "managed motorway" schemes? Just a hard shoulder running? I think it is trying to solve problem on the cheap, without realizing potential problems in the future. First with the capacity but also with the safety.
> So far the managed motorways were rather short stretches far between and loaded with cameras and variable signs. I read on some forum that those new schemes will have less monitoring and control. Even some police forces are concern about their proliferation. Hard shoulders exist for a good reason, so the emergency services have easy and uninterrupted access to the accident sites.
> 
> Surely all these cheap solutions might have impact on safety.


We try to pretend that they are cheap road widening, but they end up as long slip roads to junctions. They also have over enthusiastic operators on the message boards - 20mph being a regular limit at night time works. Plenty of speed cameras on the back of the overhead gantries though.


----------



## flierfy

geogregor said:


> Hard shoulders exist for a good reason, so the emergency services have easy and uninterrupted access to the accident sites.


Hard shoulders do exist for several reasons. Yet, providing space for emergency vehicles is not among them.


----------



## Tom 958

What are "super-connected cities"?


----------



## sotonsi

flierfy said:


> Hard shoulders do exist for several reasons. Yet, providing space for emergency vehicles is not among them.


Maybe not in Germany, where they do that good make-path-in-middle thing, but in the UK its a different story...


----------



## flierfy

sotonsi said:


> Maybe not in Germany, where they do that good make-path-in-middle thing, but in the UK its a different story...


It is the same story in the UK. Emergency vehicles need to be quick. Hence they use the carriageway as any other vehicle.
Just a tiny fraction of all roads is equipped with hard shoulders. And even there where one is in place they are discontinuous at several places. If emergency crews would rely on hard shoulders they wouldn't reach their operating site very often.


----------



## geogregor

flierfy said:


> It is the same story in the UK. Emergency vehicles need to be quick. Hence they use the carriageway as any other vehicle.
> Just a tiny fraction of all roads is equipped with hard shoulders. And even there where one is in place they are discontinuous at several places. If emergency crews would rely on hard shoulders they wouldn't reach their operating site very often.


Crew of the emergency vehicles might not be using the hard shoulders but other drivers can easily move onto them thus creating wider path for the emergency vehicle.


----------



## sotonsi

Comfortably Numb said:


> Hopefully they will widen the section between where the M4 splits and where the 2 Severn Crossings split to 5-6 lanes either side to cope with merging traffic.


Earlier plans had segregated carriageways and braided junctions between both M4 and M48 (assuming old M4 around Newport will become M48) junctions at Magor.

The same will happen at the west end (more clear from the map).

You are looking at something like https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=z5oS94aIHog8.kifrJTcV6vKg - light grey 1 lane, dark grey 2 lanes, black 3 lanes. Lots of tiger tails and stuff.


----------



## piotr71

*A49, Leominster-Ludlow.*






I am just beginning with youtube, so please, forgive me all imperfections.


----------



## strandeed

Mateusz said:


> A1(M) from Leeming to Barton and M8 from Bailleston to Newhouse. These will come to fruition relatively quick. Any idea where another upgrades to a full motorway standard might or might not take place?


A1 North of Newcastle is looking increasingly likely to be upgraded to take some of the strain from the M6 and boost the local economy.


----------



## IndigoJo

piotr71 said:


> I am just beginning with youtube, so please, forgive me all imperfections.


Love the clip - I do a lot of driving along rural roads a lot like that. Lovely scenery. Haven't been out that way since the 90s (and never along that road). Backing track is hardly appropriate for that part of the country though - Shropshire is definitely not a "reggae nation".


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Safer and more reliable journeys as M62 upgrade is completed*

Road users in West Yorkshire are now benefiting from safer, more reliable and less congested journeys after work to upgrade the M62 to a managed motorway was completed in full – ahead of schedule and under budget.

The Highways Agency last week lifted the temporary 50mph speed restrictions on the remaining two sections between junctions 28 and 30, marking an end to the work which started in October 2011.

Work to upgrade 15.5 miles of the M62 between junctions 25 at Brighouse and junction 30 at Rothwell, was due to be completed by the end of October 2013. However the Highways Agency, working closely with its contractor bmJV, has been able to complete the work more than a month early.

Since work started, the Agency has been able to secure further cost savings of approximately £17m. Therefore, the final cost of the scheme is expected to be £133m, compared to the £150m target cost, which already included £48m of savings.​
entire press release: http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pre...eliable-journeys-as-m62-upgrade-is-completed/


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Question:

I was exploring East London on Google Street View and noticed that the A406 N Circular Road is basically almost motorway standard all the way from the A13 to where it links with the M11. When was this completed? I don't remember the road being of that standard, but we're talking maybe 15 years since I was last anywhere near that area for a Wolves vs Charlton FA Cup match.


----------



## IndigoJo

Comfortably Numb said:


> Question:
> 
> I was exploring East London on Google Street View and noticed that the A406 N Circular Road is basically almost motorway standard all the way from the A13 to where it links with the M11. When was this completed? I don't remember the road being of that standard, but we're talking maybe 15 years since I was last anywhere near that area for a Wolves vs Charlton FA Cup match.


That is the South Woodford to Barking Relief Road. It was completed in the mid-1980s; before that the A406 finished at Gants Hill (where the A1400 meets the A12 now) and the North Circular went south along the A104, A114 and A117 through East Ham to the Woolwich Ferry. It's not quite motorway standard as the lanes are narrower than a motorway's and there is no hard shoulder. It was intended to link with a proposed East London River Crossing, but that was abandoned in the 1980s.


----------



## piotr71

*M1, J13 to J6A (part one)*


----------



## piotr71

*M1, J13 to J6A (part two)*


----------



## piotr71

*M50*

Here is a collection of pictures covering M50 motorway from East to West. 


DSC00185 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00186 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00189 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00190 by 71piotr, on Flickr

The report starts on M5 just before junction with M50. M50 has recently undergone quite a number of improvements and refurbishments, such as erecting new bridges in place of older ones and some resurfacing works. There are also undergoing drainage replacing works here.


DSC00192 by 71piotr, on Flickr

Only way to enter the motorway can be carried on through a roundabout. As far as I remember this junction had a different shape in the past and there are still some remainings of the former one, which are to use by abnormal sized vehicles.


DSC00193 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00196 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00198 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00201 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00203 by 71piotr, on Flickr

Recently rebuilt bridge.

DSC00205 by 71piotr, on Flickr

Another one.

DSC00207 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00208 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00210 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00211 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00214 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00217 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00219 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00221 by 71piotr, on Flickr

TBC


----------



## Vignole

Same place?


----------



## piotr71

That's the same place indeed!


----------



## Comfortably Numb

I would take this route to Cardiff when I delivered or collected vans from our depot there. It was actually more direct and more scenic to get off the M5 and take the M50 to Ross On Wye, then the A449 down to Cardiff, plus you don't have to pay the Severn Crossing toll. Gorgeous scenery in that part of England and Wales. Very reminiscent of parts of Virginia here in the US.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Oh I actually have pics from one of those trips. These were taken over 10 years ago so excuse the prehistoric quality:

*A449 South Wales, May 2003:*

































*A449 (England / back in civilization):*









*M50 heading east*









*Rejoining the M5 northbound*

















Time flies!


----------



## piotr71

*M50*


DSC00222 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00223 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00224 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00225 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00227 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00228 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00230 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00232 by 71piotr, on Flickr

This junction has been discussed in the thread already.

DSC00233 by 71piotr, on Flickr

I noticed that greenery along British roads isn't maintained as good as it was in previous years. Tens of signs and boards became unreadable, because of overgrown bushes, such as example on the picture below.

DSC00235 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00237 by 71piotr, on Flickr

I love this bridge.

DSC00238 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00240 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00242 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00243 by 71piotr, on Flickr

I think it's only noise barrier on M50.

DSC00245 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00250 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00251 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00252 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00253 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00254 by 71piotr, on Flickr


DSC00255 by 71piotr, on Flickr

That's it! Thanks.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

That junction is insane! I don't think I've seen another of its kind on the British motorway network. If you ask me, the M50 should probably be downgraded to an 'A' road. I never liked the roundabout thing when you get off the M5. I believe all motorway to motorway interchanges should be free flowing.


----------



## piotr71

I do not mind all imperfections of M50. This road has an exceptional feeling, which I really love and rank it very high in the list of my favourite motorways in Europe.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

M50 is one of the oldest motorways in Britain, it opened in two stages in 1960 and 1962.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

piotr71 said:


> I do not mind all imperfections of M50. This road has an exceptional feeling, which I really love and rank it very high in the list of my favourite motorways in Europe.


Beautiful part of the world too. I lived not too far from there for many years. I always took that route to South Wales not just to save on toll money, but also because it's way more scenic than taking the M5/M4.

I used to want the highways agency to upgrade that section of the A449 to completely grade separated, but I would rather it be left alone as it would likely attract more traffic.


----------



## Fatfield

Comfortably Numb said:


> That junction is insane! I don't think I've seen another of its kind on the British motorway network. If you ask me, the M50 should probably be downgraded to an 'A' road. I never liked the roundabout thing when you get off the M5. I believe all motorway to motorway interchanges should be free flowing.


There's one here in NE England. The A194M ends at a roundabout too.


----------



## Road_UK

There's one that I know of in the Netherlands at the A6, A7 intersection.


----------



## sotonsi

Comfortably Numb said:


> That junction is insane! I don't think I've seen another of its kind on the British motorway network. <snip> I never liked the roundabout thing when you get off the M5. I believe all motorway to motorway interchanges should be free flowing.


It was originally, but was modified to a roundabout due to the services to the north. The traffic levels don't warrant a free-flowing interchange.

There are some places where motorway-motorway junction need to be upgraded to free-flow, but that is due to traffic levels, not the roads' legal status, nor their strategic purpose.


> If you ask me, the M50 should probably be downgraded to an 'A' road.


What purpose would that achieve? It works well as a blue line in a way that it otherwise would not.


----------



## piotr71

*A27, "Arundel By-Pass".*










Direction Brighton.




























Direction Portsmouth.



















On the top of the brigdge over the "by-pass".



























Looking towards Brighton.


----------



## piotr71

*A40 (from M50 to A4137)*













































































































They say it's the last services before motorway, whatever motorway the mean.






















































That's it.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Great pics Piotr. 

Does anyone have any recent images of the North Wales Expressway (A55)? Those on Google Street View are 4 years old.


----------



## Hoskins

piotr71 said:


> I am just beginning with youtube, so please, forgive me all imperfections.


Very close to where I live! Though I tend to avoid the A49 often as it's too busy with slower vehicles (ie lorries)... tend to use the "red" A roads (ie ones with 4 digits after the A...  ) or the B roads. Less traffic and often quicker if driving a car. (And often more scenic too!) 

For example - running parallel to the A49 between Leominster and Ludlow is the B4361, which is particularly handy if going from town centre to town centre.

http://goo.gl/maps/grcjW

It actually goes right through Ludlow, crossing the Teme at ancient Ludford.

http://goo.gl/maps/cI2IU

btw - Leominster is pronounced "Lem-ster". In case anyone's wondering!


----------



## piotr71

> btw - Leominster is pronounced "Lem-ster". In case anyone's wondering!


Ouch! 

I know another interesting example of pronunciation of British places. There are two settlements near Portsmouth, one is called 'Cosham' and is pronounced regularly and the other one is called 'Bosham' with exceptional local pronunciation _Bozz'm_


----------



## Hoskins

piotr71 said:


> Ouch!
> 
> I know another interesting example of pronunciation of British places. There are two settlements near Portsmouth, one is called 'Cosham' and is pronounced regularly and the other one is called 'Bosham' with exceptional local pronunciation _Bozz'm_


Yeah, we like catching out foreigners... 

Saying that, an English person's only going to know the pronunciations of places in his area, so will get caught out too! We love this sort of stuff though (playing around with words, spellings, etc).


----------



## JB1981

Road_UK said:


> There's one that I know of in the Netherlands at the A6, A7 intersection.


A9/A200 and A12/A348 as well...


----------



## piotr71

*M25 (J12-J7)*

This video includes a fire brigade's extinguishing action.






Music will be added soon. It's going to be my son's composition. I will also correct some poor English.


----------



## piotr71

*M42&M40 [Birmingham-A34(Oxford)]*



















Recently constructed concrete barrier.



































































































Check your speed. Instead of putting speed limitation, they advice you.












































































































It was M42. Next M40.


----------



## piotr71

*M40*































































































































Interestigly, this the junction where congestion supposed to be.


















Watch this!









In addition to recently implemented on spot fines for hogging middle lane, poor merging such as seen here, should have been penalised as well.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

The M42 looks just as shite as it did 15 years ago, still with the uneven surface. The only change I can see is the concrete barrier before the M40 ends & merges with the M42.


----------



## Blackraven

Question:

What does the blue sign mean?










P.S.



piotr71 said:


> In addition to recently implemented on spot fines for hogging middle lane, poor merging such as seen here, should have been penalised as well.


For not using his turn signals?


----------



## Comfortably Numb

The blue motorway sign with a red line through it is to signify the end of the motorway / motorway regulations. It is standard throughout Europe.


----------



## sotonsi

The other blue sign (with the arrow pointing left) in that photograph is also standard across Europe: turn left only, stopping people going the wrong way around the roundabout.

The poor merger is on the hard shoulder there, and cutting up the car where the photography is occurring.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Incidentally, I always thought the section of the M42 approaching the M40 should be widened. It was a bottleneck 15 years ago when I used it regularly. I'd hate to think how it must be now.


----------



## sotonsi

Comfortably Numb said:


> Incidentally, I always thought the section of the M42 approaching the M40 should be widened. It was a bottleneck 15 years ago when I used it regularly. I'd hate to think how it must be now.


Which side - heading eastbound, or heading southbound?

Southbound was the real problem, and the ATM has fixed that rather well.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

sotonsi said:


> Which side - heading eastbound, or heading southbound?
> 
> Southbound was the real problem, and the ATM has fixed that rather well.


Eastbound before it splits into M42(N) for the airport & NEC and the M40. I remember traffic tailing back at 2+ junctions prior. I used that route a lot. An extra lane would probably make a huge difference or if it needed to be done on the cheap, allowing hard shoulder running during peak hours might help.


----------



## piotr71

*M40*










Nice lambs, aren't they?


























































































I really like Milton Keynes and Newbury on this sign. They recommend most appropriate connection instead of shortest one.









I will probably never understand a intention of a designer, who shaped such merging lanes. They do not help to improve traffic flow at all.


----------



## sotonsi

Amersham TESCO has had it for 20 years, but while the trial wasn't unsuccessful enough to ditch, it wasn't successful enough to spread across the TESCO empire.

Only in the last 7 or 8 has it become common, and even then only really the places who want it for 24h operation and don't have a little shop attached (as if there was a little shop, they would want you to go in as that's where the profits come from).


----------



## sirfreelancealot

ASDA on the other hand have automated filling stations which are unmanned.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I've never been to an ASDA with a petrol station before.


----------



## Stainless

DanielFigFoz said:


> I've never been to an ASDA with a petrol station before.


The one nearest me in Longwell Green, Bristol, has a row of pay at pump machines and 3 rows where you pay at a booth. It is a bit odd as it is attached to an enormous supermarket where buying a pint of milk takes about 20 mins. Much better than the Tesco petrol down the road which is attached to a small shop where you have to queue with all the shoppers after waiting for someone parked at a pump while they browse for groceries.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Do you still fill up before you actually pay? Here in the colonies, you have to pay first (either at the pump or inside). That's why it's definitely more convenient here.


----------



## sotonsi

sirfreelancealot said:


> ASDA on the other hand have automated filling stations which are unmanned.


exactly the places I was thinking of when I said


sotonsi said:


> the places who want it for 24h operation and don't have a little shop attached


, having just missed the booth opening times the other week (Sunday, though the hypermarket itself was still open), and having a fuel card that requires a real human to verify the transaction. Luckily there were several petrol stations around there, so Shell got my business instead.
---


Comfortably Numb said:


> Do you still fill up before you actually pay? Here in the colonies, you have to pay first (either at the pump or inside). That's why it's definitely more convenient here.


Why? Surely paying first takes no less time than paying afterwards.

Plus paying afterwards allows you to fill a tank up and then pay, rather than guessing how much fuel you would need to buy to fill the tank up, paying, then seeing if you were right. Not wanting to overfill will mean conservative estimates of how much you can fit in, and you end up visiting the petrol station more often. OK, perhaps once more a year, but that's certainly not "definitely more convenient"!


----------



## Road_UK

In a lot of petrol stations they'll ask for any means of payment before filling up. After filling you have to go back in there again.


----------



## geogregor

In 21st century possibility of paying automatically at the pump should be as much of a standard as self checkouts in supermarkets.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

I literally couldn't imagine having the time in the morning to go inside and wait in line to pay. Pump & go. That's more like it.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Pay afterwards still.


----------



## Penn's Woods

geogregor said:


> In 21st century possibility of paying automatically at the pump should be as much of a standard as self checkouts in supermarkets.


Actually, I don't like those self-checkouts. But as long as they provide the option (some manned registers...)


----------



## Blackraven

Question:

In the UK, what type of petrol/gasoline stations are present over there? Full-service or Self-service?


----------



## Road_UK

Blackraven said:


> Question:
> 
> In the UK, what type of petrol/gasoline stations are present over there? Full-service or Self-service?


Same stuff they got in Europe. BP, Shell, Total, Texaco, Jet etc etc and it's all selfservice.


----------



## Penn's Woods

sotonsi said:


> ...
> Why? Surely paying first takes no less time than paying afterwards.
> ...


In the US, paying cash involves going inside, giving them enough money to cover your purchase, coming out and pumping, then going back in for your change. So basically paying before AND after, at least insofar as paying involves standing in line.... Which is why I never do it. (Except in New Jersey, where it's full-service: an attendant pumps your gas and handles the transaction at the car. Stations in New Jersey also tend to charge a few cents per gallon less for cash transaction than for cards, for some reason.)


----------



## piotr71

Road_UK said:


> Same stuff they got in Europe. BP, Shell, Total, Texaco, Jet etc etc and *it's all selfservice*.


There is one exception, I am aware of. It is a shell's petrol station in Portsmouth run by a Polish manager, who from time to time, when has nothing better to do, walks out and helps people - mainly elders and women - to get their cars fuelled.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

piotr71 said:


> There is one exception, I am aware of. It is a shell's petrol station in Portsmouth run by a Polish manager, who from time to time, when has nothing better to do, walks out and helps people - mainly elders and women - to get their cars fuelled.


That is rare I hope his customers appreciate him going out of the way to help like that and give him a tip.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^In some parts of the US, you see a sort of call button by the pumps that a disabled person or someone requiring assistance can use to get someone to come out from inside and pump their gas for them. No idea if this is a courtesy initiated by the station owners/gas companies or a legal requirement.


----------



## piotr71

He would not have taken any tips...even though he was offered quite often.

Customers were a little surprised when he started acting in that way, however, after some time he got them. They come back not only to get fuel but also to have a chat with him.


----------



## Road_UK

Penn's Woods said:


> ^^In some parts of the US, you see a sort of call button by the pumps that a disabled person or someone requiring assistance can use to get someone to come out from inside and pump their gas for them. No idea if this is a courtesy initiated by the station owners/gas companies or a legal requirement.


Yes, that's in the UK and France as well at nearly every petrol station.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^Well, that's all right then!


----------



## piotr71

New concrete barrier ans surface on M275.


DSC01687 by 71piotr, on Flickr


----------



## piotr71

*Corby by-pass*

There is quite a progress in construction works of Corby by-pass. They have already opened a new roundabout to the traffic , which will connect A 6003 with the by-pass.

Dashed line on the map shows the by-pass' corridor.


----------



## sotonsi

piotr71 said:


> There is quite a progress in construction works of Corby by-pass.


It's not a bypass of Corby, but rather a bypass of the small village of Geddington on the A43 (at least functionally). I believe part of the aim is to open up the area south of the town to development via the new road. Also allows Geddington to expand.


----------



## 896334

Bit late to the party regarding the discussion on the A41(M), apologies for that, but I figured those who haven't seen my scans may appreciate these maps showing the motorway as planned:


01035 North-West London Proposed Roads by Crackers250, on Flickr


01066 Complete A41(M) Route by Crackers250, on Flickr


01081 A41(M) Sections by Crackers250, on Flickr


----------



## piotr71

Map Guy said:


> Bit late to the party regarding the discussion on the A41(M), apologies for that, but I figured those who haven't seen my scans may *appreciate these maps *showing the motorway as planned:


I do appreciate indeed!

Does the last picture come from this map:









Edit: I checked that map and I see it does not.


----------



## 896334

No the top one is a Geographia Road Atlas, the middle one is an RAC map of the South East and the bottom is a Geographers' map of England and Wales. All are from the first half of the 1970s.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^Totally off topic, I have in my old room at my mother's a lovely (if very beat up, because I keep looking at it) 1973* Esso road map of South East England. *I'm assuming it's a '73 because we bought it on a Spring '74 trip but it has the pre-1974 counties. No one's doing that cartography any more, are they?


----------



## geogregor

Penn's Woods said:


> ^^Totally off topic, I have in my old room at my mother's a lovely (if very beat up, because I keep looking at it) 1973* Esso road map of South East England. *I'm assuming it's a '73 because we bought it on a Spring '74 trip but it has the pre-1974 counties. No one's doing that cartography any more, are they?


If you post image I'll see if we have anything similar in our bookstore.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^That's Stanford's, right? Must get to London soon.

Do you sell old maps? (If so, there are some gaps in my collection....)

Unless I can find it on line, images will have to wait until Thanksgiving.


----------



## geogregor

Penn's Woods said:


> ^^That's Stanford's, right? Must get to London soon.
> 
> Do you sell old maps? (If so, there are some gaps in my collection....)
> 
> Unless I can find it on line, images will have to wait until Thanksgiving.


Yep, Stanfords.

We only sell reproductions of older maps an by that I mean really old, from before WWII.
Maps from later but not modern are a bit problematic. People occasionally ask for maps from 50's or 60's but unless you find something in a second hand shop there isn't much we can do.


----------



## 896334

Penn's Woods said:


> ^^Totally off topic, I have in my old room at my mother's a lovely (if very beat up, because I keep looking at it) 1973* Esso road map of South East England. *I'm assuming it's a '73 because we bought it on a Spring '74 trip but it has the pre-1974 counties. No one's doing that cartography any more, are they?


You'll be able to tell the date of it pretty easily - in the bottom corner (normally bottom right) it should have a copyright note and the year it was published. That's normally on both sides of the map. Esso maps are fairly easy to date because of this. Another way of telling is the cover design of the map. They went through about 10 different changes in the 20 years from the late 50s to the late 70s.

This website will help you with that: http://www.ianbyrne.free-online.co.uk/essomaps/essogb.htm


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^Thanks.

I've seen that page. I can't check the map itself because it's 80 miles away in my mother's house, but it's definitely the '71-73 series, and would have been bought, likely at an Esso station, during a spring '74 trip.


----------



## piotr71

Some of mine recent videos.


----------



## sotonsi

piotr71 said:


>


Bonus meaning of 'Hail attack': it is a video of the Hailsham bypass.


----------



## piotr71

*A6, Bedford-Kettering.*

Yes, indeed, it's been recently refurbished. I also have a fresh videos of A23 being widened and M275 (might be particularly intersting for you) with added bus lane and a new junction. Probably will upload them in this weekend.

For now:

A6, Bedford-Kettering


----------



## piotr71

*M40, Accident, 25 November 2013*


----------



## geogregor

Central reservation barriers in Britain look so flimsy.
It is good that they have policy of gradual replacement with concrete. 
I just wish they were quicker with that.


----------



## Hoskins

geogregor said:


> Central reservation barriers in Britain look so flimsy.


They're designed to crumple and absorb energy. Like modern cars.



> It is good that they have policy of gradual replacement with concrete.


I don't think they are (generally) replacing them..?


----------



## sotonsi

They are replacing the cheese-wire barriers that were in-vogue in the early naughties due to limbs and heads coming off motorcyclists.

But the standard barriers, no - though they are making the ends have a design so that it doesn't ramp you up over the barrier or impale you.

Concrete barriers in the middle are the new thing for motorways.


----------



## Penn's Woods

sotonsi said:


> They are replacing the cheese-wire barriers that were in-vogue in the early naughties due to limbs and heads coming off motorcyclists....




That post should come with a warning!


----------



## piotr71

*M40/M42 Oxford-West Midlands*

Thanks Comfortably Numb 

======================

New video:


----------



## Penn's Woods

piotr71 said:


> Thanks Comfortably....


:gossipsst. Piotr. I assume that typo was unintentional.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Penn's Woods said:


> :gossipsst. Piotr. I assume that typo was unintentional.


Or he was taking the piss? lol.

Actually I'd like to change my name to that. Moderator?


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^Well, it's too late now!

(But since it was at the top of a new page, and when I opened the thread I went directly to the last page, it really jumped out at me.)


----------



## sotonsi

Mackem said:


> The British government can find £14bn for Crossrail as it was heavily campaigned for by the financial sector.


The British Government hasn't found £14bn for Crossrail. Business rates pay a third, TfL have borrowed the money for a third (paid back from the fare box), leaving a third for the British Government to pay for (and will get back from franchise premiums over time).


> The A14 should be a priority - 18 mile queues every morning, so regular they don't warrant a mention on regular traffic reports.


Oh yes, it is important and does need upgrading. The toll wasn't about finding the money, the toll was about getting it done quicker.


> The toll idea comes because the alternatives are so poor


They aren't that bad - the A42x-M1 route is pretty reasonable for E-W traffic, and the Beds A1 not too bad for N-S traffic. The local, Cambridge commuter, flows have poor alternatives but, strategically, the A14 has reasonable alternatives.

As I complained, in my response to the consultation, the fairly small upgrades needed to make these routes high quality (Caxton-Black Cat in particular, which serves the Varsity Arc corridor) would have to deal with the issue of loss of A14 toll revenue counting as a disbenefit, screwing over Bedford especially.


> As for the ports, if you're going to Thamesport you WILL use the A14 if you come from anywhere in the midlands or north.


Thamesport? Really?

You could go that way from the M1 corridor, having headed over (on poor roads from Nottingham, etc) to the A1, and it makes sense if the M25 is snarled up and your route isn't, not being much slower.

However, from the M6 corridor, it's a lot longer than M1-M25 - far enough that even a free-flowing A14 needs lengthy queues on the M1/M25 to be quicker than that route.


> This is a main route to Kent and Essex but I don't expect to see much improvement before I retire (and like the East Coast motorway that's a long way off !).


The consultation document did neglect the N-S nature of the route.

East Coast motorway was a bunch of political-bribery bollocks designed to make the political-bribery of the Humber Bridge look less like a white elephant. It was never official and served odd traffic objectives.

A1 motorway upgrade, however was on the books, however the simpler scheme of finishing grade-separation means that the A1 is now OK from Stamford to the M18 - a couple of junctions are a bit tight, but that's it.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Weren't there plans to upgrade the A1 around Newcastle to A1(M) to alleviate traffic? Also hopefully one day the A1 from Newcastle to Edinburgh will be upgrade to at least a full length grade separated dual carriageway. It carries a lot of traffic and links not only 2 major cities, but also Scotland and England.


----------



## piotr71

Penn's Woods said:


> :gossipsst. Piotr. I assume that typo was unintentional.


OOps, I do not know what to say. I checked several times after your post, I compared my typing to Comfortably Numb's name and could not find any error.



Comfortably Numb said:


> Or he was taking the piss? lol.
> 
> Actually I'd like to change my name to that. Moderator?


I am really, really sorry. I do not what has gotten into me last night. It was just horrible typing mistake. I truly apologise.


----------



## piotr71

*M25, J18-J23*


----------



## Comfortably Numb

piotr71 said:


> OOps, I do not know what to say. I checked several times after your post, I compared my typing to Comfortably Numb's name and could not find any error.
> 
> 
> 
> I am really, really sorry. I do not what has gotten into me last night. It was just horrible typing mistake. I truly apologise.


No need to apologize . I actually thought it was pretty funny.


----------



## sotonsi

Comfortably Numb said:


> Weren't there plans to upgrade the A1 around Newcastle to A1(M) to alleviate traffic?


Not aware of any. The furthest north the A1(M) was seemingly planned to was just north of Newcastle City Centre (Central Motorway East/CME Bypass), which it did, at one time, do.

The 90s plan was to end at Newcastle - presumably in the vicinity of where it currently does.

The 80s A1 route via the Tyne Tunnel is an easier route to upgrade to motorway, and any motorway bypass of Newcastle should go that way round the city. Hopefully, after grade-separating that route from the A184 to the A189 they grade separate the tie-ins to the A1 and send Morpeth traffic that way.

The Scottish Government have no plans to improve the A1 beyond Dunbar, and the English no plans north of Alnwick.


> Also hopefully one day the A1 from Newcastle to Edinburgh will be upgrade to at least a full length grade separated dual carriageway. It carries a lot of traffic and links not only 2 major cities, but also Scotland and England.


Though, south of Scotch Corner, the High Road via Carlisle is quicker than the Low Road via Newcastle (A1 expressway all the way will change that for non-Glasgow/Ayrshire destinations) for non-Edinburgh areas. York - Perth is given via Carlisle on Google.

Newcastle, or even Morpeth, to Edinburgh is quicker going over the mountains than taking the coastal route via Berwick. However if more people used the A68, then there wouldn't be as good!


----------



## Penn's Woods

On at least one of those Top Gear London-to-Edinburgh runs, we see a landmark of some sort near Newcastle (at least I gather it's near Newcastle) that looks sort of like an early airplane standing on its tail. Always been curious what it is.


----------



## -Pino-

Comfortably Numb said:


> I am actually in favor of signing them as many of them cover multiple motorways and major trunk routes. The British stretch of E05 for example crosses several motorways on its route from Glasgow to Southampton. This would be a route used by transcontinental traffic so having a consistent number alongside the British M number designation may help foreign and British motorists alike.


Southampton is hardly the ferry port of choice for transcontinental traffic, so it creates one route number for a rather random route. With traffic to the continent making up a relatively low component of traffic North of London, why further fill up the British signs that already appear rather stuffed?

By the way, can it really be said that places like Harwich, Felixstowe and the Channel Tunnel are signposted from such a large distance because the British have been taking the continental perspective for once? Might it also be related to the fact that these towns appear on east-west routes where it is much trickier to use the usual regional focal points on the signs? Nonetheless, for me as a motorist from the continent, it remains an oddity that ferry ports take these high positions in the list of focal points, where the country's largest cities drawing the largest numbers of motorists mostly remain hidden behind focals like "The NORTH".


----------



## sponge_bob

Penn's Woods said:


> On at least one of those Top Gear London-to-Edinburgh runs, we see a landmark of some sort near Newcastle (at least I gather it's near Newcastle) that looks sort of like an early airplane standing on its tail. Always been curious what it is.


The "Angel of the North" , must be.

Anyway as to the A14, that link section should have been built as a Motorway in the early 1990s and we would not be back looking at doing it again as soon as it was finished almost. Crossrail is essential for entirely different reasons to the A14, the 2 crossrail projects are needed to get people under a congested and ancient core tube network, and fast. The French built their Crossrails in the 1970s mainly, ie the RER network. 

The A14 is Britains core goods import/export route. Railfreight in the UK is essentially nowhere since the mines closed 20 years ago.


----------



## Penn's Woods

sponge_bob said:


> The "Angel of the North" , must be.


That's it!
Cheers.


----------



## Fatfield

Penn's Woods said:


> That's it!
> Cheers.


With its arse pointing towards Newcastle. :lol:

Its in Gateshead just north of where the A1M ends and along side the A1 Western Bypass.


----------



## Fatfield

sotonsi said:


> The 80s A1 route via the Tyne Tunnel is an easier route to upgrade to motorway, and any motorway bypass of Newcastle should go that way round the city. Hopefully, after grade-separating that route from the A184 to the A189 they grade separate the tie-ins to the A1 and send Morpeth traffic that way.


Do you have a link for this? Never heard of it before and I've lived here all my life (50 years).


----------



## Penn's Woods

Fatfield said:


> With its arse pointing towards Newcastle. :lol:
> 
> Its in Gateshead just north of where the A1M ends and along side the A1 Western Bypass.


I'd never gotten a good enough look at it, until it was identified yesterday so I could look it up, to see that it was a figure of a man. To me, it looked vaguely like a totem pole with really long arms, but a totem pole seemed improbable in England.


----------



## Mackem

sotonsi said:


> The British Government hasn't found £14bn for Crossrail. Business rates pay a third, TfL have borrowed the money for a third (paid back from the fare box), leaving a third for the British Government to pay for (and will get back from franchise premiums over time).Oh yes, it is important and does need upgrading. The toll wasn't about finding the money, the toll was about getting it done quicker.They aren't that bad - the A42x-M1 route is pretty reasonable for E-W traffic, and the Beds A1 not too bad for N-S traffic. The local, Cambridge commuter, flows have poor alternatives but, strategically, the A14 has reasonable alternatives.
> 
> As I complained, in my response to the consultation, the fairly small upgrades needed to make these routes high quality (Caxton-Black Cat in particular, which serves the Varsity Arc corridor) would have to deal with the issue of loss of A14 toll revenue counting as a disbenefit, screwing over Bedford especially.Thamesport? Really?
> 
> You could go that way from the M1 corridor, having headed over (on poor roads from Nottingham, etc) to the A1, and it makes sense if the M25 is snarled up and your route isn't, not being much slower.
> 
> However, from the M6 corridor, it's a lot longer than M1-M25 - far enough that even a free-flowing A14 needs lengthy queues on the M1/M25 to be quicker than that route.The consultation document did neglect the N-S nature of the route.
> 
> East Coast motorway was a bunch of political-bribery bollocks designed to make the political-bribery of the Humber Bridge look less like a white elephant. It was never official and served odd traffic objectives.
> 
> A1 motorway upgrade, however was on the books, however the simpler scheme of finishing grade-separation means that the A1 is now OK from Stamford to the M18 - a couple of junctions are a bit tight, but that's it.


Funding - Business rates and Tfl are basically state funding - business rates are levied and collected by central government, hypothecating part of the receipts whilst not usually done in the UK doesn't really change anything - Tfl like Railtrack is state owned but off balance sheet debt funding - whilst this does not constitute part of the national debt it is still state funding. 

Alternatives to the A14 in Cambridgeshire are poor - the A428 is not easily accessed and the junction with the M11 is poor. You certainly wouldn't trek up to the A42 as an alternative to the A14.

If you're going to Thamesport from the North East, Yorkshire, Scotland etc. (in a truck, which is what will be going there) you won't go all the way on the M1 as it uses more driving time, has a higher accident potential south of the M6 and currently will land you in roadworks on the M25. Much of the traffic crosses on the A66, A57 and the A14 from the Midlands. Driving time is all in this business.

As for the East Coast motorway, this was a scheme offered to business communities in the North East in the mid 1980s. In the end they selected the A1 upgrade scheme which has since been subject to various changes in the "political wind direction".


----------



## sotonsi

Sorry, this will be one long post, addressing several people, split into a couple of posts to make it less scary. The TLR for most of it is "lots of misdirection and hyperbole that I don't think should be used to sell a very very important road scheme. Also I answer some other points..." Here's the answering of the some other points.


-Pino- said:


> Southampton is hardly the ferry port of choice for transcontinental traffic, so it creates one route number for a rather random route.


Certainly Southampton sees little freight from Europe (though there's not a small number of foreign freight outfits that shift the goods) but it's a major container port. That said, the 'The MIDLANDS' is perfectly acceptable, and E05 as well is overkill.


> By the way, can it really be said that places like Harwich, Felixstowe and the Channel Tunnel are signposted from such a large distance because the British have been taking the continental perspective for once? Might it also be related to the fact that these towns appear on east-west routes where it is much trickier to use the usual regional focal points on the signs?


Felixstowe is signed eastbound along the M6 at J1, over 100 miles away and is signed as an onward destination from there. Why not Kettering, or - if you want a further place - Cambridge or Ipswich? Channel Tunnel is something similar on the M20 (though the M25 signage might change from Maidstone with the J5-7 works, though they often replace signs like for like)

And it's not like the "The WEST" signs seen in Southampton, across Kent, Surrey and Berks on the Ports-Reading route (it becomes SOUTH WALES somewhere there) and in other places (Leeds, IIRC) couldn't be copied with 'The EAST' if they wanted, or 'EAST ANGLIA'.

-------------------------------



Fatfield said:


> Do you have a link for this? Never heard of it before and I've lived here all my life (50 years).


A link for what?
A link for the A1 going via the Tyne Tunnel? (just look at an 80s map)?
A link for A19 upgrades (here - doing more than I thought. Good[/url])
Or a link for it being easier to build a motorway going east of the city? (just look at all the closely-spaced junctions, congestion from sheer weight of traffic and little space left for widening)

It's certainly not a real plan to redivert the main bypass route, but if there was a real plan for full-scale improvements for N-S traffic across Tyneside, it would use the Tunnel.


----------



## sotonsi

Here's the post where I deal with the most egregious misinformation and hyperbole. You'll be pleased to know there that there's no more.


sponge_bob said:


> Anyway as to the A14, that link section should have been built as a Motorway in the early 1990s and we would not be back looking at doing it again as soon as it was finished almost.


The early 90s bits are fine as D2. It's the 80s(IIRC) Kettering bypass (originally A6) and the 70s Huntingdon-Cambridge section (originally A604) that are issues, and they couldn't predict that they would be used 20 years later to bodge together an E-W route (that was then planned to take a more southerly route, not going near Huntingdon or Kettering) when money was tight in a recession.


> The French built their Crossrails in the 1970s mainly, ie the RER network.


London built in the 1870s mainly, ie the SSL network. Later stuff (eg 1930s New Works) was also of a similar concept of taking over suburban rail lines, though using existing metros rather than new tunnels.

I'm certainly not saying that Crossrail isn't needed (ditto the A14), but that it's not like we are 30 years behind Paris and it's RER... In fact, it's as the Central line in East London, and Piccadilly line in West London perform like the RER, serving way out into zone 6, that Crossrail has an excellent business case, taking some of those longer distance passengers off those RER-type routes and leaving room for people in zones 1-3 to board trains without squeezing themselves in.


> The A14 is Britains core goods import/export route.


Does London not exist (as clearly we aren't meaning the very-much-adequate A14 east of Ipswich)? Or the other ports. Sure the A14 is vital, especially for freight (linking the biggest container port to lots of the country, and Kent to the east side of the country), but it is not the core route, or as you said earlier "the single main logistics route" as there are lots of other main logistics routes - the A34 and M20 surely count. Ditto the M25, M1, M6, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Mackem said:


> Alternatives to the A14 in Cambridgeshire are poor - the A428 is not easily accessed and the junction with the M11 is poor. You certainly wouldn't trek up to the A42 as an alternative to the A14.


You have made the same category mistake as the consultation. While the consultation ignored the N-S nature of Cambridge to Huntingdon, you are neglecting the E-W nature of the A14 itself.

The A428-A421-M1 route isn't much of a detour for going to Birmingham, and shorter for Northampton than A14-A45. The connection to the M11 doesn't matter for the routes I was thinking of for that - the decent connection to the Cambridge northern bypass is what matters: N-S routes would use the A1 to shunpike the now-scrapped toll.


> If you're going to Thamesport from the North East, Yorkshire, Scotland etc. (in a truck, which is what will be going there) you won't go all the way on the M1 as it uses more driving time, has a higher accident potential south of the M6 and currently will land you in roadworks on the M25. Much of the traffic crosses on the A66, A57 and the A14 from the Midlands. Driving time is all in this business.


I don't think anyone from West of Sheffield would take the A57. North of the A66, would indeed take the A66 and A1, but the majority of the NW's population, and all of the West Midlands, would use M1-M25, rather than the longer A14-M11.

And crossing to the A1 to head south from Leicester, Nottingham and Derby is best not done on the A14 (though isn't a bad alternative from Leicester, accessing it via the A6) - for those cities to Kent, the M1 is the shorter option, though all your points are valid and, as I said, "You could go that way from the M1 corridor, having headed over (on poor roads from Nottingham, etc) to the A1, and it makes sense if the M25 is snarled up and your route isn't, not being much slower.".

What you originally said was "if you're going to Thamesport you WILL use the A14 if you come from anywhere in the midlands or north."
I think we agree that "the North East, Yorkshire, Scotland etc." is not "anywhere in the midlands or north", given there is a large amount west of there. Shouting that they 'WILL use' the A14 adds to the hyperbole.

If you haven't guessed by now, I'm really not a fan of this hyperbole and misdirection. Most of this mammoth post has been devoted to dealing with that.


> As for the East Coast motorway, this was a scheme offered to business communities in the North East in the mid 1980s. In the end they selected the A1 upgrade scheme which has since been subject to various changes in the "political wind direction".


But it wasn't offered by any official body that has remit to build motorways in the UK. It was little more than a fantasy plan by men who add access to decent publicity...


----------



## Fatfield

Britains first motorway pub opened today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25826637

http://news.sky.com/story/1198269/motorway-pub-opens-despite-opposition


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Bristol

01_2014_50 by Highways Agency, on Flickr

Is "hardshoulder" correctly spelled? I'd think it would be "hard shoulder" but perhaps they have text limitations on that VMS.


----------



## sotonsi

two words wouldn't fit on one line (no room for the space).


Code:


Congestion
 Use hard
 shoulder

would work, but I think the other one, keeping the two word object of the sentence on one line, works a tiny bit better.

----

RE: _The Hope and Champion_ (or, as I like to call it, Becky Spoons)

there's been alcohol on sale at MSAs for some time - the Harvester at Donington Park, various M&S Simply Foods/Waitrose shops, etc.

Not to mention the myriad pubs and inns that have traditionally been rest stops on the road. I'm pretty sure that the Blue Boar, which got the operating licence (as the venue in that area on the road the M1 bypassed) for Watford Gap, the first MSA, started off life as a public house.

The location itself is the 'not upper middle class' part of Beaconsfield, and serves locals with fast food and Starbucks. Until they opened a Starbucks on campus, students at Amersham College drove there to get coffee in half-hourly breaks. While there are ample eateries and drinking venues in the nearby Old Town, having a downmarket-but-decent place in Becky Spoons provides an alternative to the more upmarket gastropubs around. 

Beaconsfield services is relatively rare, being not far from a sizable town and being popular with the locals (and while you might drive there, Chilterns culture is that you drive/are driven to the pub unless it is on your doorstep anyway - hence how all the little village pubs can just about stay open - you either have a desi, or you have a spouse take 4 of you and pick you up). The locals don't have a problem with (and actually quite want) a pub there - it's just people who fail to understand that pubs are for more than drinking, there are such things as passengers, and MSAs are for more than long distance traffic who have gone into a priggish outrage over it (which is helping promote the pub no end!).

I gather that, sadly, the typical Wetherspoons alcohol deals will not apply to _The Hope and Champion_, but they will be offering extra offers on food, such as free hot drink with breakfast.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The hype about the "motorway pub" is a bit exaggerated. It's not directly on a motorway, but an offline service area with what looks like a small mall, so not your typical online MSA. It serves more people than just drivers on the motorway. If this pub would've been in any other mall nobody would've said anything about it.

http://goo.gl/maps/PMIKP


----------



## 896334

Comfortably Numb said:


> @ Piotr,
> 
> Good shots....I took this 11 years ago of the same stretch of road (a bit further south, close to the M48 exit):
> 
> 
> Compared to yours:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gantries are totally different, as are the lines.


Just going back to this, that old photo isn't of the M5, it's the Avonmouth spur at junction 18A, specifically here: http://goo.gl/maps/ayxnp

Which hasn't actually changed much at all!


----------



## DanielFigFoz

ChrisZwolle said:


> The hype about the "motorway pub" is a bit exaggerated. It's not directly on a motorway, but an* offline service area with what looks like a small mall*, so not your typical online MSA. It serves more people than just drivers on the motorway. If this pub would've been in any other mall nobody would've said anything about it.


Quite a lot of British service areas are like that, but I agree, there are plenty of pubs along roads anyway.

And I suppose that 'hard shoulder' is more standard, but I wouldn't say that 'hardshoulder' in English is incorrect as such it's just not convention, it is done in some cases, like 'headmaster' or 'ironworks'.


----------



## Kanadzie

Hard shoulder is a strange British thing anyway, better to just say shoulder!


----------



## sotonsi

This road has a shoulder - I think the use of 'hard' is a useful distinction...


----------



## Penn's Woods

ChrisZwolle said:


> Is "hardshoulder" correctly spelled? I'd think it would be "hard shoulder" but perhaps they have text limitations on that VMS.


I'd spell it "hard shoulder." "Hardshoulder" looks wrong to me (and my spell-check doesn't like it either).


----------



## flierfy

Kanadzie said:


> Hard shoulder is a strange British thing anyway, better to just say shoulder!


Not if you want to distinguish them from soft shoulders.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^Well, what is a hard shoulder (because we don't say it in the U.S. either, so far as I've heard)? Same material as the road whereas a soft shoulder would be, well, something softer...?

EDIT: Okay, that was a silly question. But how many roads have a hard and a soft shoulder as opposed to just one shoulder? "Congestion - use shoulder" might be sufficient. And also, I thought the British said "verge" or something.


----------



## flierfy

Penn's Woods said:


> ^^Well, what is a hard shoulder (because we don't say it in the U.S. either, so far as I've heard)? Same material as the road whereas a soft shoulder would be, well, something softer...?
> 
> EDIT: Okay, that was a silly question. But how many roads have a hard and a soft shoulder as opposed to just one shoulder? "Congestion - use shoulder" might be sufficient. And also, I thought the British said "verge" or something.


In contrast to strips and verges a shoulder is wider than two-track vehicles. The adjective hard on the other hand defines a strip or a shoulder to be solid enough for vehicle to drive on it.


----------



## sirfreelancealot

In the UK, if it's a hard shoulder, it's usually wide enough for a vehicle to use. Some other countries may also call this a 'breakdown lane' or just shoulder. These are usually found on motorways and occasionally on some high quality expressway-like dual carriageways

If the shoulder is narrow, say 1-2 metres (3-6ft) then it will be called a hard strip, which is typical on dual carriageways, even on many high quality dual expressway-like dual carriageways. They are also used on better engineered single carriageway roads.

If there is no hard shoulder or strip then the edge is just called a 'verge' usually grass or sometimes a gravel edge.


----------



## flierfy

sirfreelancealot said:


> If there is no hard shoulder or strip then the edge is just called a 'verge' usually grass or sometimes a gravel edge.


Roads have verges regardless of hard shoulders or hard strips.


----------



## Penn's Woods

sirfreelancealot said:


> In the UK, if it's a hard shoulder, it's usually wide enough for a vehicle to use. Some other countries may also call this a 'breakdown lane' or just shoulder. These are usually found on motorways and occasionally on some high quality expressway-like dual carriageways
> 
> If the shoulder is narrow, say 1-2 metres (3-6ft) then it will be called a hard strip, which is typical on dual carriageways, even on many high quality dual expressway-like dual carriageways. They are also used on better engineered single carriageway roads.
> 
> If there is no hard shoulder or strip then the edge is just called a 'verge' usually grass or sometimes a gravel edge.


Ah.

You learn something every day. The trick is not to forget it the next.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I've never heard the term 'hard strip' before, I've never had a word for the things on the side of dual carriageways, I suppose it isn't something that comes up in conversation amongst the lay population much.


----------



## piotr71

There are 2 types of terms used in the UK, regarding the above posts:

a) *hard shoulder*

Used in such phrases: 'no hard shoulder for ... yards', 'intermittent hard shoulder for ...miles', 'congestion - use hard shoulder', 'hard shoulder for emergency use only'.

b) *Soft verge*

Used, obviously in case of soft verge together with exclamation road sign. Can't remind any additional information or warning attached to it.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I would agree with that.


----------



## Kanadzie

That's one thing you see in the US, "Soft Shoulder next XX Miles", it seems they consider the hard type as default.

Here they probably wouldn't sign any of those things regarding shoulder, just leave it for you to be surprised.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Kanadzie said:


> That's one thing you see in the US, "Soft Shoulder next XX Miles", it seems they consider the hard type as default.


I think those signs are meant to warn you it's soft.


----------



## DanielFigFoz




----------



## sirfreelancealot

DanielFigFoz said:


>


That is a hard strip next to a soft verge.

Incidentally that road is the B7078 - a secondary road which looks well engineered for this type of road. There is a reason for this because this road used to be one of the carriageways of the old A74 dual carriageway before it was upgraded with a new 'offline' A74(M) motorway which you can see in the photo in the distance. One of the carriageways of the old road has been broken up and landscaped as part of the downgrade of the old A74 to its now B-road status.


----------



## Kanadzie

It sounds so crazy, spend money to destroy road...


----------



## Mateusz

Most probably there was no point in maintaining two dual carriageways close to each other.

Something similar happened to some former sections of A1 like here for example:
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Pontefract&hl=en&ll=53.730943,-1.270981&spn=0.017594,0.052314&sll=53.523644,-1.404347&sspn=0.035157,0.104628&oq=Pontefra&hnear=Pontefract,+West+Yorkshire,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.731035,-1.271083&panoid=rsAxkD_6WFMKEkDCOBM7tg&cbp=12,331.73,,0,5.84


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Kanadzie said:


> It sounds so crazy, spend money to destroy road...


If traffic volumes are really low, it can be cheaper to demolish a road than spending money on maintenance for decades.


----------



## snowdog

ChrisZwolle said:


> If traffic volumes are really low, it can be cheaper to demolish a road than spending money on maintenance for decades.


Even cheaper to leave it as be ( bar perhaps restricting access)... Maybe some kids can enjoy themselves for many more decades on that piece or tarmac!

imo this sign should do:


----------



## da_scotty

snowdog said:


> Even cheaper to leave it as be ( bar perhaps restricting access)... Maybe some kids can enjoy themselves for many more decades on that piece or tarmac!
> 
> imo this sign should do:


hno:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*M8 Scotland*

*Major milestone for M8/M73/M74 motorway improvements project*

Major milestone reached for motorway project as contractual costs driven down by over £100 million and early works agreement sealed for advance works to start. Transport Minister Keith Brown today announced the intention to award a contract to construct the new M8 and make improvements to the M73 and M74, which will create hundreds of jobs and will see advanced works start immediately following the signing of an early works agreement.

This contract, with a net present value of £500 million and which includes operation and maintenance of the project roads over 30 years, will be the first roads infrastructure scheme and the largest contract to be awarded as part of the Scottish Government’s £2.5 billion Non-Profit Distributing (NPD) model. NPD helps to deliver economies of scale and efficiencies for the public purse.

In addition, construction costs are now £105 million below original estimates following a robust competitive dialogue with the preferred contractor, SRP (Scot Roads Partnership Project Ltd), bringing huge savings for the public purse.​Full press release: http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...-for-M8/M73/M74-motorway-improvements-project


----------



## Mackem

sirfreelancealot said:


> That is a hard strip next to a soft verge.
> 
> Incidentally that road is the B7078 - a secondary road which looks well engineered for this type of road. There is a reason for this because this road used to be one of the carriageways of the old A74 dual carriageway before it was upgraded with a new 'offline' A74(M) motorway which you can see in the photo in the distance. One of the carriageways of the old road has been broken up and landscaped as part of the downgrade of the old A74 to its now B-road status.


The reason they keep one of the carriageways of the old road is so that local traffic and vehicles that are not allowed (e.g. tractors) on Motorways can still access areas that were open to them prior to M'way upgrade. Sections of the A74 and A1 that have been upgraded passed through rural areas with agricultural economies. To give farmers and locals access to fields and villages a parallel route was kept open using one of the abandoned carriageways.


----------



## CSSR

*A477 St clears to Red roses improvement expected completion early May 2014*


----------



## geogregor

CSSR said:


> *A477 St clears to Red roses improvement expected completion early May 2014*


???


----------



## Kanadzie

http://www.a477stclearsredroses.com/


----------



## CairnsTony

Is this a dual carriageway scheme? I couldn't see mention of it in that link.


----------



## CSSR

CairnsTony said:


> Is this a dual carriageway scheme? I couldn't see mention of it in that link.


No, its a single 1+1 road.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Decided to drive the full length of the A44 on Saturday, then on smaller A roads the rest of the way, I'm a bit bored of the M40 and the M4.


----------



## piotr71

Road connecting famous A303 with Stonehenge:

Some time in the past...




...and now


----------



## -Pino-

Here are a few pics of the M62 between Manchester and Leeds. Crossing the Pennines, this is the highest stretch of motorway in Britain. You will find the exact locations and bigger sizes at my Panoramio page.


----------



## -Pino-

And some pics of the A1 around Newcastle.


----------



## sponge_bob

UK Vignette is in force form today.

UK£10 a day, payable at least a day in advance and capped to £1000 a year per vehicle.

1. Not sure if a year is a UK Tax Year which runs april - april or calendar.
2. ONLY non Uk Registered vehicles of 12 Tonnes or over must pay the vignette which is called a levy and is purely electronic based....not physical paper.

On the spot fine of £300 a stop if you have not paid.


----------



## sponge_bob

Levy instructions in many languages here and link to payment site. 

http://www.northgate-ispublicservices.com/uk-hgv-levy.aspx


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Sounds like an April Fool's Day joke.


----------



## MattN

It's not: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hgv-road-user-levy


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ah it's for trucks over 12 tonnes. I thought it was for cars (it was not specified in Sponge Bob's first post).

This sounds similar to the Eurovignette system for trucks that The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and Sweden have. In fact, the UK was one of the very last countries in Europe not to have a tolling system for (foreign) trucks. This leaves only Finland as a large country where there are no truck tolls.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The tolls are definitely not going to be a game-changer in road funding. The additional tax revenue is estimated at 20 million pounds annually.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/introduction-of-the-hgv-road-user-levy


----------



## sponge_bob

sponge_bob said:


> UK Vignette
> 
> *2. ONLY non Uk Registered vehicles of 12 Tonnes or over must pay the vignette which is called a levy and is purely electronic based....not physical paper.*


Oh yes I did Chris.


----------



## piotr71

*AA have reported that 40% of surveyed members would described the roads in their neighbourhoods as 'terrible'.*



> Potholes: sharp rise in roads in 'terrible' shape
> The AA's latest Streetwatch survey has suggested the nation's roads are being decimated by potholes.
> 40% of respondents to the survey reported that their local roads were in ‘terrible condition’, a big jump from the 29% who said the same thing in the last survey in October last year.
> The study, which saw 23,911 AA members surveyed, also revealed a fall in those saying that their roads were in ‘excellent’ condition from 18% in October to just 11% in March.
> These revelations follow the Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) survey, which suggested it would cost a staggering £12 billion to get Britain’s roads back into a decent condition for drivers.


http://www.lovemoney.com/news/cars-computers-and-sport/car-insurance/27669/pothole-claims-rise-fivefold-in-early-2014?showcomments=true


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Sure, there are a fair few potholes, but I doubt they quite know what a _terrible_ road is.


----------



## verreme

^^ They have sure not visited southern France.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne

^^Nor they have visited Eastern Europe


----------



## piotr71

Hmm. I have some pics and will post them soon. It's maybe hard to believe but many secondary and 3 digits A roads are in really bad condition. I drive around the country and can see hundreds of potholes, cracks and poorly maintained stretches every day. Motorways are not exceptions. As a proof a coil spring in one of my vehicles has been broken recently (I may capture it if you do not believe) 

Another thing is surprisingly low quality of patches. After several months they are just washed up and got wider. And even stretches completely refurbished do not survive too long such as, say, M25 between M4 and M1.


----------



## sotonsteve

Maintenance is also inconsistent. Something I have seen on a fair few trunk roads is better sections of road being prioritised for resurfacing over sections that are disintegrating. For example, where the hard shoulder is being converted to a traffic lane on the M25 between J5 and J6 small sections of carriageway have been resurfaced, yet they have completely missed the sections which were in the worst condition. They resurfaced the bits which were alright, whilst other bits have potholes and cracks.

Quality control has been poor in those roadworks though. They painted some permanent white lines, and 50% of them were worn out after just one month, so they have been painted again. They also painted white lines and put in cats eyes, only to then resurface sections of the road and have to do the job all over again.

Inconsistency stretches beyond road surfaces. Whilst LED street lighting is said to be low maintenance, and something you could in theory install and forget about for 20 years, it hasn't stopped the Highways Agency from fitting LED lanterns to 1970s columns. And on the south coast, a lot of money was spent on trunk road lighting upgrades and replacements, yet the trunk road lighting which was structurally failing and in worst condition was left to deteriorate. Again, they prioritise replacing stuff that is in good condition over replacing stuff that is in a dangerous state.


----------



## piotr71

*Portsmouth, Park & Ride*












> Portsmouth's new park and ride service runs seven days a week, is situated at a purpose-built location on the M275 entrance to Portsmouth, and launches on 5 April 2014.
> 
> The new service includes:
> 
> Free Wi-Fi
> An introductory price of £2 a day
> A smartcard system offering substantial savings


Park & Ride

Well, let's have a look what they've done 





















TBC


----------



## piotr71

*Portsmouth, Park & Ride*













New slip road towards city centre. Further down M275 number of lanes has been reduced. Instead of 3 there are now 2 lanes heading Portsmouth. Third lane has been replaced with newly opened bus lane. It obviously causes extended traffic jams on M275, which isn't bad considering intentions of building such a nice P&R here, however, in my opinion, number of parking spaced here is far from sufficient. 



New signing board, far, far clearer than the previous one.








I will also post a short video soon, recorded in P&R.


----------



## piotr71

*Portsmouth, Park & Ride*

...and the movie:


----------



## Comfortably Numb

They could at least put healthier stuff in the vending machine, no?


----------



## sotonsteve

It says M27 (E) on the signs, even though technically speaking the M27 disappears at the same number junction as the M275 merges into.


----------



## flierfy

piotr71 said:


> New signing board, far, far clearer than the previous one.


It is rather a clutter than clarity. The motorway sign already rules out cyclists and pedestrians from using this road. It wouldn't have needed another totally redundant sign to display the very same message.


----------



## piotr71

I meant another sign. I do not subtitle pictures, I rather over-title them.

Old signage...




















...comparing to the new one:


----------



## sponge_bob

flierfy said:


> The motorway sign already rules out cyclists and pedestrians from using this road. It wouldn't have needed another totally redundant sign to display the very same message.


Maybe they have not seen the new training video yet. Best to be sure to be sure and to be sure again.


----------



## sotonsi

flierfy said:


> It is rather a clutter than clarity. The motorway sign already rules out cyclists and pedestrians from using this road. It wouldn't have needed another totally redundant sign to display the very same message.


Ah, but do motorway regs not start 10m up the road where the chopsticks are? Therefore the sign is needed to ban peds and cyclists from that 10m stretch of highway. :nuts:

Portsmouth CC are poor on signage, though they have improved the awfulness of what was on the motorway before (and the signing of M27 rather than A27 for Brighton and London has always been there at that junction, even on the mainline - its not just a Pompey CC thing).


----------



## sotonsi

Road_UK said:


> Science from where exactly?


A Google finds the answer, not that you are open-minded to accept it: here and here for instance.

Yes it is linked with VSL, but the flow models that produce VSL all show that avoiding changing lanes means that traffic flows much more consistently, and that near misses and breaking caused by people changing lanes is reduced (and so initial causes of ghost jams are reduced). As such, VSL/ATM/whatever installations tell you to avoid changing lanes, as they know it improves flow. If they didn't have anything to back it up, they wouldn't say it!


> Seeing that the UK infrastructure has been somewhat backward to begin with, who are these wonderful scientists that have come out with this bullcrap that if you hog lanes, the traffic will *move faster*? Because out in continental Europa, where infrastructure is far more advanced than the UK, they wouldn't dare telling anyone to avoid changing lanes.


Most of this is your Anglophobia coming out, but I've highlighted the moved goal posts - in the post you made before this it was about congestion, now it is about speed. Congestion is caused by near misses, not making the most out of capacity by using all the road space and so on. Avoiding changing lanes deals with the causes of congestion - more of the road space is used (Lane 4 isn't just for overtaking a vehicle overtaking a vehicle) and less lane changes = less conflicts = less near misses = less braking = less ghost jams (that's almost self-evidently simple).

Yes, _you_ might not go faster, but, on average, everyone will move faster as they won't be held up in congestion.


> Matrix signs are there to provide information. That's what they do, even in the UK. However, they never tell you whether the information on the sign is true or not.
> (telling me at 3am on the M25 that there is a queue ahead after next junction hno: )


Ah, 'the boy who cried wolf' fallacious argument... Often people complain about the CONGESTION - STAY IN LANE signs, etc and the reduced speed limit as they don't find the source of the congestion. However that is as the signs have done they job well! I find the idea of there being a queue after the next junction on the M25 at 3am a very real possibility, though, at that time, the queue would be one that would disappear quickly once the thing causing it is moved (easily within the gap between sign warning you of queue and you reaching where it was). Plus the real time isn't quite there yet - such signs might take 5-10 minutes to go after the blockage is removed.

---

Plus, as I said, the need for the National Traffic Control Centre (or similar place that deals with the M25 VSL sections) to put these signs up telling people to STAY IN LANE, shows that the claims that 'lane discipline' is decent on the M25, demanding these frequent signs telling 'disciplined' drivers to stop it.


----------



## sotonsteve

At the end of the day, the UK's road infrastructure is very poor for a country as economically developed as it is. Road standards in relation to traffic volumes are pitiful, we have been bringing up the rear of the western world in terms of road network development since the 1930s, and highway design is getting progressively worse. Driving standards are also getting progressively worse as the population ages and migrants who learnt to drive in less developed countries increase in number.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

What about a 22 mile, £30 billion underground orbital road in London? 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e600b5ae-d9f0-11e3-9b6a-00144feabdc0.html


----------



## sirfreelancealot

Road_UK said:


> Yes, this "avoid changing lane" thing on the M25 is the most stupidest think they could have done. Traffic is now allowed to stay in lane doing whatever speed they want, potentially holding up traffic. Keep overtaking lanes clear, and it creates a better flow. Everyone should know that.


The problem is when a road becomes saturated with traffic flows the conventional approach to lane discipline becomes less relevant as there is less room to overtake. If anything there is a paradox where the left most lanes are best to occupy as there is often more traffic moving across to the right in the mistaken belief that it will be faster.

There have been many times that I have travelled up the A1 and witnessed a line of traffic queuing to get past slower traffic on the left lane, only for the lane to get so saturated with vehicles that it can sometimes become much slower than traffic in the left lane, usually due to a lot of bunching and braking which causes the ghost jam phenomenon. Knowing this, I find it's better to stay left to avoid having to brake and accelerate and instead maintain a fairly steady speed and being able to slow down by simply easing off the gas pedal instead of breaking hard and forcing the person, usually too close behind to brake harder. The benefit of this for me is less stress and quite a significant fuel saving and this type of approach relates well to the logic of staying in lane when the level of traffic far exceeds the maximum levels where a multi-lane highway can flow freely.

In other words the logic is simple. On a free-flowing road normal highway code rules apply in terms of keeping left unless overtaking. If the traffic exceeds free flowing capacity then its a case of filling all lanes with traffic to maintain a reasonable flow at a constant rate that often has to be less than the national speed limit.


----------



## IanCleverly

South Wales Argus said:


> *Work on new M4 Junction 28 'set to start in 2016'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Work to improve a Newport traffic bottleneck should begin in 2016, a Welsh Government minister has said. Edwina Hart, transport minister, said that the Welsh Government is on the hunt for contractors for works to improve junction 28 on the M4 at Tredegar House.
> 
> The works are part of a number of measures the Welsh Government is taking to improve the motorway, and could see a 'Coldra-style' link from the M4 eastbound to the A48.
> 
> In a letter Ms Hart told Labour Newport West AM Rosemary Butler said: "An employers agent has been appointed and topographic surveys have recently been completed, using laser technology to avoid lane closures and traffic disruption. We are now in the process of identifying potential design and build contractors. Invitations to tender will follow further planning and design works, in liaison with Newport City Council. Subject to obtaining the appropriate powers, works are programmed to begin in 2016".
> 
> The Argus reported last summer that junction 28 was due to be upgraded as part of a series of road improvements.
> 
> According to the Construction Inquirer website, tender documents show the new junction will be made longer with a central link from the M4 eastbound to the A48. It will involve the demolition of the westbound on-slip to the M4 underbridge over the A48, the website reported.
> 
> The details suggest that if the design goes ahead as planned, the new junction may be similar in operation to the Coldra, where a central link road through the roundabout takes motorists from the A449 straight to the M4 westbound.


Taken from their website Here


----------



## geogregor

Ok, time for some shots from my weekend trip to Devon.
I will never agin drive somewhere on bank holiday Saturday at the beginning of the half term. Traffic was just ludicrous. It took us about 6hr 30min to drive from Heathrow to Totnes. hno:

Anyway, once we got there it was quite nice.
Here are some back roads leading to Dartmoor:








































































B3212


----------



## geogregor

Still B3212































































Signage for larger vehicles


----------



## geogregor

On the way back to London, bypassing Exeter































































A30 heading east towards A303


----------



## geogregor

A303













































Last few late shots, sorry for quality but it was getting dark


----------



## geogregor

Here is link to documentary about A303 as the "Highway to the Sun"
http://vimeo.com/25813595

One day I want to drive this road slowly heading southwest


----------



## Penn's Woods

Lovely!

(Does that "American" restaurant realized it used the American spelling of "licensed"? If that was intentional, it was pretty subtle! (Sorry, it's the editor in me....))


----------



## Moravian

M25 - London Orbital Motorway:


----------



## piotr71

> SCORES of residents packed out a community centre eager to see how a £90m plan to improve access to the Gosport peninsula could affect them.
> 
> Hampshire County Council held a consultation at Titchfield Community Centre yesterday.
> 
> The council is in its second round of public consultation about the scheme, which includes a Stubbington bypass, a new Newgate Lane South, improvements to the A27 and a better Peel Common roundabout.
> The council would also like to ensure that motorists can exit both ways at junction 10 of the M27


http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/traffic-travel/residents-attend-unveiling-of-90m-road-plan-to-improve-gosport-peninsula-access-1-6115577


----------



## piotr71

> Central Bedfordshire Council is working with the Highways Agency (who are responsible for the A1) to replace the existing roundabout to the south of Biggleswade, on the A1 at the junction with A6001 London Road.
> 
> We will be enlarging and elongating the roundabout into a long-about. The new layout will increase the capacity of the junction to cater for increased traffic. You can see a drawing of the new layout (PDF 1.4MB).
> 
> This work is an important predecessor to support and encourage jobs and housing growth in Biggleswade. Without this reconfiguration of the roundabout, Stratton Business Park and London Road Retail Park are not as attractive for development. Any development would increase the traffic, HGVs in particular, which would try to go through the town of Biggleswade to get onto the A1 via the northern roundabout if the A1 long-about at the south is not able to cope with the increased traffic.
> 
> The development of the roundabout is key to unlocking the potential for approx. 2,000 new jobs, 2,100 homes (at the Land East of Biggleswade (LEOB)) and increased shopping choice over the next 5 to 10 years in Biggleswade.


http://m.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/travelling/roads-safety-and-highways/road-and-pavement-maintenance/major-road-developments/a1-roundabout-improvements-biggleswade.aspx


----------



## piotr71

*Corby link road opened.*

http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/top-stories/corby-link-road-opens-after-60-year-fight-1-6078612

I have captured some 20 imaged of the link, however they are very low quality, so will post only 3 of them.

IMG_20140527_142639 by 71piotr, on Flickr


IMG_20140527_143110 by 71piotr, on Flickr


IMG_20140527_143130 by 71piotr, on Flickr


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> Ok, time for some shots from my weekend trip to Devon.
> I will never agin drive somewhere on bank holiday Saturday at the beginning of the half term. Traffic was just ludicrous. It took us about 6hr 30min to drive from Heathrow to Totnes. hno:



I did Ashburton ( near Totnes) to Vauxhall Bridge in 2 hours 45 mins once but I deliberately avoided the A303 and the bloody caravan drivers and took the M4-M5 instead.


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> I did Ashburton ( near Totnes) to Vauxhall Bridge in 2 hours 45 mins once but I deliberately avoided the A303 and the bloody caravan drivers and took the M4-M5 instead.


I also used M4-M5 route but M4 was slow, in places very slow, while M5 was basically stationary. At some point we even tried local roads but it didn't help that much.
It was a bloody nightmare. All in pouring rain.

Coming back via A303 was way faster (Bank Holiday Sunday evening). I hit M25 in way less than 3 hours, probably about 2hr 30min (from Dartmoor), including loo stop at the diner and trying to find vantage point with view of Stonehenge.


----------



## geogregor

OK, some of my photos from a weekend day trip to Dover:


----------



## geogregor




----------



## geogregor




----------



## Kanadzie

Road_UK said:


> Getting ready to leave home in Stevenage:


Am I the only one who saw this and immediately shouted "shhpreeentaarr!" in a overly forced German accent?


----------



## stefeni-ts

One of the more pathetic motorways is the M274 it is so short it has absolutely no identifiers and just gets luped in as the M27/m275 junction it is the short northern spur of this junction and its identity has been lost in the mists of time


----------



## sotonsi

^^ The number was never used, AFAICS (someone who worked on the M27 plans talked about the planned M270-M275 numbers).

The original J12 plan was three roundabouts, but the free-flow J12 made the northern spur to the A27 and the southern one to the A3 effective one route, rather than two spurs.


----------



## geogregor

A151 in Lincolnshire, it is rather local road



























A15









A15 is really busy. There are some relatively long straight stretches but it is difficult to overtake due to traffic volumes.









Going north from Hull, those shots are probably from B1248 if I remember correctly


























CDN.


----------



## geogregor

Yorkshire


----------



## geogregor

On the way from Yorkshire back to London, it was getting dark so some shots are not ideal.


----------



## geogregor

One of many roadworks on my way, here motorway is narrowing and we can see average speed camera zone beginning 









Damn one lane. Unfortunately on that evening they were changing temporary lanes :bash:


















Here a bit better but average speed cameras are still present. They are installing running shoulder. 
Some construction zones on M1 seems to go on and on, for miles at a time. Soon there will be more managed stretches than the regular ones hno:


----------



## Blackraven

Where's the nearest fuel service station in Goodwood (near Rolls Royce)?

And who is/are the service provider(s) of that fuel station? (e.g. Shell, British Petroleum, Tesco UK, Esso, Total UK, etc.)

Thanks =)


----------



## sponge_bob

The main service providers in the UK are usually either Costa Coffee or Starbucks coffee with petrol almost as an afterthought. That is a big improvement on the expensive and inedible offal that Trust House Forté and Grenada offered the travelling public until recent years.


----------



## Blackraven

sponge_bob said:


> The main service providers in the UK are usually either Costa Coffee or Starbucks coffee with petrol almost as an afterthought. That is a big improvement on the expensive and inedible offal that Trust House Forté and Grenada offered the travelling public until recent years.


Ah I see.

Oh wait a second, please forgive me for that as my post may not have been clear. My bad.

My question is:
Where are is the nearest fuel station(s) closest to the Rolls Royce factory?

I ask that because in the future, I plan to ask/borrow a Rolls Royce Wraith (Right Hand Drive, UK-spec car with Miles Per Hour Speedometer) from RR HQ in Goodwood........but my concern is that even with an 83 liter maximum fuel tank capacity, I'm aware that I would need to refuel at least once a day since the car has a V12 engine.

That and I'm not sure if Rolls Royce HQ has supply inventory for Unleaded Motor Fuel on-site.

That's the reason why I want to know as to where is the closest place where I can load up on some Unleaded Motor Fuel.

There are currently more than 8,000 fuel stations in the UK so there has to be at least one major fuel provider in the Goodwood area =)


----------



## Kanadzie

just press the petrol station button in the navi...


----------



## sponge_bob

Blackraven said:


> Ah I see.
> 
> Oh wait a second, please forgive me for that as my post may not have been clear. My bad.
> 
> My question is:
> Where are is the nearest fuel station(s) closest to the Rolls Royce factory?
> 
> I ask that because in the future, I plan to ask/borrow a Rolls Royce Wraith (Right Hand Drive, UK-spec car with Miles Per Hour Speedometer) from RR HQ in Goodwood........but my concern is that even with an 83 liter maximum fuel tank capacity, I'm aware that I would need to refuel at least once a day since the car has a V12 engine.


I see. You are worried that a modern Rolls Royce will need refueling _as soon as it leaves the factory_ and that only the nearest petrol station will do. I assure you it will go 50 km in any direction nowadays and that you will have a choice of service stations for petrol. 

Dammit if the Roller won't get to Calais and beyond on a full tank. Do research Rolls Royce cars just _a tad _more before you ACTUALLY go and buy one, there is a good chap.!


----------



## andy5

Blackraven said:


> Ah I see.
> 
> Oh wait a second, please forgive me for that as my post may not have been clear. My bad.
> 
> My question is:
> Where are is the nearest fuel station(s) closest to the Rolls Royce factory?
> 
> I ask that because in the future, I plan to ask/borrow a Rolls Royce Wraith (Right Hand Drive, UK-spec car with Miles Per Hour Speedometer) from RR HQ in Goodwood........but my concern is that even with an 83 liter maximum fuel tank capacity, I'm aware that I would need to refuel at least once a day since the car has a V12 engine.


Sainsburys a mile away, just off the bypass, due south of the airfield

Esso at Tangmere to the east

Tesco to the west of Chichester and a couple of Co-op with Texaco east and westbound on Chichester bypass


----------



## Penn's Woods

Atlas recommendation, please:

I'm ordering some books and maps from a retailer in the Netherlands...I've been meaning to get a British road atlas as well and this retailer offers Collins and AA ones so I can toss one in and save on shipping. (I know about A-Z, but they don't have it.) Which would you buy - Collins' "Big" atlas of Britain or the comparable AA one?

Thanks.


----------



## Road_UK

If I had to choose I'd go for the AA one. But I always used Philips's road maps (not to be confused with the electronics). I've got one for Britain, France and Europe, and it has always served me well, also with extra information included.


----------



## geogregor

^^
I don't like Philip's atlases. 

With the exception of Philip's Navigator which is in my opionion the best road atlas on the market :










> The main road maps are at 1.5 miles to 1 inch (Northern Scotland at 3 miles to 1 inch) and are extra clear and detailed, showing even the smallest roads and lanes that are omitted from other atlases. Every roundabout, junction and slip-road is shown in detail on main roads and motorways. In country areas, thousands of individual houses and farms are marked, along with footpaths and tracks.





> Over 8000 tourist attractions and places of interest are shown and named on the maps, including national parks, nature reserves, RSPB reserves, TWT reserves, houses and gardens, beaches, marinas, canals, county showgrounds, CCC camping and caravan sites, shopping villages, World Heritage Sites, long-distance footpaths, sporting venues, park and rides, and ferries. Philip's Navigator Britain is widely used by professional drivers and the emergency services, including national police training, and is recommended in the motoring press and national newspapers.


Stanfords ship worldwide:
http://www.stanfords.co.uk/Home/Product-Detail/Philips-Navigator-Britain-2014_9781849073172.htm


----------



## sotonsi

A-Z do a decent GB atlas, though you need a magnifying glass if you don't buy the larger versions. But a Navigator isn't much more expensive than the Super Scale and is a higher quality product (more robust).

But in a choice of Collins and AA, I'd go with AA purely on the grounds that it sells more and thus is a more 'authentic' experience of UK mapping. Both have different cartography styles, but there's a similar level of detail and accuracy and there's not much between the two other than personal preference. If either one has Ireland as well as Britain (typically a double-page spread that's good for nothing more than an overview), get that as that's a better tie break. Price is arguably the best tie-break.

Personally I'd avoid spiral bound, but some people think that an atlas that falls apart quickly is better as you can see the tiny bit that disappears down the middle. IIRC, Collins tend to go spiral bound, whereas AA do staples.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Thanks, all (and others can chime in, of course).

Now how is it that Britain has four competing lines of road atlases (five, now that I think of it: Michelin) and France three, while we're down to two (well, plus Michelin) over here?

Of course, GMaps and its ilk may kill them all. :bash: Not that GMaps isn't fun to play with and more useful than anyone for certain things....


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Does Rand McNally still publishes atlases? I have a 2004 edition here


----------



## Fatfield

Penn's Woods said:


> Thanks, all (and others can chime in, of course).
> 
> Now how is it that Britain has four competing lines of road atlases (five, now that I think of it: Michelin) and France three, while we're down to two (well, plus Michelin) over here?
> 
> Of course, GMaps and its ilk may kill them all. :bash: Not that GMaps isn't fun to play with and more useful than anyone for certain things....


Because we don't do things by halves!


----------



## Suburbanist

Are there any improvement plans for Brighton-Chichester route (A27)?

It is a heavily populated coastal area without good highway links.


----------



## Road_UK

It's not that heavily populated, and the A27 is a dual carriageway with dual carriageway links to the M25. If the need for better links arouses, I am sure they'll discuss it in their local councils with notifications to Tilburg upon request.


----------



## devo

Nice coincidence in the Google maps imagery:


----------



## Delirium

Road_UK said:


> After that it's really nice to drive on. M5 is busy from Birmingham to Bristol but do-able. Risk of congestion is relatively low. Same goes for the M4.


Uhhh... I wish that was the case!


----------



## Road_UK

Compare them to M25, M1 and M6...


----------



## Jonesy55

M40 is one of my favourites. Considering it links London and Birmingham it doesn't seem to get congested too often.


----------



## sponge_bob

I always take M40+M5 when I go London > NW England.


----------



## Suburbanist

What do you think of a potential new highway Swindon-Oxford-Milton Keynes?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Suburbanist said:


> What do you think of a potential new highway Swindon-Oxford-Milton Keynes?


That potential is the key word.


----------



## Penn's Woods

They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot....


----------



## sponge_bob

Suburbanist said:


> What do you think of a potential new highway Swindon-Oxford-Milton Keynes?


Whats wrong with finishing the A34 from Birmingham ( or M40 near Birmingham) to Southampton FIRST??? 

That 'job' is still under way 50 years after it started.


----------



## Road_UK

They don't do Highways in the UK, we call them motorways. But I do agree on a better link. Also an upgrade of A34 between Southampton and Oxford wouldn't me a miss, making Birmingham better accessible with the south coast...


----------



## sponge_bob

It'd be a highway if it was actually built, whether an A or A(M) or M I care not. 

A34 today, substandard and highly congested 2+2 in the main. Just like the A14 then.


----------



## verreme

Road_UK said:


> They don't do Highways in the UK, we call them motorways. But I do agree on a better link. Also an upgrade of A34 between Southampton and Oxford wouldn't me a miss, making Birmingham better accessible with the south coast...


Highway = major road. A motorway is a highway, as well as any road having an important role in a network.


----------



## Road_UK

verreme said:


> Highway = major road. A motorway is a highway, as well as any road having an important role in a network.





> In North American and Australian English, major roads such as controlled-access highways or arterial roads are often state highways (Canada: provincial highways). Other roads may be designated "county highways" in the US and Ontario. These classifications refer to the level of government (state, provincial, county) that maintains the roadway.
> 
> In British English, "highway" is primarily a legal term. Everyday use normally implies roads, while the legal use covers any route or path with a public right of access, including footpaths etc.


Wikipedia


----------



## Suburbanist

sponge_bob said:


> Whats wrong with finishing the A34 from Birmingham ( or M40 near Birmingham) to Southampton FIRST???
> 
> That 'job' is still under way 50 years after it started.


I think UK needs a major road construction program, something to build many new links, especially in England and Northern Ireland.


----------



## Road_UK

^^ Please file above post as "Road_UK agrees with this" and have it ready for media purposes. Thank you


----------



## sponge_bob

The UK has a unique problem. It is impossible to build a brand new road as nobody wants them, so I accept that peculiarly English problem as a given.

But as there is no spare capacity anywhere south of Dundee it is impossible to upgrade existing roads like the A14 or A34 as there is nowhere to send the traffic _during_ the upgrade either. These upgrades should have been done 20-30 years ago ( around when Newbury was finally bypassed on the A34) but the only major new build job done reasonably well in the last 25 years was the A55 North Wales Expressway. Upgrading the M25 is a complete joke even though it started years ago.

All in all a mess, whether you do anything or not. If the existing roads crumble to pieces, thereby forcing an upgrade cycle, it will be equally messy. This is what threatens to happen to the A14 around Huntingdon. The end of the do nothing option is nigh....even though the government got a good 20 year run out of it.


----------



## sotonsi

Suburbanist said:


> What do you think of a potential new highway Swindon-Oxford-Milton Keynes?


It needs to go via Aylesbury and 'end' at M1 J13, so it can be part of a Swindon - Cambridge route (Black Cat - Caxton still needing work).


sponge_bob said:


> Whats wrong with finishing the A34 from Birmingham ( or M40 near Birmingham) to Southampton FIRST???
> 
> That 'job' is still under way 50 years after it started.


What's left to do? The two ends? Other than that, what is wrong with it. OK, Oxford is a bit of a bottleneck, but a Swindon - MK road would possibly be able to bypass that by creating an Oxford South Eastern bypass between the A34 near Abingdon or Didcot and M40 J8. Outside of that, it's really not bad.


Road_UK said:


> They don't do Highways in the UK, we call them motorways.


Nope.

Your wikipedia quote is right - Highway means road in common usage, but legally a right-of-way. Motorway is also a legal term meaning a Special Road (a public road which is not a Highway) that only allows Class I and II traffic.

I don't see the point of building it as a motorway. While objectors to the 1991 Wing Bypass did use the term 'motorway' for 6 months (and only those 6 months), the corridor wasn't proposed as such even under the late-80s/90s massive trunk road/motorway building plans. Something similar to the A421 between A1 and M1 is the right standard there. I guess if it's off-line new build you could make it a Special Road (and thus not a Highway), but I don't think it needs to be limited to Class I and II traffic (plus the HA don't have a clue what a non-motorway Special Road is, unlike Transport Scotland, NI Roads Service and Transport Wales).


----------



## andy5

Suburbanist said:


> What do you think of a potential new highway Swindon-Oxford-Milton Keynes?


I just did a Google search and found a Hansard record of a reply in Parliament about when a feasibility study for this road will be complete

that was in 1976


----------



## sotonsteve

Lane drops at M3 J3 and J4 on the Managed Motorways - All Lane Running scheme are sensible. At peak times considerable volumes of traffic enter and exit these junctions. There is not a huge amount of lorry traffic on this part of the M3 either, so lane gains and lane drops at junctions are the best solution.

The scheme will not solve one of the big causes of congestion on this part of the M3; Junction 3 cannot cope with the volumes of traffic it handles, and queues from the roundabout stretch back onto the main carriageway daily. The junction needs remodelling into something more efficient.


----------



## sotonsi

Road_UK said:


> I am sorry, but this explains why Britain has to endure he worst congestions in Europe, simply because people get to stay in lane at any speed they want.


Really? I thought it was because it has a high population density with a minimal network that funnels traffic onto a bare-bones network of motorways and fast dual carriageways (most of which, esp near cities, could do with at least another lane to deal with the amount of traffic they have) at poor quality junctions (very little free-flow).

Especially true in SE England (I'm counting the EU voting region of that name, Greater London, Hertfordshire and Essex), which has the 116.8% population of the Netherlands in 76.58% of the space. And far worse road network than that densely populated country.

Next you'll be saying that Britain's railways are crowded as the fast trains use their own dedicated tracks, rather than sharing with the slow trains and using passing loops to overtake slower trains. Ignoring the issues of the tracks being at capacity and passenger demand being very high :nuts:


> On the M25 I often find bizzare situations where the inside is full of lorries, the outside full of stationary traffic and a free-flow middle lane. It is time for a full-enforcement of keeping all overtaking lanes clear for overtaking only.


Really? I travel on it often, and it's never like that - it's either empty, or all the lanes (save perhaps the inside lane if it is a weaving lane between junctions) are full.

Plus what's going on in the fourth lane? - none of the M25 has only three lanes, save J3-5, which has very little truck traffic. It's clear you are misremembering from the murky past when bits had three lanes without roadworks (which complicate things, and also tell people to "stay in lane").


----------



## sotonsi

sotonsteve said:


> Lane drops at M3 J3 and J4 on the Managed Motorways - All Lane Running scheme are sensible. At peak times considerable volumes of traffic enter and exit these junctions. There is not a huge amount of lorry traffic on this part of the M3 either, so lane gains and lane drops at junctions are the best solution. The scheme will not solve one of the big causes of congestion on this part of the M3; Junction 3 cannot cope with the volumes of traffic it handles, and queues from the roundabout stretch back onto the main carriageway daily. The junction needs remodelling into something more efficient.


Like! :cheers:

In the meantime, before the junction gets improved (if it ever does ), the lane drops provides space for exiting traffic to wait while not interfering with the mainline. As seen in other places on the network - eg the long slips at M25 J8, the long coastbound diverge at M20 J4, the retention of the long off-slip west-bound at M27 J9, etc, etc.

While not enough lanes and not enough of a network of motorway/motorway-esque roads are problems, I'm increasingly of the belief that poor junctions are the greatest issue with the GB Motorway network.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I think the M25 is too busy for lane discipline to be realistic.


----------



## Road_UK

Once an island, always an island.


----------



## Road_UK

*The Magic Roundabout (Swindon, UK)*

It probably has been posted here before years ago, but I'll just post it again: The Magic Roundabout in Swindon. A series of little roundabouts in one big roudabouts. Negotiating it is easier than it looks...


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^[head explodes]


----------



## Autoputevi kao hobi

So confusing.


----------



## Mateusz

> Cameron to announce £15bn plan to improve UK's 100 road blackspots
> The A1 near Newcastle, Pennine crossings and the A303 London to Cornwall road will be upgraded, the PM will tell the CBI
> 
> The government is planning to spend £15bn to tackle more than 100 of the most notorious problem hotspots on England’s roads by the end of the decade, David Cameron will announce on Monday.
> 
> The prime minister will tell business leaders that hundreds of extra lane miles will be created on motorways and trunk roads as part of a “roads revolution” that will speed up journey times.
> 
> Plans to build a tunnel under Stonehenge have reportedly been looked at by the government to help ease congestion on the A303 and the route to the south west from London is among those that is set to benefit from the cash.
> 
> Work on stretches of the A1 round Newcastle, roads across the Pennines, the A47 in the east of England and the A27 on the south coast are also in line for funding.
> 
> Cameron will tell the CBI’s annual conference in London that the plans for the “biggest, boldest and most far-reaching” upgrade to roads in a generation will be announced in December’s autumn statement.
> 
> He is expected to say that there will be more than 100 improvements to our major roads.
> 
> “Hundreds of extra lane miles on our motorways and trunk roads. The green light given to major projects that have been stalled for years. Action to improve some of the most important arteries in our country – like the A303 and the A1 – which for too long have held parts of our country back. And all underpinned by over £15bn worth of investment.
> 
> “This will be nothing less than a roads revolution – one which will lead to quicker journey times, more jobs, and businesses boosted right across the country.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/10/david-cameron-announce-15bn-boost-improve-100-road-blackspots


----------



## sponge_bob

How many different Prime Ministers_ have promised to tunnel_ under/around stonehenge by now....would be every British PM in the last 30 years except Gordon Brown.   ????


----------



## Road_UK

Watch how a Lithuanian lorry makes a dangerous U-turn on the motorway

Video, CCTV, Sky News


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^China Central Television??

(I know. But I was just in International Border Crossings....)


----------



## Road_UK

*M25 section in Surrey collapses following roadworks*

M25 section in Surrey collapses following roadworks

BBC News

*Three lanes of the M25 in Surrey have been closed after a section collapsed and left a large pothole, following overnight roadworks.*












> Surrey Police said many vehicles had been left with damaged tyres after the road surface near Leatherhead fell in during heavy rain at about 05:30 GMT.
> 
> Highways workers had to clear concrete debris from the anti-clockwise carriageway near junction nine.
> 
> There are 90-minute delays, with queues back to junction 11 at Chertsey.
> 
> The slip road at Junction 9 was closed earlier but has since reopened.
> 
> A Highways Agency spokesman said: "Concrete repairs being carried out overnight failed to set.
> 
> "Maintenance crews had been working overnight to replace three sections of concrete road surface between junctions 9 and 10.
> 
> "One of these concrete sections disintegrated and another section was showing signs of distress.
> 
> "We have people on the site repairing these sections and we will reopen the closed lanes as soon as it is safe to do so."


More at link provided


----------



## Road_UK

More pictures of M25 chaos today...


----------



## Kanadzie

the damaged road looks like one I pass every day, usually trying to drive on the left side (in English fashion) to not hurt the car so bad...


----------



## Penn's Woods

Kanadzie said:


> the damaged road looks like one I pass every day, usually trying to drive on the left side (in English fashion) to not hurt the car so bad...


The Décarie?


----------



## Kanadzie

Decarie expressway is actually one of the better roads, was repaved. But the "Decarie boulevard" on top is terrible and the ramps on the Turcot are even worse - they scraped off the asphalt down to concrete about a year or so ago (reduce the weight on the crumbling flyovers?) and you hit it pretty hard... or the service roads on A-40, holy hell... I've broken wheels there.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Driven the Décarie twice, probably. In 2006 and many years before that. Traffic - and this wasn't rush hour - was a bit, well, hairy.

(Oh, we're OT again.)


----------



## Suburbanist

*Government to invest £15bn in better roads*

Apparently a major road construction scheme is coming to UK

Source and full text


> More than 80 new road schemes, including a long-awaited plan to tunnel under Stonehenge, will be announced on Monday in what ministers describe as the most far-reaching roads programme in decades.
> 
> The £15bn initiative, which covers investment lasting up to 2021, will be set out in the government’s first road investment strategy, which also includes improvements to junctions on the M25, to the A27 in Sussex, to approaches to Liverpool, and to the A1 in the north-east of England. It comes as a report from the RAC Foundation predicts there could be an additional 7 million road users in England and Wales – taking the total to 43 million – within 20 years.
> 
> The most eye-catching proposal is to spend £2bn turning the A303 into a strategic corridor to the south-west, partly by building a 1.8-mile dual-carriageway tunnel at Stonehenge. The road, which links the M3 to Devon and is known as the “holiday trail”, is notorious for its tailbacks, where frustrated families queue for hours en route to the English Riviera and beyond. The improvements are designed to enable road users to drive on dual carriageway from London to within 15 miles of Land’s End.
> 
> Around £1.5bn will also be spent adding an extra lane to certain motorways, turning them into “smart motorways”, where the extra lane can be used to manage traffic, improving links between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Yorkshire.


----------



## Autoputevi kao hobi

Is M25 made out of concrete,because it looks like is is?


----------



## Road_UK

In some places on the southside of the M25 yes. And the quality is also very bad around Leatherhead. 










The rest of the M25 is in good condition, as it all has been resurfaced with normal tarmac over the last 10 years.


----------



## bogdymol

Suburbanist said:


> Apparently a major road construction scheme is coming to UK
> 
> Source and full text


Could someone please explain why is needed a tunnel on A303 nearby Stonehenge? I looked on the map and it's just empty field.

Anyway, I'll drive myself on Thursday this week on that road (London-Exeter via A303) and I'll see how it is. Unfortunately I won't be able to take pictures.


----------



## sponge_bob

You have to realise how bare and open the area around Stonehenge is....except for 1 x really busy road. 

Mind you they have been banging on about this A303 tunnel for over 20 years and have done nothing much about it, it has probably been in 12 of the last 9 road policies in the UK.


----------



## rbt4mak786

Thanks For Nice Informative Post.. Keep It up...


----------



## sotonsi

bogdymol said:


> Could someone please explain why is needed a tunnel on A303 nearby Stonehenge? I looked on the map and it's just empty field.


Because it's one of the most important historical sites in the world, not just the UK. The tunnels would be quite deep (and bored, not cut) so as to avoid the wealth of archaeology in the area around the stones.

Given the road predates the stones, I imagine there's tons of stuff where a second surface carriageway would go.


----------



## sponge_bob

and the Geotechnical work has thrown up issues. The A303 runs L-R below Stonehenge and the grey bit shows radar surveys.


----------



## Penn's Woods

There was an interesting documentary on the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project on TV here recently. (The Smithsonian Channel) Might be on line if anyone's interested.

Sorry, OT.


----------



## sponge_bob

However the A303 is a shocking road elsewhere. A lot of it is single carriageway and I remember some of it is 2+1 ...dunno if built as 2+1 or retrofitted. It is riddled with at grade roundabouts, even between DC bits. 

It is the main road from SW England (population of Dorset/Devon/Cornwall is c.2m year round) to London and the summer population could be 3m in July and August. 

I avoid it in July and August and sunny bank holiday weekends in May....like the plague


----------



## Penn's Woods

People wouldn't just use the M5 and M4?


----------



## Autoputevi kao hobi

Road_UK said:


> In some places on the southside of the M25 yes. And the quality is also very bad around Leatherhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of the M25 is in good condition, as it all has been resurfaced with normal tarmac over the last 10 years.


I think that motorways who are made out of concrete are a waste of money,because they need to be reconstructed with asphalt and then motorway looks bad and it's not so flat. I think that Poland is going to have big problems.


----------



## sponge_bob

Penn's Woods said:


> People wouldn't just use the M5 and M4?



God no, I prefer Motorail me. Or Ryanair to Cornwall.


----------



## sotonsi

Here's a list of schemes - some of the descriptions are vague, and many schemes had already been announced. It is basically a list of everything on the trunk road network approved since 2010
M1 J13 to J19: smart motorway
M1 J19 improvement: free-flow access to A14 (under construction)
M1 J23A to J24: smart motorway (announced later than J24-25)
M1 J24 to J25: smart motorway
M1 J28 to J32: smart motorway
M1 J32 to J35A: smart motorway
M1 J35A to J39: Smart motorway (coming later than the surrounding sections)
M1 J39 to J42: smart motorway
M1/M62 Lofthouse Interchange: major enhancement for additional capacity
M1 J45: improvement to increase capacity
M2 J5 improvements: slip roads and approaches improved
M3 J2 to J4A: smart motorway
M3 J9 improvement: more freeflowing connections, widening
M3 J9 to J14: smart motorway
M3 J10 to 11 improved sliproads: technology, widening and realignment
M3 J12 to 13 improved sliproads: carriageway widening and reconfiguration
M4 J3 to J12: smart motorway
M4 Heathrow slip road: J4 and J4a pinchpoint signing and signals, underpass and mitigation
M4/M5 Smart Motorways: completed
M5 J4A to J6: smart motorway
M5 J23: improvements
M6 J2 to J4: smart motorway
M6 J10 improvement: widening roundabout to 4 lanes for additional capacity
M6 J10a-13: smart motorway
M6 J13 to J15: smart motorway (announced later than 10a to 13)
M6 J16 to J19: smart motorway
M6 J19 improvements
M6 J21A to J26: smart motorway
M11 J7 upgrade: extra capacity via significant upgrades and more tech
M11 J8 to J14 technology upgrade: including emergency roadside telephones, signals on slip roads, Motorway Incident detection and automatic signalling, variable message signs, CCTV cameras and gantries; work to take place in 3 phases.
M20 J3 to J5: smart motorway
M20 J10A: new junction
M23 J8 to J10: smart motorway
M25 J5-6/7: smart motorway (completed)
M25 J10: conversion to totally freeflowing interchange, including upgrades on the A3 at Painshill
M25 J10 to J16: 4 lanes throughout, creation of 5+ lane smart motorway
M25 J23-27: smart motorway (complete)
M25 J25 improvement: widening, signals, free-flow left turn
M25 J28 improvement: left turn lanes, other stuff
M25 J30: freeflow slips A282 -> A13 East
M27 J4 to J11: smart motorway
M27 Southampton junctions: J5 to J8 widening and signalisation of slip roads, local road improvements
M27 J10: developer funded creation of full-access junction
M49 Avonmouth junction: new junction to support development
M53 J5 to J11: Smart Motorway
M55 J2: new junction
M56 J6 to J8: smart motorway
M56 J11A: new junction
M60 J24 to J4: smart motorway
M60 J8 to M62 J20: smart motorway
M60 J18: more free-flowing movements
M62 J10 to J12: smart motorway
M62 J20 to J25: smart motorway
M62 J22: upgrade of junction providing additional capacity
M62 J25 to J30: Smart motorway (completed 2013)
M62/M606 Chain Bar: free-flowing slip road
M271/A35 Redbridge Roundabout: dedicated left turn lane and free-flow onto M271
M621 J1 to J7: junction enhancements and localised widening of sections
Lower Thames Crossing: at or downstream of Dartford
A1(M) J6 to J8: smart motorway (including adding an addition lane to make a potential 4 lanes)
A1(M) Doncaster Bypass: widening to D3
A1 J38 to J40: upgrade to motorway
A1 J51 to J56: upgrade to D3 motorway
A1 and A19 technology enhancements: bringing both roads in Tyne and Wear to motorway standard, CCTV, detection loops, Variable Message Signs.
A1 J65 to J67: widening to D3
A1 J67 to J71: widening to D3, C-D roads between J68 and J69 (already started)
A1 J74 to J79: narrow lane widening to create D3 throughout and D4 between some junction
A1 Morpeth to Ellingham dualling
A1 north of Ellingham: climbing lanes, improved junctions, better crossing facilities
A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions: improvements
A3 Guildford: widening to D3, junction improvements
A5-M1 link road: northern bypass of Dunstable
A11 Fiveways: dualling final stretch - completed recently
A12 whole route tech upgrade
A12 M25 to Chelmsford: widening to D3, dealing with congestion problems and unifying standards
A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening: J19 to J25 widening to D3
A12 Colchester bypass widening: to D3 with junction improvements
A14 Kettering bypass widening: D3 from J7 to J9
A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon: new build and widening between J20 and J33
A19 Norton to Wynyard: widening Billingham bypass to D3 and replacing concrete surface
A19 Down Hill Lane junction improvement: higher capacity A1290 junction
A19 Testos: grade-separation
A19 Silverlink Junction: conversion to a 3-level interchange
A20 Access to Dover: improve two junctions to be free-flow for A20 traffic
A21 Tonbridge to Pembury: dual carriageway, plugging gap in DC
A23 Handcross to Warninglid: widening to D3 (completed)
A27 Chichester improvement: upgrade of junctions on bypass
A27 Arundel bypass: dual carriageway, all sorts of consultation needed
A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements: improvements to capacity
A30 Temple to Higher Carblake and Chiverton to Carland Cross: two schemes in Cornwall, filling gaps in the Expressway standard road.
A31 Ringwood: widening to 3 lanes, junction and local road changes
A34 Technology enhancements: M4 to M40
A34 Oxford Junctions: improvements at Peartree and Botley interchanges
A38 Derby: grade-separation of junctions to complete Expressway in E Midlands
A45-A46 Tollbar End: grade-separated junction (under construction)
A47 Wansford to Sutton: dualling, plugging a gap in DC
A47 Guyhirn junction: larger roundabout at A141
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton: dualling, plugging a gap in DC
A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction: improvement
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham: dualling, plugging a gap in DC
A47/A12 junction enhancements: rebuilding Vauxhall Roundabout
A50 Uttoxeter: grade separation of junctions
A47 Acle Straight:
A57(?) Mottram Moor Link Road (including link to A57): links M67 to Wooley (oddly no Hadfield bypass)
A61 dualling: A616 to M1 J36
A63 Castle Street: grade seperation of A1079 junction in Hull, safety improvements in area around there for, inc pedestrian/cycle links across A63
A64 Hopgrove: grade separation
A160/A180 Immingham: Improvements to the junction
A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down: Stonehenge tunnel and approaches
A303 Sparkford - Ilchester dualling: fills a gap in the dual carraigway
A358 Taunton to Southfields: dual carriageway between M5 and A303
A417 'missing link' at Air Balloon: plugs gap in dual carraigeway. Issue with the environmental sensitivity of the site.
A453 widening: dual carraigway/S4 in urban bits), junction improvements (under construction)
A500 Eruria Widening: between Wolstanton and Porthill
A556 Knutsford to Bowdon: D3 Expressway between M6 and M56
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool: bypass
A5036 Princess Way: 'comprehensive upgrade' between Port of Liverpool (Bootle) and M57/M58
and some studies
A1 East of England feasibility study: looking at safety and performance of M25 to Peterborough
M25 SW quadrant study: looking at long term options
Manchester NW Quadrant Study: looking at all modes to ensure the road network can cope
Northern Trans-Pennine Study: looking at making A69 and/or A66 Expressway between A1 and M6
Oxford to Cambridge expressway: looking at upgrading existing roads to make Oxford-MK-Cambridge expressway
Trans-Pennine Tunnel Study: looking at viability of tunnel to link Manchester and Sheffield


----------



## sotonsi

sponge_bob said:


> However the A303 is a shocking road elsewhere. A lot of it is single carriageway and I remember some of it is 2+1 ...dunno if built as 2+1 or retrofitted.


Other than a couple of bits south of Warminster, and the 2+1 Ilminster bypass, its approved as D2 between the M3 and M5.

They delayed stuff in Somerset for when the Stonehenge bottleneck happens.

You have 2.1 miles, 7.4 miles, 6.4 miles (or 21.4 miles if going via A30) once the announced schemes are done. A total of 18 miles out of 95 is 19%. And that includes the S2+1.


> It is riddled with at grade roundabouts, even between DC bits.


The first roundabout is the Countess one at Amesbury, which will be grade-separated when the Stonehenge tunnel is built (and is sat waiting for it). The next is Sparkford, which might be done with that dualling scheme. Then there's Podimore (again, might be done in the Sparkford-Ilchester dualling scheme. Also is merely awaiting a flyover/underpass). Two more roundabouts (A3088, South Petherton) before Southfields, which might be done with the A358 dualling.

5 roundabouts - not bad for 95 miles (via A358) or 115 miles (via A30) between the M3 and M5. Perhaps down to 2 when the announced schemes are done


----------



## sponge_bob

sotonsi said:


> Here's a list of schemes
> M62 J25 to J30: Smart motorway (completed 2013)


I'd be fairly sure they will definitely maybe do that stretch first. There must be an election coming up soon is all I'll say about that list.


----------



## Exethalion

Oh no! That list of schemes means that the M49 will no longer be the only motorway in the UK with no junctions of its own.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*A11 Cambridge - Norwich*

*A11 dual carriageway opens*

*A multi-million pound investment to upgrade a vital transport link in the East of England came to fruition today (12 December) as the new A11 dual carriageway was opened by the Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin.*

The £105 million improvement to more than nine miles of the A11 – a key route between the M11 and Norwich – will bring a significant boost to the economy, reduce congestion and improve road safety.

The Highways Agency scheme between the Fiveways roundabout and Thetford has involved widening 5.5 miles of the A11, building a new 3.6 mile bypass around the village of Elveden, and five new structures. 








Press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a11-dual-carriageway-opens


----------



## Suburbanist

*Flakland Islands*

Driving video on the Falkland Islands


----------



## Suburbanist

*St. Helena*

Motorbike ride around the slopes in Jamestown


----------



## Blackraven

bogdymol and sponge_bob said:


> A303 nearby Stonehenge





Penn's Woods said:


> M5 and M4


I remember that Top Gear UK episode wherein Jeremy Clarkson was doing night driving to see if he can travel from Land's End in Cornwall all the way to Lowestoft in Suffolk........in under 7 hours.










UK West to East Long Drive


----------



## Road_UK

Lowestoft is a bastard to get to. Ît's not so bad when coming from London using the A12, but no proper road to the north of England and it takes hours and hours to get to a decent motorway or dual carriagway when heading to for example Yorkshire.


----------



## Suburbanist

What is the busiest ferry route between Great Britain island and Ireland island?


----------



## Road_UK

Holyhead to Dublin, Liverpool to Belfast.


----------



## sotonsi

Road_UK said:


> Lowestoft is a bastard to get to. Ît's not so bad when coming from London using the A12, but no proper road to the north of England and it takes hours and hours to get to a decent motorway or dual carriagway when heading to for example Yorkshire.


The A12-A47-A11-A14 route isn't bad for the Midlands

Depends where in London you are coming from, but the trunk route via Norwich is probably quicker, especially as the A12 in Essex needs another lane.

The Government have announced improvements of the A47 through Norfolk, giving a more direct route to the A1 (though still not great, but fine for the traffic, and not as direct as the A17).


Road_UK said:


> Holyhead to Dublin, Liverpool to Belfast.


I'd have thought that the Larne - Cairnryan route would be busier than Liverpool-Belfast, being significantly shorter.


----------



## geogregor

sotonsi said:


> I'd have thought that the Larne - Cairnryan route would be busier than Liverpool-Belfast, being significantly shorter.


Me too. Liverpool - Belfast sounds like a long crossing.
Do you know where one could find some official statistics?

Also, let's not forget about ferries between Rosslare and southern Wales. The problem is that there traffic splits between Fishguard and Pembroke. But still, I'm sure both routes are busier than Liverpool - Belfast route.

EDIT:
Found this:
Holyhead - Dublin 8 crossings daily
Liverpool - Dublin 3 crossings daily
Troon - Larne 14 crossings weekly
Cairnryan - Belfast 5 crossings daily
Pembroke - Rosslare 14 crossings weekly
Fishguard - Rosslare 14 crossings weekly
Holyhead - Dun Laoghaire 7 crossings weekly

Now the question is about the size of the ferries and how full they sail on each route.


----------



## sotonsi

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/283678/Sea_Passenger_Statistics_2013.pdf

Says that in 2013, Cairnryan - Belfast carried 1.2m passengers, Holyhead-Dublin about 1.8m, and Cairnryan - Larne carried about 500k. Other Republic of Ireland ferries add up to 1.5m, Other NI ferries add up to 0.4m, with ferries to Scotland making up 1.8m of the 2.1m total. Birkenhead-Belfast is therefore under 0.3m


----------



## Penn's Woods

geogregor said:


> EDIT:
> Found this:
> Holyhead - Dublin 8 crossings daily
> Liverpool - Dublin 3 crossings daily
> Troon - Larne 14 crossings weekly
> Cairnryan - Belfast 5 crossings daily
> Pembroke - Rosslare 14 crossings weekly
> Fishguard - Rosslare 14 crossings weekly
> Holyhead - Dun Laoghaire 7 crossings weekly


Are those figures each way or round trip ("return," if you prefer)? Meaning, are there four boats or eight from Holyhead to Dublin each day?

EDIT: I guess the presence of odd numbers on the list answers that question.... :blush:


----------



## geogregor

sotonsi said:


> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/283678/Sea_Passenger_Statistics_2013.pdf
> 
> Says that in 2013, Cairnryan - Belfast carried 1.2m passengers, Holyhead-Dublin about 1.8m, and Cairnryan - Larne carried about 500k. Other Republic of Ireland ferries add up to 1.5m, Other NI ferries add up to 0.4m, with ferries to Scotland making up 1.8m of the 2.1m total. Birkenhead-Belfast is therefore under 0.3m


Thanks for that.
It would be nice to know breakdown of how many foot passengers, cars and lorries use each crossing. 



Penn's Woods said:


> Are those figures each way or round trip ("return," if you prefer)? Meaning, are there four boats or eight from Holyhead to Dublin each day?
> 
> EDIT: I guess the presence of odd numbers on the list answers that question.... :blush:


Yes, these are crossings in one direction, meaning for example 8 boats from Holyhead to Dublin and 8 boats back or two a day from Pembroke to Rosslare and 2 from Rosslare to Pembroke


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Severn Bridges*

Campaigners say Severn tolls among 'world's most expensive'

Somebody didn't do their research. The Severn Bridges are quite cheap (£ 6.50) compared to the tolls for the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark (£ 25), the Øresund Bridge from Denmark to Sweden (£ 38), the Hardanger Bridge in Norway (£ 13) the Mont Blanc Tunnel (£ 33) or Fréjus Tunnel (£ 33) between France and Italy.


----------



## sotonsi

Someone didn't do their research.
From the article:


> CAST organiser councillor John Warman said: "The new year Severn toll bridge increases make it one of the most expensive bridge crossings in the world per mile."


So why give values for tunnels?

Why ignore the 'one of the' weasel words? Great Belt and Hardanger Bridges are more expensive, even when length is taken to account, but that doesn't mean that the Severn crossings aren't among the most expensive, even if two other bridges are more expensive (even if they were considerably more so, if the Severn Bridges are top 5, it's clear they warrant that description).


----------



## sponge_bob

ChrisZwolle said:


> Somebody didn't do their research. The Severn Bridges are quite cheap (£ 6.50) compared to the tolls for the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark (£ 25), the Øresund Bridge from Denmark to Sweden (£ 38), the Hardanger Bridge in Norway (£ 13) the Mont Blanc Tunnel (£ 33) or Fréjus Tunnel (£ 33) between France and Italy.


You only pay on one of them, the newer one westbound into Wales. The older one ( eastbound) is free or at least it was a few years back.


----------



## piotr71

On both bridges toll are charged Westwards only, Eastwards are free of charge.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

sotonsi said:


> So why give values for tunnels?


Does it matter? They provide the same kind of connection, leaving out tunnels is just a poor attempt to make their weak case sound stronger. It's also called 'cherry-picking'.



> Why ignore the 'one of the' weasel words?


It's simply not 'one of the world's most expensive toll bridges' with a 6.50 pound toll. In addition, the toll is only charged one way, so in reality a return trip will cost only 3.25 per crossing.

There are numerous bridges that charge 2 times as much, one way. There is a bridge that charges 6 times as much. And the examples aren't limited to the ones I gave.


----------



## andy5

When some of the older of these crossings were built, it was said that tolls would be charged only until the cost was paid off.

Then when that point has been reached things change, and it just becomes a scheme to collect more revenue, the prices go up substantially, then the operation is privatised ...

The Dartford Crossing east of London is such a case. The tunnels are older, but when the bridge construction was being considered in the late 1980s it was meant to free once paid off, so the tolls should have been phased out 10 or 11 years ago. Instead it's now officially a charge not a toll. They are removing the toll booths, but because a number plate recognition scheme has been introduced, and people pay online.


----------



## sotonsi

ChrisZwolle said:


> Does it matter? They provide the same kind of connection, leaving out tunnels is just a poor attempt to make their weak case sound stronger. It's also called 'cherry-picking'.


To ignore that he specifically said bridges is to cherry pick what he said. As you point out, cherry picking doesn't make for a convincing argument!


> It's simply not 'one of the world's most expensive toll bridges' with a 6.50 pound toll.


You still want to cherry pick the words he said - while not leaving out 'bridges' this time, you still cherry pick the words to leave out 'per mile'.

The guy pushing against the high tolls (and they are high, just not as extortionate as they are on a couple of crossings in Nordic countries or under the Alps) narrowed the claim to make his claim plausible, you've expanded the claim to show it's rubbish. Both are moving goalposts to try and make the argument seem better while not being wrong, but really are seen as (to quote you) "mak[ing] their weak case sound stronger".

---

That eastbound is free doesn't come into the guy's argument - he talks about off-putting cost to enter Wales. This is how normal people think - they don't think "well at least it would be free when coming back", they think "good heavens, £6.50 to cross the short distance to Wales, I'll rather not bother with that rip off". Well, OK they grudgingly fork out the money (or seek an alternate way into Wales), rather than avoid it, but they don't treat it as a return fare (because it isn't).

---



> There is a bridge that charges 6 times as much.


But is 6 times the length (18km vs 3km for M48 J1-2)! :bash:

If you are saying that the Oresund bridge-tunnel is truly expensive, then you are also saying that the Severn Bridge is expensive, not denying it!



andy5 said:


> The tunnels are older, but when the bridge construction was being considered in the late 1980s it was meant to free once paid off, so the tolls should have been phased out 10 or 11 years ago.


Unless the years have passed more quickly than I thought, it's more like 7 or 8. But even so, the grievance is valid.


----------



## Road_UK

I believe sotonsi is one of the most unsympathetic members of this section. Either way, for UK standards it is truly expensive, and sometimes when coming from Dover me and some of my colleagues get off the M4 at Swindon and cut across via Gloucester just to save the tolls when going to South Wales.


----------



## andy5

Road_UK said:


> ... and sometimes when coming from Dover me and some of my colleagues get off the M4 at Swindon and cut across via Gloucester just to save the tolls when going to South Wales.


If one of the new road schemes the government was recently talking about will be at last sorting out the Birdlip area, that diversion may well become more popular.


----------



## Road_UK

It is a bit of a bastard as well though that cards are not accepted on any of the tolls in the UK apart from M6 Toll. Cash only or tags.


----------



## geogregor

Well, building road infrastructure and its maintanance has to be financed somehow. Either from general taxation or via user fees (tolls etc)

The problem with having only few selected tolled crossing (like in the UK) is the fact that they penalize local population.
For example someone living in west London can regularly use M25 for free. His counterpart living in eastern part of greater London has to pay tolls on Dartford crossing.

Equally commuters from Bristol area towards southern Wales have to pay while those from Merseyside going to northern Wales go for free.

Either toll the whole network or drop the selective tolls, particularly where there is no alternative as they are effectively extra taxas on local population. They already pay fuel duty and other car realted taxes like anyone else.


----------



## Penn's Woods

ChrisZwolle said:


> Campaigners say Severn tolls among 'world's most expensive'
> 
> Somebody didn't do their research. The Severn Bridges are quite cheap (£ 6.50) compared to the tolls for the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark (£ 25), the Øresund Bridge from Denmark to Sweden (£ 38), the Hardanger Bridge in Norway (£ 13) the Mont Blanc Tunnel (£ 33) or Fréjus Tunnel (£ 33) between France and Italy.


$14.00 to cross the Goethals Bridge from New Jersey to Staten Island, New York. (If you don't have E-ZPass.) I assume that's true of the other Port Authority crossings, too.

Greetings from "the world" beyond Europe. ;-)


----------



## Penn's Woods

Road_UK said:


> I believe sotonsi is one of the most unsympathetic members of this section. Either way, for UK standards it is truly expensive, and sometimes when coming from Dover me and some of my colleagues get off the M4 at Swindon and cut across via Gloucester just to save the tolls when going to South Wales.


Well, arguing about whether the bridge is "one of" the most expensive in the world or not is a bit silly, I think, given that that "one of" renders the whole idea rather, well, vague.

But to your other point, how many tolls are there in the UK at all? This, Dartford, the M6....?


----------



## Penn's Woods

andy5 said:


> ....Instead it's now officially a charge not a toll....


Huh? Did they consult George Orwell on this?


----------



## andy5

Penn's Woods said:


> Huh? Did they consult George Orwell on this?


I was taking the mickey out of one thing I read. There's no difference.

Edit: elsewhere, that was.


----------



## Kanadzie

so... I heard England had 2 inches of snow and the country is paralyzed :lol: I guess I am just a colonial


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^You are. We're rebels. :cheers:

I read in the Daily Telegraph a few years ago that Transport for London or whatever it's called these days was suffering Tube breakdowns. The explanation being that they're not designed for 25F/-4C weather. There are major cities (New York...) where 25F (or a little lower, actually) is the normal low in January. And major cities where it's a hell of a lot colder.

Queen Victoria would not be amused.


----------



## piotr71

*M275, Portsmouth.*


----------



## Road_UK

Penn's Woods said:


> Well, arguing about whether the bridge is "one of" the most expensive in the world or not is a bit silly, I think, given that that "one of" renders the whole idea rather, well, vague.
> 
> But to your other point, how many tolls are there in the UK at all? This, Dartford, the M6....?



Roads

M6 Toll

Bridges

Dartford Crossing (1963 and 1981)[7]
Humber Bridge
Mersey Tunnels (1886 & 1971)
Severn Bridge (1966)
Tyne Tunnel (1967)

Congestion pricing zones

London congestion charge
Durham congestion charge

Planned tolls

Roads

M4 relief road (South Wales)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_roads_in_Great_Britain#Current_tolls


----------



## piotr71

I also remember some less significant toll bridges in Oxfordshire, charged about 20 pence or so.


----------



## Road_UK

Yeah, there are loads of those about. This is the Whitchurch Bridge just outside Reading:










Charge: 60P


----------



## Road_UK

Kanadzie said:


> so... I heard England had 2 inches of snow and the country is paralyzed :lol: I guess I am just a colonial


Snow and Health and Safety is beyond a joke in the UK


----------



## andy5

Road_UK said:


> Snow and Health and Safety is beyond a joke in the UK


The writer is neither a journalist nor a lawyer. It's a piece of creative writing, maybe fiction. 

Nobody writing such nonsense has adduced a case of someone actually being sued.

That article was nearly 5 years ago. In the same newspaper this week a government minister is quoted as saying people should ignore bogus warnings and help their neighbours.


----------



## Road_UK

It doesn't matter. The UK still has a very strange stance on health and safety and snow, which goes side by side in propaganda North Korea style. People are not allowed to think for themselves anymore. There are even signs in hotel rooms warning guests that water can get very hot and may cause blisters. hno:


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ it's okay. I've had hotel rooms where the hot water wasn't hot enough...

oh and one I spent a month living out of, that had hot water that came and went as other people used water, morning shower, freeze and burn at random intervals, I swore so much...


----------



## poshbakerloo

Kanadzie said:


> so... I heard England had 2 inches of snow and the country is paralyzed :lol: I guess I am just a colonial


The snow fall was so strangely localised! We had no snow in Prestbury (Cheshire) but in Macclesfield, less than 2 miles away they had a lot!


----------



## sotonsi

We get paralysed as our snow tends to be different to typical snow where snow is typical.

For one thing, its rare to get snow - even if annual, people aren't used to driving in/on it.

For another, it often melts and refreezes, leaving dangerous ice instead. When it snows in the UK, it tends to be within a couple of degrees of freezing.

And thirdly it normally comes down in big flurries/blizzards that mean you can't drive fast because you can't see. Even in the places where you get lots of snow, such things cause traffic chaos.


----------



## sotonsteve

Speaking of tolls, I recall an accident on the A34 at Oxford forcing me to find an alternative route. The alternative route I chose took me across the Swinford Toll Bridge. I was very surprised when I discovered the toll was 5p. Yes, just 5p!


----------



## piotr71

sotonsi said:


> We get paralysed as our snow tends to be different to typical snow where snow is typical.(..)


 Well...

In communist times we had been told that population of Colorado beetles damaging our potatoes were part of an American plot to biologically destroy our "land of milk and honey" and we believed in it.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I don't think the UK was paralysed at any point in the past week. Liverpool Airport closed its runway for a bit, that's all I heard about. -4C isn't shockingly cold for London either, I don't see why it would be a problem for the tube.

What I do think is that the British media loves exaggerating everything, and people love it. I remember when I was doing my GCSEs it snowed 8cm, and several schools nearby closed, mine stayed opened but only about 1/4 of the school bothered turning up, but everyone that tried did. The buses were fine, the roads were fine. But some people overreact, partly at least due to sensationalist headlines.

I would understand if it only snowed once a decade.


----------



## John Maynard

Hahaha, snow is given so much importance in the UK, like if it was such a terrific event, than even a thin layer paralyze the whole country (airport closed, road blocked, train stopped, school and public service off), pushing everyone, all newspapers, medias and public service to talk over and over about it, as if it was something sent by aliens in order to infect all British humans :lol:.

On the other hand, white Britain would be so romantic .


----------



## sponge_bob

England, after all, is where a transport snarlup was blamed on "*The Wrong Kind of Snow*" around 25 years ago. There is a helpful page explaining it Here


----------



## geogregor

Media have general tendency to exaggerate everything, not only in the UK, try watching Polish news 

I honestly didn't notice any major problems with transport in London last week.
My girlfriend crossed country from London to Cornwall and back and didn't encounter any serious problems either (only minor delays).
Sure there were issues with overrunning of the engineering works on some railways (Kings Cross and Paddington services on Saturday) but it had nothing to do with snow or weather.

As Daniel said, they closed two airports for short period of time for clearing snow from the runways, apart from that British airports functioned largely without a hitch.

On roads major issues were concentrated mostly to the Pennines and Wales and even there they lasted for at most a few hours.

Not really Armageddon as portrayed in some media outlets


----------



## John Maynard

We may have the same "wrong kind of snow" here in Lausanne, Switzerland, as well :lol:.

You know, despite of the appearance, it snows only once or twice per year on the Lake Geneva area. According to the description provided by this article, we do have many similar occurrences. As the snow melting into ice, or the ice "blizzard", as temperatures often vary around +- 0°C. Still I can't remind of huge media and widespread "talking" about it, nor of transports, schools and public service "breakdowns". We do have some accidents caused by this "extreme weather", but they are especially people driving without winter tires on hills :bash:.

Here is this "blizzard" in action causing "terrific" effects once a while :lol::


----------



## Penn's Woods

sponge_bob said:


> England, after all, is where a transport snarlup was blamed on "*The Wrong Kind of Snow*" around 25 years ago. There is a helpful page explaining it Here


Land of Hope and Glory....


----------



## CairnsTony

DanielFigFoz said:


> I don't think the UK was paralysed at any point in the past week. Liverpool Airport closed its runway for a bit, that's all I heard about. -4C isn't shockingly cold for London either, I don't see why it would be a problem for the tube.
> 
> What I do think is that the British media loves exaggerating everything, and people love it. I remember when I was doing my GCSEs it snowed 8cm, and several schools nearby closed, mine stayed opened but only about 1/4 of the school bothered turning up, but everyone that tried did. The buses were fine, the roads were fine. But some people overreact, partly at least due to sensationalist headlines.
> 
> I would understand if it only snowed once a decade.


Speaking as someone who grew up in London in the 70s and 80s I remember how rare snow was then. We had heavy snow some time in the late 70s ('78?) but otherwise only light dustings or no snow at all. These freezing winters that the UK has been having more regularly of late are not something I typically experienced before then. It doesn't surprise me that sudden blizzard conditions cause problems in a country that doesn't typically experience these conditions on a regular basis, although a sensationalist media doesn't exactly help.

Looking at any winter isotherm chart, you'll see how average winter temperatures in the UK compare with the rest of Europe. The effect of the Gulf Stream is readily apparent:

http://www.your-garden-ponds-center.com/plant-hardiness-zones.html


----------



## -Pino-

CairnsTony said:


> It doesn't surprise me that sudden blizzard conditions cause problems in a country that doesn't typically experience these conditions on a regular basis, although a sensationalist media doesn't exactly help.


Well, I've spent time in Sweden and Austria during periods of snowfall. You'd say that both are countries that see a good bit of snowfall, but those countries will be equally gridlocked on a day of heavier snowfall. Driving conditions on this type of day are just tricky and rail tracks are simply not made for it. Maybe sensasionalist media makes the biggest difference. The size of urban areas affected will probably also make a difference.

Where the 'typical snow countries' do make a difference is driving when there is snow on the road after the snowfall. Countries like Norway will leave many of their trunk roads under snow cover, as Norwegians are used to driving on that type of surface. In countries influenced by the Gulf Stream, traffic will remain gridlocked until the roads have been fully cleared.


----------



## piotr71

*M27, Portsmouth*


----------



## Suburbanist

Do French security/customs/anti-terrorist/immigration officers operate in Folkstone like the British operate in Calais for ferry-related traffic?


----------



## piotr71

Yes, they do. As far as I remember, they, French and British police and custom, operate only on British soil (when travelling to the Continent) in order to enable drivers to continue their journey directly on French motorways without additional stopping in Calais.


----------



## sotonsi

IIRC, it's an embassy type arrangement, with France and the UK having sovereignty of part of the terminal on the other countries soil for all that.

Maybe my memories are clouded by typically arriving (a long time ago now) in France by surface travel at St Malo at 0700 (off an ex-Portsmouth ferry) to be greeted by an unmanned passport control booth (which given that it is the port's main need for passport control was rather funny), but the French typically give a Gallic shrug to the border stuff, and its only the tunnel security stuff that is any hassle going to France.


----------



## Road_UK

sotonsi said:


> IIRC, it's an embassy type arrangement, with *France and the UK having sovereignty of part of the terminal on the other countries soil for all that.*
> 
> .


They haven't though. They are still subjected to local laws, even though they have arresting powers. The British would like to call their little area in Calais a "UK control zone". Something that is being laughed away by the French, because French customs are still actively doing drug searches inside the "UK control zone". And in Dover upon arrival at the terminal you are first getting your passport checked by the French police, then the British police may like to have a word with you, then sometimes British customs wishes to make a few inquiries, and if you are really unlucky you get randomly picked by Port of Dover security for a search of your vehicle before you finally make it to the check-in.

UK border officers have often been threatened with arrest by the Belgian police at the Brussels Eurostar station for conducting unlawful checks on passengers not wishing to travel to London.


----------



## andy5

DanielFigFoz said:


> What I do think is that the British media loves exaggerating everything, and people love it. I remember when I was doing my GCSEs it snowed 8cm, and several schools nearby closed, mine stayed opened but only about 1/4 of the school bothered turning up, but everyone that tried did. The buses were fine, the roads were fine. But some people overreact, partly at least due to sensationalist headlines.
> 
> I would understand if it only snowed once a decade.


It amuses me that when TV reports tell us about places that are cut off by the weather, or people are having severe difficulties getting about, hoards of journalists have travelled to these places in order to make the reporting more dramatic, but they never seem to realise the irony that if they managed to get there the story isn't quite true.


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^"Fog in Channel: Continent Cut Off" :jk:*



andy5 said:


> ....
> In London they are complaining about measured pollution levels still being bad, but not doing much about it. Taxis buses and coaches have been exempt from the latest changes in equipment. And emissions from buildings due to heating oil. Now the mayor is talking about banning all diesel cars in a few years time. Perhaps taxis will still be exempt. If they switch to electric cars, with their blatant marketing lie about zero emissions, this just moves the pollution to the power station.


Do we have any idea (data...) on whether London's congestion charge actually reduces congestion or pollution (if it's even meant to reduce pollution) or just raises money for the government?


*That's supposedly a famous British newspaper headline.


----------



## MichiH

^^

http://www.cleanerairforlondon.org....ta/trends-london/history-air-pollution-london



> The air quality in London is improving. In the last fifteen years the concentrations of all local air pollutants in London have decreased, as demonstrated in the graph below (ozone remains a problem, however this is not considered a local pollutant).


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ That doesn't answer the question if it is a result of the congestion charge.  Air quality also improved significantly in Dutch cities - without a congestion charge.


----------



## Penn's Woods

(I'm not sure it answers the question even for pollution, actually - not sure it establishes cause and effect....)


----------



## John Maynard

Meanwhile, air quality has improved significantly in Switzerland despite of increase of traffic . That happened without any congestion charges, nor higher tolls since.

I believe that more fuel efficient cars with technologies to reduce pollutants helped a lot. Far more than any road congestion charges, that btw. only reports traffic to the outskirts. Furthermore, pollution generated by industries, factories and power plants (especially fossil energy and coal) within or near big cities, houses heating is far more harmful than road traffic. Remember the Great Smog of death in London?


----------



## sotonsi

London's air quality has got better thanks to cleaner buses/taxis, and the Low Emissions Zone - the Congestion Charge has nothing to do with it.

The Congestion Charge doesn't make much money, if any (they upped the price as it was working as a stick stopping private cars, and thus not making enough money to break even), and profits automatically go to adding buses to the streets inside the zone


----------



## DanielFigFoz

John Maynard said:


> Remember the Great Smog of death in London?


That's a good idea, I should ask my grandmother about that, thanks! She should remember, she would have been twelve.


----------



## geogregor

Does anyone know how the construction of the motorway service stations in Northern Ireland is progressing?
Irish company Applegreen is building two pairs of services on motorways leading out of Belfast (M1 and M2) and I wonder how advanced the works are.


----------



## Chris99

Queensferry Crossing under construction.

Some pics from the official twitter feed:
























https://mobile.twitter.com/NewForthBridge/media/grid?idx=5

And a couple taken by me last year:


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^Where's that?


----------



## Tom 958

Penn's Woods said:


> ^^Where's that?


You don't recognize this? hno:









https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9990303,-3.4069496,3436m/data=!3m1!1e3


----------



## Penn's Woods

Um, well, no I don't.

[Hangs head in shame.]


----------



## Exethalion

Dancing Lampposts on the M62


----------



## sotonsi

Penn's Woods said:


> Um, well, no I don't.
> 
> [Hangs head in shame.]


To be fair on you, the Forth Rail Bridge isn't prominent on those pics, and the Forth Road bridge isn't anywhere near as iconic.

North of Edinburgh.


----------



## piotr71

*A27*

3 to Chichester.


----------



## Road_UK

Rubbish thrown on central reservations highly common in the UK...


----------



## Protteus

piotr71 said:


> 3 to Chichester.


I thought contraction joints were only made on concrete pavements.


----------



## geogregor

Protteus said:


> I thought contraction joints were only made on concrete pavements.


This tarmac is probably laid on top of the concrete surface. Concrete slabs "work" underneath and cracks appear on the tarmac surface.


----------



## Chris99

Forth bridges today:


----------



## sirfreelancealot

geogregor said:


> This tarmac is probably laid on top of the concrete surface. Concrete slabs "work" underneath and cracks appear on the tarmac surface.


Cheap and nasty low noise smooth stone mastic asphalt surfacing that the Highways Agency is obsessed with. In this case it is overlaid on a concrete surface, but in all cases it fails much sooner than with the old hot rolled asphalt surfacing that was used until the late 1990's. 

Stone mastic asphalt is the surface of satan. Made of dog poo.


----------



## sotonsi

The Northern Powerhouse Report has some stuff on roads (beginning page 26 of the .pdf/page 23 of the report). Mostly a repeat of existing proposals.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*M4, Newport*

*VINCI wins a contract in Wales to develop a new section of motorway to the south of the city of Newport*

The Welsh Government has awarded Costain/VINCI Joint Venture (50% Costain and 50% VINCI, represented by Taylor Woodrow and VINCI Construction Grands Projets), the first stage of an ECI (Early Contractor Involvement) contract for the M4 Corridor to the south of the city of Newport. This new 24 km long section of motorway includes a 2.5 km long cable-stayed viaduct above the river Usk, two key interchanges and 36 structures.

This £750 million project will help deliver government aims to improve infrastructure in Wales by making it more efficient, safer and more sustainable.

Development work will commence immediately, a Public Local Inquiry should get under way about 18 months from now and construction, subject approval by the authorities, could start in spring 2018.








Full press release: http://www.vinci.com/vinci.nsf/en/press-releases/pages/20150325-1930.htm


----------



## DanielFigFoz

That's been going on for years now, I'll believe it when I'm driving on it.


----------



## devo

I was about to reach for an A-Z map from 1993 which shows this road as proposed... couldn't find it right now but ... it probably would've been the 99th time someone made that point about the Newport bypass so no worries I guess.


----------



## 896334

devo said:


> I was about to reach for an A-Z map from 1993 which shows this road as proposed... couldn't find it right now but ... it probably would've been the 99th time someone made that point about the Newport bypass so no worries I guess.


I know what you mean, when I was a kid my parents had an A-Z map which had the bypass down as proposed. That must have been mid-90s as well!


----------



## sotonsi

Today the default speed limits for HGVs in England and Wales have increased by 10mph.

Dual-carriageways are now 60mph (de facto 56mph) and single-carriageways are 50mph.

Part of this was legalising standard behaviour, part of this was to improve safety by reducing the speed differential between cars and HGVs, reducing the need to overtake.

The latter reason was why Scotland pushed to get speed limits devolved to them - they have long single-carriageway roads forming major trunk links in a way that England and Wales doesn't so much. Scotland got it, and started a trial on the A9 that hasn't yet finished, but England and Wales changed their limits before Scotland.

I'd imagine that Scotland will change before long, but watch out if driving across the border.


----------



## Suburbanist

sotonsi said:


> Today the default speed limits for HGVs in England and Wales have increased by 10mph.
> 
> Dual-carriageways are now 60mph (de facto 56mph) and single-carriageways are 50mph.
> 
> Part of this was legalising standard behaviour, part of this was to improve safety by reducing the speed differential between cars and HGVs, reducing the need to overtake.
> 
> The latter reason was why Scotland pushed to get speed limits devolved to them - they have long single-carriageway roads forming major trunk links in a way that England and Wales doesn't so much. Scotland got it, and started a trial on the A9 that hasn't yet finished, but England and Wales changed their limits before Scotland.
> 
> I'd imagine that Scotland will change before long, but watch out if driving across the border.


But do they have internal border speed signs between the constituent countries of UK?


----------



## sotonsi

Suburbanist said:


> But do they have internal border speed signs between the constituent countries of UK?


Until today, you couldn't drive between jurisdictions with different limits, so no.

I can see Scotland Police getting people on the A1, A697, A68, A696, A7 and A75 for speeding, but they would be pissing people off doing it if there weren't signs entering Scotland informing HGVs of the change in limit.

I also doubt they have been quick to change the border signs at ports in England and Wales given it's a bank holiday today.

Given Scotland took the lead on this change, I can't imagine the discrepancy lasting the year.


----------



## IanCleverly

Some new-ish news:-



Belfast Live said:


> A new Applegreen service station, the first motorway services of its kind in Northern Ireland, has opened. The new service station located on the northbound carriageway between Glengormley and Templepatrick (*my edit*: on the M2) opened this morning.
> 
> The new service station will include a Greggs bakery, the company’s first franchise in Northern Ireland.
> 
> http://www.belfastlive.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/m2-service-station-opens-templepatrick-9001720


(Includes larger photographs of new building in url)


----------



## MichiH

*A8 Northern Ireland*

*NI-A8:* Ballyclare-South – Larne-West (A36) 14.4km (August 2012 to May 2015) – project – map

There was a partial opening (3.4km) of the expressway. Ballynure bypass was opened on 9th February.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/re...-a8-road-upgrade-opened-by-minister-1-6570600

Info on project page:



> * Work actually began early August 2012, to last 34 months
> * "First Sod" ceremony - 11 Oct 2012
> * Ballynure Bypass stretch opened - 9 Feb 2015
> * Completion due around May 2015 (as of Apr 2014) (changed from Jun 2015 at project commencement)
> 
> Cost: £130m as of Feb 2015 (changed from £110m-£120m as of Feb 2012; itself changed from £113m as of August 2009), of which €18.372 funded by EC TEN-T funding.


----------



## sponge_bob

*English Road Retrofitting Plan.*

If we look on the previous page we will see a photo of the A27 which is a typical UK A 2+2 road. England has an extensive network of these roads that is larger than the motorway network by a factor of 2 or 3. 

A road is not a Motorway and generally has no hard shoulder, there are a few exceptions to the hard shoulder rule, not many. 

A plan is being put together to upgrade these seeing as they were often built in sections with roundabouts bloody everywhere and built over time between 1960 and 1985 in the main. _This plan_ was presented to parliament by the English Highways Agency last month and never got a look in here. The election kicked off around then anyway. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-slow-moving-vehicles-banned-18-routes.html 

The key elements are. 

1. Remove AT Grade clutter such as traffic lights and roundabouts and replace with grade separated ingress and egress.
2. BAN slow drivers, probably by mandating minimum speed limits of at least 80KPH or 50mph and increasing the speed limit to 110kph or 65mph post grade separation. 
3. Add laybys at regular intervals and have a tow out service. 

The bad news is that.....this being England we are talking about after all ...it will take _until 2040 _to finish the program according to the article. Here is a map of the planned schemes. 










The Scots have a relatively more ambitious program and are on a 2030 timeline to finish it. Wales has that M4 megascheme to get off the ground, or not, only 2 small sections of the A55 in N Wales could do with a bit of love anyway and the rest of it is good to excellent.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I'll just note for those who do not know, the suggest speed limit of 65mph, which I'm sceptical about, would apply to single carriageways, where it's currently 60mph and it's 70mph on dual carriageways.

I think that no increase on single carriageways is more likely than an increase to 65mph and that an increase to 70 might even be more likely. I'd be very surprised with a widespread speed limit ending in 5.

I see on there they're suggesting to grade separate the Shrewsbury by-pass, I'd have a party if that happens.


----------



## sponge_bob

65mph or 110kph on dual carriageway sections only Daniel. No change to single carriageway sections. i would assume minimum speed limits would apply to both though and any way of getting doddering grannys in their Micras off the road during peak hours is to be lauded. 

Of course by the time the project is anywhere near finished in 2040 as proposed then Google will make granny and her micra travel at the minimum speed whether she likes it or not.


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ but then... isn't the normal speed limit on dual carriageway A road 70 mph today? at least between the roundabouts...


----------



## sponge_bob

Kanadzie said:


> ^^ but then... isn't the normal speed limit on dual carriageway A road 70 mph today? at least between the roundabouts...


Nope. It is 98kph or 60mph whether an A Road is 1+1 or 2+2 .

There are a few exceptions where 2+2 A road is built to a higher standard with HS and where 70mph running is allowed. EG the middle section of the A55 is 70MPH and the A55 is one of the more modern 2+2 A Roads in Britain, largely built since 1980. 

There are the peculiarly named AM roads which are generally M Roads but not by name. I have no idea why these exist. All are in England I think, the Scots and Welsh have A or M only.


----------



## sotonsi

sponge_bob said:


> Nope. It is 98kph or 60mph whether an A Road is 1+1 or 2+2 .


Where are you getting your information from? It is total rubbish and, on this question, dangerous rubbish.

http://www.gov.uk/speed-limits clearly says the dual carriageway limit is 70mph for "Cars, motorcycles, car-derived vans and dual-purpose vehicles" and "Motorhomes or motor caravans (not more than 3.05 tonnes maximum unladen weight)". The limit is 60mph on 2+2 A roads for other vehicles, all of which have a 50mph limit (in England and Wales at least) on single carriageways.



> There are the peculiarly named AM roads which are generally M Roads but not by name.


An(M) roads (note where the brackets) are motorways, but don't have an 'M' number. You almost got it, but your nomenclature is wrong and confusing.


> I have no idea why these exist.


Because you are incapable of doing a simple internet search: the point is to maintain number continuity when there's a short section of motorway in the middle of the A road, or extending it to a motorway, or just providing a short spur to that A road.

It is to stop (for example): A1-M100-A1-M100-A1-M100-A1-M100 being the route heading north (M100 was a number later given to that corridor should the route become fully motorway as was planned 20 years ago).


> All are in England I think, the Scots and Welsh have A or M only.


And again, something that is easy to show is rubbish is said. At least this time it's with some weasel words admitting you are totally clueless and incapable of using the search function of the internet, or a map. 

The A74(M) is 49 miles of motorway in Scotland (and half a mile in England) - just knocked down to third for length by the M9's 51 miles. The A48(M) exists in Cardiff (and there's the A8(M) in Northern Ireland for good measure).


----------



## Kanadzie

The Ax(M) is a bit weird though. In most places (e.g. USA) they would just sign it as Ax without any fanfare.


----------



## kramer81

Kanadzie said:


> The Ax(M) is a bit weird though. In most places (e.g. USA) they would just sign it as Ax without any fanfare.


There are motorway specific rules, ie certain vehicles are not allowed on them, so the (M) is necessary. Of course it would be simpler just to call the A74(M), the M74 for the whole distance.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

sponge_bob said:


> Nope. It is 98kph or 60mph whether an A Road is 1+1 or 2+2 .


I'm sorry but that's not true, it's 70mph on a dual carriageway outside an urban area unless posted.


----------



## sotonsi

DanielFigFoz said:


> I'm sorry but that's not true, it's 70mph on a dual carriageway outside an urban area unless posted.


If you are in a car or small motorhome it is.

But yes, his 60mph on both is wrong - if your limit is 60mph on dual carriageways, then your limit is 50mph on single carriageways and if your limit is 60mph on single carriageways, then it's 70mph on dual carriageways.


----------



## MichiH

*NI-A8:* Coleman's Corner – south of Ballynure (A57) 3.7km (August 2012 to *May 2015*) – project – map
*NI-A8:* north of Ballynure – Millbrook (A36) 7.3km (August 2012 to *May 2015*) – project – map

Progress 13 May 2015 (see project page):



> The entire road is still coned down to one lane with a 40mph speed limit, but the contractor intends to *open both lanes in each direction in roughly two weeks' time, at the end of May* which is great news.


Pic from project page (8th May):


----------



## Uppsala

kramer81 said:


> There are motorway specific rules, ie certain vehicles are not allowed on them, so the (M) is necessary. Of course it would be simpler just to call the A74(M), the M74 for the whole distance.



A74(M) is really special. It was planned from the beginning to stretch the M6/A74(M)/M74 would be renumbered to just M6. But the Scottish Government does not want the English number M6 on a motorway in Scotland. But why not just renumber the A74(M) to M74? So motorway changing numbers from M6 to M74 on the border between England and Scotland?


----------



## Luki_SL

Uppsala said:


> So motorway changing numbers from M6 to M74 on the border between England and Scotland?


The change from A74(M) to M74 is very good idea. Is there any formal problems to implement it ?


----------



## sotonsi

Uppsala said:


> A74(M) is really special. It was planned from the beginning to stretch the M6/A74(M)/M74 would be renumbered to just M6. But the Scottish Government does not want the English number M6 on a motorway in Scotland.


Nope. They even put up M6 signs.

A74(M) was a temporary number, so that the journey north of Carlisle didn't flit between M6 and A74 as bypasses were opened as motorway (cf the practice done in England and Wales in the early days - A4(M), A48(M), A40(M), A20(M), A2(M) though not all of these made it onto signs). Scotland managed to get all its bits linked up before England had even started on its short bit.

The A74(M) number stuck as it had been around about 15 years and the SNP-run Scottish Government, for all it's desire to spend spend spend, have specifically said it would be a waste of money to change the signs to M6.


> But why not just renumber the A74(M) to M74? So motorway changing numbers from M6 to M74 on the border between England and Scotland?


They also said it would be a waste of money to change the signs to M74.



Luki_SL said:


> The change from A74(M) to M74 is very good idea. Is there any formal problems to implement it ?


Cost. Zero benefit beyond appeasing the anally retentive.


----------



## Chris99

Glasgow - Edinburgh: Completing the M8 

The upgrade of the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse to motorway standard is well underway and includes:

2 km of online dual three-lane motorway
5 km of offline dual three-lane motorway
3 km of online dual two-lane motorway
10 km of dual two-lane all purpose road incorporating nearly 5 km of existing A8
16 km of pedestrian/cycle path
Three new motorway junctions at Shawhead, Eurocentral and Chapelhall
Two amended motorway junctions at Baillieston and Newhouse
Two railway bridges, including a new Braehead (Cutty Sark) structure
30 road structures, including a major crossing of the North Calder Water
Capacity improvements on M8 Eastbound, Junction 9 to Baillieston Interchange
Significant environmental mitigation and enhancement works.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/m8m73m74/glasgow-edinburgh-completing-m8


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *NI-A8:* Coleman's Corner – south of Ballynure (A57) 3.7km (August 2012 to *May 2015*) – project – map
> *NI-A8:* north of Ballynure – Millbrook (A36) 7.3km (August 2012 to *May 2015*) – project – map
> 
> Progress 13 May 2015 (see project page):
> 
> 
> 
> The entire road is still coned down to one lane with a 40mph speed limit, but the contractor intends to *open both lanes in each direction in roughly two weeks' time, at the end of May* which is great news.
Click to expand...

Opened!



> Progress *1 Jun 2015: *All four lanes of the new dual-carriageway were opened to traffic late on Friday evening, 29th May, with the exception of a few hundred metres either side of Shaneshill Road roundabout at the very north end of the scheme. The temporary speed limit was also removed, meaning that vehicles can now travel at up to 70mph along almost all of the road. From the point of view of the traveling public, this marks the “completion” of the scheme - however work will likely continue for a few weeks yet as there is still a lot of ancillary work to be carried out, such as tidying up loose ends, vegetation works etc. A marvelous achievement to the contractor who has been working since August 2012. The DRD Minister did issue a press release on 30 May 2015 which I read, but for some reason it doesn’t appear on the NI Executive Press Releases page so I can't link to it. In that he thanks the traveling public and the contractor and comments that _“this important scheme is expected due to be fully completed in early July”_. So I think we are about a month or so away from actual completion of the remaining works.​


​


----------



## bogdymol

*M25 (London Orbital) *seen after take-off from London Heathrow Airport.


----------



## MichiH

*A465:* Tredegar – Brynmawr 7.8km (January 2012 to June 2015 --> July/August 2015) – project – map


----------



## sotonsi

bogdymol said:


> *M25 (London Orbital) *seen after take-off from London Heathrow Airport.


It looks like a bizarre very very highly trafficked road running through the middle of rural England.

Rather surreal, but almost right - the rural strip isn't that wide.


----------



## Chris99

The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route / Balmedie to Tipperty (AWPR/B-T) project is under construction.

The road will include:-

58 km of new dual carriageway
40 kilometres of new side roads
30 kilometres of access tracks
12 junctions 
2 river crossings at the River Dee and River Don
a bridge over the Aberdeen to Inverness Railway
4 major pipeline crossings 
3 wildlife bridges, and
more than 100 other structures.

The DBFO project is costing £745 million.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/aberdeen-western-peripheral-route-balmedie-tipperty


----------



## Autoputevi kao hobi

@ verreme Yes 
Anyway great video i really like it.70 mph is really slow.I think the reason for this low speed limit is because british motorways are packed with vehicles.I think that traffic jams frequently occur there.Especially on M4 and M6.


----------



## CairnsTony

Autoputevi kao hobi said:


> @ verreme Yes
> Anyway great video i really like it.70 mph is really slow.I think the reason for this low speed limit is because british motorways are packed with vehicles.I think that traffic jams frequently occur there.Especially on M4 and M6.


The 70 mph speed limit on British motorways has been in place more or less continuously since 1965. The motorways were much emptier then so I don't think there's any link between how much the road is used and the national speed limit. Whether they should increase it of course is moot.


----------



## Blackraven

Any car with an engine that has at least four cylinders can easily hit 100+ mph speeds. 

In short, the legal 70 mph isn't that slow........but a few extra speed increase would be nice (to keep it in-line with EU peers).

Such as the 130 km/h (80 mph) limit in France for instance.

P.S.
Still a worse offender though is Ontario in Canada (with a max speed limit of 100 km/h = 62 mph).

One of the slowest in the developed world....


----------



## AvB

Dual carriageway 70mph
Motorway 70 mph

:hmm:



> a few extra speed increase would be nice


I suggest +10/20 mph on motorways bacause they are more safer than dual carriageway.

Speed limits like in Germany...fantastic


----------



## DanielFigFoz

It isn't enforced anyway.


----------



## verreme

DanielFigFoz said:


> It isn't enforced anyway.


With "managed motorways" (which roughly means speed cameras) becoming the norm in the UK, this is going to stop being a valid point. Some day they will lower the threshold of these things and driving 80 mph will automatically be punished.


----------



## keokiracer

^^ I thought managed motorways were the equivalent of the Dutch 'spitsstroken' (shoulder riunning)?


----------



## verreme

keokiracer said:


> ^^ I thought managed motorways were the equivalent of the Dutch 'spitsstroken' (shoulder riunning)?


In some stretches this means shoulder running, but regardless of that it means variable speed limits -monitored by gantry speed cameras.


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ basically they use the shoulder running as a political reach-around


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Managed motorways used to be shoulder running, but they changed that to a widening by converting the shoulder to a permanent driving lane. They basically add a new lane within the existing motorway cross-section. It saves a lot of money on and under bridges. 

Many of these schemes are still north of 100 million pounds though.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

verreme said:


> With "managed motorways" (which roughly means speed cameras) becoming the norm in the UK, this is going to stop being a valid point. Some day they will lower the threshold of these things and driving 80 mph will automatically be punished.


I'm not sure about that, I don't think the cameras on the M25 are turned on when the speed limit signs are off, and I'm fairly sure they don't flash under 90. Until recently a lot of them didn't even work as speed cameras. 

I know the ones in Bristol are stricter though, it's the only place I know where everyone slows down to 70.


----------



## piotr71

Cameras are turned off, when the speed limit isn't applied. I read about that on some related to government's traffic web page.

If it comes to speed limit, in my opinion it should not be increased until British drivers are trained to use motorways properly in their driver's schools, not by their parents and uncles as it is now. There is also one of the poorest quality of surface on motorways in the the UK, with potholes, cracks and even sewers. Porous tarmac is extremely noisy too, so driving any faster would generate much more unwanted noise. Irregular shape of merging and exiting lanes might be an issue, as well. So, even if I am a regular user of _the_ motorways, I am against any increase, as for now.


----------



## verreme

piotr71 said:


> Cameras are turned off, when the speed limit isn't applied. I read about that on some related to government's traffic web page.
> 
> If it comes to speed limit, in my opinion it should not be increased until British drivers are trained to use motorways properly in their driver's schools, not by their parents and uncles as it is now. There is also one of the poorest quality of surface on motorways in the the UK, with potholes, cracks and even sewers. Porous tarmac is extremely noisy too, so driving any faster would generate much more unwanted noise. Irregular shape of merging and exiting lanes might be an issue, as well. So, even if I am a regular user of _the_ motorways, I am against any increase, as for now.


I think that neither British drivers nor British motorways are worse than in most European countries with higher speed limits.



DanielFigFoz said:


> I'm not sure about that, I don't think the cameras on the M25 are turned on when the speed limit signs are off, and I'm fairly sure they don't flash under 90. Until recently a lot of them didn't even work as speed cameras.
> 
> I know the ones in Bristol are stricter though, it's the only place I know where everyone slows down to 70.


When the first speed cameras were erected in Spain, they had a 20 km/h threshold. So people said "it's fine as long as they don't fine you until 140 km/h". Now the threshold is 7 km/h. Other countries have also lowered it. With law enforcement technology getting more and more precise (and cheaper) every day, it's a matter of time for this legal ambiguity to disappear. The future is stricter enforcement of realistic laws, not absurd rules tolerated because of the _laissez-faire_ attitude of their enforcers.


----------



## hammersklavier

verreme said:


> The future is stricter enforcement of realistic laws, not absurd rules tolerated because of the _laissez-faire_ attitude of their enforcers.


...or stricter enforcement of *un*realistic laws due to the heartless nature of their enforcement (speeding cameras and software) and the legal process not having caught up...

...or stricter enforcement of *un*realistic laws due to increasingly stressed municipal finances and/or policemen being rated on how many speeding tickets they give out...*

If the slowest driving speed on the highway is 10 mph over the speed limit then the speed limit itself is unrealistic. A realistic speed limit needs to be governed by road geometry.
__________________
* Cf. f.ex. St. Louis County.


----------



## keokiracer

hammersklavier said:


> If the slowest driving speed on the highway is 10 mph over the speed limit then the speed limit itself is unrealistic. A realistic speed limit needs to be governed by road geometry.


I don't know if this is a worldwide used concept, but there's this thing called the _V85_ (V being velocity). It's the speed at which 85% of drivers drive below it and 15% drive above it. The V85 is a way to give a road a speed limit that fits said road, the 15% above the V85 are seen as excesses.


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ It's quite well-known and repeated statistic going back to the work of Solomon, et. al in the 1950's, basically the lowest chance of accident was between the 85th and 95th percentile speeds. So it was then suggested to set speed limit at 85th percentile rounded up to the appropriate round number, and then obvious tolerance (10 or 20 km/h) would allow traffic up to the 95th percentile to be unfettered.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

piotr71 said:


> Cameras are turned off, when the speed limit isn't applied. I read about that on some related to government's traffic web page.
> 
> If it comes to speed limit, in my opinion it should not be increased until British drivers are trained to use motorways properly in their driver's schools, not by their parents and uncles as it is now. There is also one of the poorest quality of surface on motorways in the the UK, with potholes, cracks and even sewers. Porous tarmac is extremely noisy too, so driving any faster would generate much more unwanted noise. Irregular shape of merging and exiting lanes might be an issue, as well. So, even if I am a regular user of _the_ motorways, I am against any increase, as for now.


We don't have driving schools as a physical building like in Europe (I'm sure you know this, this isn't directed at you as such). You learn to drive on the road and that's it, and learner drivers aren't allowed on motorways. That said, the UK has a pretty good road mortality rate, I don't think things are that bad. Furthermore, even if there was more teaching about how to drive on motorways I don't think anyone would listen.

Anyway, I don't see a need to change the speed limit, I wouldn't be against making it 80 and it wouldn't require much effort. I suspect Scotland would stay at 70 and so no new signs would be needed. I don't think it's that important however. I can't see 70 being enforced, they could enforce it now if they wanted to but they don't, and I don't think they're gonna start fining everyone, people would claim that motorway cameras were a cash cow, not a genuine anti-speeding initiative and it would be over quickly.


----------



## sponge_bob

British drivers are rather good, on the world scale. They are generally very predictable, almost Germanically so. 

Police allow 85mph in practice on motorways that are _not_ busy or weather challenged and in the fast lane. Driving in cities is really stressful, cameras and 30kph/20mph zones are everywhere nowadays, the police are not enforcing these urban zones but city councils and their contract debt collectors are enforcing them for the easy money.  

Average speed cameras are there for roadwork zones, they are enforced strictly on safety grounds.


----------



## piotr71

DanielFigFoz said:


> We don't have driving schools as a physical building like in Europe (I'm sure you know this, this isn't directed at you as such). You learn to drive on the road and that's it, and learner drivers aren't allowed on motorways. That said, the UK has a pretty good road mortality rate, I don't think things are that bad. Furthermore, even if there was more teaching about how to drive on motorways I don't think anyone would listen.
> 
> (..)


I know,  I meant driving school as a way of teaching drivers by instructors.
And, obviously I am not saying that British drivers are generally bad (I would not say that), I only said they aren't trained to use motorways properly. And yes, they are quite poor comparing to their counterparts in Belgium, France and the Netherlands (countries with similar speed limit). I've already driven through the mentioned countries for 55th time or so, and just could not believe again that such difference in lane discipline and merging habits would be possible - different worlds.

On the other hand though, there is not many nations as good as British are in 
built-in areas, that's a different world too.


----------



## BIGcider APPLE

DanielFigFoz said:


> I know the ones in Bristol are stricter though, it's the only place I know where everyone slows down to 70.


I think Bristol's are the only 'managed motorway' cameras in the uk that operate/enforce the speed limit when the variable system is off ie national speed limit. The others only enforce variable, if that makes sense.


----------



## Autoputevi kao hobi

*M32 into Bristol and more*


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The Mersey Gateway project










http://www.merseygateway.co.uk/


----------



## verreme

^^ I drove through the old bridge in July and wondered what the works were about. I later learned about this awesome project. Nice to know that there are large road projects in the UK again


----------



## poshbakerloo

^^
Wow I didn't realise it was actually being built right now!


----------



## sponge_bob

poshbakerloo said:


> ^^
> Wow I didn't realise it was actually being built right now!


Route on Openstreetmap. Big project that one. 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.3482/-2.6989


----------



## Stainless

Autoputevi kao hobi said:


>


Now I have spent 8 mins watching a video of roads I drive on all the time. 
At 6:30, you can see there is an entrance and exit to a residential street on the motorway sliproad, there is one on the other side too. The end house is pretty much on the slip road with a view over the motorway. Do these exist on any other slip roads?


----------



## verreme

^^ What you saw is just before the motorway sign, so it can technically exist


----------



## geogregor

I found these videos from the A8 dualling in Northern Ireland

Drive through:





Great shots from the air





As you can see they are from before opening all the lanes.

Does anyone has more recent photos or videos? It would be nice see it after finishing.


----------



## X236K

On M3, heading from M25 to Basingstoke, there are red and blue (?) tubes right next to the shoulder, what are these for?


----------



## Fatfield

X236K said:


> On M3, heading from M25 to Basingstoke, there are red and blue (?) tubes right next to the shoulder, what are these for?


They are to do with making the stretch between J2-J4A a smart motorway. The purple tubes carry the communications cabling for the VMS back to the control room. The red/orange tubes are for electric cabling.

You can see them on street view which is from September 2014.


----------



## verreme

Some videos I made of the expressways around Cardiff:
















And the Second Severn Crossing


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Strange to see you posting your films of roads I know well.


----------



## verreme

^^ I liked driving around the area. Nice roads, no clogged traffic (what a difference from SE England!), and overall that odd feeling of being in a country so quirky and different from mainland Europe, yet so close to it . I hope to go on vacation in Scotland next year, I'm already planning which roads to drive and what time of the day, I just hope I get a rental car that's not the Ford C-Max school bus I drove this year. I kinda like driving cars I'm not familiar with on the wrong side of the road .


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*South East*

*Details of £2.2 billion roads plan for the South East*

*120 miles of extra lanes coming to region • £2.2 billion invested by 2020 • 24 major improvements to start by 2020
*

• enhancing capacity on the M3 between Winchester and Southampton
• enhancing capacity on the M27 between Southampton and Fareham
• upgrading the M20 near Maidstone to a smart motorway
• upgrading the M4 to a smart motorway between Reading and the M25
• tackling congestion on the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury
• upgrading the A27 in Sussex
• improving junctions on the A2 near Bean and Ebbslfeet
• improving the A34 between the M4 and M40
• increasing capacity on the M2 between Sittingbourne and Maidstone
• improving junctions on the M3 near Winchester
• improving the M27 and M271 near Southampton
• tackling delays on the A31 near Ringwood in Hampshire
• improving access to the A12 and A3 from the M25
• upgrading the M25 to the latest generation of smart motorway, with five lanes between the M40 and Chertsey
• developing plans to reduce congestion on the A3 near Guildford
• developing plans for an additional Lower Thames Crossing​
Full press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/details-of-22-billion-roads-plan-for-the-south-east


----------



## piotr71

ChrisZwolle said:


> *Details of £2.2 billion roads plan for the South East*
> 
> *120 miles of extra lanes coming to region • £2.2 billion invested by 2020 • 24 major improvements to start by 2020
> *​






> • enhancing capacity on the M3 between Winchester and Southampton


Interestingly, this stretch is one of the least congested on M3, even though it's just 4 lane. If they really want to ease congestion in that area, they should completely rebuild inefficient junction 9 (A34/M3) which consists of outdated roundabout and traffic lights.



> • enhancing capacity on the M27 between Southampton and Fareham


It would be nice to see reshaped exit lane on J9 Eastwards. It could be much longer just to move traffic off the main carriageway. Some merging lanes would also benefited if they have been reshaped and extra length added.



> • upgrading the M20 near Maidstone to a smart motorway


Good idea.



> • upgrading the M4 to a smart motorway between Reading and the M25


Good idea, too.



> • tackling congestion on the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury


?



> • upgrading the A27 in Sussex


How exactly? All the way free flow road from Hastings to Chichester.



> • improving the A34 between the M4 and M40


Third lane? Or maybe constructing proper junction with A303, which currently causes jams.



> • improving junctions on the M3 near Winchester


First step - reshape merging and exiting lanes. Second - get rid off roundabouts and free flow them.



> • improving the M27 and M271 near Southampton


Only logical way to improve M271 is to get it free from roundabout and lights. 



> • tackling delays on the A31 near Ringwood in Hampshire


Impossible?



> • improving access to the A12 and A3 from the M25


Another roundabouts. 



> • upgrading the M25 to the latest generation of smart motorway, with five lanes between the M40 and Chertsey


^^



> • developing plans to reduce congestion on the A3 near Guildford


Really hard task. Actually, can't see any reasonable solution for now.



> • developing plans for an additional Lower Thames Crossing


Sounds well.​


----------



## mcarling

The best solution for improving motorway traffic in the Southeast would be building the previously planned M31.


----------



## sotonsi

piotr71 said:


> Interestingly, this stretch is one of the least congested on M3, even though it's just 4 lane.


Err, Southampton is south of Winchester, not north!


> ?


Isn't this the underway upgrade to dual carriageway?


> How exactly? All the way free flow road from Hastings to Chichester.


Don't be daft (not least as the A27 doesn't reach Hastings). Its an improved Chichester bypass and some other stuff elsewhere in the county.


> Only logical way to improve M271 is to get it free from roundabout and lights.


That's illogical - there's tons to improve on the M271 without resorting to freeflow!

I'd imagine that the plan they were musing about when the M27 widening happened might occur, getting rid of some lights at the M27/M271 junction by removing the south side of the roundabout.


> Another roundabouts.


Free flow slips (see A2 and M20 junctions). With the eventual aim to free-flow the whole junction at the M3, IIRC.


> Really hard task. Actually, can't see any reasonable solution for now.


Guildford and Ringwood are very doable, especially the latter which is far easier than free-flow at Winchester or Nursling.


mcarling said:


> The best solution for improving motorway traffic in the Southeast would be building the previously planned M31.


That would be useful, but wouldn't solve most of the problems.


----------



## verreme

Britain's quirkiest expressway: the A55 through the coast of North Wales 






Some facts about it:

- This section in particular lies on three different islands (Holy Island, Anglesey and Great Britain).

- The expressway crosses to Anglesey from Holy Island on a causeway that opened in 2001. Prior to that, traffic used a parallel road/rail causeway that opened in... 1823!

- The one-of-a-kind bridge that links Anglesey with Great Britain was also built in the first half of the 19th century.

- In two different points, the Eastbound carriageway follows two 1930s roads over the cliffs, while a newer carriageway carries the Westbound lanes through tunnels. In one of these old alignments, there's a 30mph speed limit. In the other one, there's none .

- A section of it is considered a non-motorway "special road" and has thus 70mph speed limit signs, something very uncommon in Britain.


----------



## italystf

verreme said:


> - The expressway crosses to Anglesey from Holy Island on a causeway that opened in 2001. Prior to that, traffic used a parallel road/rail causeway that opened in... 1823!


Very impressive for being 200 years old!
https://www.google.it/maps/@53.2203...SF2Zs1-BEhf3fpkdng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1


----------



## verreme

italystf said:


> Very impressive for being 200 years old!
> https://www.google.it/maps/@53.2203...SF2Zs1-BEhf3fpkdng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1


It's actually this one.

The bridge you posted, however, is also 200 years old


----------



## Mateusz

Report 'likely to back' Sheffield to Manchester road tunnel plan

Plans to build a road tunnel through the Peak District between Sheffield and Manchester are likely to be backed by a key feasibility study.A study led by Highways England is looking at whether a multibillion-pound Trans-Pennine tunnel would be viable. The tunnel could bore under the A628 Woodhead Pass, in a scheme which would reportedly cost £6bn. The BBC understands the study is likely to present a "solid, strategic case for the scheme". The report, which is considering factors including engineering challenges and funding, is expected to be completed by October 2016. An interim report is scheduled to be presented to the Government by the end of this year. A Highways England newsletter has been circulated around groups including local authorities, businesses and tourist groups, detailing the expected outcome of the report. 'Long-term benefits' It says: "The report is likely to conclude that it is feasible to construct a new strategic crossing of the Pennines involving long sections of tunnel and that it is feasible to operate and maintain the infrastructure. "The report is also likely to show there would be significant long-term economic benefits." The study is yet to consider precise routes, but Highways England is understood to be considering several options, including tunneling under the Woodhead Pass. Jonathan Reynolds, MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, has campaigned for better transport links across the Pennines and said a tunnel "would be really welcome". "The traffic between Manchester and Sheffield is terrible. Almost everybody in my constituency has a story to tell about being stuck in it," he said. "To improve the connectivity between the two cities while protecting a national park that means so much to us would be fantastic." However, the Campaign for Better Transport previously described the plans as a "waste of money", claiming that building new roads would increase congestion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34745620


----------



## bogdymol

^^ I drove about 3 weeks ago on A628. It was a pretty busy stretch of road, with no overpassing opportunities and with scenic landscape.

Are they planning for a full motorway, an expressway (dual carriageway) or just a tunnel and same 2-lane road?

Considering the traffic that I saw, a full motorway would be a little too much. What would fit perfectly to the landscape there and to the traffic requirements, would be an expressway (dual carriageway, without hard shoulder, but with central barrier and preferably without roundabouts but 2-level interchanges).

2 pictures that I took 3 weeks ago on A628:


----------



## verreme

It's kinda funny that something called Campaign for Better Transport opposes new roads.


----------



## Blackraven

verreme said:


> It's kinda funny that something called Campaign for Better Transport opposes new roads.


Must be a group composed of hippies and tree huggers hno::bash:


----------



## sotonsi

^^ Bus companies


----------



## sponge_bob

Isnt there an unused rail tunnel or 2 near Buxton?


----------



## Mackem

sponge_bob said:


> Isnt there an unused rail tunnel or 2 near Buxton?


There are disused ex rail tunnels after the closure of the Woodhead railway, however National Grid have just put their high voltage cables through at least one and seem determined not to allow anyone near them. The £6bn scheme would be fantastic, but won't happen - imagine the protests "a motorway through a National Park". This isn't quite true and there is quite a lot of infrastructure in the valley already, but I'm sure the treasury will see this as an ideal opprtunity to shelve this one again.

As regard the traffic stats. due to the 7 day queues in Mottram and Tintwhistle there is a diversionary effect to the M62, this does however add considerable distance and the M62 has it's own over capacity problems to which the Woodhead adds. 

Tbh I don't expect to see any improvements here in my lifetime as we really don't have the will in the UK for the kind of schemes seen elsewhere in Europe when it comes to roads.


----------



## geogregor

Mackem said:


> Tbh I don't expect to see any improvements here in my lifetime as we really don't have the will in the UK for the kind of schemes seen elsewhere in Europe when it comes to roads.


Well said. 
Britain, and especially England, seems to have given up on any significant road building. Only Scots have some big schemes under construction, procurement on in the detailed design phase.
I don't really know why? Outside London and the biggest cities most people still rely on car in this country and there is no sign of that changing in the near future. Population is also growing.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Even in London the modal split is about 50/50 car / public transport. Within Outer London, 77% of trips are by car.


----------



## bogdymol

I can also confirm, after thousands of miles driven across UK, that most of the roads/motorways are almost always very crowded, some of them close to their capacity limits almost daily.


----------



## sponge_bob

So are the main A Roads. The A14 is horrendous and the A12 and A13 are nearly as bad. Only the Scots are improving their network in a meaningful way as Geogregor already said.

Even Ireland is building more new motorway nowadays. 80km of it at present up from 0km during the crash in 2011 and 2012


----------



## bogdymol

How about Northern Ireland? 

Every time when I drove at the western end of M22 / A6 I got stuck in a traffic jam where the road merges to 1 lane. A6 to Londonderry was full of vehicles most of the time...


----------



## geogregor

bogdymol said:


> How about Northern Ireland?
> 
> Every time when I drove at the western end of M22 / A6 I got stuck in a traffic jam where the road merges to 1 lane. A6 to Londonderry was full of vehicles most of the time...


Northern Ireland has its own set of problems. It seems that at the moment its politicians can't agree on anything, let alone plan for the future.


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ NI seems amazing today compared to the recent past though


----------



## sponge_bob

The roads are average in NI. They were great by European standards at that time when the troubles started in 1969. Sadly the NI politicians are all below average and have no long term vision between them.

Easier to fix English roads.


----------



## garethni

bogdymol said:


> How about Northern Ireland?
> 
> Every time when I drove at the western end of M22 / A6 I got stuck in a traffic jam where the road merges to 1 lane. A6 to Londonderry was full of vehicles most of the time...


There are very advanced plans to fix that bit and to dual the road as far as Magherafelt. There were problems with the design of the road and they had to have a number of inquiries into it. It will be a question of funding, but it seems to be a priority.


----------



## bogdymol

^^ Ok, they'll do it. But when? Next year or is it included in the 20-years plan?


----------



## sotonsi

Wesley Johnston (who is the go-to-guy on NI road projects) reckons it will be the next scheme to be approved - it is now literally just waiting for the financial green light.
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/a6m22tocastledawson.html#progress


----------



## verreme

bogdymol said:


> How about Northern Ireland?
> 
> Every time when I drove at the western end of M22 / A6 I got stuck in a traffic jam where the road merges to 1 lane. A6 to Londonderry was full of vehicles most of the time...


NI might be the part of the UK that has come closest to the original 1970s motorway plans -at least in spirit, because many roads have ended up being dual carriageways instead of motorways. But for such a small territory, the road network there is quite decent.

There are parts of the UK, such as everything in Wales between the North and the South coast, which are stuck in the 1960s, road-wise. No bypasses, no dual carriageways, not even big roundabouts with 87 signals . Some (trunk) roads date from the early 19th century, and bridges are often older. I reckon there's a certain charm on it, but still...


----------



## garethni

sotonsi said:


> Wesley Johnston (who is the go-to-guy on NI road projects)
> http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/a6m22tocastledawson.html#progress


If anyone ever gets the chance to read his book on the urban motorways (and the abandoned plans etc, eventual piecemeal building) in Belfast it is well worth it. link


----------



## General Maximus

There have been debates about building a outer M25 that would circle London widely east of Medway to Chelmsford, Luton, Reading, Gatwick and Maidstone. Not sure what happened to those plans. It would relief the current M25 a lot from long distance traffic...


----------



## sponge_bob

All green belt so not a runner Maximus. They have spent nearly 10 years trying to decide where to build a 4000m Runway in that general area and won't build that before 2025. 

300km + of Motorway, Not a chance in hell in my lifetime. If they widen the M25 to 8-10 lanes each way instead then perhaps.....but the current M25 widening project is ongoing for 10 years and is nowhere near complete and nobody knows how they will expand the Dartford Crossing anyway, plenty of stillborn ideas down that way.


----------



## sotonsi

bogdymol said:


> That would significantly help congestion around Dartford crossing. All traffic coming from the Channel and heading to north UK would use this new link.


Though the designers don't seem to want them to!

It's going to be D2M, and the documents basically view it as a link between North Kent, South Essex and the M25 to Herts and the North, rather than a bypass of the Dartford area for Channel-bound traffic (there's some lip service, but there's not much).


General Maximus said:


> There have been debates about building a outer M25 that would circle London widely east of Medway to Chelmsford, Luton, Reading, Gatwick and Maidstone.


As has been said, it's very much a moot debate as it won't happen.


> Not sure what happened to those plans.


I would say that there weren't any, save in hobbyists personal collections, a small pro-roads lobbying group drawing a vague line on a map and a small anti-roads lobbying group seeing official plans for some routes that could be joined up into a vague circle* and making it out like some big conspiracy...

...but apparently there was a plan (singular) that a civil servant drew up official-like in the 70s and pinned on his office wall.

But basically "Nothing: as they were no more real than if I get a magic marker and use it on a road atlas!" is a valid answer to the question of what happened to the plans.


> It would relief the current M25 a lot from long distance traffic...


The M25 is almost all designed for long distance traffic with the unbuilt bits of Ringways 3/4 planned to carry the local traffic. The issue is that local traffic uses it, rather than the presence of long-distance traffic. It also would typically be longer than using the M25 to use an orbital route further out (as opposed to tangential routes).

Plus there's Green Belt (and the bigger issue, IMV, of AONBs) issue as well as NIMBYs galore.

*all of which had useful local purposes, and a handful had strategic purpose, but wouldn't make sense as part of an outer orbital:
A404: M40-M4 upgrade (link together two dual carriageways with a couple of miles of dual carriageways so that it can link Wycombe with the Thames Valley and relieve the M25 between J15 and J16 of some local traffic)
A331: Blackwater Spine Road (provide distribution in the large Camberley-Aldershot-Farnham urban area and improve access in the area to the M3, with a side effect of Guildford-South Thames Valley regional access avoiding the M25)
A5/A505: Dunstable/Luton Northern bypasses (access to developments and remove through traffic from Dunstable)
A120: Stansted to Colchester (Provides a shorter link from Cambridge to Colchester, a second Cambridge-Harwich/Felixstowe route, and a second link from the M25 to Colchester).
A130: Chelmsford to Southend (as well as providing local South Essex links, it was also about relieving the A12 between the M25 and Chelmsford by traffic going A13-A130 that's about the same distance).


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ big trouble to widen to 8-10 lanes? How many feet is that :lol:

Why not a collector-express setup all the way around ? A 10 in Amsterdam is practically that...


----------



## geogregor

Kanadzie said:


> ^^ big trouble to widen to 8-10 lanes? How many feet is that :lol:
> 
> Why not a collector-express setup all the way around ? A 10 in Amsterdam is practically that...


This is Britain, planning alone would take century.:lol:

Add all the NIMBYs and various bureaucracies and there is not a slightest chance for any comprehensive solution. Not in my lifetime.


----------



## AvB

Attigham Park (National Trust) - Cressage


----------



## sotonsi

Kanadzie said:


> ^^ big trouble to widen to 8-10 lanes?


The M25 is already 8-10 lanes, save for J2-5 (with J2-3 planned for widening and J3-5 quiet enough not to need widening as it has very little long distance traffic) and J14-15 (which is 12 lanes), and through a few junctions (J7, J10, J11, J12, J15, J16, J20, J21-21A, J23, J25, J27, J28, J29, J30-31) where it's only a problem at a couple of those and more due to J10-12 and J15-16 needing to be wider than the 8-lanes they are now than the lane drop at the junction per se.


> How many feet is that :lol:


12ft a lane, 10ft for a hard shoulder. Easier to deal with than 3.6m/lane as most people can do the 12-times-table off the top of their head, but the 3.6-times-table is a little harder 


> Why not a collector-express setup all the way around ?


Because it was more expensive than simple widening, though certainly J10-16 could do with it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A collector/express setup requires substantially more right-of-way than a regular configuration. In addition, it is less flexible, more expensive to operate and maintain and possibly confusing. Besides that, collector lanes are often used in areas with a high junction density, but M25's junctions are spaced fairly far apart.


----------



## keokiracer

Kanadzie said:


> Why not a collector-express setup all the way around ? A 10 in Amsterdam is practically that...


Yeah, the A10 around Amsterdam has less than 2 kms worth of collector-express setup on a total length of 32 kms. You might be confused with another city.


----------



## sotonsi

Someone like ChrisZ will probably know, but is there anywhere else in the world that has a 4-level stack between two D2 roads (as Option 4 on the Lower Thames Crossing proposes)?


----------



## bogdymol

There are some stack interchanges between US major routes (non-interstate).


----------



## sotonsi

bogdymol said:


> There are some stack interchanges between US major routes (non-interstate).


the ones I found were all D3 or wider (D2 through the interchange perhaps)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

There are some in Texas. The I-37 / I-410 interchange southeast of San Antonio is a four-level stack that connects two four-lane freeways. 

The SH 99 / US 290 northwest of Houston is a stack interchange between two four-lane highways, but US 290 is currently being widened and the remaining direct connectors of stack interchange are due to open next week or so. 

Austin has a volume of large stacks between four-lane toll roads, but none of them are classic four/five level stacks. 

3-5 level stacks are pretty much the norm in Texas.


----------



## Suburbanist

If I understood correctly, longer trucks are not allowed (as of January/2016) on British motorways and designated routes as part of a trial.


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ That's weird. I thought the global trend was towards longer trucks on motorways? What is the reasoning, reduced congestion from faster accleration? (even then that's weight not length...)
Ontario is 'piloting' dual trailers even, you see them all the time on the 401 near Cornwall (Wal-Mart logistics hub)



keokiracer said:


> Yeah, the A10 around Amsterdam has less than 2 kms worth of collector-express setup on a total length of 32 kms. You might be confused with another city.


Amsterdam is still Texas compared to Londongrad


----------



## DanielFigFoz

sotonsi said:


> Though the designers don't seem to want them to!
> 
> It's going to be D2M, and the documents basically view it as a link between North Kent, South Essex and the M25 to Herts and the North, rather than a bypass of the Dartford area for Channel-bound traffic (there's some lip service, but there's not much).


Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Stuu

sotonsi said:


> It's going to be D2M


I'm afraid it isn't, it's going to be D2 all purpose, despite plenty of references in the documents to being a motorway-to-motorway link. There are costs shown for making it all D3, its about 10% extra which seems a bargain compared to the inevitable cost of having to widen it in 10 years time


----------



## devo

If it were to be built to motorway standard (and signed as such), would it be signed as an extension of the M2?

I'm just throwing a wild guess. They are avoiding the M-word to please the anti-motorway fanatics. I'm not sure what is most frightening, that such cunning trickery would actually work on the anti-M-way lobby, or that they (the project management) believe it would make a difference.

10% is not a lot, but it is still money. However, if someone whipped out their calculator and figured out how much more it would have cost to rebuild the whole British M-way system from D2M to D3M, then it sould really be a no-brainer that this road has to be D3M.


----------



## geogregor

I've spotted little display about archaeology done during construction of the Clacket Lane services on M25. Conveniently located close to toilets 

IMG_20151111_195912_867 by Geogregor*, on Flickr 

Nice touch. Never seen anything similar on any other services.


----------



## geogregor

Did you hear about the idea of not painting white lines to force drivers to slow down? I know about concept of "shared space" in towns but just not painting white lines? Does it really change behaviour that much?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35480736


----------



## DanielFigFoz

I would like to know the results of a long-term study. I suspect drivers slow down at first but the speed up once they've got used to it, a bit like how traffic fatalities in Sweden decreased for a while after Dagen H.


----------



## hammersklavier

Suburbanist said:


> If I understood correctly, longer trucks are not allowed (as of January/2016) on British motorways and designated routes as part of a trial.


There's something inherently funny about that picture. Like how _ophthamology_ is an inherently funny word.


----------



## Mackem

Suburbanist said:


> If I understood correctly, longer trucks are not allowed (as of January/2016) on British motorways and designated routes as part of a trial.


British freight transport policy is daft, but not that daft. The Longer Semi Trailers trial is a 10 year trial with trailers up to 15.65m in length. A maximum of 1800 are allowed and each has to be registered as part of the scheme. As some of the trailers have been around for about 3 years - it took a while to get permits etc sorted, the DfT are now asking for the first feedback. 

There are no restrictions as to where you can use them apart from pre-existing length limits.

The trial continues but its not a huge success as due to their length and the restrictive nature of UK lorry parking and many loading areas they are too long. Over time things will improve, but as there are only 1800 of them there is little pressure on designers of UK industrial buildings to take these into account. They tend to be used on fixed runs rather than general transport because of these issues.


----------



## AvB

What a mess!



> ANGRY drivers faced gridlock misery as they were stuck for up to 10 hours in traffic jams on the the M5 caused by a broken-down crane.


Full story Worcester News


----------



## sotonsi

From p51 of this document about improving the M60 NW Quadrant, the busiest motorway links 2014 data. I've added what standard they are

1 M25 J14 - J15 262,800 D6M
2 M1 J7-J8 197,200 D4M+D3/4AP
3 M60 J13-J12 195,300 D4M
4 M25 J13-J14 186,900 D5M
5 M25 J12-J11 185,300 D4M
6 M25 J18-J19 177,400 D4M
7 M25 J11-J10 176,000 D4M
8 M25 J16-J15 174,900 D4M
9 M25 J12-J13 174,200 D5M
10 M1 J6A-J7 170,400 D4M
11 M60 J16-J17 166,400 D4M
12 M60 J17-J18 165,900 D4M
13 M25 J8-J7 165,600 D4M
14 M25 J17-J18 164,100 D4M
15 M6 J20-J21 162,300 D4M
16 M8 J16-J15 161,800 D4/5M
17 M6 J21-J21A 161,700 D4M
18 M56 J4-J3 160,900 D4M
19 M4 J4B-J4 159,500 D4M
20 M60 J4-J2 157,800 D3M
21 M61 J2-J3 155,600 D3M+D3M
22 M60 J14-J15 155,400 D4M
23 M1 J8-J9 155,000 D4M
24 M1 J9-J10 154,600 D4M
25 M6 J30-J31 154,200 D4M

PS: Page 50 has a nice overview map of the busy part of England's motorway network (Kendal - South Coast, Sittingbourne - Tiverton) with traffic volumes shown by width.


----------



## sponge_bob

Some parts of the M60 are waaaaaaay over capacity for 4x4 ..like near 200k AADT.


sotonsi said:


> From p51 of this document about improving the M60 NW Quadrant, the busiest motorway links 2014 data. I've added what standard they are
> 
> 1 M25 J14 - J15 262,800 D6M
> 2 M1 J7-J8 197,200 D4M+D3/4AP
> 3 M60 J13-J12 195,300 D4M


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I'm surprised with M25 near Heathrow. Earlier data showed it just over 200,000 vehicles per day. 

This would make it the third-busiest motorway in Europe, after M-30 in Madrid which peaked at 328,000 vehicles per day in 2009 and A6 in Paris at 280,000 vpd. A3 and A4 in Paris top out at 254,000 and 230,000 vehicles per day where they run concurrent with A86. The busiest Dutch motorway tops out at 244,000. However, no traffic volume data for MKAD in Moscow is known to me, which could be north of 250,000 as well.


----------



## sponge_bob

ChrisZwolle said:


> I'm surprised with M25 near Heathrow. Earlier data showed it just over 200,000 vehicles per day.


J14 is the terminal 5 exit and T5 attracts 30m pax per annum now and _loads_ of taxis.


----------



## sotonsi

I'm surprised that the VSL they added when they widened the NW part of the M25 hasn't been activated yet given those volumes on the Ricky bypass (17-19)!

And I'm highly surprised that perennial jam M25 J15-16 has (slightly) less traffic than J18-19, which (despite the closely spaced junctions) seems to flow better in comparison.

But the other perennial jam between J12 and J11 is explained: not only is the road narrower south of the M3, but busier too!


----------



## Blackraven

ChrisZwolle said:


> I'm surprised with M25 near Heathrow. Earlier data showed it just over 200,000 vehicles per day.


I hope traffic isn't that bad.....to the point that it would cause people to miss their flights


----------



## Exethalion

Blackraven said:


> I hope traffic isn't that bad.....to the point that it would cause people to miss their flights


I frequently go to T5 via bus and the route takes us along the M4 and through the tunnel to the central terminals, then back out again and along the perimeter road to T5. It avoids the M25 and I haven't run into any problems along that route before.

But it's Heathrow and you'd be silly to not plan to arrive at least 3 hours before boarding time.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Mersey Gateway*

The Mersey Gateway project.


----------



## havaska

It's looking good. I wonder if they'll make the dual carriageway free flowing where it connects to the M56 as part of the build?


----------



## bogdymol

A30 just south of Exeter, yesterday:


----------



## hammersklavier

ChrisZwolle said:


> The Mersey Gateway project.


I think the Mersey is less "river" and more "giant mudflat" at that point. :lol:


bogdymol said:


> A30 just south of Exeter, yesterday:


That sign looks weird and oddly-designed.


----------



## sirfreelancealot

hammersklavier said:


> I think the Mersey is less "river" and more "giant mudflat" at that point. :lol:
> 
> That sign looks weird and oddly-designed.


It just means that lane two can be used for both destinations, whilst lane one filters off.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The River Mersey is tidal up to Warrington according to Wikipedia. 

Here's a view in the other direction (east).


----------



## da_scotty

sirfreelancealot said:


> It just means that lane two can be used for both destinations, whilst lane one filters off.


It still looks odd, a diverging arrow used in contintal europe (not everywhere) is way clearer. This just looks messy.

The sign is way to bulky anyway for the amount of information shown.


----------



## verreme

^^ British gantry signage looks very awkward overall.


----------



## Suburbanist

I can't being to imagine how much polluted that mud must be. 

If not for the port activities, they could dredge it and build a big tidal power plant.

They could also have built part of the link as an expressway over an embankment.


----------



## Liverbird1

ChrisZwolle said:


> *Manchester to Sheffield Trans-Pennine road tunnel routes shortlisted*
> 
> Five routes have been shortlisted today, 18 August 2016, for the Trans-Pennine tunnel – the most ambitious road scheme undertaken in the UK in more than 5 decades.
> 
> The Trans-Pennine tunnel study was launched by the government in autumn 2015, one of a number of studies aimed at addressing some of the biggest challenges facing the road network in the UK. Today’s study shows the continued strong case for the tunnel which could provide safer, faster and more reliable journeys for motorists.
> 
> The tunnel between Manchester and Sheffield could be a national first and almost halve journey times between the 2 cities.
> 
> All 5 routes join the M60 east of Manchester to the M1 north of Sheffield, with 4 options starting at the M67, and will see journeys cut by 30 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tunnel could provide an economic boost to the 2 cities as well as the surrounding area. The link would help protect the environment by reducing traffic through the Peak District National Park, as well as support the government’s plan to build a Northern Powerhouse.
> 
> The study is part of the government’s next phase of road improvements, which will get underway from 2020. The current Road Investment Strategy period covers 2015 to 2020.
> 
> In the final stage of the study, due to be completed by the end of 2016, the strategic and economic cases for each option will be assessed and cost estimates will be provided.​ Full press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-trans-pennine-road-tunnel-routes-shortlisted




They should just extend the M67 to meet the M1..


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Liverbird1 said:


> They should just extend the M67 to meet the M1..


That's essentially what four of the five options would do (though they haven't confirmed the new road's number yet, of course). 

If one of these options is taken forward it'll be interesting to see how they upgrade the woefully underpowered M60/M67 interchange at Denton.


----------



## devo

They should extend the M67 to the M1, but one thing is sure: It'll never be a motorway (neither (A) or M something).
(a dual carriageway is just as bad, but what can you do when you are facing well funded arguments, such as; "motorway sounds worse than a dual carriageway")


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

devo said:


> They should extend the M67 to the M1, but one thing is sure: It'll never be a motorway (neither (A) or M something).
> (a dual carriageway is just as bad, but what can you do when you are facing well funded arguments, such as; "motorway sounds worse than a dual carriageway")


Attitudes are changing in that respect. See, eg, the A1 East of England project I mentioned a few posts back, which is expressly exploring the possibility of a motorway upgrade, in SE England no less.


----------



## PortoNuts

> *Race starts for £1.3bn Stonehenge expressway*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Highways England will soon start the hunt for an early contractor involvement partner on the proposed A303 Stonehenge expressway.*
> 
> The ambitious project is expected to cost anywhere between £300m and £1.3bn depending on the final route selected.
> 
> Before starting the ECI contractor bid race, Highways England plans to hold a market engagement day in Bristol on 12 October to set out proposals for taking the vast expressway project forward.
> 
> An Atkins/Arup joint venture is presently working up development options to take to public consultation and inform the preferred route announcement.
> 
> A decision on the route will be taken next summer with a development consent order application due to be submitted in summer 2018 for an April 2020 start.
> 
> The expressway project will involve improvements to the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down in Wiltshire.
> 
> *Subject to option approval, the project is likely to include construction of a twin-bored tunnel of at least 1.8 miles in length on the A303 as it passes Stonehenge, a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke and junctions with the A358 and the A360.*
> 
> ...


http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2016/10/04/race-starts-for-1-3bn-stonehenge-expressway/


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The public consultation on the A30 Carland Cross to Chiverton scheme has opened. This will dual and grade separate 8.7 miles of substandard single carriageway in Cornwall, with construction to start in Spring 2020. The roundabouts with the A39 and A390 at either end of this section will be replaced with single-bridge GSJs:

















The only intermediate junction will be a GSJ with west-facing slips only at Chybucca; there are also two route options for that section. For details see the consultation brochure and scheme plan.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The government today approved Heathrow's plan for a new runway, including £830m for road improvements:










The M25 at Heathrow will be widened to 14 lanes (3+4+4+3) plus hard shoulders and go in a tunnel under the new runway:


----------



## sotonsi

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> including £830m for road improvements


That £830m is the cost of rebuilding the M25 and A4 to build the runway on top of it (and taking the opportunity to do mediocre improvements) and some rejigging of the airport's access roads. Or rather, what Heathrow are willing to pay on that front (though they have no choice but to pay on their own roads).

The real cost of road building, in the highly unlikely scenario that the scheme meets environmental law, competition law, etc will be much much higher, with M4 widening, further M25 widening, upgrades to more local roads like the A30, A312, etc. TfL reckoned on a figure for cost to the taxpayer of about 100 times that £830m to supply the enlarged airport, and its hinterland, with the infrastructure needed to deal with the increase in stuff going on there.

Also, given what Heathrow sought to do with Crossrail (beyond getting out of paying a penny towards a scheme where making it easier to get to that airport is a key purpose of the scheme), watch out for tolling the M25 between J14 and J15. They might talk about 'Congestion Charge' or something, but it's their notions of building infrastructure to make it easier for people to get to the airport and then milking the customers/workers that use it for as much as they think they can get away with.


> The M25 at Heathrow will be widened to 14 lanes (3+4+4+3) plus hard shoulders and go in a tunnel under the new runway:


One lane more than now, with triple the airport traffic (which gets two lanes currently) using it... hno:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Indeed and I know that area very, very well, indeed I was born within the bounds of that map and I am far from convinced that it's ever going to happen.


----------



## Suburbanist

I have a question about the Newport Cable Transporter Bridge: are there concrete plans to replace it with some other fixed structure, tunnel or new bridge itself?


----------



## sotonsi

It's grade I listed and the symbol of the city, so 'replaced' is very much the wrong word!

I'm not sure how many use it - there's not a huge amount the other side, and the A48 City Bridge serves that well enough.

A bridge or tunnel in the same location won't work - it needs to be high/deep and there's not enough space for approaches on the city side.

The M4 diversion will build a crossing downstream, but that will serve a different function.


----------



## Fatfield

..... wrong thread


----------



## Fatfield

See above.


----------



## sponge_bob

Where is the road *into* the new terminal ( the light blue strip between the new North Runway and the current north runway), or is that new terminal a T5 Satellite. 



Ryme Intrinseca said:


> The government today approved Heathrow's plan for a new runway, including £830m for road improvements:


*It's a big terminal called Terminal 6 or Central Terminal *as you can see here ( first terminal on left)


----------



## Blackraven

Speaking of which:
How's the traffic volume between M4 (Heathrow Airport) and A350/A429 roadway?

Is it mostly a breeze and free-flowing? Or is it jam-packed?


----------



## Exethalion

If there are no accidents, it is usually fine until you get towards Slough and the M25.

If this new runway and terminal go through, then the whole region will need an upgrade, especially the M4 spur and the perimeter road.


----------



## sotonsi

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ has traffic volume graphs for all A and M roads (data from the DfT presented in a more accessible way).

Traffic flows a lot better after Reading (drops from floating around the 120-150k range to about 80k), and the peak periods are the problem there.

There's widening roadworks between junctions 3 and 12 beginning in March (for 5 years!) so I'd say that jam-packed is an accurate description.

But jam-packed doesn't mean not-free-flowing. Jam-packed, but free-flowing, is a common occurance on British motorways.


----------



## Suburbanist

Are there plans to upgrade A1 in Northern Ireland to motorway standards? 

There is a sector with a very strange alignment, some big-and-raised should that is supposed to act as frontage road, but with access to the main carriageway


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Northern Ireland doesn't really 'do' new motorways, so no.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

*M25 Junction 28 improvement*

Highways England have put forward their proposed improvement to M25 J28, which is the heavily congested three-level roundabout for the A12. The final arrangement will feature a freeflow loop similar to the M57/M62 Tarbock Island. The scheme is priced at £61m-£78m.


----------



## verreme

From Edinburgh to Thurso or from civilization to the absolute emptiness.


























Video 2: Northernmost motorway in the UK and northernmost motorway-to-motorway interchange.

Video 3: Northernmost dual carriageway in the UK and northernmost bypass.


----------



## verreme

Also, here are two samples of what driving in the Scottish northwest Highlands is like. Nothing I've seen compares to it in any way I can think of . It's like driving in another planet. A beautiful, empty, windy one.


----------



## OulaL

verreme said:


> From Edinburgh to Thurso or from civilization to the absolute emptiness.


Sweet memories. My first time ever driving in the UK (or any left-sided country for that matter, or any country using miles) was from Thurso to Inverness, back in the days when there still was a ferry service from Norway.

It was midnight and apart from those arriving by the same ferry, the road was absolutely empty for most part. Driving for tens of kilometres on the left side without seeing anyone (except my wife on the passenger seat) felt kind of insane, especially at 60 mph or 98 km/h (compared to a similar road in Finland or Norway, which would probably be 80 km/h). It felt like a game, "How long can we go like this before the police stops us..."


----------



## roaddor

Are there any plans to connect by motorway Edinburgh with Newcastle and then further south through Peterborough to Cambridge?

Also what about a potential motorway London-Ipswich-Norwich-Great Yarmouth?


----------



## strandeed

roaddor said:


> Are there any plans to connect by motorway Edinburgh with Newcastle and then further south through Peterborough to Cambridge?
> 
> Also what about a potential motorway London-Ipswich-Norwich-Great Yarmouth?


No... The North East of England is one of the most neglected areas in the country.

There are plans to dual the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham just past Alnwick, but no plans to even finish dualling the road as far as Berwick, let alone Edinburgh.

Between Ellingham and Berwick a few minor improvements such as passing lanes are planned.

http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/the-a1-in-northumberland/

The length of time/cost it takes for anything to be built in the UK is simply staggering. (6 years from being approved/money assigned to construction start date)


----------



## roaddor

strandeed said:


> No... The North East of England is one of the most neglected areas in the country.
> 
> There are plans to dual the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham just past Alnwick, but no plans to even finish dualling the road as far as Berwick, let alone Edinburgh.
> 
> Between Ellingham and Berwick a few minor improvements such as passing lanes are planned.
> 
> http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/the-a1-in-northumberland/
> 
> The length of time/cost it takes for anything to be built in the UK is simply staggering. (6 years from being approved/money assigned to construction start date)


OK I see, it means less than 10 mln.euro/km if we take the corresponding distance in kilometers. It is typical for the high quality in the end.
I remember 12 years ago I saw a primary two-lane road to be repaired in England which was actually spotless.


----------



## sotonsi

roaddor said:


> Are there any plans to connect by motorway Edinburgh with Newcastle and then further south through Peterborough to Cambridge?


Doncaster-Newcastle as motorway is mostly complete, and the gaps are on the radar. Peterborough-Alconbury is motorway, with Alconbury-Cambridge about to have construction on upgrading to D3 start (and Baldock-Alconbury is being talked about as a motorway due to the need to bypass the 1950s Dual Carriageway).

The bit between Peterborough and Doncaster needs some minor improvements, but motorway conversion isn't justified as it's fully grade separated and not congested.


> Also what about a potential motorway London-Ipswich-Norwich-Great Yarmouth?


Essex is pushing central Government for London-Colchester. North of there is unlikely.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

roaddor said:


> Also what about a potential motorway London-Ipswich-Norwich-Great Yarmouth?


There is basically no chance of any motorway in this area. In fact there hasn't been a new motorway anywhere in Southern England (population: 28 million) in the last 20 years!


----------



## roaddor

^^
^^
Thanks. A1 between Peterborough and Doncaster, being an expressway, is a very good complement to the parallel M1.

Now I see that Norwich is connected to Cambridge with the A11 expressway.

Regarding the M23 extention towards Brighton, is it going to be upgraded to the coast or it will remain like A23 without hard shoulders?


----------



## sotonsi

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> There is basically no chance of any motorway in this area. In fact there hasn't been a new motorway anywhere in Southern England (population: 28 million) in the last 20 years!


err, what's that (1km long) bit of road linking the M25 to Heathrow??? 


roaddor said:


> Regarding the M23 extention towards Brighton, is it going to be upgraded to the coast or it will remain like A23 without hard shoulders?


I think this is a perfectly acceptable standard (D3 south to the A2300, then D2) and there's no reason to do more than maybe a couple more localised alignment improvements (though I think those needed have been done).


----------



## strandeed

When I see a grade separated road built without a shoulder I feel like slapping the highways agency with a wet fish


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Nice video of the nearly-complete Catthorpe (M6/A14) upgrade posted by Alderpoint in the SABRE forum:




You get a good look at the new freeflow ramps starting around 1.45.


----------



## sponge_bob

Is Catthorpe the section of A14 built as an M1/M6 LINK ONLY 20 years back or is it an older section.?


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

sponge_bob said:


> Is Catthorpe the section of A14 built as an M1/M6 LINK ONLY 20 years back or is it an older section.?


Yes, Catthorpe is where the M1 and M6 meet, with the A14 tacked on in the 90s. This scheme finally puts a proper freeflow junction there.

Further down the A14, the Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme just started construction. At £1.5bn this is the largest current road project in England by some distance.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Consultation on the M25 J10 (Wisley) improvement has opened. Highways England are seeking feedback on two options (priced at £215m and £153m), as well as a third rejected option (£340m):




























The '4 level flyover' would be okay. The 'elongated roundabout' option is just comically bad for the indicated price. Predictably, given the UK's infamous aversion to freeflowing interchanges, the rejected option is the only full freeflow design.


----------



## sotonsi

The 4-level one might be slightly cheaper if they don't keep the 4 now-redundant slip roads (A3 off-slips, M25 on-slips) as otherwise they have to bridge-over two of them. It could also do with some sort of separation for vunerable users as it seems surreal that the 4 movements left on the roundabout will have to deal with pegasus crossings (albeit at already-signalised junctions), while the other 4 movements are free-flow.


----------



## MichiH

I think there was no opening of any new motorway or motorway-like road in 2016. However, a lot of openings have been planned for 2017. I've checked the project pages to get updated expected opening/completion dates (delays in *red*):



MichiH said:


> *A21:* Tonbridge – Pembury 2.7km (January 2015 to Late March 2017) – project – map


April 2015 Start of works
* Summer 2017 End of works*




MichiH said:


> *A556:* Bowdon (M56) – Over Tabley (M6) 7.5km (November 2014 to Late March 2017) – project – map


Early 2017 Finishing works
*Early 2017 New road open to traffic*
Autumn/Winter 2017 Detrunking works
End March 2017 Completion




MichiH said:


> *M90:* Queensferry Crossing 4km (September 2011 to May 2017) – project – map


Scotland’s biggest transport infrastructure project in a generation is scheduled for *completion May 2017*.




MichiH said:


> *A90:* Tipperty – Blackdog 12.0km (February 2015 to Spring 2017) – project – map
> *A90:* Blackdog – Kingswells-North 16.1km (February 2015 to Late 2017) – project – map
> *A90:* Kingswells-North – Cleanhill 12.2km (February 2015 to Late 2017) – project – map
> *A90:* Cleanhill – Stonehaven 11.5km (February 2015 to Late 2017) – project – map
> *A956:* Cleanhill – Cove Bay 6.5km (February 2015 to Late 2017) – project – map


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-38288988



> The Balmedie to Tipperty section of Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route was due to be completed by Spring 2017, but this has now been put back until the *end of that year*.The AWPR project as a whole is due to be finished in *Spring 2018*.





MichiH said:


> *A1(M):* Barton – Leeming 19.3km (February 2014 to Late June 2017) – project – map


Start date: March 2014
End date: *June 2017*



MichiH said:


> *M8:* Baillieston – Newhouse 9.7km (2014 to 2017) – project – map


Couldn't find any estimated opening date 



MichiH said:


> *A465:* Brynmawr – Gilwern 8.1km (December 2014 to 2017) – project – map


Start date: End 2014
*End date: Mid 2018*



MichiH said:


> *A533:* Widnes (A562) – Astmoor (A558) 4.8km (May 2014 to Fall 2017) – project – map


Work started on the Mersey Gateway Project on 7 May 2014. In *autumn 2017* a new six lane toll bridge over the Mersey between the towns of Runcorn and Widnes will open.


----------



## MichiH

Have any additional projects for new motorway or expressway-like roads been started in 2016 or are expected to be started in 2017?
Have I missed any relevant 2016 opening?


----------



## sotonsi

I don't think these are worth dealing with as they are short (<1km of new underpass on each)
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/road-schemes/a19-coast-road-junction/
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/road-schemes/m74-j5-improvement/

This one has a little bit of new expressway like road (the current A555 expressway will be extended one junction at either end as the existing terminal junctions become GSJs) - I'm not sure I'd count it, but you might
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/road-schemes/a555-maelr-hazel-grove-poynton/


This one does count, but it's still just prep works (tree-felling, fencing, archaeological surveys, setting up the works site), so I'd call it a 2017 start.
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/road-schemes/a14-fen-ditton-ellington/

This one is a March 2015 start (and 2017 opening), I don't know why I didn't add it to the list when I came up with the other schemes - maybe the Higher Carblake access? - anyway it should be included.
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/road-schemes/a30-temple-higher-carblake/

Some of this A9 scheme might be relevant now/soon, other bits not for a few years, but I'm not sure how grade-separated and access-controlled it is.
http://www.transport.gov.scot/project/a9-dualling-perth-inverness


---

As an aside, we've had a load of widening/smart motorway schemes - doubling down on the roads we currently have, rather than building new ones - hence why we don't have much on the list.


----------



## General Maximus

This smart-motorway scheme would have been the best thing in the UK. A modem network that could compare with the efficiency in providing information and accurate traffic detection,comparable of those in the Netherlands and France. But they can't even do that right,which makes this "smart" motorway upgrade the biggest farce in history after Brexit. False information, unnecessarsly messing with free flow of traffic;false warnings of incidents and no accurate information on length and duration of traffic jams. Automated signs even warn about congestion ahead when they're no more than three vehicles on an entire stretch of road. Classic British cowboy work at its best!


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Nikolaj said:


> Again those ridicules UK prices. A pricetag of around EUR 57-62 per km for a 2+2 motorway in open land just does'nt make sense.


Yep. I wonder if there has ever been a more expensive per km four lane scheme across countryside? I doubt even the Aussies could match this...


----------



## CNGL

The price tag makes me wonder if they are going to pave that scheme with gold.


----------



## sponge_bob

Brexit will only _*increase *_the cost of that A120-A12 scheme.


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ in pounds but not Euros


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

A couple of fly-through videos for grade separation schemes:











Both are due to start construction by Spring 2020.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

MichiH said:


> I think there was no opening of any new motorway or motorway-like road in 2016. However, a lot of openings have been planned for 2017. ...


A30 Temple to Higher Carblake will open this summer:

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/transpor...le-to-higher-carblake-improvement/?page=33044

EDIT - But maybe you're not counting it as 'new' as it turns an existing two lane road with flat junctions into a grade-separated four lane road.


----------



## geogregor

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> A30 Temple to Higher Carblake will open this summer:
> 
> http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/transpor...le-to-higher-carblake-improvement/?page=33044
> 
> EDIT - But maybe you're not counting it as 'new' as it turns an existing two lane road with flat junctions into a grade-separated four lane road.


In Britain it must count as a "major scheme" :lol:


----------



## cairnstony2

geogregor said:


> In Britain it must count as a "major scheme" :lol:


It may not be a major scheme but it is a very important one, as it plugs the gap in the dual carriageway on what is a notorious bottleneck.

Sometimes these small schemes deliver major dividends out of all proportion to their size.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The New Wear Crossing in Sunderland took a big step forward over the last couple of days, as the 1550 tonne, 105m high centrepiece was pulled into position.



















The A-frame left Ghent, Belgium last month, and travelled across the North Sea by barge.










The four-lane cable-stayed bridge will be 336 metres long, and is due to open next year.










(Image credit: ITV News Tyne Tees/Sunderland City Council)


----------



## sotonsi

^^ I'd almost forgotten about that scheme!

Certainly, in my memory, I'd always seen it as a substantial, but nothing special, bridge. That looks impressive, especially as it is mostly about local traffic and accessing a regeneration area.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Consultation on the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester scheme is now live. This will convert the existing two lane road into a four lane grade-separated road. There are two options with indicative junction designs:

Option 1 (AKA A2) is largely online and features two junctions:










Option 2 (AKA F1) is offline with one junction, with the existing A303 being retained:










Costs are £112m for option 1 and £101m for option 2, which is pretty reasonable for 5.5km of expressway compared to other recent UK schemes.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/a303-sparkford-to-ilchester/


----------



## sotonsi

I'm wondering why the scheme doesn't build the grade-separation at Podimore that provision exists for.


----------



## geogregor

Two aerial videos from Aberdeen Western Bypass construction:











And some aerial photography from October in this article:
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/road-to-the-future2/4/

It is all a few months old but it is hard to find any recent updates. 

It puzzles me how little people get excited about infrastructure upgrades in the UK. In Poland we have enthusiast cycling in -10C to take pictures on various sites, people just enjoy new things being build :nuts:

Also two videos from the M8 M73 M74 works upgrading connection between Glasgow and Edinburgh











Taken together with electrification of railways between Glasgow and Edinburgh this project clearly shows that Scots are investing in proper transport infrastructure uniting their biggest cities and the whole central belt.


----------



## geogregor

Quite interesting BBC documentary about the A9 in Scotland:


----------



## AvB

*A449-A4440- SLR-A38 Worcester City Centre (x3)(04/03/2017)*


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The A556 Knutsford to Bowdon improvement opened this morning. Southbound video from Discosteve: 






Northbound video from Jeni:






The scheme provides 7km of new grade-separated dual carriageway between the M6 and M56, costing £192m. This includes reconstruction of the M56 interchange to provide freeflow, but the M6 junction remains a basic grade-separated roundabout (a separate scheme will make minor improvements there).


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Consultation on the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet opened a couple of days ago. This will provide a grade-separated four lane road to replace the substandard two lane A428. Construction is to start in 2020. There are three route options - orange (18.9km in length), purple (11.4km) and pink (11.4km): 








7

There are also three options for the key Black Cat interchange between the A428 and A1, which is at the west end of the scheme:










https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/a428-black-cat-to-caxton-gibbet/


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Consultation on the A55/A494/A548 Deeside Corridor improvement, in North Wales, has opened. There are two options - a blue option, which would widen the A55 and A494 to six lanes, and a red offline option.










A previous scheme to widen the A494 online was abandoned a few years ago after local protests, resulting in the seven lane plus hard shoulders section to the north narrowing abruptly at the River Dee, as shown below. 










According to the consultation document, the offline option is £30m cheaper and would provide three times as much benefit, so the 'unfinished' bit is likely to stay like that.


----------



## tedelios

Dear Construction Professionals,

I am a Master’s student and I have created a survey questionnaire for my thesis.
As my questionnaire is about labour productivity in road projects, I am looking for professionals that have worked in such projects.

Is it possible for you to advise me where I can paste the link of my questionnaire for professionals to answer it. Can I paste it here?

If you think this post should be somewhere else, please tell me.

Thank you in advance for your time.


----------



## davidbkm08

Scotland ???


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*Catthorpe Junction*

The reconstructed Catthorpe Junction (M1/M6) near Rugby. Originally it was an incomplete split, traffic could only turn off from London to Birmingham and vice versa. Now they connected A14 to both M1 and M6.



01_2017_168 by Highways England, on Flickr


01_2017_154 by Highways England, on Flickr


01_2017_144 by Highways England, on Flickr


01_2017_141 by Highways England, on Flickr


01_2017_139 by Highways England, on Flickr


----------



## bartek76

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> It definitely won't be dual four lane motorway. The current assumption is two lane all purpose, with the tunnel bores wide enough for future upgrade to three lanes per bore, though they will now reconsider whether some or all should be built as dual three lane. This is clearly necessary given projected volumes of 84,000 AADT in opening year (2025) and 96,000 by 2041.


Two lanes for AADT of over 80,000?
And projected increase of traffic by 14% over 16 years?
16 years since opening it is going to be 150,000 AADT or more

This would make sense if at the same time second bridge at Dartford was build plus some other crossing of Lower Thames.

God bless British planing


----------



## sotonsi

ChrisZwolle said:


> Originally it was an incomplete split, traffic could only turn off from London to Birmingham and vice versa. Now they connected A14 to both M1 and M6.


They connected the A14 to both M1 and M6 in the early 90s in a total bodge job of a couple of roundabouts and a couple of slip roads onto local roads.

The recent works removed the local access (and provided a bypass for Catthorpe) and made the A14 have free-flowing access onto and off-of the M6, and the M1 to/from Leicester. It remains an 'incomplete split'.


----------



## Kanadzie

bartek76 said:


> Two lanes for AADT of over 80,000?
> And projected increase of traffic by 14% over 16 years?
> 16 years since opening it is going to be 150,000 AADT or more
> 
> This would make sense if at the same time second bridge at Dartford was build plus some other crossing of Lower Thames.
> 
> God bless British planing


But with Brexit, immigrantow probably go back and AADT will not go up so much :lol:


----------



## Exethalion

ChrisZwolle said:


> The reconstructed Catthorpe Junction (M1/M6) near Rugby. Originally it was an incomplete split, traffic could only turn off from London to Birmingham and vice versa. Now they connected A14 to both M1 and M6.


The old one was a complete joke, one of the biggest bottlenecks on the entire A-road and Motorway system. The primary East-West corridor in the Midlands, diverted onto a tiny roundabout and shoved through a narrow tunnel and an unclassified road to reach the M6.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

bartek76 said:


> Two lanes for AADT of over 80,000?
> And projected increase of traffic by 14% over 16 years?
> 16 years since opening it is going to be 150,000 AADT or more
> 
> This would make sense if at the same time second bridge at Dartford was build plus some other crossing of Lower Thames.
> 
> God bless British planing


Yes, it is very strange that the current proposal is only dual two lane, but at least that's being reviewed.

I agree that they will ultimately have to widen the Dartford crossing as well. The projection is that it will return to current levels of congestion soon after the new crossing opens, due to suppressed demand and general traffic growth.

My main concern with the preferred route (route 3) is actually the A13 junction. It makes traffic between the A13 to the East and the tunnel go through the Orsett **** roundabout. These movements were freeflow for rejected routes 2 and 4:

Route 2:









Route 3 (the preferred route):









Route 4:









Overall routes:










EDIT: It censored Orsett ****, so you have to look at the second image above to see the full name of the roundabout


----------



## geogregor

bartek76 said:


> Two lanes for AADT of over 80,000?
> And projected increase of traffic by 14% over 16 years?
> 16 years since opening it is going to be 150,000 AADT or more
> 
> This would make sense if at the same time second bridge at Dartford was build plus some other crossing of Lower Thames.
> 
> God bless British planing





Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Yes, it is very strange that the current proposal is only dual two lane, but at least that's being reviewed.
> 
> I agree that they will ultimately have to widen the Dartford crossing as well. The projection is that it will return to current levels of congestion soon after the new crossing opens, due to suppressed demand and general traffic growth.


They should probably build the Lower Thames Crossing as 2x3 from the beginning. Hopefully they might do it as the profile is not yet decided, as far as I understand.

The problem is that if you build 2x3 Thames Gateway and then also expand the Dartford Crossing what will happen to all this extra traffic? On the Kent side the M20 doesn't have much spare capacity. M2-A2 could be possibly upgraded all the way to Dover but then Dover will be a choke point anyway. 

The idea of the crossing is to deal with the long distance traffic, not to add capacity for commuters. For that we could build five bridges and they would fill up. Eventually there should be look into some rail crossing of the lower Thames. At the moment if you want to cross the river by train you have to go all the way to central London :nuts:

What's also needed is some extra Thames crossing somewhere in east London, below the Blackwall Tunnel.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

geogregor said:


> What's also needed is some extra Thames crossing somewhere in east London, below the Blackwall Tunnel.


Well there's the Silvertown tunnel, which should start construction next year:

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/silvertown-tunnel


----------



## Jeni_Em

The westbound M8 between Newhouse and Baillieston opened today...


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> What's also needed is some extra Thames crossing somewhere in east London, below the Blackwall Tunnel.


Which opens next year. It is called Crossrail and is in Woolwich.


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *M90:* Queensferry Crossing 4km (September 2011 to May 2017) – project – map


The new Queensferry Crossing will not open until between mid-July and the end of August, it has been revealed. The opening has been delayed further due to "adverse weather conditions". (29th March 2017)



MichiH said:


> *A1(M):* Barton – Leeming 19.3km (March 2014 to Late June 2017) – project – map


Motoring misery as A1 Leeming to Barton roadworks project delayed by up to 6 months (10th April 2017)



MichiH said:


> *A30:* Millpool – Temple 4km (March 2015 to July 2017) – project – map


The project page reports: "The constructors Kier and Cornwall Council have announced construction will be complete on 13 July but all four lanes will open before this date." (25th March 2017)



MichiH said:


> *A21:* Tonbridge – Pembury 2.7km (April 2015 to Summer 2017) – project – map


On time according to the project page.



MichiH said:


> *A533:* Widnes (A562) – Astmoor (A558) 4.8km (May 2014 to Fall 2017) – project – map


On time according to the project page.


----------



## geogregor

Views towards London:

DSC02879 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02880 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02884 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02885 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Towards Dover, here M20 changes into A20:

DSC02882 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## geogregor

A20 entering tunnel under North Downs, looking towards Dover:
DSC03017 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC03019 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC03021 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC03031 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC03034 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Last exit before the beginning of the M20:

DSC03035 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC03038 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

In the distance A20 on the other side of the tunnel, towards Dover:

DSC03043 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Last view towards A20, below A260

DSC03047 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## AvB

*A456 (near Kidderminster) - M5 Juction 3 (x3.2) (26/05/2017)*






*M5 (J3) - West Bromwich*


----------



## geogregor

Some "documentaries" about British roads:

First about the M25:






And second about the A1:






There are more episodes available on YT. Might be fun watch for those not too familiar with the GB roads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*M3 smart motorway*

*M3 'smart' motorway opens in Hampshire and Surrey*

A £174m upgrade to turn the M3 into a "smart" motorway in Hampshire and Surrey has been opened.

The 13.4-mile stretch between Farnborough and the M25 is now a four-lane carriageway, after a project that cost £50m more than first expected.​
Full report: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-40473727










What makes these schemes so expensive? The cost per mile is pretty high for a project that converts the shoulders into driving lanes. As I understand it, these 'smart motorway' schemes don't require extensive bridge replacement. Satellite imagery shows that only one overpass has been replaced.


----------



## sotonsi

^^ traffic management is very expensive. To keep the number of lanes on the existing road the same as before while also safely doing the works is very expensive. They can close lanes at night, so most of the work happens then, and the workers compensated accordingly for that.

Add in the absurdly high inflation in the construction industry in the UK for the last 5 years, and the IMF-recommended (in 2015) devaluation of the pound over the last 18 months, and that explains some of the cost overruns.

Also Smart Motorways include massive technology upgrades of the road (tons of cameras, sensors, computers and signs), and new road-spanning gantries every 400m or so - it's not just repainting the line for the hard-shoulder as a dashed one, and building an emergency refuge area every kilometre.


----------



## da_scotty

Yeah but the same thing happens in the Netherlands all the time and that wont cost that much.


----------



## bogdymol

ChrisZwolle said:


> *M3 'smart' motorway opens in Hampshire and Surrey*
> 
> A £174m upgrade to turn the M3 into a "smart" motorway in Hampshire and Surrey has been opened.
> 
> The 13.4-mile stretch between Farnborough and the M25 is now a four-lane carriageway, after a project that cost £50m more than first expected.​
> Full report: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-40473727


Last time when I drove there it was night and was closed due to works. I'll drive on it this evening, so let's see how it goes.


----------



## bogdymol

It didn't go well. On entire M25 there were electronic signs saying that M3 is closed from M25 junction to south. I had to drive on M4-A33-M3-A303 instead. There were a lot of lane and total closures this evening also on M4 and A303.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

*Ramp metering at a freeflow interchange*

There is a strange scheme being built at the M6/M62 Croft Interchange to introduce ramp metering (with signals) on the slip roads joining the eastbound M62. I was wondering what the international perspective on this was, and if there are equivalent ramp metering schemes at otherwise freeflow interchanges in other countries? 

To me it seems a waste of £12.6m and they'd be better off addressing the cause of the congestion rather than the symptom, e.g. through a cheap widening of the M62 eastbound using the hard shoulder.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

While ramp metering is common in quite a number of countries, it seems extremely rare on free flow motorway-to-motorway interchanges. The Netherlands experimented with it on the A15/A50 interchange, but it was removed after A50 was expanded to eight lanes.

Though metering is pretty common at tunnels, even when there is no capacity reduction.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Yes, I thought it was unusual, though interesting to hear it's not the first - and indeed that widening was the ultimate solution.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I wonder if some U.S. cities have also used metering on freeway-to-freeway ramps. Some cities have a large number of ramp meters.


----------



## Penn's Woods

I've never heard of one, although I don't claim exhaustive knowledge. The risk of causing it at least worsening backups on the freeway people are leaving seems to be an obvious problem.


----------



## keokiracer

ChrisZwolle said:


> I wonder if some U.S. cities have also used metering on freeway-to-freeway ramps. Some cities have a large number of ramp meters.


US-101 to SR-85 on the southside of San Jose, California. I'm not sure if it's actually in use, but it's there.

edit: the other on-ramp in that interchange in the same direction has one too.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The Welsh government have announced the red route as the preferred option for the Deeside Corridor scheme. Their description:


A new 13km two-lane dual carriageway, linking the A55-A5119 Northop Junction (Junction 33) with the A494 and A550 north of Deeside Parkway Junction, via Kelsterton Interchange and the Flintshire Bridge. This option is partly online improvement and partly new alignment.

The scheme increases capacity along the existing A548, includes modifications and improvements to junctions and provides a new section of road between the A548 and the A55.
They are still talking about this as a £250m scheme, which in UK terms seems very cheap for the scale of works. I suspect this may be due to differences in discount rates applied to costings by the Welsh Government and Highways England - they make a big difference given the severe construction inflation in recent years.






http://gov.wales/topics/transport/roads/schemes/a55/junction-a494-a548/?lang=en


----------



## Jschmuck

ChrisZwolle said:


> I wonder if some U.S. cities have also used metering on freeway-to-freeway ramps. Some cities have a large number of ramp meters.


In Milwaukee, WI on I-94 interchange with WI-341. The ramps from WI-341 to I-94 have meters. WI-341 is not a long major freeway however its interchange with I-94 is totally free flow and high speed (high speed if there weren't any meters). I'd post Google Streetview images if I knew how to.


----------



## AvB

*Scotland (x3.2) 8 of 13*





*Scotland (x3.2) 9 of 13*


----------



## AvB

*Scotland - England (x3.4) 10 of 13*


----------



## grykaerugoves

Does anyone know if there are any future plans to widen or upgrade the A406 in London?


----------



## sotonsi

There's possibly an upgrade for the really bad bit at Bounds Green still on the cards, and slim hopes of the single-carriageway bit between A4 and A40 being upgraded in the long term, but beyond that, there are absolutely no plans to widen or upgrade.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

sotonsi said:


> There's possibly an upgrade for the really bad bit at Bounds Green still on the cards, and slim hopes of the single-carriageway bit between A4 and A40 being upgraded in the long term


Do you have a source on that? I'd be very surprised to see anything beyond bus priority measures etc.


----------



## sotonsi

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> I'd be very surprised to see anything beyond bus priority measures etc.


Which is still an upgrade.

I underestimated the desire to upgrade the A4-A40 bit, there's this short dualling scheme. The point is safety, and improved pedestrian/cycle facilities, but's it a widening nonetheless.

Pretty sure a major Bounds Green upgrade was among a recent big list of aspirations from TfL. The problem is that TfL have little money and really want to build an insanely expensive railway tunnel, so a road tunnel past a bottleneck is unlikely to happen. But as I said "possibly still on the cards".


----------



## grykaerugoves

sotonsi said:


> Which is still an upgrade.
> 
> I underestimated the desire to upgrade the A4-A40 bit, there's this short dualling scheme. The point is safety, and improved pedestrian/cycle facilities, but's it a widening nonetheless.
> 
> Pretty sure a major Bounds Green upgrade was among a recent big list of aspirations from TfL. The problem is that TfL have little money and really want to build an insanely expensive railway tunnel, so a road tunnel past a bottleneck is unlikely to happen. But as I said "possibly still on the cards".


isn't this just another one of TfL's usual bullcrap about safety so they just decide to narrow lanes, reduce speed limits and create more havoc?


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The Mersey Gateway Bridge is to open tomorrow night. It's a tolled 2.3km, six lane cable-stayed bridge. Scheme costs of £600m include new and improved link roads and grade-separated junctions either side of the Mersey.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-41582616
http://www.merseygateway.co.uk/


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The bridge opened just after midnight UK time. Lots of people came out to drive it!


----------



## geogregor

Webcams showing progress on the Aberdeen bypass cosntruction:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects/aberdeen-western-peripheral-route-balmedie-to-tipperty/awpr-webcams/

It is fairly large project but it is hard to find any decent updates or photos. Try google it. Some news from a few months ago and that's it. It seems nobody is really interested in it.


----------



## sotonsi

A lot of the scheme is in hard-to-get-to rural areas, and people who would take photos and the like all live a long way away, unlike schemes like the Inverness Western Link, SEMMMS, etc.

Also the online stuff from the authorities is very lacking - merely the minimum statutory requirements.

Looking at the cameras, I'm struggling to see how it will be finished by Spring.


----------



## geogregor

sotonsi said:


> A lot of the scheme is in hard-to-get-to rural areas, and people who would take photos and the like all live a long way away, unlike schemes like the Inverness Western Link, SEMMMS, etc.
> 
> Also the online stuff from the authorities is very lacking - merely the minimum statutory requirements.
> 
> Looking at the cameras, I'm struggling to see how it will be finished by Spring.


I just found that Iain Henderson has great album on Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/iainh124a/albums/72157657649458723/page7

Just two samples of his excelent work:

September 2017: Work on the AWPR (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Aberdeen bypass dual carriageway River Dee bridge at Milltimber by Iain Henderson, on Flickr

I didn't know they will use concrete surface. It seems rare nowadays in the UK:

September 2017: Work on the AWPR (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Aberdeen bypass dual carriageway at Newlands Farm on Cleanhill to Charleston section of road by Iain Henderson, on Flickr


----------



## Blackraven

> Lotus Cars CEO fined for speeding on A11 roadway
> 
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/9...Gales-banned-from-driving-caught-doing-102mph


He was travelling at reported 102 mph (164 kph) when the stated speed limit is 70 mph (112 kph)

Personally, I found some of the comments made by some posters to be quite silly for certain reasons:

1) 102 mph (164 kph) is not dangerous or life-threathening if you have a car that has 200 horsepower or more.

I mean I personally did this when I test drove a Peugeot 508 2.2 GT Diesel (204 HP). I reached 105 mph (170 kmh) and it was very stable..........and I'm just a casual/amateur driver.

Point being:
If such speed is stable on a Peugeot 508, then what more with a high-performance Lotus car?

2) "Speed does not kill people, people kill people" 

To rephrase that, here is the actual quote by Jeremy Clarkson: "Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."

In fact:
What actually kills people more on the road are the slowpokes in the fast lanes or overtaking lanes. This leads to overtaking/passing on the passenger side of the other car which is more dangerous as this the blind side or weak side of the other car.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/proof.html
http://www.caradvice.com.au/6756/speed-doesnt-kill-its-official/


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

^ 100mph+ in a 70mph limit is not good at all hno:

Anyway, Highways England are consulting on their upgrade of the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester. This will replace 3 miles of substandard two lane road with a four lane expressway, including two grade-separated junctions. Construction is due to start in 2020.


----------



## sotonsi

Nothing for Podimore? Its not really a safety issue or traffic problem, but it will be once other bottlenecks are fixed and you might as well put the grade-separation there's provision for while crews are nearby.

It's going to end up like the Liss Roundabout on the A3, isn't it? Everything else upgraded, but it left as-is.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Highways England have said they plan to grade separate Podimore in RIS2. As you say it's not actually that much of a bottleneck, so there's no reason to improve it before, for instance, the single carriageway sections in Wiltshire.


----------



## PortoNuts

*Four shortlisted for A9 Berriedale Braes upgrade*

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2018/02/08/four-shortlisted-for-a9-berriedale-braes-upgrade/



> *The successful bidders for this key project are: RJ McLeod (Contractors), Morrison Construction, Roadbridge UK and Wills Bros Civil Engineering.*
> 
> This next stage of procurement will see the four bidders enter into a commercially sensitive period of competitive dialogue which is anticipated to last until Summer.
> 
> *The successful bidder will deliver improvements to the road alignment and the existing tight hairpin bend.*
> 
> When completed, the scheme will improve road safety and journey times by removing the need for vehicles to slow down or stop to negotiate the bend.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The statutory consultation on the A303 Stonehenge improvement is open. The video of the western section of the route shows the measures taken to make things more 'green': a bored tunnel, followed by a grass covered canopy and four 'green bridges' (I don't think any previous UK scheme has used more than one).






https://highwaysengland.citizenspace...onehenge-2018/


----------



## sotonsi

While the green bridges make things more green, the opponents of the scheme's problem with it isn't the ecological impact of the route, but the archaeological impact of the route. 

Both portals are still in the WHS (and will remove the status from the site) with the eastern one still slap bang in the middle of a early neolithic settlement that is of far more archaeological importance than the stone circle (which is still important, just not as unique).


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ to be honest, a major road-building scheme seems an excellent way to actually do archaeology... dig slower and have some archaeologists sift and search for items. On their own there would be no reason or budget to move such massive amounts of earth.

it's somewhat like how so much has been learned about dinosaurs and prehistoric life from mining in, for example, the oilsands region...


----------



## sotonsi

Kanadzie said:


> On their own there would be no reason or budget to move such massive amounts of earth.


The whole point of the tunnel is to preserve (and restore) the pre-historic landscape while making the road dual carriageway - moving massive amounts of earth and not putting it back doesn't do that (putting down a second carriageway on the ground next to the other would be less destructive) and green bridges are no help on this - a tone deaf response to the criticism.

BTW, Blick Mead is important enough, and Stonehenge famous enough, to attract considerable funding for archeological work.


----------



## bartek76

sotonsi said:


> Both portals are still in the WHS (and will remove the status from the site)


And?
WHS list has nowadays thousands of places and dozens new once are added virtually on weekly basis,the importance and meaning of this list is diminishing at high pace.
For example Germany did not hesitate to have Dresden removed from WHS list due to a new bridge across river Elbe.

And it is important to know the origin of WHS list: it was created to prevent a very few seriously endangered places of important heritage, it was actually conceived when a few Polish scientist discussed with a few French counteparts the fate of Cracow over a few bottles of wine/vodka back in 70-ties. Cracow was then simply falling apart due to heavy pollution and neglect and communist authorities were having none of it. The French mention a few historical places in Africa that were crumbling under local dictators and thus UNESCO WHS list was created. It was a means of international pressure on various dictatorships to end neglect of precious historical sites in their realms. 
And as such it worked but it was never a list of the best from tripadvisor and vice versa, whether Stonhenge, Tower of London or Bamburgh Castle are on WHS or not is irrelevant. None of them is endangered in any real form or way and putting a congested road next to Stonhenge underground is actually protecting the place. As long as proper archeological investigation is done as part of this investment.


----------



## sotonsi

bartek76 said:


> None of them is endangered in any real form or way and putting a congested road next to Stonhenge underground is actually protecting the place.


It's desecrating it, not protecting it. The actual roadway is one of the earliest things on the landscape (OK, not the asphalt surface) and keeping it is far less problematic than replacing it with a 25m-wide deep gash across the neolithic landscape as the scheme currently proposes.

Yes, WHS status has been cheapened. Yes, Dresden lost it for a silly reason. However the Stonehenge landscape is worthy of the accolade and protection and the damage the scheme as currently proposed will do is massive - an irreversible destruction of some of the key sites. The people who are pointing out UNESCOs strong opposition to the scheme as currently planned don't care anywhere near as much about the at-risk status that Liverpool's WHS has been given.

The opposition isn't the NIMBYs we see elsewhere, nor anti-roads people who don't want people driving - it's serious historians, archeologists (who, if there was tons of money to dig out the sites being demolished should the road happen, aren't jumping at the chance for lots of fascinating work in the near future), and those they are persuading that the scheme needs serious changes.


----------



## cairnstony2

Stonehenge is utterly unique. It is the largest Neolithic site in the UK and the stones themselves are probably the largest neolithic structure in the whole of Europe, or at least one of the largest. This isn't an old historic city centre that has had WHS slapped on to it, it's rather more...

As the plans currently stand, the new road will significantly damage part of the WTS site. It never ceases to amaze me how these situations keep arising. As is currently proposed, it will meet very stiff opposition from archaeologists, historians and anyone who has an interest in the same. How hard can be it be to design the road tunnel so the site isn't impinged on?

I'm a firm believer in having one's cake and eating it: build the road in a manner that doesn't impinge on the WH site and protect what's there in the process; everybody wins. The alternative will be demonstrations and legal challenges to the current scheme that will delay and increase the cost. Nobody wants that surely...


----------



## Stuu

cairnstony2 said:


> As the plans currently stand, the new road will significantly damage part of the WTS site. It never ceases to amaze me how these situations keep arising. As is currently proposed, it will meet very stiff opposition from archaeologists, historians and anyone who has an interest in the same. How hard can be it be to design the road tunnel so the site isn't impinged on?


Except the plan has the full support of English Heritage, Historic England and the National Trust and they have been involved in all aspects... If the tunnel were any longer it would need ventilation plants with chimneys, or midway ventilation, both of which would have a significant impact on the landscape.

There will be a very large archaeological excavation before any construction gets under way


----------



## sotonsi

Stuu said:


> Except the plan has the full support of English Heritage


Who only care about the stones and the area immediately nearby - their part of the site and a massive source of income for them that will only grow if people can't see the stones from the road (the National Trust also has a stake in the visitors centre).


> the National Trust


Who are bitter that the farmers who own much of the landscape won't donate them the land (the NT has a bit of land near the stones and to the north). There's a massive longstanding grudge that has turned into an institutional apathy towards the areas of the landscape that isn't theirs - so they are fine with a tunnel that merely bypasses their patch, causing great damage to everything else.

Neither of these bodies can see the big picture, and are only interested in their own narrow interests in the landscape.


> There will be a very large archaeological excavation before any construction gets under way


For sure, but the archaeologists who'd get an awful lot of work if the scheme goes ahead* are extremely against the scheme as it currently stands. Unlike the NT/EH they actually are putting the nation's heritage first and their interests second.

Their message is simple - that while Highways England are working with them to minimise damage that that length of tunnel would cause, the simple fact is that tunnel needs to be longer (a vent shaft is bad, but nowhere near as bad as a tunnel portal and mile-long deep cutting), or the road rerouted around the landscape. A more southerly route that also functions as a Salisbury bypass would bring more traffic benefits for a similar cost, or a surface route could be built to the north of the landscape more cheaply (though both those routes open up different problems - ones that don't irreversibly destroy the most significant pre-historic site in the UK, if not Europe - but still problems: MoD land, where people live and scenic beauty on the southern route).

*Given it will majorly affect the water table that is preserving artefacts, it would need to be the whole landscape very very very thoroughly. We're talking thousands of archaeologists years to merely record what will be lost when the tunnel is built.


----------



## Stuu

sotonsi said:


> For sure, but the archaeologists who'd get an awful lot of work if the scheme goes ahead* are extremely against the scheme as it currently stands. Unlike the NT/EH they actually are putting the nation's heritage first and their interests second.
> 
> Their message is simple - that while Highways England are working with them to minimise damage that that length of tunnel would cause, the simple fact is that tunnel needs to be longer (a vent shaft is bad, but nowhere near as bad as a tunnel portal and mile-long deep cutting), or the road rerouted around the landscape. A more southerly route that also functions as a Salisbury bypass would bring more traffic benefits for a similar cost, or a surface route could be built to the north of the landscape more cheaply (though both those routes open up different problems - ones that don't irreversibly destroy the most significant pre-historic site in the UK, if not Europe - but still problems: MoD land, where people live and scenic beauty on the southern route).
> 
> *Given it will majorly affect the water table that is preserving artefacts, it would need to be the whole landscape very very very thoroughly. We're talking thousands of archaeologists years to merely record what will be lost when the tunnel is built.


There isn't going to be a mile-long cuttings? The approach from the west is about 600m long.

Also the proposal is to use pressurised TBMs in order to keep the tunnel watertight and not affect the groundwater level. How effective that is I don't know but obviously some serious consideration has been given to it


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Ultimately it comes down to whether you think hypothetical future archaeological finds on outlying areas of the WHS are more important than (1) the actual archaeological finds facilitated by the scheme, (2) removal of a heavily congested trunk road from the central area of the site (including the vicinity of Stonehenge), and (3) providing an expressway route to the south west.

I cannot see any credible grounds for placing such overriding priority on that hypothetical archaeology. Clearly this is something of a sacred cow for some portion of that profession and certain others, and they are entitled to their views. But that does not override the national interest in completing the scheme, including the interest in restoring the setting of Stonehenge.


----------



## sotonsi

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Ultimately it comes down to whether you think hypothetical future archaeological finds on outlying areas of the WHS are more important than (1) the actual archaeological finds facilitated by the scheme


It's not about finds, hypothetical or otherwise, it's about preserving the landscape for the future. Yes, it is hitting the most fruitful locations for finds on the site, but the point of finding stuff isn't necessarily to remove it from it's location - good archaeology might take a few finds (heavily catalogued), but will generally try to leave the area as they found it.

Sure, we can record where stuff was before we dug a wide trench and put asphalt at the bottom. But if we're doing that, we might as well just record where the stones were, move them to a place away from a trunk road where they can be enjoyed without getting in the way of an expressway. Far cheaper, but totally missing the point! :lol:


> (2) removal of a heavily congested trunk road from the central area of the site (including the vicinity of Stonehenge),


A worthy goal that no one is suggesting is bad - just that it shouldn't be at the expense of inserting portals and cuttings and such elsewhere on the site, damaging, even destroying, more important things than the stones themselves. The problem is not the removing the trunk road from the central area (which everyone is glad about), but increasing its impact elsewhere on the site.


> (3) providing an expressway route to the south west.


And again, no one is saying that's a bad thing that must be stopped - the problem isn't the idea of the scheme, or even the concept of a tunnel under the WHS, the problem is the execution of it.

It's not the only possibility - a longer tunnel would be perfectly acceptable, an alignment giving a wider berth of the area is another possibility. Opposing a destructive option is not the same as wanting to see people in congestion or wanting nothing built.


> Clearly this is something of a sacred cow


You'll note that I've totally ignored the religious significance of the area for neo-Pagans. 


> But that does not override the national interest in completing the scheme


While an expressway along the A303 corridor is in the national interest, the scheme as it currently stands does not override the national interest in not destroying part of one of the nation's greatest treasures.


> including the interest in restoring the setting of Stonehenge.


It doesn't restore the setting (which has always been with roads, just not with motor traffic and tons of noise), it demolishes lots of it. While it does makes the stones and the area around it a bit more pleasant to visit, it does so by making the parts of the setting that aren't NT/EH-owned much less pleasant.


----------



## Stuu

The tunnel adds £1.2bn to the cost of the scheme. That seems to me a pretty solid commitment to balancing preservation of the landscape and the need to widen the road. The boundaries of the WHS are pretty arbitrary anyway, being based on modern land use.

There has to be a point at which current needs a more important than archaeology. After all if a metro station can be built next to the Colosseum then surely a road can be built in a field in Wiltshire


----------



## sotonsi

Stuu said:


> The tunnel adds £1.2bn to the cost of the scheme.


Which makes the routes going around the area perfectly credible alternatives to this high-cost scheme. Corridor F routes cost less in total than that additional cost.

It's really nonsense reasons why 'Corridor F' stuff was rejected - they talk about an expressway that runs about 2 miles north of Salisbury as not having an economic effect on the Central Salisbury growth area, nor deprived areas of the city but the 'Corridor D' routes 8 miles to the north and changing nothing for Salisbury access were judged to improve such places. Like the Airports Report, it seems like they had the answer before and then had to get there leading to some spurious claims sneaking in there to tip the balance the way desired.

For instance, throughout the document it talks about Corridor F adding traffic to Larkhill (which is where a lot of the large severance issues are created from), but you get to the traffic flow diagrams and F010 (the preferred F option) has 61 extra vehicles eastbound and 97 _less_ westbound. While corridor D is better on this factor, this is still a net reduction in rat-running vs doing nothing, not the increase that is talked about. But even with this well-poisoning, the net BCR is the about the same (some scenarios it is slightly better, others it is slightly worse - the bottom line being 1.4-1.7 for F010 vs 1.4-1.6 for D062) and the costs cheaper.



> That seems to me a pretty solid commitment to balancing preservation of the landscape and the need to widen the road.


Just throw money at the problem and future generations can forgive us. hno:

Cost isn't everything and spending lots of money to do good things doesn't excuse you when you do bad things that are avoidable without needing to cost more.



> The boundaries of the WHS are pretty arbitrary anyway, being based on modern land use.


True - they aren't big enough with various sites still outside them. Just as the NT/EH boundaries aren't big enough and don't include some of the greatest treasures - ie the ones where the portals/cuttings are proposed to be.



> There has to be a point at which current needs a more important than archaeology.


And no one is saying differently - the difference is where that point is.

And these current needs are rather small - the issue isn't the expressway, but the alignment of it. You've said £1.2bn extra over an at-grade route is worth it to preserve some ancient monuments of outstanding global cultural value, how about a additional few hundred million to preserve some more with a longer tunnel? Or how about slightly longer journey times (and less cash outflow) that come from building route F010 instead?



> After all if a metro station can be built next to the Colosseum then surely a road can be built in a field in Wiltshire


The important thing there is NEXT TO. This is the putting a metro station inside the Colosseum and thinking its fine as it's in one of the less touristy bits, even though it would be cheaper and the return on investment little different to build the metro station in a less culturally valuable site nearby.

We're not talking about a mere field, we're talking about globally unique/exceptional historic monuments.


----------



## Stuu

Here's an image of the 'globally unique/exceptional historic monument' in question










I have no doubt there are some archaeological remains in there somewhere, but the same could be said about pretty much any part of any country.

Whilst I can see the benefit of building a longer tunnel, there is zero chance that the general public would prefer spending even more money to preserve this field. It's not exactly pristine as it is

I do agree that an alternative to better serve Salisbury with links to the A36 has a lot of merit though and about the answer having been decided before the question


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Fly-through video for the A417 Missing Link scheme:






This will upgrade the last remaining section of single carriageway on the A417/A419 route between Swindon and Gloucester to dual carriageway. It's only three miles long but the vertical alignment is very tricky. Tunnelling was considered but they ultimately found that only two cutting-based options fitted within the £500m scheme budget.


----------



## BIGcider APPLE

Video link not working for me


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Works for me on the two devices I tested.


----------



## Ronnie87

Bridge over new A1-A14 section opened in Cambridgeshire

It's something :lol:


----------



## sotonsi

Tomorrow, you will be able to drive from Leeds to Tyneside on a motorway!
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2973443

I believe the road works will still be ongoing for a couple of weeks, but Catterick to Barton will have motorway regulations applying.


----------



## bogdymol

^^ Google Maps is already updated and shows it as a motorway to Newcastle.


----------



## sponge_bob

bogdymol said:


> ^^ Google Maps is already updated and shows it as a motorway to Newcastle.


Hopefully they renumber the modern sections through Yorkshire and Durham/Tyneside as M1 . Let the A1(M) stop around Doncaster.


----------



## sotonsi

bogdymol said:


> ^^ Google Maps is already updated and shows it as a motorway to Newcastle.


They have done for ages.

In part because the signs have been up for a while, in part because Google Maps is terrible - eg they numbered the entire A14 as A14(M) for a few weeks before they realised the error.


sponge_bob said:


> Hopefully they renumber the modern sections through Yorkshire and Durham/Tyneside as M1 . Let the A1(M) stop around Doncaster.


Doncaster - OK, so London-Tyneside journeys could logically go that way (they would definitely not take the current M1 route via Leeds and Sheffield and there's pluses and minus over A1 vs M18-M1 from Doncaster), but you have to renumber the bit through Sheffield, Barnsley, Wakefield and Leeds. And that's a lot of signs to patch/replace - especially when quite a significant area would go from having signs to the M1 pointing west to needing to have them pointing east!

If they were going to take the M1 to Tyneside, they'd have done patched signs on Dishforth-Barton (cf the A74(M) having signs with M6 underneath), and probably other schemes too. As well as patched them in the area around, awaiting the renumbering. They haven't.

The M1 will always end on the A1(M) east of Leeds. This isn't a problem for anyone but a group of roadgeeks (and another group of roadgeeks would be annoyed at the loss of the 90 year-old number through North Yorks) - what would it solve to spend millions changing the road numbers around?


----------



## Penn's Woods

^*And would interrupting the A1 (having it end at the current A1(M)/M1 junction then resume north of Newcastle) be a problem, or do British numbering practices permit that?


----------



## Fatfield

Penn's Woods said:


> ^*And would interrupting the A1 (having it end at the current A1(M)/M1 junction then resume north of Newcastle) be a problem, or do British numbering practices permit that?


I'm not sure what you mean but, the A1M ends at the north end of Washington and splits into two roads. The A1 & A194M. The A194M heads off in a north easterly direction as a link road towards the A19 and the Tyne Tunnel. The A1 goes around the western edges of Gateshead & Newcastle (known locally as the western bypass) before heading towards Edinburgh. From Washington to Edinburgh the road number is A1. There are currently no plans, that I know of, to upgrade the A1 north of Newcastle to motorway standard. Nor are there any plans to dual the single lane parts.


----------



## sotonsi

Penn's Woods said:


> ^*And would interrupting the A1 (having it end at the current A1(M)/M1 junction then resume north of Newcastle) be a problem, or do British numbering practices permit that?


British numbering practices would very much allow the A1 to have a lengthy gap. The A34 and A41 being prime examples, with the M40 completion giving lengthy gaps.

The question is really about whether its sensible to reroute and extend the M1 for incredibly little benefit.


Fatfield said:


> I'm not sure what you mean but, the A1M ends at the north end of Washington and splits into two roads.


Replace 'Newcastle' with 'Washington' and see if you understand now.


> There are currently no plans, that I know of, to upgrade the A1 north of Newcastle to motorway standard.


While this has nothing to do with Penn Wood's point, there were plans a couple of years ago for the motorway to reach Seaton Burn (ie north of Newcastle) before the expressway=blue signs concept came about.

And the expressway stuff considers up to Morpeth to be expressway, or thereabouts, already - and so A1(M) to Morpeth, Alnmouth, and possibly beyond (there's an arrow pointing north on the maps) is very much on the cards right now. Obviously this might change as they look through the feedback on the expressway concept.

And before you moan 'expressway standard isn't motorway standard' - you are right: the desired expressway standard is higher than the standard of many motorways! Motorway standard is, of course, totally unnecessary for a road to be a motorway (the Newcastle Central Motorway - which originally opened as A1(M) - being a great example!).


> Nor are there any plans to dual the single lane parts.


Other than, of course, this scheme to dual Morpeth-Ellingham before the end of 2023.

And this scheme for north of Ellingham might dual sections...


----------



## Penn's Woods

Fatfield said:


> I'm not sure what you mean but, the A1M ends at the north end of Washington and splits into two roads. The A1 & A194M. The A194M heads off in a north easterly direction as a link road towards the A19 and the Tyne Tunnel. The A1 goes around the western edges of Gateshead & Newcastle (known locally as the western bypass) before heading towards Edinburgh. From Washington to Edinburgh the road number is A1. There are currently no plans, that I know of, to upgrade the A1 north of Newcastle to motorway standard. Nor are there any plans to dual the single lane parts.




What I meant was, the A1 - if you count the A1(M) as part of it - is continuous from London to Edinburgh now (or is it?); but if you turned part of it into the M1, it would have a gap. My question was whether that would be acceptable.


----------



## Fatfield

Penn's Woods said:


> What I meant was, the A1 - if you count the A1(M) as part of it - is continuous from London to Edinburgh now (or is it?); but if you turned part of it into the M1, it would have a gap. My question was whether that would be acceptable.



Got you now. It wouldn't bother me personally but I've no doubt some would kick up a fuss.


----------



## bogdymol

I was in UK this week and drove from Manchester to Hull to Hereford to London (a large Z on the map of England). As you know, the weather wasn't the best these days.

UK is not really prepared for winter conditions. I had a rental car and have asked for a car with winter tyres, but they didn't have any. I talked with a few British people and they all confirmed that they don't use winter tyres.

Another problem was the windscreen wash liquid. I got the car late in the evening, and the windscreen wash system was not working as the liquid froze inside. Next day the sun blew on the car, so it unfroze. Therefore, I used a lot of the liquid to empty the small tank it had, stopped in the first gas station, and bought the only windscreen wash liquid they had, which was labeled to be fit for winter. That one froze too. I had to stop from time to time to clean the window, even on the motorway hard shoulder (I couldn't see the signs with directions anymore). And there were a lot of other people stopped and cleaning their windscreen throughout my journey in UK.

Here are some pictures:

A63 towards Hull after midnight:










A15 just north of Lincoln was closed due to the snow:










The alternative route wasn't much better:


----------



## Penn's Woods

How essential are winter tires, though? I don’t change tires by the season, and winter weather is generally worse here than in England....


----------



## bogdymol

You get better traction, more stability when turning plus shorter break distance on snow or ice. You can feel the difference. They are mandatory in many European countries during winter.


----------



## Penn's Woods

They were mandatory in northern U.S. states when I was growing up; for some reason that stopped.
But I live in the city and don’t drive to work so I can avoid driving in snow and ice....


----------



## sponge_bob

Penn's Woods said:


> My question was whether that would be acceptable.


It would, the A38 has a gap called the M5 in the middle of it.


----------



## strandeed

Was glad I bought a 4x4 the last few days.

Northumberland got hit hard.


----------



## sponge_bob

I think Scotland (for sure) and probably all of Britain north of and including the M62 should do mandatory winter tyres from November to March. The weather is fair evil east of the Pennines. South of the M62 you don't get long bad winters regularly enough, same in Ireland.


----------



## Kanadzie

^^ why, is letting people make their own decision not working? Any of these weather issues seem to be road-maintenance related more than anything else.


----------



## sponge_bob

No it probably can't, they get stuck and clog up roads after they abandon their cars in the end. It is probably cheaper to enforce, for everybody.


----------



## strandeed

Can't wait to see what the ice, salt and plows have done to our lovely smooth roads when everything melts


----------



## MichiH

*Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route opening update*

https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/aberdeen-western-peripheral-route-opening-update/ (22 March 2018)


> Economy Secretary Keith Brown has provided an update on the opening of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR).
> 
> The project had previously been expected to open during Spring 2018. Following an announcement by one of the consortium’s partners during the posting of their annual results, that they expected the completion date to be Summer 2018, Transport Scotland conducted urgent discussions with ARL to determine whether both partners shared this view.
> 
> The outcome from the discussions with ARL is that *we now expect to be able to open the project in Autumn 2018*. The contractor has reported there have been a number of issues that have contributed to this decision, with the *impact of Storm Frank during winter 2015/16, recent extreme weather during early March and the collapse of Carillion all having an impact on the opening date*.
> 
> [...]


----------



## geogregor

Rare event, a new road gets green light in London:

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2018/05/10/green-light-for-1bn-silvertown-tunnel/












> The Government has granted development consent for the £1bn Silvertown Tunnel under the Thames in east London.
> 
> The twin-bore road tunnel will be privately financed with the successful delivery partner receiving payments from Transport for London once the tunnel is open.
> 
> TfL will now progress procurement with the aim of confirming a preferred bidder before the end of the year and award the contract in early 2019.
> 
> Two bidders – Cintra Global and Hochtief PPP Solutions – are left in the race following Skanska Strabag Meridiam consortium’s decision to withdraw two months ago.
> 
> Construction is now expected to begin later next year after a six-month delay awarding development consent.
> 
> The project will be financed with a toll on both the new tunnel and the existing Blackwall Tunnel.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

^ That image is a bit flattering. The flyover is there already and isn't part of the current scheme; the £1bn tunnel just crashes into the roundabout hno:


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The preferred route for the A27 at Arundel has been announced. Option 5A was selected; this is the most direct route and takes an additional at-grade junction off the A27. There are also environmental benefits as the route will reduce the intrusion of the A27 into South Downs National Park.


----------



## IanCleverly

*[GB] United Kingdom | road infrastructure • motorways*






(Filmed by a user over at sabre-roads.org.uk)


----------



## sponge_bob

The Oxbridge Expressway proposal is tipping along slowly. Oxford have produced initial thoughts on the route.

http://news.oxfordshire.gov.uk/county-councils-first-thoughts-on-oxbridge-expressway/



> 1. Ensuring that the Expressway corridor does not increase pressure on the existing, already overstretched strategic highway network. Specifically, the Expressway must not use the section of the A34 through central Oxfordshire (broadly defined as at least the section between the Lodge Hill junction, north of Abingdon and the Bicester Road junction, east of Kidlington).
> 
> Ensuring that the Expressway corridor (or subsequently identified route) minimises the impact on the existing highway network, i.e. it should not use existing local road networks or draw significant strategic traffic directly into local road networks / highway infrastructure which would not be able to cope – the ring road around Bicester for example;
> 
> Ensuring that the Expressway is developed separately alongside locally planned highway enhancements such as Culham river crossing.
> 
> It is clear that, even taking these principles into account, there remain a number of corridor options and variants in Oxfordshire


all very sensible, lets see what Cambridgeshire and the 3 potential authorities in the middle section have to say although it may not be through Northamptonshire in the end.

Building this road, along with improvements to the A34 Oxford-Southampton route would provide great benefits along with essential redundancy for the M25 around London.

IIRC this general Oxbridge expressway idea dates back to the 1960s and is not new.


----------



## IanCleverly

Bdaily.com said:


> New images of the £60m ‘new concept’ Motorway Service Area (MSA) at M1 Junction 45 to the east of Leeds have been unveiled. Extra MSA Group, the owner and operator of Motorway Service Areas, received the main Approval of Reserved Matters consent for the project back in March. This development is now under construction and will include a food court style facilities building with a business centre, fuel filling station and a 100-bedroom hotel, all operated by popular ‘brands’.
> 
> With the opening scheduled in Summer 2019, Extra MSA has released new CGI images showing the bespoke design for the exterior and interior of the food court style facilities building.
> <snip>
> 
> The first phase of construction work comprises a package of Enabling Works inclusive of site remediation and the construction of a new dual carriageway Road and Roundabout. This infrastructure will serve both the MSA development and the new Templegate Residential scheme, which is capable of accommodating 1800 new homes. Phase two for the main on-site construction works will commence this summer. The main construction works will comprise the food court style facilities building inclusive of the business centre facilities with a work station, business lounge and a range of different size meeting rooms. This will complement the 100-bedroom hotel which is connected to the food court style facilities building.


Full text Here and there are some project indoor images over at architect361.com, but I can't get the images to work properly.

(FWIW, there are other Motorway services planned for Solihull (M42) and Chapletown, Sheffield (M1))


----------



## Stuu

Drone footage (not mine) of the new A14 near Cambridge


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> Drone footage (not mine) of the new A14


Given how much that scheme cost I shudder to think of the cost of the Oxbridge expressway. The route corridor final selection for that scheme is due this summer and the money is seemingly on Corridor A which is shown below.

Construction will not start before 2025. 










https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/oxford-to-cambridge-expressway/

http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk...Cambridge+expressway+potential+corridors2.pdf


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Given how much that scheme cost I shudder to think of the cost of the Oxbridge expressway.


I have seen £3bn mentioned... which would mean somewhere around £30-40m per km. Across land that generally would only be considered hilly if you lived in Lelystad...


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> I have seen £3bn mentioned... which would mean somewhere around £30-40m per km. Across land that generally would only be considered hilly if you lived in Lelystad...


Well the A14 improvement you posted the footage of (west of Cambridge) is dead flat and is costing £50m a km. There are some 'bumps' once you go west of Bedford shall we say. 

The 'cheapest' A120 option in similar terrain is forecast at around £50m a km (in pretty damn flat country too) and the dearest version as high as £80-90m a km. 

My eyes simply melt at some of the costs mentioned in rural England 

The fairly delayed Aberdeen Bypass is likely to overrun its original cost projections and come in at something like £800m in the end but that is for a 70km project IIRC, terrain like East Anglia pretty much (or a tad bumpier) but a shorter season for roadworks with the weather they have up there.

(EDIT) the Longest major scheme under construction in the rural UK by the end of 2018 will be the 26km of HQDC A6 scheme east of Derry in NI and that is coming in under £10m a km including land acquisition. And this is all good land even compared to East Anglia. I dunno where these English costs are coming from at all???


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Well the A14 improvement you posted the footage of (west of Cambridge) is dead flat and is costing £50m a km. There are some 'bumps' once you go west of Bedford shall we say.
> 
> The 'cheapest' A120 option in similar terrain is forecast at around £50m a km (in pretty damn flat country too) and the dearest version as high as £80-90m a km.
> 
> My eyes simply melt at some of the costs mentioned in rural England
> 
> The fairly delayed Aberdeen Bypass is likely to overrun its original cost projections and come in at something like £800m in the end but that is for a 70km project IIRC, terrain like East Anglia pretty much (or a tad bumpier) but a shorter season for roadworks with the weather they have up there.
> 
> (EDIT) the Longest major scheme under construction in the rural UK by the end of 2018 will be the 26km of HQDC A6 scheme east of Derry in NI and that is coming in under £10m a km including land acquisition. And this is all good land even compared to East Anglia. I dunno where these English costs are coming from at all???


Actually the terrain around Aberdeen is much bumpier than any of the other roads you mention, it's also solid rock just beneath the surface so if you search for construction images you will see a lot of rock cutting. That won't be needed in Essex.

The costs are very hard to understand - I've looked at the plans for the A26 scheme and it's good quality with GSJs. Land costs don't explain the difference - high quality farmland goes for up to £50k per hectare, so that would only add ~£250k to the cost per km compared to the land being free!


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> I've looked at the plans for the A26 scheme and it's good quality with GSJs. Land costs don't explain the difference - high quality farmland goes for up to £50k per hectare, so that would only add ~£250k to the cost per km compared to the land being free!


The A26 is UK standard 2+2 HQDC (a hard strip rather than a hard shoulder) . Assuming the land take is an average 40m that is 40,000 sq m per km or 4ha per km. 

I would reckon top whack for that farmland in NI is around £25 per ha or £100k a km . I would assume it is to be finished like the A4 scheme some miles south, see or the Hexham Bypass from some years back on the A69, see.


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *A465:* Brynmawr – Gilwern 8.1km (December 2014 to Mid 2018) – project – map


Completion date 2019 according to the (new) project site: https://beta.gov.wales/a465-gilwern-brynmawr



MichiH said:


> *A90:* Tipperty – Blackdog 12.0km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Blackdog – Kingswells-North 16.1km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Kingswells-North – Cleanhill 12.2km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Cleanhill – Stonehaven 11.5km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> *A956:* Cleanhill – Cove Bay 6.5km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map


https://www.transport.gov.scot/progress-update/gonortheast-launches-in-run-up-to-completion/



> Plans for how the North East will celebrate the opening of the AWPR/B-T project have been announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, Keith Brown, Aberdeen City Council Co-Leaders Councillor Jenny Laing and Councillor Douglas Lumsden, and Leader of Aberdeenshire Council Councillor Jim Gifford.
> 
> The focal point of the campaign will be a *Community Weekend of family-orientated events and activities (8th and 9th of September 2018)* which is planned to take place on the AWPR in the River Dee valley on the boundary between Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire.
> 
> It will be a ‘fete style’ event with attractions including a celebration of travel through the ages with vintage vehicles and future electric vehicle technology. There will also be unique opportunities for cyclists of a wide range of abilities to experience the road before strategic traffic begins using it in earnest and cyclists get to enjoy the benefits of less congested city roads.


----------



## MichiH

A 7km section of the new Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route between Parkhill (Goval) and Blackdog Junctions was announced on 26 June to be opened 27 June.

https://news.aberdeencity.gov.uk/awpr-to-open-between-parkhill-goval-and-blackdog-junctions/

I guess it happened on schedule. It's indicated opened on OSM.


----------



## geogregor

A27 Lewes bypass in Sussex:

Looking west:

DSC06917 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC06919 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC06920 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC06937 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

And east:

DSC06922 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC06923 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC06925 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC06926 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## geogregor

It emerges that there are increasingly serious considerations about turning half of the M20 in Kent into huge lorry car park post Brexit.

The rest of the traffic would be directed on the second carriageway where permanent contraflow would be installed.






https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/motorway-used-13-mile-lorry-13009526



> A motorway is doomed to be used as a 13-mile lorry park for "many years" if there's a no deal Brexit.
> 
> The grim plan would dump 2,000 trucks on the coastbound carriageway of the M20 if customs chaos causes delays at ports in Kent.
> 
> When Tory ministers unveiled the so-called "interim plan" in May, they didn't even mention Brexit - instead claiming it was to handle "Channel disruption".
> 
> But today it emerged the project's codename, Operation Brock, is short for... 'Brexit Operations Across Kent'.
> 
> *And council papers claim that despite being an "interim plan", it will last until "2023 at the earliest" - the soonest a permanent replacement could be found.*


I wonder if it is workable. What is the ADDT on M20 once we exclude the lorries? Is 2x2 contraflow a workable option?


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> It emerges that there are increasingly serious considerations about turning half of the M20 in Kent into huge lorry car park post Brexit.[/URL]
> 
> I wonder if it is workable. What is the ADDT on M20 once we exclude the lorries? Is 2x2 contraflow a workable option?


AADT data > https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php?la=Kent

This area starts around Junction 9 or 10 so here is a count east of J10 in 2017 and the number is 46k AADT = Cars + Light Goods data only at that point. 

This is called Operation Brock (*Br*exit *O*perations A*c*ross *K*ent) The plan is to: 

1. Rebuild the hard shoulders to support a continous load (on both sides), I assume right away. 
2. Prepare to close the entire eastbound carriageway west of Dover for 13 Miles or 21km
3. Create 'up to' 4 lanes of truck parking 21km (13 miles) long for a total of 84km of parking lanes on the eastbound carriageway.
4. Install VMS gantries explaining WTF is happening in Dover (I assume a number of these at intervals) 
5. Reconfigure the entire westbound carriageway in that case as a 2+2 Dual Carriageway with no hard shoulders, the inside lane westbound will be the old hard shoulder post strengthening.

A 2+2 DC with no hard shoulders can handle the traffic once you strip eastbound HGVs out, be a tad tight at times no doubt and I would expect an LOS around 60kph a lot of the time. Thing is.  This all HAS to be ready a little over 6 months from now and this IS Britain after all. 

Of course if 80km odd of trucks are stacked up in the UK a similar issue will arise on the far side in France and it is not half the M20 but around a quarter of it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

4 lanes of trucks or 2 lanes for emergency access through the centre? I thought Operation Stack had 2 lanes of trucks with a wide emergency corridor in the centre.


----------



## sponge_bob

Stack had trucks parked on the hard shoulder and in the right hand running lane with normal traffic in the inside 2 lanes of the running carriageway (eastbound only)

Brock proposes to move all the eastbound traffic off the eastbound carriageway i_n extremis_ and to convert the westbound carriageway to a contraflow DC.


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> and it is not half the M20 but around a quarter of it.


By half I meant half of its profile


----------



## sponge_bob

The other road to Dover, the M/A2 is already a DC to south of Canterbury and a low quality 2+2 could be retrofitted to make the rest of it DC from Canterbury to Dover, obviously not in time for Brexit in 7 months time.


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> Brock proposes to move all the eastbound traffic off the eastbound carriageway i_n extremis_ and to convert the westbound carriageway to a contraflow DC.


How will they separate the flows? Temporary barriers? Something more permanent, like concrete barrier?


----------



## sponge_bob

I have no idea what they will do, seemingly they will build a huge truck park somewhere by 2023. It's just that they need to rebuild at least 21km of hard shoulder, by March, to give themselves the option of doing it and they have not started that construction process yet. 

https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/operation-stack-renamed-operation-brock-1581829

18 May 2018



> The government plans says: "*Highways England will start work soon on improving the northbound hard shoulder of the M20, to allow for two-way traffic to be contained within one carriageway*, enabling the road to remain open."


We are in August and the best time of the year for construction is almost over.


----------



## sotonsi

sponge_bob said:


> It's just that they need to rebuild at least 21km of hard shoulder, by March, to give themselves the option of doing it and they have not started that construction process yet.


It's almost as if it isn't the plan...

Obviously plan A is a deal with the EU, but this strikes me as a deliberately alarmist plan B, to make sure that plan A happens.

It would be cheaper, easier and quicker to, for example, build the lorry park they were going to do for Operation Stack (which will have to happen whatever the UK-EU relationship is, because it's nothing to do with that) - and if that's not enough to deal with the processing backlog, should 95% of UK trade temporarily be on WTO terms*, rather than merely just-over-50%, do the on-motorway lorry parking of Operation Stack as well.

But Downing Street doesn't want plan B to be cheap, easy and quick. They want it to be as bad as possible, because they want plan A. They want to reduce the number of MPs and MEPs thinking that the UK falling back to WTO terms with the EU is more in their interests than Plan A.

*under which there is lots HMG can unilaterally do to minimise impact the second the UK leaves the EU. But they won't want to even think about those possibilities until the second the UK leaves the EU - because they want maximum impact in order to force ratification - in both Westminster and Brussels - of the deal being worked out between HMG and the EU Commission.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

sponge_bob said:


> Stack had trucks parked on the hard shoulder and in the right hand running lane with normal traffic in the inside 2 lanes of the running carriageway (eastbound only)


Ah, I thought they had trucks parked on one carriageway and had traffic to Dover running on A2.


----------



## sponge_bob

ChrisZwolle said:


> Ah, I thought they had trucks parked on one carriageway and had traffic to Dover running on A2.


I only ever encountered a small Stack and the M20 was open both ways but speed restricted, they might well do that if things are bad.



> “If you add an average of two minutes to customs processing, you get a 17-mile queue [from Dover] almost back to Ashford,” says Mr Hookham. “Another four minutes takes the queue back to Maidstone, six minutes back to the M25, eight minutes and you are up to the Dartford crossing and Essex.”


https://www.ft.com/content/7ff7c97c-b33c-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399


----------



## satanism

sponge_bob said:


> The other road to Dover, the M/A2 is already a DC to south of Canterbury and a low quality 2+2 could be retrofitted to make the rest of it DC from Canterbury to Dover, obviously not in time for Brexit in 7 months time.


There's literally 4 miles that are not DC between Canterbury and the port, and most of it could be expanded very easily.(the actual descent to the port is 2+1 iirc)
I'd say the bigger issue, if A2 were to carry the main traffic London-Dover, is at the M2 terminus and the roundabout above it.


----------



## IanCleverly

Got a Two-fer for ya from my neck of the woods.



South Wales Argus said:


> First glimpses of progress on the dreaded M4 J28 roundabout near Newport were revealed as traffic flowed through a new single direct lane from the M4 J28 eastbound off-slip and the A48 from Cleppa Park, to the A48 towards Newport. soon, contractors Costain are planning to open up the central drive-through on the Pont Ebbw roundabout, meaning two-way traffic will be able to travel along the A48 between Tredegar Park roundabout and the Southern Distributor Road. The two projects, linked with the completed Bassaleg roundabout works, fall under the Welsh Government’s £4million M4 J28 Improvement Scheme started in February 2017.
> 
> http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/ne...undabout-takes-shape-with-through-lanes-open/




(For clarity, that red truck in the background is using the M4 eastbound exit road, bottom right in the below image)








)






South Wales Argus said:


> THE end is in sight for frustrated city commuters with the long-awaited improvements on a busy motorway junction set to be opened next week. From Wednesday, August 8, say contractors Costain, traffic will be able to flow through a new single direct lane from the M4 J28 eastbound off-slip and the A48 from Cleppa Park, to the A48 towards Newport. Then, on August 23, Costain are planning to open up the central drive-through on the Pont Ebbw roundabout, meaning two-way traffic will be able to travel along the A48 between Tredegar Park roundabout and the Southern Distributor Road.
> 
> Construction on the Welsh Government’s massive M4 J28 Improvement Scheme started in February 2017, and the project is said to be on target for completion in September this year.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> Full details of the changes and lane movements can be seen at beta.gov.wales/m4-junction-28.
> 
> http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/ne...egar-park-roundabout-lanes-to-open-next-week/




Untitled by M4 Junction 28 Improvements, on Flickr

For fun, will also add a photo of Pont Ebbw Roundabout (if you follow the road that leads out northwards on the above flickr picture, the next rodworks are of said roundabout)



Untitled by M4 Junction 28 Improvements, on Flickr


----------



## Stuu

New bit of A90-further north opened today, https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/awp ... o-traffic/.

Not my video


----------



## IanCleverly

Get that pen ready to colour in a bit of your UK Road Map



Cambridge News said:


> The upgraded A14 is set to become a motorway, with the stretch between Girton near Cambridge and Ellington near Huntingdon to be known as the A14(M). The new motorway will have at least three lanes in each direction along this stretch, with four between Bar Hill and Girton - and slow-moving vehicles like tractors will be banned from using it. It will also have variable speed limits which can help reduce congestion and make traffic flow more smoothly.
> 
> The existing A14 will remain in place, meaning an option for local traffic which won't have long-distance traffic and lorries speeding down it. Today (September 7) Highways England's A14 project director David Bray announced the aim of making the road a motorway was "to further improve the safety and efficiency of the new road". The A14 upgrade project, which started in 2016, is set to finish by December 2020, and the change to motorway status doesn't mean it will take longer or be more expensive.
> Mr Bray said Highways England had designed a road "that's capable of being a motorway" - so the difference will be in signage, variable speed limits and the ban on slow-moving traffic. The project director added: "It means when the new road opens for traffic, local traffic will use the local roads, and lorries and long distance traffic will use the new motorway. That will mean there will be an all motorway link from London all the way to Peterborough. The new motorway will have blue signs, variable speed limits; as well as slow moving vehicles will be prohibited from using it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Image: Highways England)
> 
> The change would also involve a three-mile stretch of the A1 between Alconbury and Brampton becoming a motorway and being renamed the A14(M).
> 
> 
> <snip as it's quotes from local councillors>
> 
> *Timeline for the A14 upgrade project*
> 
> -September 2018-
> Highways England announces its intention to apply for a change of classification of the section of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme between Ellington and Girton, as well as the A1 from Alconbury to Brampton, from A-road to motorway
> 
> -Autumn 2018-
> Completion of the detailed environmental and traffic assessments
> 
> -Winter 2018/19-
> Highways England submits a Development Consent Order amendment to the Planning Inspectorate requesting to amend the road status for the section of the new A14 between Ellington and Girton, and of the A1 from Alconbury to Brampton, from A-road to motorway. The Planning Inspectorate examines Highways England’s submission and opens a 28-day consultation period
> 
> -First half of 2019-
> Planning Inspectorate gives their recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport after having reviewed Highways England’s submission
> 
> -Second half of 2019-
> Secretary of State for Transport makes his decision regarding reclassification of the road
> 
> -December 2020-
> The new A14 opens to traffic, with the section between Ellington and Girton becoming the A14(M) and the A1(M) extending down to Brampton from Alconbury.



Full report, with some links to other articles surrounding the current works schemes in the area (and video footage) Here


----------



## Ronnie87

^^ Great news! :cheers: I hope we will see the whole of A14 upgraded to motorway standards in the foreseeable future. Maybe even A11, but I guess that is already be too much to ask for. They could at least get rid of those annoying roundabouts between Newmarket and Norwich :bash:


----------



## General Maximus

Wow! The A14 was originally designed to carry container traffic from Felixstowe and Harwich ports to the Midlands, but things got so congested at Cambridge, that they had to do something. Cyclists and agricultural traffic on that dual carriageway weren't really helping...


----------



## sponge_bob

The A14 NW of Cambridge in the Huntington direction was called something like the A604 for years and the A14 itself was the DC from Cambridge to Harwich only IIRC. I think the M11 ended (where it ends today) on this A604 even as late as 1990, at least that is my memory of it. I think it only became A14 west of Cambridge when the clunky junction with the M6/M1 was built in the 1990s along with a DC across a Cromwellian battleground. This A604 is the section that is now being upgraded.

I also understand the current DC being upgraded was originally built (at least in part) by the US Army in WW2 to move munitions to the vast grid of Bomber bases the US built in that area in the 1940s.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> The A14 NW of Cambridge in the Huntington direction was called something like the A604 for years and the A14 itself was the DC from Cambridge to Harwich only IIRC. I think the M11 ended (where it ends today) on this A604 even as late as 1990, at least that is my memory of it. I think it only became A14 west of Cambridge when the clunky junction with the M6/M1 was built in the 1990s along with a DC across a Cromwellian battleground. This A604 is the section that is now being upgraded.


Yes, it only became the A14 when the link from Kettering to the M1 was finished, previously it was A45 east of Cambridge and A604 west of Huntingdon.


----------



## havaska

Don't forget that since the Catthorpe Interchange (The end/start of the M6 at the junction with M1 and A14) was completed, we also have a stretch of A14 between here and junction 1 A14, that could conceivably be re-classed as motorway too.


----------



## Stuu

havaska said:


> Don't forget that since the Catthorpe Interchange (The end/start of the M6 at the junction with M1 and A14) was completed, we also have a stretch of A14 between here and junction 1 A14, that could conceivably be re-classed as motorway too.


That bit has some utterly suicidal pedestrian crossings along it. Not much of an issue, but if any of that segment is reclassified then there is no reason not to do it along the new bit as far as the A6.


----------



## Kanadzie

> Modernising Gallows Corner in East London.
> The infamous farmyard bottleneck, Grizebeck Bypass, near Barrow in Furness.


England is so funny :lol:


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> I fear it will amount to same old same old, the network comes under increasing strain and bottlenecks even more.


Unfortunately you are probably right. There is really only one large active project in England (A14 around Huntington). Or am I missing something?

They are also pushing for the Lower Thames Crossing but I suspect planning and design might still take years.

Anything else in the pipeline apart from the smart motorways idiocy?


----------



## havaska

geogregor said:


> Unfortunately you are probably right. There is really only one large active project in England (A14 around Huntington). Or am I missing something?
> 
> They are also pushing for the Lower Thames Crossing but I suspect planning and design might still take years.
> 
> Anything else in the pipeline apart from the smart motorways idiocy?


Well there's also the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, the link between the M54 and M6 toll and the tunnel bypass of Stonehenge currently in the planning stages.

Outside England, you've got the Heads of the Valley dualling in Wales which is a very large project indeed.

Also plenty going on in Scotland with the A9 and A96.


----------



## geogregor

havaska said:


> Well there's also the Oxford to Cambridge expressway,


Which is already facing strong opposition, despite being years from anywhere near construction.



> the link between the M54 and M6 toll


I wasn't aware of that. It doesn't look like particularly big project though...



> and the tunnel bypass of Stonehenge currently in the planning stages.


Forgot about this one. Yet another project facing vocal and well organized opposition. What are the chances that it will make through the planning any time soon?

I know that bypass of Arundel hit obstacles due to local and environmental opposition and is now in limbo.



> Outside England, you've got the Heads of the Valley dualling in Wales which is a very large project indeed.


I have to admit that I have no idea what is going on in Wales



> Also plenty going on in Scotland with the A9 and A96.


Yes, and Scotland also completed quite a few upgrades in the central belt in recent years. It seems that Transport Scotland is more able to push projects than Highways England.

Electrification of railways is also going more smoothly in Scotland than in England. 

Are Scots better at infrastructure?


----------



## sponge_bob

If you look at 2 projects in the pipeline, A303 Stonehenge and the Lower Thames cutoff they are costed at nearly £8bn the pair so that is a big slab of the total £28bn earmarked for 2020-2028, and combined they are a stonking 15 miles long. 

Of the remaining £20bn the Trans Pennine or M62 'base tunnel' would account for half those funds leaving £10bn for _everything else between now and 2028_. I think that dualling a cross pennine A road further north is more likely to happen but even that will cost a billion or two the way things have gone in England on costs.


----------



## havaska

One other project I've just remembered is the Manchester Airport Link Road which is a dual carriageway from the M56 to the A6 which opened last week after _decades_ of delays.

Another large project too is the A417 near Gloucester, where the dual carriageway will be completed.

If you go to highwaysengland.co.uk you can find many of these projects.

Regarding Scotland:

Scotland has it's own devolved government, and due to a lower population density and the Barnett formula (A way of making each part the UK gets its fair share of spending rather than England dominating), it ends up with more cash to spend on certain projects.

To be fair to Scotland, it's network has been under-invested in for a long time and having a devolved parliament is finally putting that right.

With regards to rail, the whole network is Britain wide with Network Rail in charge so electrification being smoother in Scotland isn't due to it being in Scotland as it's the same people running the projects.

But it is very disappointing to see so little being invested in roads in the UK.


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> I have to admit that I have no idea what is going on in Wales


3 schemes of note are pipelined or underway in Wales. The 'A465 Heads of the Valley scheme' is actually 5 schemes spread across 40km of which 3 are already complete. 

Costain bid £220m for a 6km section of the A465 remainder through a gorge almost 4 years back and were already looking for another £50m payment a year back because they found it too complicated to build for almost £40m a km. There are bat "sites" there and a curse too. Completion within the next year is dubious right now. 

The final section of the A465 is estimated at a more reasonable £40m _a mile_ (nearer £25m a km) and tenders have opened. However it is a DBO (PPP) project at a time when the likes of Carillion and Crapita are unable to raise funds long term for projects of that ilk. 

Those 2 schemes will complete a DC from Neath west of Swansea to the M55 in Ross on Wye in England I believe. 

Lastly there is a long running plan to cut off/widen a section of the M4 near around Newport in Wales. That is awaiting a planning inspectors report and is now estimated to cost £1.3bn, that is £56m a km or £93m a mile. 

Were these all done and paid for then around £2bn will be spent (or committed) and just under 30 miles of high quality road will be delivered in Wales.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> If you look at 2 projects in the pipeline, A303 Stonehenge and the Lower Thames cutoff, they are costed at nearly £8bn the pair so that is a big slab of the total £28bn earmarked for 2020-2028, and combined they are a stonking 15 miles long.
> 
> Of the remaining £20bn the Trans Pennine or M62 'base tunnel' would account for half those funds leaving £10bn for _everything else between now and 2028_. I think that dualling a cross pennine A road further north is more likely to happen but even that will cost a billion or two the way things have gone in England on costs.


A303 Stonehenge is part of the 2015-2020 plan, so in theory is already funded from that budget. The Lower Thames crossing was intended to include some private finance, but that may not now be the case.

The Trans Pennine tunnel has already been much-reduced in scope, and was not planned to be built before 2030 anyway.

I expect a lot of money will go towards the expressways idea, so lots of smaller schemes to upgrade junctions and remove lots of minor access points along the existing network


----------



## Ronnie87

Stuu said:


> I expect a lot of money will go towards the expressways idea, so lots of smaller schemes to upgrade junctions and remove lots of minor access points along the existing network



That would make an awful lot of sense :hmm:. Many major dual carriageways are already built to pretty decent standards and would be fairly easily and cost-effectively upgradeable to quasi-motorways by replacing roundabouts with grade separated junctions and making slip roads longer to facilitate higher merging speeds. A14 and A11 would be ideal candidates for such improvements, to name just two major roads roads from my area.


----------



## Stuu

^^
Yes, that sort of thing. The A11 would be a prime example, the roundabouts at Thetford are terrible and exactly the sort of thing that needs dealing with to make the road network function better


----------



## Ronnie87

Stuu said:


> ^^
> Yes, that sort of thing. The A11 would be a prime example, the roundabouts at Thetford are terrible and exactly the sort of thing that needs dealing with to make the road network function better



Driving from Cambridge to Norwich could be a much more pleasant experience without those bloody roundabouts :nuts:. Let's hope Highways England will see reason and receive enough funding to finally upgrade those junctions.


----------



## General Maximus

Cambridge to Norwich is a doddle compared to Norwich to Newark...


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> *A90:* Blackdog – Dyce-North 7km (February 2015 to 27th June 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Tipperty – Blackdog 12.0km (February 2015 to 15th August 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Dyce-North – Cleanhill 21km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Cleanhill – Stonehaven 11.5km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> *A956:* Cleanhill – Cove Bay 6.5km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map



'No definitive date' for Aberdeen bypass opening (article from 1st November 2018)



> It was due to open in the spring but was put back to autumn. However there have been delays with the construction of the bridge over the River Don.
> 
> Transport Scotland is calling on the contractors to agree a variation to their contract, which would allow the Stonehaven to Craibstone section of the road to open.
> 
> The contractor is working hard to repair the (River Don) defects and earlier this week it reported it was targeting a December opening date.


The River Don bridge is just west of Dyce-North interchange. That means, only the 7km segment up to Craibstone is u/c. The rest could be ready to be opened.


----------



## g.spinoza

Demolishing the old Swavesey junction bridge 
A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme
17-18 November 2018


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> MichiH said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A90:* Blackdog – Dyce-North 7km (February 2015 to 27th June 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Tipperty – Blackdog 12.0km (February 2015 to 15th August 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Dyce-North – Cleanhill 21km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> *A90:* Cleanhill – Stonehaven 11.5km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> *A956:* Cleanhill – Cove Bay 6.5km (February 2015 to Fall 2018) – project – map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'No definitive date' for Aberdeen bypass opening (article from 1st November 2018)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was due to open in the spring but was put back to autumn. However there have been delays with the construction of the bridge over the River Don.
> 
> Transport Scotland is calling on the contractors to agree a variation to their contract, which would allow the Stonehaven to Craibstone section of the road to open.
> 
> The contractor is working hard to repair the (River Don) defects and earlier this week it reported it was targeting a December opening date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The River Don bridge is just west of Dyce-North interchange. That means, only the 7km segment up to Craibstone is u/c. The rest could be ready to be opened.
Click to expand...

ARL informed the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee today that its lenders have agreed to *open the new section of road between the A90 at both Stonehaven and Craibstone and the A956 between Cleanhill and Charleston*. The new section will provide North East road users with access to around 20 miles (32km) of new road, which means more than 85 per cent of the project will be open to traffic from *next week*.


----------



## geogregor

Bit of history:


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> Bit of history:


God be with them days when records were routinely set in Britain for long road tunnels and world class suspension bridges.


----------



## geogregor

Aberdeen bypass:


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> Aberdeen bypass:


Yippee! In keeping with British tradition this road starts at a terrible interchange and has a roundabout in the middle...:bash:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It is the only roundabout between the endpoints of the Aberdeen Bypass. All the other crossroads are grade-separated.


----------



## sponge_bob

All the green bits are now in service.


----------



## Stuu

ChrisZwolle said:


> It is the only roundabout between the endpoints of the Aberdeen Bypass. All the other crossroads are grade-separated.


Yes, I know... that's the point I was making, the rest of the road is high-quality but for some reason it's not possible to not ruin it somehow


----------



## Ronnie87

Stuu said:


> Yes, I know... that's the point I was making, the rest of the road is high-quality but for some reason it's not possible to not ruin it somehow



The Brits are stubborn people :lol:


----------



## sponge_bob

Ronnie87 said:


> The Brits are stubborn people :lol:


The Magic Roundabout in Swindon and that Hanger Lane Gyratory are still with us are they not???


----------



## MichiH

sponge_bob said:


> All the green bits are now in service.


Why is A956 Cleanhill – Cove Bay not open?


----------



## MichiH

A956 was also opened on 12th December, the map is wrong.

https://www.transport.gov.scot/progress-update/craibstone-to-stonehaven-and-charleston/

Some pics and videos from the press release:


----------



## [atomic]

^^ nice to see the transformation but I think those gifs would be better as a video (maybe webm)


----------



## sponge_bob

I can see one logical reason for that roundabout. 

The land looks rather boggy at that point and a GSJ would be costly with all the extra excavation required. The full junctions in Micihs post are all on solid ground. 

Groundwater may be another reason, a GSJ might have bollixed up the flow from the woodland to agricultural boreholes nearer the coast.


----------



## sirfreelancealot

The roundabout designs are also horrendous. If you look at the approach angles of the entry lanes, drivers are just going to cut across lanes to take the straightest, fastest path across the roundabout and that's a recipe for sideswipe collisions.


----------



## Kanadzie

sponge_bob said:


> I can see one logical reason for that roundabout.
> 
> The land looks rather boggy at that point and a GSJ would be costly with all the extra excavation required. The full junctions in Micihs post are all on solid ground.
> 
> Groundwater may be another reason, a GSJ might have bollixed up the flow from the woodland to agricultural boreholes nearer the coast.


Very possible, but even a simple T junction seems more practical than the roundabout... with the space used by the roundabout there could have been some decent sliproads on either carriageway. You introduce a side-impact conflict between the minor road and one carriagway but it seems less impactful than the complete roundabout (surely for the other carriageway...)

something like this:


----------



## sponge_bob

The Severn Bridge Toll was removed today. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-46539168

The first Severn Bridge opened in 1966 and cost £8m , the toll was 12.5p each way so *64m vehicles* were needed to pay that off.
The second Severn Bridge opened in 1996 and cost £332m, the average toll over its lifetime was around £5 but as this toll was one way only I'll halve that to £2.50 and so it took *130m vehicles *to pay THAT off.

Scottish bridges are free, although there was a toll on the Forth Bridge for a long time there is not on the new Queensferry Bridge opened in 2017.


----------



## geogregor

Found on Youtube:

AWPR Northbound





Southbound





A956:





The roundabout where A90 meets A956 is a bloody joke hno:

The same applies to the tie-in with the old A90 at the southern end (at Stonehaven). Couldn't they design it free flow?


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> The roundabout where A90 meets A956 is a bloody joke hno:
> 
> The same applies to the tie-in with the old A90 at the southern end (at Stonehaven). Couldn't they design it free flow?


These are traditional features of British roadbuilding, no project can be completed without at least one comical interchange. Its the law


----------



## rudiwien

^^

I find it very peculiar that they extended A90 / AWPR so much south to Stonehaven; to me, it would have been a better choice to meet the A92 already earlier, let's say latest around Newtonhill / Muchals if you want to relieve those a bit from traffic - and as that shorter road would probably be also cheaper, invest that money in proper interchanges..


----------



## Stuu

Just from google maps/streetview that section of the A90 looks very low quality, it's very bendy and has lots of property access. So bypassing it looks sensible. They will have to invest in a better interchange sometime though, at least there seems to be plenty of space to do something


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

There were two grade-separated options instead of the Cleanhill roundabout. Both only had north facing slips - one a half dumbbell, the other a freeflow fork. I don't recall that they were rejected due to bogs, I think it was just to save money on structures, earthworks and land purchase. The designs are here: https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/8452/fasr-appendix-c-fig-4-16.pdf

A T-junction could be more simple than Kanadzie's drawing as one of the right turns can be left out, as in the GSJ designs. However, T-junctions on 70mph roads are considered unsafe in the UK. A roundabout is more familiar to British drivers in this context and inherently has much lower risk of a high speed collision.

As far as I know there was never a decent design for Stonehaven. This design is worse than the roundabout IMO as despite the grade separation it has the main flows crossing each other at-grade: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.976723,-2.2101188,17z


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

I didn't log in for a couple of months, so with apologies I will also reply to a couple of older posts:


Ronnie87 said:


> Only the tunnel section itself will lack hard shoulders, the rest of the route is expected to have them. If you zoom in on Sheet 8 of the detailed plan, you can clearly see the hard shoulder reappearing at the end of the tunnel


There is a short stretch of hard shoulder at the northern tunnel portal. It drops at the adjacent junction. This is the only hard shoulder on the LTC proper, though there is on the adjoining M25 and A2, which is likely to be upgraded to motorway. This is shown more clearly in the map book: https://highwaysengland.citizenspac...n/supporting_documents/LTC 13a Map book 1.pdf


sponge_bob said:


> Of the remaining £20bn the Trans Pennine or M62 'base tunnel' would account for half those funds [/I].


The trans-Pennine base tunnel has now been dropped; the Pennines will instead be crossed with shorter tunnels and at surface level, probably on the line of the A628. Revised costs have not been revealed but will be much lower, perhaps low billions. 

There's a separate M62 relief road or as they prefer to call it 'Manchester North West Quadrant' scheme, currently estimated around £5bn and also expected to be largely tunnelled:


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> The trans-Pennine base tunnel has now been dropped; the Pennines will instead be crossed with shorter tunnels and at surface level, probably on the line of the A628. Revised costs have not been revealed but will be much lower, perhaps low billions.
> 
> There's a separate M62 relief road or as they prefer to call it 'Manchester North West Quadrant' scheme, currently estimated around £5bn and also expected to be largely tunnelled:


Ah OK, so the extra capacity will be where the M62/M60 multiplex north of Manchester (by parallel tunneling under the existing M62/M60??) and the new Transpennine capacity will be up the Woodhead (railway) Tunnel route from SE Manchester rather than along the current NE Manchester M62 route through Outlane across the Pennines or indeed under that. 

Where were the Manchester coalfields back in the day??? EDIT I found it on the NLS website and mashed this up. Move the slider control (bottom left) off to the left to see the M62

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=11&lat=53.5691&lon=-2.3040&layers=10coal&b=7

Most collieries north of Manchester had closed before 1930. 

I'll buy that lot as a thought out solution, assume they actually get the finger out and build it. 

They will also have to dual one of the 2 Transpennine A Roads from Carlisle across to Tyne/Tees surely. ??


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

sponge_bob said:


> Ah OK, so the extra capacity will be where the M62/M60 multiplex north of Manchester (by parallel tunneling under the existing M62/M60??) and the new Transpennine capacity will be up the Woodhead (railway) Tunnel route from SE Manchester rather than along the current NE Manchester M62 route through Outlane across the Pennines or indeed under that.
> 
> Where were the Manchester coalfields back in the day??? EDIT I found it on the NLS website and mashed this up. Move the slider control (bottom left) off to the left to see the M62
> 
> https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=11&lat=53.5691&lon=-2.3040&layers=10coal&b=7
> 
> Most collieries north of Manchester had closed before 1930.
> 
> I'll buy that lot as a thought out solution, assume they actually get the finger out and build it.
> 
> They will also have to dual one of the 2 Transpennine A Roads from Carlisle across to Tyne/Tees surely. ??


Thanks for that. There's no specific route yet for the 'Manchester NW Quadrant' scheme, but all the indicative maps show it to the north and west of the existing M60/M62 multiplex (or concurrency in international terminology). As the costs of 12km of twin-bore tunnel, with at least one intermediate freeflow junction, would be prohibitive I imagine it will be a mixture of surface and tunnel. Logically it will be on the surface at the M61 to allow for an interchange there, and there have been investigations between Clifton and Kearsley (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5325444,-2.3604064,2139m/data=!3m1!1e3), which is one possible route for a surface section; alternatively it could stay tighter to the M60. Bores would be required to avoid largescale demolition at Worsley and Whitefield.

The most recent slides are at the below link. It's largely waffle but there is info about topography, mine workings, etc from p. 30.

http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk...der+reference+group+presentation+10.10.18.pdf

As for the trans-Pennine route, current thinking takes it from the existing M67 across to the M1 and M18.


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> As the costs of 12km of twin-bore tunnel, with at least one intermediate freeflow junction, would be prohibitive I imagine it will be a mixture of surface and tunnel. Logically it will be on the surface at the M61 to allow for an interchange there, and there have been investigations between Clifton and Kearsley
> 
> As for the trans-Pennine route, current thinking takes it from the existing M67 across to the M1 and M18.



You can tunnel under the existing M62/60 and convert the existing M62/60 into a one direction only road. At least one lane will be a collector but you can get from 3+3 to 1+5 or 2+5 (you no longer need a median) with up to 5 lanes on the mainline. It would be best to have all major junctions on the surface ....not build a spaghetti junction under a field near Bolton. 

From what I can make out here > http://webtris.highwaysengland.co.uk/

AADT is now up to 90k _per direction _per day at friday peaks which would require _more than 4 lanes per direction_ for freeflow conditions so you are looking at a pair of tunnels not one. 

Underground you could twin bore and have one tunnel through (3 lanes) and one tunnel partly through and partly collector lane. All unidirectional. Junctions on the non through tunnel only. The other one would be end to end. 

The old Woodhead rail tunnels were 3 miles long near the A628 peak and a road tunnel might even be 5 miles long and bored underneath them but it would not be a base tunnel.

And you can do them as two separate projects rather than an all or nothing base tunnel.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

^ I guess anything is possible, but I expect the new route would be bi-directional (e.g. D2M) with few intermediate junctions. That's the usual way of 'doubling' a motorway worldwide and has lower construction and traffic management complexity than reversing the direction of half the existing road. The original 80s/90s M62 Relief Road is probably close to the mark:

http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m62_relief_road/maps/


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> The original 80s/90s M62 Relief Road is probably close to the mark:
> 
> http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m62_relief_road/maps/


I never heard that Manchester nearly got its own version of the M6 Toll around Birmingham,


----------



## General Maximus




----------



## Langeveldt

*A303*

I drove down the A303 today from the M3 junction towards Exeter.

Some of the single lane sections were treacherous safety wise, with dark intersections that had most lane markings half worn away. It is still a fast road with most drivers trying to maintain 60/70mph.

What I noticed however was that the cats eyes (reflectors) had, past Stonehenge, disappeared. Have they been removed/damaged? I had a long drive from Antwerpen, and with tired eyes and a constant flow of traffic going the other way on quite a narrow road, it was a tough few minutes.

I remember the days when the roads in Belgium were in a worse state than the UK. That seems to have changed in recent years. Granted I was in Vlaanderen but they were superb that side and the UK's non-motorway roads seem to be deteriorating rapidly.


----------



## General Maximus

Roads in the UK have gone very bad lately. Even some busy motorways like M25 and M20 have extremely bad road surfaces, and they make a lot of noise when driven on them. A-roads are very bad, and British tax payers have lost every right to make fun of Belgian roads.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Langeveldt said:


> I drove down the A303 today from the M3 junction towards Exeter.
> 
> Some of the single lane sections were treacherous safety wise, with dark intersections that had most lane markings half worn away. It is still a fast road with most drivers trying to maintain 60/70mph.
> 
> What I noticed however was that the cats eyes (reflectors) had, past Stonehenge, disappeared. Have they been removed/damaged? I had a long drive from Antwerpen, and with tired eyes and a constant flow of traffic going the other way on quite a narrow road, it was a tough few minutes.
> 
> I remember the days when the roads in Belgium were in a worse state than the UK. That seems to have changed in recent years. Granted I was in Vlaanderen but they were superb that side and the UK's non-motorway roads seem to be deteriorating rapidly.


There is currently more investment in the English strategic road network than there has been for decades: £15bn for 2015-20 and £25bn for 2020-25. This includes new expressways at the A303 Stonehenge, A303 Sparkford to Ilchester and A358 Taunton to Southfields, all to start construction in 1-2 years.

So I wouldn't say that things are deteriorating, quite the contrary. It's more that you are seeing the results of the neglect of the network prior to 2015. It may also be that maintenance is less intense where a road is soon to be replaced.


----------



## geogregor

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> There is currently more investment in the English strategic road network than there has been for decades: £15bn for 2015-20 and £25bn for 2020-25. This includes new expressways at the* A303 Stonehenge*, A303 Sparkford to Ilchester and A358 Taunton to Southfields, *all to start construction in 1-2 years.
> *


I'll believe when I see diggers on site. :lol:


----------



## sponge_bob

Yesterday also saw the final plan for Trans Pennine transport in the north. All the bits made it in here before. Completion 2050. The only notable decision I saw was A69 out, A66 in, the Woodhead tunnel a628 AND the M60 improvement north of Manchester are in.

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/final-draft-strategic-transport-plan.pdf



> *East–West connectivity is a significant barrier* for future
> growth in the North, and a key constraint to agglomeration
> and transforming the North’s economy. Currently *the M62 is
> the only motorway standard East-West road link* across the
> Pennines between Derby in the Midlands and Edinburgh
> in the North. [/B], other important East-West routes,
> such as the A66, A69, A628, and A59.


one other snippet.



> *The National Roads Fund will operate from 2020 onwards
> as a ring-fenced source of funding for major roads
> drawn from Vehicle Excise Duty*. It will be the principal
> source of Highways England’s Road Investment Strategy
> 2 programme (to run from 2020 to 2025) as well as for
> interventions on the Major Road Network (as defined by
> the Department for Transport).


It would be criminal were there not a second end to end east-west 2+2 across the Pennines, AND before 2030 in that case. The A66 would be the more likely candidate as the A628 Woodhead tunnel will not be delivered before 2030 I am sorry to say. 

Furthermore these people avoid saying that the A628 alignment should be a motorway. They skirt that one.

There are sod all indicative timescales bar one to do _a bit of_ the A66 BY 2025 when the Road Investment Strategy 2 period ends. Something far more ambitious is needed here, completion of the entire A66 by 2027 for example.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

^ You need to look in the Investment Programme for that sort of detail. There you'll find the A66 dualling is in the 'Specific Interventions before 2027' list:

- M1 Junctions 35A to 39 Smart motorway Road PCF Stage 0 £100m-£500m
- A1 Redhouse to Darrington Upgrade to motorway standard Road PCF Stage >£500m
- A1(M) Doncaster Bypass Widening to three lane motorway Road >£500m
- A66 Brigham/Broughton junctions Conversion of two priority junctions to a roundabout Road PCF Stage 1 <£100m
*- Northern Trans-Pennine Upgrade to complete dual carriageway standard connection along the A66 between the M6 and the A1(M) Road PCF Stage 1 >£500m*
- A64 Hopgrove Junction to Barton Hill Junction capacity improvements and upgrade to dual carriageway Road PCF Stage 1 £100m-£500m
- A595 Whitehaven Relief Road New road link from the Lillyhall to Parton dual carriageway to the A595 to the south east of Whitehaven Road PCF Stage 1 £100m-£500m
- M53 Junctions 5 to 11 Capacity improvements Road PCF Stage 1 £100m-£500m
- M60/M62/M66 Simister Island Junction capacity improvements Road PCF Stage 1 <£100m
- M62 Junctions 26 to 27 Capacity improvements, including improvements to the M62/M606 Chain Bar junction Road PCF Stage 1 £100m-£500m
- M1/M62 Lofthouse Interchange Junction capacity improvements Road PCF Stage 1 <£100m
- A500 dualling – Crewe to M6 Upgrade of the section between Junction 16 of the M6 and the Meremoor Moss roundabout to dual carriageway standard Road Outline Business Case <£100m
- Crewe HS2 Hub – Access package and depot access improvements Multimodal access improvements to ensure Crewe HS2 Hub and neighbouring developments are well connected, including measures to address existing congestion on the corridor between the A530 and A534 to the north of - Crewe Road Strategic Outline Business Case £100m-£250m
- New Tees Crossing New strategic crossing of the River Tees Road PCF Stage 1 £100m-£500m
- A6 to M60 Relief Road New road link between the M60 and the Manchester Airport Relief Road Road Strategic Outline Business Case £100m-£500m
- Hollingworth – Tintwistle Bypass New road link from the Mottram Moor Link Road to the A628 east of Tintwistle Road PCF Stage 1 £100-£500m
- A19 Moor Farm Junction Capacity improvements Road PCF Stage 0 <£100m
- A1/A19 Seaton Burn Junction Capacity improvements Road PCF Stage 0 <£100m
- M56 Junctions 1 to 6 Capacity improvements, including at Junction 5 for Manchester Airport and the M60 Interchange Road PCF Stage 0 £100m-£500m
- Blyth Relief Road New road link between the A192 Horse Shoes Roundabout and Princess Louise Road Road Outline Business Case <£100m 
- Sunderland Strategic Transport Corridor Improvements to the A1231 between the northern end of the new bridge over the River Wear and the junction with the A19 Road Strategic Outline Business Case <£100m
- Darlington Northern Link Road New road link between the A66 and Junction 59 of the A1(M) to the north of Darlington Road Outline Business Case £100m-£500m
- Warrington Waterfront Western Link New road link between the A56 Chester Road and the A57 in Great Sankey to the south west of Warrrington Road Outline Business Case £100m-£500m
- Poynton Relief Road New road link between the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road and the A523 Road Outline Business Case <£100m
- Sheffield City Region Innovation Corridor Package of measures that will provide an alternative to the section of the M1 between Junctions 33 and 34 for local traffic Road Outline Business Case £100m-£500m
- A590 Improvements Capacity improvements at junctions in Ulverston and Swarthmoor and upgrade of the section between Greenodd and Ulverston to dual carriageway standard Road PCF Stage 0 £100m-£500m
- Port Salford Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme Improved links between Western Gateway Canal Crossing, Port Salford and M60 between Junctions 10 and 11 and improvements to the M60 between Junctions 9 and 10 and 11 and 12 Road Strategic Outline Business Case <£100m
- A582 South Ribble Western Distributor Upgrade of the A582 between Stanifield Lane and Broad Oak Roundabout to dual carriageway standard Road Strategic Outline Business Case <£100m
- M6 Junction 33 Link Roads Reconfiguration of existing junction to accommodate the proposed Bailrigg garden village development Road Strategic Outline Business Case £100m-£500m
- Carlisle Southern Link Road New road link connecting Junction 42 of the M6 with the A595 to the west, including connections to St Cuthbert’s Garden Village Road Outline Business Case £100m-£500m
- M56 Junctions 11 to 15 Capacity improvements Road PCF Stage 0 £100m-£500m

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/final-draft-investment-programme.pdf


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> ^ You need to look in the Investment Programme for that sort of detail. And indeed the A66 dualling is in the 'before 2027' list:
> 
> *- Northern Trans-Pennine Upgrade to complete dual carriageway standard connection along the A66 between the M6 and the A1(M) Road PCF Stage 1 >£500m*


As are the magic words "*Stage 1*" I meant all of it from the A1M to the M6.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

sponge_bob said:


> As are the magic words "*Stage 1*" I meant all of it from the A1M to the M6.


That's precisely what they're doing. PCF Stage 1 just means they are currently at Project Control Framework Stage 1. Stage 1 is option identification, Stage 2 is option selection, Stage 3 is preliminary design, and so on (seven stages in total).

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/... control framework handbook v2 April 2013.pdf


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> That's precisely what they're doing. PCF Stage 1 just means they are currently at Project Control Framework Stage 1. Stage 1 is option identification, Stage 2 is option selection, Stage 3 is preliminary design, and so on (seven stages in total).


How come they were at Stage 3 only 2 years back?? 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-trans-pennine-strategic-study-stage-3-report


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> How come they were at Stage 3 only 2 years back??
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-trans-pennine-strategic-study-stage-3-report


Because that is stage 3 of the wider studies. Eventually you get to stage 1 of the actual project. Obvious really :nuts:


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> Because that is stage 3 of the wider studies. Eventually you get to stage 1 of the actual project. Obvious really :nuts:


Correct. From the PCF Handbook, p. 8 (link in my previous post): 

*Strategy, shaping and prioritisation*
It is assumed that before a project enters the
project control framework it will have completed
a feasibility study during a strategy, shaping and
prioritisation stage. Key activities in this pre-project
phase (PCF stage 0) include:

• Identification and prioritisation of potential
transport issues
• Shaping, investigation and assessment of the
viability of transport scheme solutions to the
problem, including road network solutions
• The initiation of a major road project (if deemed
the most viable solution to the transport issue)


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Key activities in this pre-project
> phase (PCF stage 0) include:
> 
> • Identification and prioritisation of potential
> transport issues
> • Shaping, investigation and assessment of the
> viability of transport scheme solutions to the
> problem, including road network solutions
> *• The initiation of a major road project (if deemed
> the most viable solution to the transport issue)*


Ah right.....that was *Stage 0.3 * rather than Stage 3 in the link I provided then. 

And surely it is all, therefore, an *8 point (0-7) Stage *system AND with defined substages within some of these stages. Having the UK GOV pretending that stage 0.3 is stage 3 is utterly disingenous to my mind. 

Nor is it entirely clear that the A69 solution was rejected in the *Stage 0.3* analysis I linked so christ knows what stage of what was involved when the A69 was dumped with only the A66 going ahead. Seeing as it happened between stage 0.3 and the TFN strategy finalisation one must assume there is an occluded or mystical Stage 0.4 in there somewhere. 

No wonder nothing gets done.


----------



## Ronnie87

General Maximus said:


> British tax payers have lost every right to make fun of Belgian roads.


How is it the taxpayers' fault, though? :hmm: We pay more than enough taxes, only the Government seems to prioritise other expenses over road maintenance hno:


----------



## geogregor

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Correct. From the PCF Handbook, p. 8 (link in my previous post):
> 
> *Strategy, shaping and prioritisation*
> It is assumed that before a project enters the
> project control framework it will have completed
> a feasibility study during a strategy, shaping and
> prioritisation stage. Key activities in this pre-project
> phase (PCF stage 0) include:
> 
> • Identification and prioritisation of potential
> transport issues
> • Shaping, investigation and assessment of the
> viability of transport scheme solutions to the
> problem, including road network solutions
> • The initiation of a major road project (if deemed
> the most viable solution to the transport issue)


In short, something might be done 20-30 years down the lane... no surprise this country is so bad with infrastructure improvement hno:


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> In short, something might be done 20-30 years down the lane... no surprise this country is so bad with infrastructure improvement hno:


The TfN 'strategy' is one long shiny elegy to the " something might be done 20-30 years down the line" mentality, however the simple fact is that 20m people in the north of England are connected with only one high capacity road, the M62. 

An alternative for redundancy purposes is desperately needed ...not yesterday but last century. The A66 will do, now crack on and finish the poxy thing by 2025 if humanly possible.


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> The TfN 'strategy' is one long shiny elegy to the " something might be done 20-30 years down the line" mentality, however the simple fact is that 20m people in the north of England are connected with only one high capacity road, the M62.
> 
> An alternative for redundancy purposes is desperately needed ...not yesterday but last century. The A66 will do, now crack on and finish the poxy thing by 2025 if humanly possible.



There is no chance in hell for this road to be done before 2025. Thy might go through most of the redundant paperwork by then, if we are lucky...

And then there is the small matter of funding..


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> An alternative for redundancy purposes is desperately needed ...not yesterday but last century. The A66 will do, now crack on and finish the poxy thing by 2025 if humanly possible.


I agree with the sentiment, but there is no way the A66 is an alternative to the M62, it's 100km north. Extending the M65 all the way to the A1 would be an alternative, and is mentioned in the report, but it's not going to happen anytime soon


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> I agree with the sentiment, but there is no way the A66 is an alternative to the M62, it's 100km north. Extending the M65 all the way to the A1 would be an alternative, and is mentioned in the report, but it's not going to happen anytime soon


Nothing other than the A66 is anywhere near planning, like I said an alternative 2+2 E-W route across the Pennines was needed in the 20th century and nothing has been done in the first ~20 years of this century neither. 

It will have to do for now. I expect that a woodhead tunnel route is going to take until the 2030s and that _only if fingers are proper out_! TfN effectively discarded the A69 and M65 routes for the rest of my lifetime and I fear there is no going back over those 2 routes. The M65 would probably have to be a tunnel too. 

EDIT, apologies. Part of the Woodhead route went through planning in Longendale valley a few years back, as an eastward extension of the M67 (not as motorway) and the public hearing and approvals by London took at least 7 years up to 2014. 

What do the idiots do then, they have another farking review and public consultation. The moron nimbys want tolls on the existing twisty mountain A628 and A57 (Woodhead and Snake Pass) routes instead of a new road. This on/off crap has been going on for 50 years.


----------



## Turf

When I zoom out on Google maps to check traffic I notice that in Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and France there are many highways green/orange/red. 
While in the UK there are only some that have traffic shown. 
Am I correct in concluding that there are simply way less highways in the UK? I would have expected there would be about the same amount.
Or does Google not have that much information about traffic in the UK?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It depends if Google considers some highways to be part of the core network or not. 

The UK has a very small motorway system for its population size, but there are many dual carriageways, which Google evidently doesn't consider to be the core network, so you need to zoom in quite a bit to see traffic status on those roads.


----------



## General Maximus

There aren't that many dual carriageways to back up the motorway system. And the ones that are, should have been upgraded to motorway a long time ago. Like the A14 for example, where there is a very long and painful road widening going on near Cambridge, but still not a motorway.


----------



## General Maximus

They don't seem to get their priorities right in the UK, anyway. You can't get anywhere quick in the daytime, because the roads are congested. You can't get anywhere quick in the nighttime, because they keep on closing long stretches of motorway or even A-roads for apparently essential maintenance. 

And now they're upgrading to smart motorways everywhere. There's nothing smart about them. Matrix signs continue to provide motorists with false information, but they'll lower speeds limits when someone has to fart, and with speed camera's at virtually every gantry, you a very likely to have points added to your license if you don't slow down from 70 to 40 MPH in time. A lack of hard shoulders on very busy stretches that have been upgraded to smart motorway just adds to the misery. Yet everyone is being let off hogging overtaking lanes.

Sorry, I'm not trying to wage into a snowdog-type rant, it's just one of those things that annoy me in this country. They seem to be wasting so much money on things I don't understand, yet, the road-infrastructure has become a laughing stock.


----------



## Turf

Ok as I am a little bit curious took some numbers and came with this.

Country / km expressway whatever that may be / million people / cm per person
UK / 3668 / 65 / 5,6
DE / 13009 / 81 / 16
FR / 11882 / 66 / 18
BE / 1746 / 11 / 16
NL / 2808 / 17 / 16,5

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_road_network_size
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

So only 1/3 of the motorway comparable countries have!
Ok I would conclude UK really needs to build some more motorways!
Time to invest dear neighbors across the North Sea!


----------



## General Maximus

You are right!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The UK figure is closer to 6100 km if you include controlled-access dual carriageways. But even then the figure is low.

For example Italy has a similar population and transport structure and has over 10,000 km of motorways and controlled-access dual carriageways.


----------



## MichiH

Turf said:


> Country / km expressway whatever that may be / million people / cm per person
> UK / 3668 / 65 / 5,6
> DE / 13009 / 81 / 16
> FR / 11882 / 66 / 18
> BE / 1746 / 11 / 16
> NL / 2808 / 17 / 16,5
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_road_network_size
> https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population


Please don't trust these figures!

DE has about 13,000km Autobahns + many expressways
NL has about 2,500km Autosnelweg + expressways (2,800km is 2010 figure for whatever).
BE has about 1,600km Autosnelweg + less expressways
FR has about 9,000km Autoroutes + many expressways

UK has about 1,300km Motorways + 400km A(M) Motorways + many expressways (dual carriageways)


----------



## sponge_bob

MichiH said:


> Please don't trust these figures!


Here is the gospel from 2018

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721997/rdl0201.ods

Motorway in kms

England 3,085
Wales 142
Scotland 461

England Scotland Wales =3,688	

elsewhere

Northern Ireland c.100km

*Total Motorway in UK = 3800km *

_The problem is with expressways. _Nobody is asked to break their 'trunk or a' lengths into HQDC, Crap DC and S2 or S4 in those official stats. 

Then England has split its network into.

1. Strategic, aka "Principal" = Centrally Managed. (Map)
2. Trunk, A Roads managed by Local Authorities (75% of of the A+M network)

_*Just because*_ a road is Strategic does not mean it is an expressway. EG
*Just because *a road is NOT Strategic does NOT mean it is NOT a Decent Standard Expressway. EG


Wales, for example, has about as much, modern and good quality, DC as it does Motorway nowadays and also has some really crap DC.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Turf said:


> Ok as I am a little bit curious took some numbers and came with this.
> 
> Country / km expressway whatever that may be / million people / cm per person
> UK / 3668 / 65 / 5,6
> DE / 13009 / 81 / 16
> FR / 11882 / 66 / 18
> BE / 1746 / 11 / 16
> NL / 2808 / 17 / 16,5
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_road_network_size
> https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
> 
> So only 1/3 of the motorway comparable countries have!
> Ok I would conclude UK really needs to build some more motorways!
> Time to invest dear neighbors across the North Sea!


Here's a different kind of comparison: number of four-way full access freeflow interchanges per million.

UK 0.20
Germany 3.04
France 0.44
Belgium 2.04
Netherlands 1.35
EU/EFTA 1.3
United States 2.6

Based on my interchange survey from a couple of years back: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1944097


----------



## Stuu

MichiH said:


> Please don't trust these figures!
> 
> UK has about 1,300km Motorways + 400km A(M) Motorways + many expressways (dual carriageways)


I don't trust these either! There is no way that the UK only has 1,300km of motorway. Also there is no difference between a motorway with a number starting M and one starting A(x)M, apart from the number, they aren't a different category in any sense, so there is no reason to split them out. 

Michelin maps are the best for showing the dual carriageway sections which are motorway standard and which aren't, although it's still not a pretty picture.

As a slight defence, being an island, of which the top third is fairly uninhabited, does make a difference to how much motorway is needed. But essentially yes, the UK needs to do much better and get building


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> Michelin maps are the best for showing the dual carriageway sections which are motorway standard and which aren't, although it's still not a pretty picture.


Thanks, I never noticed that feature on Viamichelin and they seem pretty accurate for Ireland, which has very little non Motorway HQDC overall.

Recalculating NI Motorways at 112km (or 113km if you count beyond the roundabout in the MIDDLE of the M12) and we get bang on 3800km of Motorway in the UK and that is official.


----------



## sponge_bob

Lets pop over to Wales shall we???

Most Welsh people live in or near 2 east west road corridors in the North and South very with few living in the middle. In fact, This is the main North South road connecting the two parts of Wales, The A470.  People in a hurry from north to south Wales go via England. 

There are 2 substantial projects, finally through planning now, to improve this east west network in the south. One is a 14 mile (23km) realignment of the M4 in Newport and the other is to finish off a missing 9 mile (15km) gap on the 'Heads of the Valleys' A465 road which is currently a busy S3 sandwiched between sections of modern HQDC (this is a major road, never mind the 'low' number) 

*Latest estimates are that these two projects, both in South Wales and totalling 38km, will cost over £2bn between them. Yes that is over £50m a km. 
*
Both are in planning since the early 1990s and have been through interminable reviews and on off planning crap in the Best of British way of these things. 

Both of these projects have also been through public hearings in 2018 and the 'Inspectors Reports' are both unpublished right now but have been submitted to politicians and lawyers in Cardiff.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-47071485



> A total of £44m has been spent by the Welsh Government on "development costs" preparing for and running an inquiry into proposals for an M4 relief road.
> 
> The costs included traffic modelling, environmental surveys, design work and £11.5m on funding the inquiry itself.
> 
> A Welsh Government spokesman called it "proportionate with other major infrastructure projects".
> 
> Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns said on Thursday he understood the inquiry report would back the scheme.
> 
> The report of the 13-month public inquiry was delivered in November.
> 
> First Minister Mark Drakeford will decide whether to press ahead with the 14-mile (23km) project south of Newport.


Buttocks clenched everyone, will they bottle these essential projects in 2019????


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Stuu said:


> As a slight defence, being an island, of which the top third is fairly uninhabited, does make a difference to how much motorway is needed.


The structure of the UK motorway network is fairly similar to Italy: most larger cities can be served by just 5 major motorway corridors (UK: M1, M4, M5, M6, M62)

As opposed to Germany or Spain where a large network is needed to connect all major cities. 

Though most longer dual carriageways in the UK would've been built as motorways in other Western European countries.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

sponge_bob said:


> Lets pop over to Wales shall we???
> 
> Most Welsh people live in or near 2 east west road corridors in the North and South very with few living in the middle. [


I live in the middle and our infrastructure is shocking.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Michelin mapping is a step in the right direction, but still dramatically underestimates the amount of grade-separated dual carriageway. Just a few examples from Scotland (you'd find many more in England):

A725 at Bellshill (possibly doesn't account for recent underpass at M74 interchange)
A737 at Paisley (hard to see why this isn't included)
A77 South of Kilmarnock (there's at least one unsignalized, unmarked pedestrian crossing and bus stops)
A8 west of Edinburgh (bus stops and/or pavements perhaps?)
A814 Glasgow (maybe doesn't account for recentish grade separation)
A899 Livingstone (non-primary status?)
A90 passim (possibly doesn't account for recent reserve gap closures)
Cumbernauld passim (non-primary/short length/small number of interchanges?)

Perhaps there is a consistent system being used, but still the point stands that it underestimates the amount of grade-separated dual carriageway as that would be ordinarily understood.


----------



## IanCleverly

Forecourt Trader said:


> Eurogarages has applied for planning permission for a motorway service area on land east of junction 24 of the M5, at Huntworth in Somerset, and says it will be "unlike any other". The MSA is part of a wider planning application to create an employment area, and in a Design & Access Statement prepared by ADS Design and JLL, they say consultation about the scheme has been going on for a significant time and included a formal exhibition for local residents on July 12 last year.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The proposal is for an MSA occupying 7.68 acres and providing parking for 324 cars, 10 caravans, 8 motorbikes, 8 coaches, 39 HGVs and an abnormal load bay. It adds that 17 accessible spaces and 8 electric vehicle bays will be provided. A single amenity building will incorporate a petrol filling station, food sales and diverse amenity uses. It will have a ground floor mezzanine and a rooftop equipped with picnic-style seating and a garden. An ascending path will wrap around the building “to provide a distinctive architectural form unlike any other MSA”.
> 
> The petrol filling station will provide six pump islands allowing for simultaneous refuelling of 12 vehicles. Eight electric vehicle (EV) charging bays will be located at the entrance to the forecourt in such a location as to deter their use for conventional parking. An HGV refuelling facility will provide three pump islands allowing six HGVs to refuel at any one time.


Full story which mentions it's 'green' building Here


----------



## General Maximus

"any other" in the UK would be free parking at all times and not just for two hours, and decent food. Cleaner, less noisy and a bit less Disneyland.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

I thought this AADF map might be of interest:










Click here for big version:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/UK_vehicles_flows_2015.svg

Credit: PawełS


----------



## DanielFigFoz

sponge_bob said:


> I did not realise until now that there were private or volunteer streetview producers but this project has now been fully streetviewed, by a local.
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@52.515...3k5HkrPVBNmCbNWeem0ds!2e10!3e11!7i5376!8i2688
> 
> There is more on the 'community streetview community' here.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-43812924
> 
> 
> 
> Well done all.


That's pretty cool! I haven't been on the bypass yet but I will use it three times next weekend.

Sent from my SM-G920F using SkyscraperCity Forums mobile app


----------



## sponge_bob

DanielFigFoz said:


> That's pretty cool! I haven't been on the bypass yet but I will use it three times next weekend.


Looks like the local streetview bloke was the very first member of the public on this stretch. There is dedication for you.


----------



## General Maximus

Last night, returning from Dublin and driving from Holyhead back to London, Google suggested that I'd try the route avoiding M6, and go via Chester, Wrexham, Shrewsbury, Telford M54 and join the M6 at Wolverhampton, which is what I did.

That is pretty good stuff. Most are dual carriageway, have to suck up those roundabouts at Shrewsbury a bit - but what a brilliant alternative to that horrible M6 from M56 to Birmingham...

When have they completed this route? It looks brand new, and I wasn't even aware of it...


----------



## sponge_bob

I did the A5/M54 many times and the Shrewsbury to Birmingham section has been DC/Motorway for over 20 years. Back in the 1980s it was a horror of a thing from west of Shrewsbury to the M54 but then again so was much of the A55 which was also finished (bar the bit near Holyhead) in the early 1990s. 

I never did Shrewsbury-Chester or did you go Oswestry-Chester???? 

Don't try the rest of the A5 from Oswestry to Holyhead, it is mainly a 1950s grade S2 with some scary mountainy bits.


----------



## General Maximus

I got off the A55 at Buckley, straight into England, touched the outskirts of Chester and then straight back into Wales again via A483 to Wrexham, Oswestry and Shrewsbury. I was coming from Holyhead. Those images are from my Google Maps Timeline, as I allow it to track my movements.


----------



## sponge_bob

Oswestry to Bangor is _very_ scenic but I would only ever do it deliberately in summer to catch a daytime sailing from Holyhead. Plan on being in Oswestry for around 4:30 am in June and it will then be bright when you hit the really scenic bits.


----------



## General Maximus

I'll keep that in mind next time 

But as you can see from my maps, I took the overnight ferry from Fishguard to Rosslare, which was delayed over 4 hours - then drive up to Dublin where I arrived at 11am, had a few things to attend there, and then caught the 14:15 Irish Ferries sailing to Holyhead, where I arrived at 18:00. Just howled it down the A55 and straight back to London. Stumbled back in just before midnight...


----------



## sponge_bob

*.*

..


----------



## sponge_bob

General Maximus said:


> I'll keep that in mind next time
> But as you can see from my maps, I took the overnight ferry from Fishguard to Rosslare, which was delayed over 4 hours - then drive up to Dublin where I arrived at 11am,


Jeez, that means driving that crappy A40 west of St Clear at night, no thanks. Try the A5 route in early morning, just after dawn, in mid summer and give yourself plenty of time. There is a stena sailing at 9am from Holyhead if you miss the Ulysses overnighter. 

Were you delivering to Tesco in Ireland perchance????


----------



## General Maximus

I actually rather enjoyed that A40. It's nice and quiet. I'm involved in some test runs between South Wales and Dublin in temperature controlled pharmaceuticals in case of a no-deal Brexit, driving a van - heavily tracked and monitored. I did call into Tesco's in Dublin at a shopping centre near the airport last week.

Yes, that new M11 in Ireland is rather nice. A bit of a pain going around Wexford, though...

In between I found some time to go to Holland last week and Germany the beginning of the week as well :lol:


----------



## sponge_bob

General Maximus said:


> Yes, that new M11 in Ireland is rather nice. A bit of a pain going around Wexford, though...


You would have hit Wexford in their rush hour, there is some vague plan to finish a DC from where that motorway will soon end (south of Enniscorthy) to South of Wexford itself starting in perhaps 10 years time. 

Had the ferry been on time in Fishguard you would have missed the Wexford and Dublin rush hours (both), had it been _only_ 2 hours late you woulda hit the Dublin rush hour starting at Greystones in Wicklow and you really don't want to do that, trust me. 

Block out 7am - 9:30am and 4:30pm to 7pm from all your plans as these are peak times on the M50 motorway.

Also introduce yourself to customs in Rosslare asap, they are very sound to regular travellers once they know _exactly_ who you are and you can text them to say you are coming and get special treatment in future.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

General Maximus said:


> Last night, returning from Dublin and driving from Holyhead back to London, Google suggested that I'd try the route avoiding M6, and go via Chester, Wrexham, Shrewsbury, Telford M54 and join the M6 at Wolverhampton, which is what I did.
> 
> That is pretty good stuff. Most are dual carriageway, have to suck up those roundabouts at Shrewsbury a bit - but what a brilliant alternative to that horrible M6 from M56 to Birmingham...
> 
> When have they completed this route? It looks brand new, and I wasn't even aware of it...


You may have been lucky as it can be very busy, with for instance 25k AADT on the S2 (two lane) A483 and A5 either side of the Halton roundabout. Really they need to complete the dualling at least from there to Oswestry (volumes drop off where the A5/A483 multiplex/concurrency ends). 

I think the A5 Nesscliffe Bypass would be the newest bit of dual carriageway, completed 2003, and I would argue there has been underinvestment in the A5/A483 corridor. It crosses the England-Wales border and is treated as peripheral by both governments. This despite its importance for connecting the Midlands, North West, North Wales, Mid Wales, and even South Wales.


----------



## General Maximus

^^ I was using it last night. I took it to avoid the risk of the M6 getting shut in the ongoing roadworks...


----------



## General Maximus

sponge_bob said:


> You would have hit Wexford in their rush hour, there is some vague plan to finish a DC from where that motorway will soon end (south of Enniscorthy) to South of Wexford itself starting in perhaps 10 years time.
> 
> Had the ferry been on time in Fishguard you would have missed the Wexford and Dublin rush hours (both), had it been _only_ 2 hours late you woulda hit the Dublin rush hour starting at Greystones in Wicklow and you really don't want to do that, trust me.
> 
> Block out 7am - 9:30am and 4:30pm to 7pm from all your plans as these are peak times on the M50 motorway.
> 
> Also introduce yourself to customs in Rosslare asap, they are very sound to regular travellers once they know _exactly_ who you are and you can text them to say you are coming and get special treatment in future.


Response is on the Irish thread


----------



## DanielFigFoz

sponge_bob said:


> I did the A5/M54 many times and the Shrewsbury to Birmingham section has been DC/Motorway for over 20 years. Back in the 1980s it was a horror of a thing from west of Shrewsbury to the M54 but then again so was much of the A55 which was also finished (bar the bit near Holyhead) in the early 1990s.
> 
> I never did Shrewsbury-Chester or did you go Oswestry-Chester????
> 
> Don't try the rest of the A5 from Oswestry to Holyhead, it is mainly a 1950s grade S2 with some scary mountainy bits.


The M54 was completed in 1983 and the Shrewsbury by-pass in 1992. The by-pass isn't bad but it would be nice if there was a bit more grade separation. Compared to the roads west of there though it's perfection. I always enjoy the M54 and the A5 as far as the first roundabout I must say.


----------



## sponge_bob

DanielFigFoz said:


> I always enjoy the M54 and the A5 as far as the first roundabout I must say.


Still though, there was that day the traffic was finally taken outta Shrewsbury.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

sponge_bob said:


> Still though, there was that day the traffic was finally taken outta Shrewsbury.


I can imagine, Shrewsbury can be busy enough even with the bypass.

Sent from my SM-G920F using SkyscraperCity Forums mobile app


----------



## sponge_bob

DanielFigFoz said:


> I can imagine, Shrewsbury can be busy enough even with the bypass.


Again apropos what standard of road to build in more rural parts of the UK the tender for 14.7km of THIS standard of road in Ireland came in at €70.4m , ex VAT. That's €4.8m a km or *£4.15m a KM* for the works. The highest tender was around £6m a km. 

That is basically a full 60mph DC with a divided median where the Newtown Bypass is 2+1 and in broadly the same sort of terrain. It can easily handle up to 25k AADT where a full 70mph DC standard could handle nearer 40k AADT but the risks of head on collisions at speed are obviously much lower than 2+1 or 1+1.

The £4.15m a km does not include VAT, Planning costs and Land Acquisition costs in this case.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Even the Newtown bypass is a significant improvement on what most roads around here are like.


----------



## geogregor

Strange layout of the new bus lanes on the M1 approaching Belfast:









More drawings in the PDFs:
https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/infrastructure/approaching-lisburn-services.pdf
https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/infrastructure/rejoining-m1-at-lisburn-services.pdf

Wesley Johnson writes:
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/m1m2busways2017.html



> The most interesting part of the scheme from the perspective of the travelling public is the setup at Applegreen's Lisburn Services on the M1, where the bus lane continues past both the onslip and offslip. This will require traffic entering and leaving Applegreen to cross the bus lane via an uncontrolled crossover manoeuvre. DFI have released leaflets outlining how this will work. Although it's certainly eyebrow-raising, the risk of a collision is mitigated by the low frequency of buses compared to general traffic, and the fact that the buses are limited to 40mph in the bus lane. Nevertheless, a bit of inattention on the part of a driver could result in a side-swipe, so take care.


I can see potential for trouble here...


----------



## Stuu

A few recent images of the A14 Huntingdon bypass from project's Facebook page. There are loads more on there


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

> Investment of more than a billion pounds in the A66 from Cumbria, through County Durham and into North Yorkshire will move a step closer.
> 
> In May, Highways England begins a non-statutory public consultation on ideas to complete the dualling of this important Northern Trans-Pennine route.
> 
> The A66 is a strategically important road – a quarter of its 19,000 vehicles a day are lorries – and it provides trans-Pennine connections between the east and west coasts and a primary route connecting the south of England and Scotland.
> 
> Highways England is now developing plans to fully dual the remaining six single carriageway sections, which total 18 miles of the complete 50 mile route, in addition to junction improvements to the M6, junction 40 at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner. This will provide improved benefits to journey time reliability, safety, network resilience and connectivity for nearby villages and towns.
> 
> ...
> 
> Highways England will present route options for the following sections:
> 
> Penrith to Temple Sowerby
> Temple Sowerby to Appleby
> Appleby to Brough
> Bowes
> Cross Lanes to Rokeby
> Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/consultation-on-a66-improvements-to-start-in-may


----------



## General Maximus

That's good. I already started using this route going from London to Scotland, just to avoid the ongoing mess on the M6. I'll keep on using it, I like that route.


----------



## EmoriAz96

Are the new A14 works definitely going to become a motorway? Along with the short A1 extension down to the works?


----------



## General Maximus

No motorway. Just widening between Huntington and Cambridge.


----------



## Nikolaj

General Maximus said:


> No motorway. Just widening between Huntington and Cambridge.


According to this article the entire section from Cambridge to Huntington will be classified as a motorway.
https://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/huntingdon-motorway-consultation-about-to-end-1-5905900


----------



## General Maximus

First time I heard about it. Good when it happens, though...


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

^ Correct, the main 18 mile section of the improvement will be named A14(M). Also, most of it (12 miles) is a new six-lane (D3) offline bypass rather than widening. An adjoining 3 mile section of the A1 will be widened to six lanes and redesignated A1(M). This will complete the motorway route between London and Peterborough along M11, A14(M) and A1(M).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-for-part-of-a14-upgrade-to-become-a-motorway


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Another eight lane 'smart motorway' scheme was completed recently, on M1 between J23a (A42) and J25 near Nottingham. That means there is now a pretty long eight lane section from south of Nottingham to north of Sheffield.

In December 2018 the first phase of opening took place, introducing variable mandatory speed limits between junctions 23a and 24. This phase also saw the opening of the new lane in both directions between junctions 24 and 25.

We are pleased to announce that we have opened the second and final phase of the M1 smart motorway to traffic between junction 24 and 25 on Wednesday 27 February. During an overnight closure of the motorway, we removed the temporary 50mph speed limit and remaining traffic management restrictions. This means the smart motorway is now fully operational for speeds up to 70 mph throughout the whole stretch and drivers are already benefitting from smoother more reliable journeys on this vital route.​
>> https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/m1-junctions-23a-to-25-smart-motorway/


----------



## Ronnie87

EmoriAz96 said:


> Are the new A14 works definitely going to become a motorway? Along with the short A1 extension down to the works?


Most likely, but Highways England is still awaiting the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport, which should arrive later this year.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The New Tees Crossing has been put out to consultation:






The current six lane A19 Tees crossing is a serious bottleneck between Middlesbrough and Stockton. The proposals would add 3-4 lanes to the crossing as well as widen adjoining sections of the A19 and A66 to 8 lanes, with a braiding-type solution for the intermediate A1046 junction. The package includes a short two lane Portrack relief road.

The 'favoured' option 1 from the video:










There's also a pretty weird option 2:










Option 1 engineering drawing: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/westdigital.arup.com/newteescrossing/panels/EP1.pdf
Option 2 engineering drawing: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/westdigital.arup.com/newteescrossing/panels/EP2.pdf
Consultation hub: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/westdigital.arup.com/neteescrossing/viewer.html

For watchers of UK roadbuilding prices, I've extracted costings from the documentation: £206m for option 1, £319m for option 2. These don't seem unreasonable by UK standards given the scale of works. 15% optimism bias is included but many items excluded: 

· Removal/treatment of contaminated material;
· VAT, including non-recoverable VAT;
· PINS Examination costs;
· Planning application fees;
· Planning contributions;
· Marketing/PR costs;
· Legal fees;
· All client costs and management;
· Inflation beyond 1Q2016; and
· Environmental mitigation.


----------



## Stuu

Preferred route announced to complete the missing section of the A417/419 route in Gloucestershire. 

Even dedicated watchers of UK roadbuilding prices might want a stiff drink before seeing the cost.


----------



## Nikolaj

Stuu said:


> Preferred route announced to complete the missing section of the A417/419 route in Gloucestershire.
> 
> Even dedicated watchers of UK roadbuilding prices might want a stiff drink before seeing the cost.


Am i correct to understand that we are speaking of three-mile stretch of single-lane carriageway at a total cost of £ 250-500 million. That is 5 km at a cost of Euro 57-114 million pr. km. Yes you need a very stiff drink indeed. What is going on in the UK??


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's a gap between two dual carriageway segments, so I think it will replace the 3 mile single carriageway road with a new dual carriageway? Which may have a tunnel considering the altitude difference there? According to Google Earth there is an abrupt 200 meter height difference here (the Cotswolds).


----------



## Stuu

ChrisZwolle said:


> It's a gap between two dual carriageway segments, so I think it will replace the 3 mile single carriageway road with a new dual carriageway? Which may have a tunnel considering the altitude difference there? According to Google Earth there is an abrupt 200 meter height difference here (the Cotswolds).


It is going to be a dual carriageway, with three lanes uphill. No tunnelling though, some green bridges and quite significant earthworks.

£435m


----------



## sponge_bob

Nikolaj said:


> Yes you need a very stiff drink indeed. What is going on in the UK??


We seem to get one of these a fortnight nowadays, at least this one has hills because I have seen £100m a mile 2+2 (no HS) proposals on dead flat ground more than once in recent years. 

The Swiss railway base tunneled under the alps for only a tad more than this.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The A417 will essentially be in a huge cutting to maintain 120kph design speeds where currently you have a roundabout between single carriageway roads at the top of a hill, with a near 180 degree turn in the main route. 

Before: 









After: 









The cost is £435m. I'm not saying it's cheap but in this case there are good reasons to spend so much money on such a short stretch of road. It's the last roundabout and last section of single carriageway A417/A419 between the M4 at Swindon and M5 at Gloucester, and the final sections tend to be the expensive ones.


----------



## Stuu

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> The cost is £435m. I'm not saying it's cheap but in this case there are good reasons to spend so much money on such a short stretch of road. It's the last roundabout and last section of single carriageway A417/A419 between the M4 at Swindon and M5 at Gloucester, and the final sections tend to be the expensive ones.


It's a ludicrous, indefensible amount of money for what is being built. Other countries on this page build huge tunnels for less cost than this. Famously cheap Norway manages undersea motorways for half this cost per km. UK roadbuilding costs are vastly more than elsewhere - I would love to know why

As an example, on the Spain thread, there is news of the opening of segments of the A23. Tunnels, viaducts etc through actual mountains. All for €238m. Now some costs will no doubt be different and accounting differences all need to be considered, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion than something has gone very wrong somewhere


----------



## Ronnie87

Stuu said:


> UK roadbuilding costs are vastly more than elsewhere - I would love to know why


I believe the high cost of expropriating land is at least partially responsible for this. The UK is a very densely populated country (much more so than Spain), therefore it is virtually impossible to build anything here without having to dig up someone's back yard.


----------



## EmoriAz96

Ronnie87 said:


> I believe the high cost of expropriating land is at least partially responsible for this. The UK is a very densely populated country (much more so than Spain), therefore it is virtually impossible to build anything here without having to dig up someone's back yard.


Yes, true. But also remember that in the UK the land prices are really high generally and in this area, they are really high. Also remember that on top of land prices. They pay the old owners an extra 25% on top of that


----------



## Kanadzie

^^
https://a6d2d.com/traffic-management-at-burntoliet/

lovely toponomy


----------



## geogregor

M25 London Orbital in its typical 2x4 profile, here in the northern section:


DSC07217 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## MichiH

MichiH said:


> The A6 Randalstown to Castledawson dualling scheme in Northern Ireland upgrades 14.7km to dual carriageway. Total costs: £185m. Preliminary works commenced in October 2016 and main construction commenced in June 2017. The Randalstown to Toome section should open in 2019 and the Toome to Castledawson section should open in 2021. See project site. The first section extends M22 motorway to the west and it is grade-separated. A roundabout will remain at the end of this section near Toome. The motorway-like section has a length of about 7km https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.7446/-6.4013
> 
> The A6 section was announced that the westbound carriageway will be opened on 13th August 2019 but there are still works on the eastbound carriageway.
> 
> 
> 
> The Toome Bypass will be Fully Closed in both directions from Brecart Roundabout - Creagh Roundabout for 1 night of 9pm 12 August 2019 - 5am 13 August 2019, to facilitate a change to the areas contra-flow system, transferring all traffic onto the Westbound Carriageway and to help facilitate the installation of a temporary roundabout. Enabling the Graham Farrans Joint Venture to proceed with works on the Eastbound Carriageway.
Click to expand...

It was announced to be opened one week earlier, at night from Sunday to Monday, and both carriageways should have been put into service. Only minor restrictions at the M22 interchange for another 4 weeks - 1 lane per c/w and speed limit.

It was then opened at 21:30 BST on Sunday 4th, a few hours ahead of schedule.


----------



## geogregor

Update from A6 in Northern Ireland:






And some shots on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/aerialvisionni/status/1170664714889760768


----------



## sponge_bob

The old Burntollet Bridge was demolished last month. 

https://a6d2d.com/progress-update-august-2019/


----------



## garethni

sponge_bob said:


> Further east on the other (smaller) A6 scheme the old Burntollet Bridge was demolished last month.
> 
> https://a6d2d.com/progress-update-august-2019/


The bridge is on the large scheme and not the one to the east.


----------



## Ronnie87

Are they planning on dualling the whole route from Belfast to Derry?


----------



## sponge_bob

garethni said:


> The bridge is on the large scheme and not the one to the east.


You are right, the road on the right of the picture is an S2 built in the last 50 years and now being replaced by a D2. The bridge being knocked was on the old A6 pre 1970. 



Ronnie87 said:


> Are they planning on dualling the whole route from Belfast to Derry?


There will be a missing link between Magherafelt and east of Dungiven. Very difficult terrain in parts too. A 30km gap or so. 

Traffic there is not quite at levels that would require D2 across the difficult terrain but after the schemes east of Magherafelt and around/west of Dungiven are delivered we could see this intermediate stretch becoming quite congested. Parts are 2+1 already. It also contains the highest point on the NI trunk road network, the Glenshane Pass, at around 300m ASL.

I would not see the missing link built before 2030 as there are quite a few higher priorities elsewhere on the NI network.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The latest A417 Missing Link consultation is open. The cutting and green bridge are quite impressive.






https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/a417-missing-link-public-consultation/


----------



## sponge_bob

Shocked I am  , not even surprised, that the cornerpiece of the new Prime Ministers road strategy has not been mentioned in this thread yet. 

Boris has only mentioned one important road project since he became Prime Minister. This single road project will cost £15bn. 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/polit...d-bridge-would-only-cost-15-billion-1-5003145



> Boris Johnson has said *a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland would be "very good" - estimating the project would cost around £15 billion.
> *
> The Prime Minister revealed his thoughts on the ambitious proposal as he spoke to schoolchildren playing with a model container ship onboard lighthouse tender NLV Pharos on the Thames.
> 
> Mr Johnson told the children that he had recently been discussing the possibility of constructing a bridge over the Irish Sea.
> 
> He said: "(I was talking yesterday) about building a bridge from Stranraer in Scotland to Larne in Northern Ireland - that would be very good.


Thankfully we have the Sun newspaper to tell us more. This is not a new plan from Boris, he has been 'thinking' about it a while. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/65099...nd-to-help-keep-the-uk-together-after-brexit/



> BORIS Johnson is backing plans to build a £15billion bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland - to bring the UK back together after Brexit.
> 
> The Foreign Secretary believes the outlandish idea would reassure Northern Irish people that they won’t be cut off from Great Britain once we quit the EU.


...and it would only be around 40km long. There is the small problem of the Beaufort **** at around the 10km mark.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/15891980.ireland-scotland-bridge-is-scuppered-by-the-mod/



> It’s estimated that the Beaufort’s **** contains over a million tonnes of munitions, dumped there by the War Office and its successor the Ministry of Defence between the end of WW1 and the mid 1970s.
> 
> As well as conventional weaponry like artillery shells, _the **** was also used as a dumping ground for incendiary bombs containing phosphorus which ignite on contact with air, as well as chemical weapons, including mustard gas, tear gas, phosgene, and the nerve agents tabun and sarin. And that’s just the stuff they’ll admit to._


Somehow I reckon it won't happen, me.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The water is too deep and wide for a major bridge there. All major cross-sea bridges in the world are built through sea level depths of only a few meters. Very few are built in sea depths over 20 meters, unless they can span the entire waterway with a single large span. The Irish Sea has depths of up to or exceeding 150 meters betwee Scotland and Ireland.

If you look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-sea_traffic_ways

Almost all of these bridges were built through water only 1-10 meters deep. The Confederation Bridge in Canada may have the deepest waters at some 25 meters.

A tunnel would technically more feasible. Economically... doubtful. Even in China they have not yet built that length of undersea tunnels. Norway is coming closest with their 26 kilometer 'Rogfast' tunnel project.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Somehow I reckon it won't happen, me.


Don't be silly, Boris is a man of his word, when he says something will happen, it will happen!

Anyway got to run, my flight leaves from the fantastic new Thames estuary airport in a couple of hours


----------



## Penn's Woods

sponge_bob said:


> Shocked I am  , not even surprised, that the cornerpiece of the new Prime Ministers road strategy has not been mentioned in this thread yet.
> 
> Boris has only mentioned one important road project since he became Prime Minister. This single road project will cost £15bn.
> 
> https://www.scotsman.com/news/polit...d-bridge-would-only-cost-15-billion-1-5003145
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully we have the Sun newspaper to tell us more. This is not a new plan from Boris, he has been 'thinking' about it a while.
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/65099...nd-to-help-keep-the-uk-together-after-brexit/
> 
> 
> 
> ...and it would only be around 40km long. There is the small problem of the Beaufort **** at around the 10km mark.
> 
> https://www.thenational.scot/news/15891980.ireland-scotland-bridge-is-scuppered-by-the-mod/
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I reckon it won't happen, me.




They could put the new border controls on the dike*

*American spelling. “****” means, um, something else here.


----------



## rudiwien

Besides Boris, there seems to be all other sorts of politicians who would back such a project....

Why, one can only wonder.. Besides technical aspects, no clue how that could ever be economically feasible...

There wouldn't be much local traffic that needs the connection, and to make it useful for transit, you'd need to significantly upgrade also the road connections towards Glasgow or Carlisle (M6 towards England). I have travelled around Portpatrick and Stranaer in Scotland, this is such a remote area, it seems really doubtful what the fixed connection could do there. I can't see that much traffic being generated that it would ever pay off.. If even the Channel Tunnel is struggling...


----------



## Stuu

rudiwien said:


> Besides Boris, there seems to be all other sorts of politicians who would back such a project....
> 
> Why, one can only wonder.. Besides technical aspects, no clue how that could ever be economically feasible...
> 
> There wouldn't be much local traffic that needs the connection, and to make it useful for transit, you'd need to significantly upgrade also the road connections towards Glasgow or Carlisle (M6 towards England). I have travelled around Portpatrick and Stranaer in Scotland, this is such a remote area, it seems really doubtful what the fixed connection could do there. I can't see that much traffic being generated that it would ever pay off.. If even the Channel Tunnel is struggling...


Without wanting to get too political, Johnson is pretty unique in his 'vision'. I don't think anyone else in a senior position has suggested it seriously. Because as you say, it's a economic nonsense


----------



## sponge_bob

That Boris could not possibly magine a better use for £15bn of investment in the Trunk Road Networks of Britain says rather a lot about his unique talents as PM. 

South Wales (similar Pop as NI) is quite economically isolated from England for want of a tenth of that money and there is no sign of any coming from Boris. Then again the Welsh don't vote DUP.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Didn't Boris Johnson also propose a tunnel motorway system in London?


----------



## sponge_bob

ChrisZwolle said:


> Didn't Boris Johnson also propose a tunnel motorway system in London?


Yes he did. Two lots, this

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...on-london-road-tunnels-congestion-air-quality

and this other one, the Inner Orbital Tunnel costing ~£20bn

https://www.citymetric.com/skylines/podcast-power-yes-4796


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

sponge_bob said:


> That Boris could not possibly magine a better use for £15bn of investment in the Trunk Road Networks of Britain says rather a lot about his unique talents as PM.
> 
> South Wales (similar Pop as NI) is quite economically isolated from England for want of a tenth of that money and there is no sign of any coming from Boris. Then again the Welsh don't vote DUP.


After two decades of devolution, with per capita public spending above the UK average, the relative economic isolation of Wales is firmly at the door of the Welsh political class, especially when one contrasts with Scotland's progress over this period. See for instance the endless prevarication about the A494 at Deeside and M4 at Newport, bottlenecking the main routes into North and South Wales respectively.


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> See for instance the endless prevarication about the A494 at Deeside and M4 at Newport, bottlenecking the main routes into North and South Wales respectively.


Well yes, but the 3 schemes intended to connect Wales to England would cost up to £2.5bn between them and only the A465 scheme is proper undead at present.

That A465 scheme will cost at least £500m_ if the Welsh government go ahead with it_. The A494/A55 scheme would nearly cost the same but that is only talk while the M4 scheme, the biggest, is dead since the spring.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> Assuming the tories win, and don't change their minds


Correct, though they are comfortably ahead in every poll.


----------



## geogregor

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Correct, though they are comfortably ahead in every poll.


They probably win. But how much did they exactly spend on roads in almost 10 years they are in power? 

If someone is hoping for surge in road investment he/she must be deluded. Regardless whichever party wins, it just ain't gonna happen...

There aren't even that many large projects in the pipeline. The only larger ones I can think of are A303 around Stonehenge and Lower Thames Crossing.


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> They probably win. But how much did they exactly spend on roads in almost 10 years they are in power?
> 
> If someone is hoping for surge in road investment he/she must be deluded. Regardless whichever party wins, it just ain't gonna happen...
> 
> There aren't even that many large projects in the pipeline. The only larger ones I can think of are A303 around Stonehenge and Lower Thames Crossing.


They have promised £25bn over the next five years, although obviously a tory promise isn't the most solid of things... but I agree that there isn't an obvious pool of projects to spend it on, Stonehenge was in theory paid for with from the current 5 year programme. The Lower Thames Crossing they want to be built privately as well


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

geogregor said:


> They probably win. But how much did they exactly spend on roads in almost 10 years they are in power?
> 
> If someone is hoping for surge in road investment he/she must be deluded. Regardless whichever party wins, it just ain't gonna happen...
> 
> There aren't even that many large projects in the pipeline. The only larger ones I can think of are A303 around Stonehenge and Lower Thames Crossing.


Well, 2010-2015 did indeed continue New Labour style low road spending.

In 2015 the Road Investment Strategy was established, with RIS1 covering 2015-20. Each year has significantly higher spending than the last (£3bn in 2015/16 vs £4.3bn in 2019/20 - see here, p. 62: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/818656/Delivery_Plan_2019-20.pdf). So whether you believe it or not, there has already been a 'surge' in road spending.

2020-25 is RIS2, with twice the budget of RIS1 (£28.8bn), of which ~£20bn is for non-maintenance capital projects. Of course, anything can happen in politics, but that's the current policy, as recently confirmed by the PM and chancellor, and it's in line with the consistent strategy of the last five years and the principle of Vehicle Excise Duty hypothecation announced back then.

As for 'there aren't even that many large projects in the pipeline' I don't really know what to say... Here are a few likely to come out in the £250-£500m bracket:

M1/M62 Lofthouse interchange
A1(M) Doncaster bypass 
M1 Junctions 35A-39
M60 Simister Island interchange
M1 Junctions 19-23A
Birmingham box Phase 4
A45 Thrapston to Stanwick
A46 Newark Northern Bypass
A12 Colchester Bypass
A12 M25 to Chelmsford
A3 Guildford
A417 Air Balloon
A1 Redhouse to Darrington

And then you have the really big ones (numbers from material published ~3 years ago):

A66 dualling - £825m
A1 East of England - £1.7bn
Oxford-Cambridge expressway - £3bn-£3.5bn
M25 SW Quadrant - ? [likely to be billions]
Manchester NW quadrant - £4.1-£5.4bn
Lower Thames Crossing - £4.1-£6.4bn
Trans-Pennine tunnel - £6.5-£10.1bn

Combine this with the many RIS1 schemes that are still under construction or haven't started yet due to cost overruns and it's obvious that there's far more schemes than they can possibly afford for RIS2. In programming terms dropping big ticket items like the Oxbridge Expressway is quite welcome as there are so many other schemes that need the money.


----------



## Stuu

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> A66 dualling - £825m
> A1 East of England - £1.7bn
> Oxford-Cambridge expressway - £3bn-£3.5bn
> M25 SW Quadrant - ? [likely to be billions]
> Manchester NW quadrant - £4.1-£5.4bn
> Lower Thames Crossing - £4.1-£6.4bn
> Trans-Pennine tunnel - £6.5-£10.1bn


The A1 has been cancelled and the Oxford-Cambridge expressway is looking a bit dodgy... 

Of the others, only the Thames tunnel is anywhere near likely to start construction in the next five years - the trans-Pennine tunnel has been scaled back dramatically as well, as I'm sure you know.

Getting schemes designed and through planning for the M60 and M25 is going to take a very, very long time


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> And then you have the really big ones (numbers from material published ~3 years ago):
> 
> A66 dualling - £825m
> A1 East of England - £1.7bn
> Oxford-Cambridge expressway - £3bn-£3.5bn
> M25 SW Quadrant - ? [likely to be billions]
> Manchester NW quadrant - £4.1-£5.4bn
> Lower Thames Crossing - £4.1-£6.4bn
> Trans-Pennine tunnel - £6.5-£10.1bn


I think you missed the various A303 schemes which straddle RIS1 and RIS2 , and probably RIS3 too  . The A303 Stonehenge Bypass of 12km including a 3km tunnel is estimated to cost almost £2bn in the next 5 or 6 years. Of course it could logically be argued that a mere 12km of dual for a mere £2bn is no longer "really big" in the English context. 

The Scots plan on plugging away on their Dundee-Inverness dualling, mainly, over the lifetime of RIS2. The Welsh cancelled their biggest, scheme on the M4.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> I think you missed the various A303 schemes which straddle RIS1 and RIS2 , and probably RIS3 too ...


From an accounting point of view, they are paid for from RIS1, even if they aren't delivered until much later (or at least that is my understanding)


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> Ryme Intrinseca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A66 dualling - £825m
> A1 East of England - £1.7bn
> Oxford-Cambridge expressway - £3bn-£3.5bn
> M25 SW Quadrant - ? [likely to be billions]
> Manchester NW quadrant - £4.1-£5.4bn
> Lower Thames Crossing - £4.1-£6.4bn
> Trans-Pennine tunnel - £6.5-£10.1bn
> 
> 
> 
> The A1 has been cancelled and the Oxford-Cambridge expressway is looking a bit dodgy...
> 
> Of the others, only the Thames tunnel is anywhere near likely to start construction in the next five years - the trans-Pennine tunnel has been scaled back dramatically as well, as I'm sure you know.
> 
> Getting schemes designed and through planning for the M60 and M25 is going to take a very, very long time
Click to expand...

A1 is still being investigated last I heard. Also all costs are preliminary and years' old, so it's likely even a partial improvement of the A1 or smaller trans-Pennine Tunnel would come out at a broadly similar price point to original projections.

There is a chicken and egg issue here. Yes, only LTC is likely to start in RIS2 of the biggest schemes (and probably won't even manage that). But that's because the RIS2 budget is mostly used up on developing them, building smaller schemes, and completing RIS1 schemes. Dozens have been delayed from RIS1 on cost grounds and most RIS1 scheme costs actually fall in RIS2. (Remember that a scheme being RIS1 just means it was originally scheduled to start construction by April 2020, even if 80% of costs fall in RIS2. And for many RIS1 schemes that's now more like 90%.)

The story of RIS1 is far too many schemes being developed for the available budget. RIS2 is bound to go the same way because it has this huge backlog of RIS1 schemes to clear before they even get on to the true RIS2 (or RIS3) ones.


----------



## geogregor

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Well, 2010-2015 did indeed continue New Labour style low road spending.
> 
> In 2015 the Road Investment Strategy was established, with RIS1 covering 2015-20. Each year has significantly higher spending than the last (£3bn in 2015/16 vs £4.3bn in 2019/20 - see here, p. 62: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/818656/Delivery_Plan_2019-20.pdf). So whether you believe it or not, there has already been a 'surge' in road spending.
> 
> 2020-25 is RIS2, with twice the budget of RIS1 (£28.8bn), of which ~£20bn is for non-maintenance capital projects. Of course, anything can happen in politics, but that's the current policy, as recently confirmed by the PM and chancellor, and it's in line with the consistent strategy of the last five years and the principle of Vehicle Excise Duty hypothecation announced back then.
> 
> As for 'there aren't even that many large projects in the pipeline' I don't really know what to say... Here are a few likely to come out in the £250-£500m bracket:
> 
> M1/M62 Lofthouse interchange
> A1(M) Doncaster bypass
> M1 Junctions 35A-39
> M60 Simister Island interchange
> M1 Junctions 19-23A
> Birmingham box Phase 4
> A45 Thrapston to Stanwick
> A46 Newark Northern Bypass
> A12 Colchester Bypass
> A12 M25 to Chelmsford
> A3 Guildford
> A417 Air Balloon
> A1 Redhouse to Darrington
> 
> And then you have the really big ones (numbers from material published ~3 years ago):
> 
> A66 dualling - £825m
> A1 East of England - £1.7bn
> Oxford-Cambridge expressway - £3bn-£3.5bn
> M25 SW Quadrant - ? [likely to be billions]
> Manchester NW quadrant - £4.1-£5.4bn
> Lower Thames Crossing - £4.1-£6.4bn
> Trans-Pennine tunnel - £6.5-£10.1bn
> 
> Combine this with the many RIS1 schemes that are still under construction or haven't started yet due to cost overruns and it's obvious that there's far more schemes than they can possibly afford for RIS2. In programming terms dropping big ticket items like the Oxbridge Expressway is quite welcome as there are so many other schemes that need the money.


Fascinating reading, but I would firmly place it in the fiction section of the library.

If we see diggers on fraction of those projects within a decade it will be tremendous success.

I think parties will struggle to justify big road spending when need for decarbonization of economy is looming and when larger and larger proportion of population seems to want it.

Now, some politicians will do it out of conviction others will use it as excuse not to spend money but I don't believe anyone will deliver big and consistent road budget. Add ludicrous costs in this country and the best we can count on will be some smaller improvements spread over time.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

geogregor said:


> Ryme Intrinseca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 2010-2015 did indeed continue New Labour style low road spending.
> 
> In 2015 the Road Investment Strategy was established, with RIS1 covering 2015-20. Each year has significantly higher spending than the last (£3bn in 2015/16 vs £4.3bn in 2019/20 - see here, p. 62: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/818656/Delivery_Plan_2019-20.pdf). So whether you believe it or not, there has already been a 'surge' in road spending.
> 
> 2020-25 is RIS2, with twice the budget of RIS1 (£28.8bn), of which ~£20bn is for non-maintenance capital projects. Of course, anything can happen in politics, but that's the current policy, as recently confirmed by the PM and chancellor, and it's in line with the consistent strategy of the last five years and the principle of Vehicle Excise Duty hypothecation announced back then.
> 
> As for 'there aren't even that many large projects in the pipeline' I don't really know what to say... Here are a few likely to come out in the £250-£500m bracket:
> 
> M1/M62 Lofthouse interchange
> A1(M) Doncaster bypass
> M1 Junctions 35A-39
> M60 Simister Island interchange
> M1 Junctions 19-23A
> Birmingham box Phase 4
> A45 Thrapston to Stanwick
> A46 Newark Northern Bypass
> A12 Colchester Bypass
> A12 M25 to Chelmsford
> A3 Guildford
> A417 Air Balloon
> A1 Redhouse to Darrington
> 
> And then you have the really big ones (numbers from material published ~3 years ago):
> 
> A66 dualling - £825m
> A1 East of England - £1.7bn
> Oxford-Cambridge expressway - £3bn-£3.5bn
> M25 SW Quadrant - ? [likely to be billions]
> Manchester NW quadrant - £4.1-£5.4bn
> Lower Thames Crossing - £4.1-£6.4bn
> Trans-Pennine tunnel - £6.5-£10.1bn
> 
> Combine this with the many RIS1 schemes that are still under construction or haven't started yet due to cost overruns and it's obvious that there's far more schemes than they can possibly afford for RIS2. In programming terms dropping big ticket items like the Oxbridge Expressway is quite welcome as there are so many other schemes that need the money.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating reading, but I would firmly place it in the fiction section of the library.
> 
> If we see diggers on fraction of those projects within a decade it will be tremendous success.
> 
> I think parties will struggle to justify big road spending when need for decarbonization of economy is looming and when larger and larger proportion of population seems to want it.
> 
> Now, some politicians will do it out of conviction others will use it as excuse not to spend money but I don't believe anyone will deliver big and consistent road budget. Add ludicrous costs in this country and the best we can count on will be some smaller improvements spread over time.
Click to expand...

Believe what you will but I'm only reporting documented historical fact and current policy.


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Believe what you will but I'm only reporting documented historical fact and current policy.


What I cannot understand is how the work itself costs so much money in England, diggers cost the same as does diesel asphalt and cement. 

Yet the Spanish just contracted 20.2km of full motorway (not a dualler with no hard shoulder, a MOTORWAY) in similar terrain to southern England. 

The construction cost is €3.9m a km for full motorway, or *£3.3m a km*. Around £5.3m a mile.


----------



## sponge_bob

There is an old saying that when one finds oneself in a hole THEN one should STOP DIGGING. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-50159162



> *Smart motorways 'too confusing', says highways boss*


Which means, smart motorways are not really smart...the highways boss has learnt. 



> Smart motorways which use a hard shoulder at busy times are "too complicated for people to use", the boss of Highways England has said.
> 
> *Chief executive Jim O'Sullivan said motorists did not understand them and there were no plans to build any more.*
> 
> He told the Commons Transport Select Committee drivers were confused about when they could use the hard shoulder and when it is closed


Unsurprisingly, seeing as these are still hard shoulders and cars do break down sometimes. I can understand how urban roads can be made tidal flow, like the Birmingham centre to Spagetti junction link. 

What I will never understand is how the British ever thought these would be a good idea on long distance interurbans like the M1, M6 and M62. 



> "When we close it at other times of the day, people still drive down it."
> 
> "We get people who stop there when it's a running lane," he told the committee.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nded-motorists-day-live-lanes-break-down.html



> Twenty motorists a day are stranded in 'live' lanes after breaking down on smart motorways, *62,517 cars have broken down on smart motorways in the past three years alone* .


Let me say that 62,517 cars would have broken down anyway, it is just that they could find a hard shoulder to move on to 10 years ago.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

They seem to rule out periodic shoulder usage, but not all-lane running? (i.e. 4 lanes 24/7 and no shoulders)


----------



## sponge_bob

ChrisZwolle said:


> They seem to rule out periodic shoulder usage, but not all-lane running? (i.e. 4 lanes 24/7 and no shoulders)


Both exist, Peak time HS running and Permanent HS running.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

ChrisZwolle said:


> They seem to rule out periodic shoulder usage, but not all-lane running? (i.e. 4 lanes 24/7 and no shoulders)


Correct. In fact it's mostly a restatement of existing policy. All recent/under construction/in planning schemes are ALR rather than dynamic hard shoulder.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> What I cannot understand is how the work itself costs so much money in England, diggers cost the same as does diesel asphalt and cement.
> 
> Yet the Spanish just contracted 20.2km of full motorway (not a dualler with no hard shoulder, a MOTORWAY) in similar terrain to southern England.
> 
> The construction cost is €3.9m a km for full motorway, or *£3.3m a km*. Around £5.3m a mile.


For reference, the cost of _designing and planning_ the Sparkford-Ilchester dualling of the A303 will cost about that. 

No one seems to care, it's quite unbelievable. *Norway* builds motorways cheaper than the UK



sponge_bob said:


> What I will never understand is how the British ever thought these would be a good idea on long distance interurbans like the M1, M6 and M62.


No, you've got this all wrong. Every other country in the world is wrong in building motorways with hard shoulders, no shoulders is the future!

Although as they cost €500m per sqm in the UK it's not surprising HE don't want to build any more


----------



## geogregor

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Believe what you will but I'm only reporting documented historical fact and current policy.


Well if the current policy would be to land Briton on moon, in a rocket called Britannia, in a decade, would you believe it? 



Stuu said:


> For reference, the cost of _designing and planning_ the Sparkford-Ilchester dualling of the A303 will cost about that.
> 
> No one seems to care, it's quite unbelievable. *Norway* builds motorways cheaper than the UK
> 
> No, you've got this all wrong. Every other country in the world is wrong in building motorways with hard shoulders, no shoulders is the future!
> 
> Although as they cost €500m per sqm in the UK it's not surprising HE don't want to build any more


There is something seriously wrong with costs of building infrastructure in this country. The costs are just getting absurd. If it continues it will be increasingly unlikely that any party will actually build anything substantial, especially with other areas of government screaming for cash.


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> Well if the current policy would be to land Briton on moon, in a rocket called Britannia, in a decade, would you believe it?


If we get to choose who gets sent to the moon, I'm all for it... assuming it's a one way trip




geogregor said:


> There is something seriously wrong with costs of building infrastructure in this country. The costs are just getting absurd. If it continues it will be increasingly unlikely that any party will actually build anything substantial, especially with other areas of government screaming for cash.


Yes, it's crazy. One thing I have thought of is the cost of hiring all the tools and machinery, rather than the company owning it's own kit (which is a tax dodge). A couple of years ago there was a small scheme to build a roundabout near my house, the traffic light hire company had TWO men sat in a van to keep an eye on the traffic lights all day, every day for 6 months. Multiply that sort of nonsense over a bigger project and the costs will mount up very quickly


----------



## Penn's Woods

geogregor said:


> Well if the current policy would be to land Briton on moon, in a rocket called Britannia, in a decade, would you believe it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something seriously wrong with costs of building infrastructure in this country. The costs are just getting absurd. If it continues it will be increasingly unlikely that any party will actually build anything substantial, especially with other areas of government screaming for cash.




Have Polish-Britons work on the rocket. Then Poland can into space.


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> Multiply that sort of nonsense over a bigger project and the costs will mount up very quickly


I would not mind but the M40 Oxford to Birmingham scheme was contracted around 30 years ago in tranches, a* 3+3 full motorway*. The last truly big job in all of England since the 1970s. 

It came in just under £3m a km under or £5m a mile at the TOP of a building boom in the late 1980s when wages were around the same for operatives as they are today. 

*It would cost 10 times as much today.  
*

http://www.ukmotorwayarchive.org.uk...terstock-j8a-to-umberslade-m42--j3a/index.cfm

*Contract Contractor Length Tender Value Starting Date
*

Warwick North (....J16) Balfour Beatty 10.7km £26.6m Nov 1987

Warwick South (J13....) R M Douglas 7.9km £22.4m Jul 1987

Gaydon (J12 to J13) R M Douglas 11.4km £34.0m Jan 1989

Banbury IV (J11 to J12) Balfour Beatty 15.8km £51.7m Aug 1988

Banbury III (J11 TO J12) Tarmac (Carrilion) 12.2km £52.5m Feb 1988

Banbury II (J10 to J11) Mowlem 7.3km £18.0m Apr 1988

Banbury I (J9 to J10) Tarmac 8.5km £24.2m Dec 1988

Waterstock - Wendlebury (J8A to J9) McAlpine JV 20.1 km £63.9m Jul 1989

[Length descriptions by junction are approximate only]

*Total: 93.8km £293.3m*

The current situation is a downright fraud on the taxpayer and on the motorist in my opinion. Only land and diesel prices are higher now than 30 years ago.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> The current situation is a downright fraud on the taxpayer and on the motorist in my opinion. Only land and diesel prices are higher now than 30 years ago.


But it's not only that.... This is a list of the planning documents submitted for the A303 dualling between Sparkford and Ilchester, which I mentioned above is costing around £5m per km for design and planning. This list of documents includes, for example, a 47 page document about otters. Now, I have nothing against otters, but a glance at a local map would show that the section goes nowhere near any stream or river big enough for otters. How much does this b*llocks cost? And when you repeat that for 50 different reports? I bet the M40 extension didn't need all this!


----------



## geogregor

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-50694779



> *The M25 was closed for about 12 hours after a crane collapsed on the motorway.*
> 
> The crane toppled at Junction 27 for the M11 in Epping, Essex, at about 16:45 GMT on Friday.
> 
> It caused huge tailbacks in both directions, with more than 10 miles of near-stationary traffic.
> 
> The crane was later removed and the road resurfaced. The clockwise carriageway re-opened at 04:00 GMT, and anti-clockwise at 07:00 GMT.
> 
> One lane remained closed in both directions to repair the central reservation, but there were no delays.
> 
> Earlier, Essex Police said no-one has been seriously injured.
> 
> Essex Fire and Rescue Service said six engines were sent to the scene, where traffic stretched back to Junction 29 (A127) on the anti-clockwise carriageway.
> 
> Concrete had been scattered across the motorway by the crane, making it impossible for cars to pass.
> 
> Work continued through the night to clear away debris and resurface the road as Highways England warned motorists to avoid the area.
> 
> A spokesperson for the organisation said the road was damaged due to a diesel spillage, but specialist contractors had been brought in to get the motorway re-opened.


----------



## Jeni_Em

Not a motorway anymore, but the A14 Huntingdon Southern bypass (originally supposed to be the A14(M)) opened today.


----------



## sponge_bob

Jeni_Em said:


> Not a motorway anymore, but the A14 Huntingdon Southern bypass (originally supposed to be the A14(M)) opened today.


Is it not eventually to become A14(M) after some more work at its western end???


----------



## Jeni_Em

sponge_bob said:


> Is it not eventually to become A14(M) after some more work at its western end???


Nope, that was the original plan but they've backtracked at the last minute


----------



## Ronnie87

A14 Huntingdon bypass is now officially open for traffic. The old route has been de-trunked and renamed to A1307.

https://www.huntspost.co.uk/lifestyle/holidays/new-a14-huntingdon-bypass-officially-opens-to-traffic-1-6415115



Jeni_Em said:


> Nope, that was the original plan but they've backtracked at the last minute


It might still become A14(M) if the national expressway scheme gets a green light. It all depends on the new government, really.

This being said, there is no material difference to how the road would have been if it had indeed been opened as a motorway (only the name and the colour of the signs would be different). It is still the same 2x3 lane expressway as initially planned -- regardless of what we call it.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Ronnie87 said:


> A14 Huntingdon bypass is now officially open for traffic. The old route has been de-trunked and renamed to A1307.
> 
> https://www.huntspost.co.uk/lifesty...-bypass-officially-opens-to-traffic-1-6415115
> 
> 
> 
> It might still become A14(M) if the national expressway scheme gets a green light. It all depends on the new government, really.
> 
> This being said, there is no material difference to how the road would have been if it had indeed been opened as a motorway (only the name and the colour of the signs would be different). It is still the same 2x3 lane expressway as initially planned -- regardless of what we call it.




What’s this national expressway scheme?


----------



## Stuu

Penn's Woods said:


> What’s this national expressway scheme?


Highways England had a plan to improve strategic roads that aren't motorways to be more consistent (grade separation throughout, electronic signage and monitoring etc.) and give them a new classification of expressway. The A14 section just opened was proposed to be the first scheme, but it's all gone a bit quiet so it's not clear if they are still planning on doing it


----------



## sponge_bob

Penn's Woods said:


> What’s this national expressway scheme?


'Not' Motorways but dual carriageways with some motorway restrictions. Is there not 'a plan' to add some fractional hard shoulders or pulling in bays at regular intervals as well, and roundabout removals in some cases, ....pre designation. ???

The UK has an extensive network of what I would call MQDC, 2+2 roads with no hard shoulders and a vast array of build standards ranging from crap to rather good (sometimes even on the one road) . The more modern ones are a good standard MQDC and the older ones are whatever you get. There are _even former motorways_ thrown in there in parts but it is a right mixed bag of road standards to say the least. 

With the addition of regular pulling in bays, and motorway restrictions, they could be considered near motorways in engineering terms. Oddly enough they already have the same speed limit as 'proper' motorways, 70mph or 110kph, without any user restrictions in place. 

It would also be a belated attempt to add meaning to an existing designation like A1(M) which is otherwise almost impossible to explain.


----------



## Ronnie87

sponge_bob said:


> 'Is there not 'a plan' to add some fractional hard shoulders or pulling in bays at regular intervals as well, and roundabout removals in some cases, ....pre designation. ???


Indeed, all these were supposed to be part of the English expressway standard:










See this (now probably obsolete) government report for further info.

I still believe the expressway scheme would make a lot of sense. We already have plenty of grade separated dual carriageways that could benefit from a unified standard and a new designation. Trunk road or A-road is simply too generic a designation and it does not reflect any particular standard -- it can be a 2-lane single carriageway just as well as a 2x3 lane major DC that is a motorway in every aspect but legal designation (such as the new A14).

I think implementing something similar to the Polish motorway + expressway system would add lot of value to our road network.



sponge_bob said:


> Oddly enough they already have the same speed limit as 'proper' motorways, 70mph or 110kph, without any user restrictions in place.


Yes, I've always found this crazy. It is perfectly legal to cycle on the A12 or A14 -- even if it is as close to an act of suicidal madness as it can ever get


----------



## Penn's Woods

Ronnie87 said:


> Indeed, all these were supposed to be part of the English expressway standard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this (now probably obsolete) government report for further info.
> 
> I still believe the expressway scheme would make a lot of sense. We already have plenty of grade separated dual carriageways that could benefit from a unified standard and a new designation. Trunk road or A-road is simply too generic a designation and it does not reflect any particular standard -- it can be a 2-lane single carriageway just as well as a 2x3 lane major DC that is a motorway in every aspect but legal designation (such as the new A14).
> 
> I think implementing something similar to the Polish motorway + expressway system would add lot of value to our road network.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've always found this crazy. It is perfectly legal to cycle on the A12 or A14 -- even if it is as close to an act of suicidal madness as it can ever get




Call them the E12 or A14(E). Since “E”’s about to be available. (Joking)


----------



## sponge_bob

Penn's Woods said:


> Call them the E12 or A14(E). Since “E”’s about to be available. (Joking)


The 'E idea' is not daft at all. Currently England stratifies its M + some A Roads into a Primary Set called the "Strategic Road Network" or Trunk network and then there are all other A roads which can be great or shite (depending) but are not considered Trunk. Here be a map. 

https://assets.publishing.service.g...a/file/841227/Network_management_22-10-19.pdf

If higher standard roads on the "Strategic Road Network" (only) were designated as E (or whatever, anything but A or M really) then you are pushing traffic onto the roads best suited to traffic other than motorways. 

'E' would also tell cyclists and tractor drivers that they are not wanted whereas an A road is normally available to all road users and that would continue. 

This here stretch of road was built as, and once designated as, a motorway . 

It is not on the strategic road network and should never be designated as an E road by that logic... despite being better than most duallers in England. 



Ronnie87 said:


> I think implementing something similar to the Polish motorway + expressway system would add lot of value to our road network.


That would be impossible in England. Poland has (relatively speaking) no nimbies at all to make a nuisance of themselves and that is mainly how they built such a large network in 20 years, in effect. Had they nimbies like England does they would be nowhere with their network and it is set to be larger than the entire English strategic road network by 2030 ....as well as_ all being built to motorway standards_ with hard shoulders everywhere. 

The English SRN is around 4500 miles (7200km) but that 4500 miles is nowhere near 100% dualled and nor will it be by 2030, if indeed ever.  Poland already has 4000km built to motorway standards and a 1000km+ under construction right now and with a target of 8000km in the 2030s some time.


----------



## Ronnie87

sponge_bob said:


> The English SRN is around 4500 miles (7200km) but that 4500 miles is nowhere near 100% dualled and nor will it be by 2030, if indeed ever.  Poland already has 4000km built to motorway standards and a 1000km+ under construction right now and with a target of 8000km in the 2030s some time.


Poland is about 4 times the size of England though, so I'm not sure such comparisons make much sense. They also receive a ton of EU money to upgrade their road network -- meaning essentially that some Polish roads are being built from my tax money paid here in the UK (and previously in the Netherlands) :bash: I'm sorry to say it, but if they had to finance all of their motorways from their own pockets, they would be nowhere near as far as they are.


----------



## sponge_bob

The issue is still that England has 4500 miles of SRN. Roughly 1900m of M and 1700m of dualler in that and the remainder of the SRN is single. 

Of the ~1700m of Dualler some can be converted to expressway easily and some is a much lower standard and cannot be made into an expressway with a stroke of a pen as it were. 

Of course, some of the single like the A303 and A66 is due for upgrade in the next decade but I would still think that 1000 miles of the SRN will be low grade dual, or single, by 2030. Some strategic roads are simply awful.  But I would like to see some clarity in road naming to indicate where these good quality strategic A roads are, E numbers would be one way or T numbers for historic reasons.


----------



## Nikolaj

Penn's Woods said:


> Call them the E12 or A14(E). Since “E”’s about to be available. (Joking)


"E"'s are just as available now as after 31 January (if that is the current Brexit-date).

The E-road network has nothing what-so-ever to do with the EU, but is defined and governed by the UNECE, which is the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (located in Geneva), which the UK to my knowledge will remain a part of.


----------



## Ronnie87

sponge_bob said:


> The issue is still that England has 4500 miles of SRN. Roughly 1900m of M and 1700m of dualler in that and the remainder of the SRN is single.
> 
> Of the ~1700m of Dualler some can be converted to expressway easily and some is a much lower standard and cannot be made into an expressway with a stroke of a pen as it were.
> 
> Of course, some of the single like the A303 and A66 is due for upgrade in the next decade but I would still think that 1000 miles of the SRN will be low grade dual, or single, by 2030. Some strategic roads are simply awful.  But I would like to see some clarity in road naming to indicate where these good quality strategic A roads are, E numbers would be one way or T numbers for historic reasons.


I'm not arguing with you -- the English SRN needs major investment and it cannot come too soon. All I was trying to point out is that it is not really fair to compare ourselves with countries such as Poland or Hungary, as they have built most of their shiny new expressways with EU money. It's like comparing yourself with a kid whose parents bought him a fancy BMW, while you had to work your arse off for a second-hand Dacia :lol:


----------



## sponge_bob

Ronnie87 said:


> It's like comparing yourself with a kid whose parents bought him a fancy BMW, while you had to work your arse off for a second-hand Dacia :lol:


That would be comparing your old home in Holland versus England today then.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Nikolaj said:


> "E"'s are just as available now as after 31 January (if that is the current Brexit-date).
> 
> 
> 
> The E-road network has nothing what-so-ever to do with the EU, but is defined and governed by the UNECE, which is the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (located in Geneva), which the UK to my knowledge will remain a part of.




And if I’m not mistaken the U.K. doesn’t post them anyway.


----------



## Ronnie87

sponge_bob said:


> That would be comparing your old home in Holland versus England today then.


The Dutch don't rely on EU money to extend their road network, so not really. Their exceptional road network is entirely their own merit 

But then Holland is a far smaller and richer country than the UK (in per capita terms) -- so, again, probably not worth comparing.


----------



## sponge_bob

Ronnie87 said:


> The Dutch don't rely on EU money to extend their road network, so not really. Their exceptional road network is entirely their own merit


Plus what _they_ paid over for that there Polish network, don't forget Englands road network is largely self inflicted. 

@Penns, the UK do not sign E Roads (the UNECE) ones but a lot of countries don't bother with them whereas others sign them instead of their own classifications, Norway and Sweden for example, and still others do both. 
The UNECE E Roads are largely irrelevant everywhere nowadays as we have satnavs and stuff.


----------



## geogregor

A6 to Derry upgrade:

https://twitter.com/deptinfra/status/1228372308877828097


----------



## hungrykitten

A quick update on some projects:

1) A30 carland cross to chiverton is to start soon, having been granted development consent this month. The project involves building a new 9 mile dual carriageway, and grade separating 2 roundabouts.

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/a30-carland-cross-to-chiverton/

2) Widening of part of the A1 newcastle western bypass to 3 lanes will commence at the beginning of March.

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/a1-scotswood-to-north-brunton/


----------



## geogregor

This is going to be interesting...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51665682



> *Plans for a £28.8bn roads programme could be challenged in the courts for breaching the UK's laws on climate change.*
> 
> The plans, due to be published next month, don't take into account commitments on reducing emissions, the BBC has learned.
> 
> They are likely to face legal challenges from environmentalists.
> 
> On Thursday a court ruled that plans to expand Heathrow had failed to take climate policies into account.
> 
> What are the plans?
> 
> The prime minister has promised many new roads, with infrastructure spending focused on northern England.
> 
> But it is officials who make decisions over which roads are value for money and should go-ahead.
> 
> They are supposed to weigh the benefits of a proposed road - for example how much time drivers will save if it is built - against the drawbacks, including the potential for increased carbon emissions.
> 
> What is the problem?
> 
> The current value-for-money assessment was done under guidelines last updated in April 2019, when the UK was planning to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.
> 
> But two months later the target was raised, committing the UK to cutting almost 100% of emissions by the same date.
> 
> BBC News has learned that the guidelines haven't yet been updated to take the tougher targets into account.
> 
> The absence of up-to-date guidelines means some climate-damaging road schemes may get approved, when under the new climate laws they should be rejected.


As if planning in the UK wasn't cumbersome enough...:nuts:


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> This is going to be interesting...
> 
> As if planning in the UK wasn't cumbersome enough...:nuts:


Simple enough to deal with logically, calculate all the current excess emissions from congestion at present vs the reduction in same emissions if cars travel at more optimal speeds. 

Except that this is the UK.


----------



## hungrykitten

The list below is a list of all the schemes in the delivery plan of Highways England for 2019-2020, where they set out how where they were in terms of implementing Road Investment strategy 1, which runs from 2015 to April 2020. The schemes in green are complete, the ones in yellow are under construction, the ones in red have yet to start, and the ones in purple-black have been cancelled. If an entry has RP2 next to it, that means it is supposed to be constructed during Road periods 2, which runs from 2020-2025


1 A556 Knutsford to Bowdon North West Complete 
2 A1 Coal House to Metro Centre North East and Yorkshire Complete 
3 A1 Leeming to Barton North East and Yorkshire Complete 
4 M1 junctions 28-31 Midlands Complete 
5 A453 widening Midlands Complete 
6 A14 Kettering bypass widening Midlands Complete 
7 M1 junction 19 improvement Midlands Complete
8 A45-A46 Tollbar End Midlands Complete 
9 A5/M1 junction 11a link East Complete 
10 M25 junction 30 South East and London Complete 
11 M6 junctions 10a-13 Midlands Complete 
12 A30 Temple to Carblake South West Complete 
13 M1 junctions 32-35a North East and Yorkshire Complete 
14 M1 junctions 39-42 North East and Yorkshire Complete 
15 M60 junction 8 to M62 junction 20: smart motorway North West Complete 
16 M3 junctions 2-4a South East and London Complete 
17 A160/A180 Immingham North East and Yorkshire 2015-16 Q1 Complete 
18 A21 Tonbridge to Pembury South East and London 2015-16 Q1 Complete 
19 M1 junctions 13-19 Midlands 2015-16 Q3 Started 
20 M5 junctions 4a-6 Midlands 2015-16 Q3 Complete 
21 M6 junctions 16-19 North West 2015-16 Q3 Complete 
22 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon East 2016-17 Q3 Started 
23 M20 junction 10a South East and London 2017-18 Q4 complete 
24 A19/A1058 Coast Road North East and Yorkshire 2016-17 Q2 Complete
25 M4 junctions 3-12 South East and London 2016-17 Q4 Started 
26 A63 Castle Street North East and Yorkshire 2019-20 Q4 
27 M1 junctions 24-25 Midlands 2016-17 Q4 Complete 
28 M6 junctions 2-4 Midlands 2017-18 Q4 Started 
29 M6 junctions 13-15 Midlands 2017-18 Q4 Started 
30 M20 junctions 3-5 South East and London 2017-18 Q4 Started 
31 M23 junctions 8-10 South East and London 2017-18 Q4 Started 
32 M27 junctions 4-11 South East and London 2018-19 Q3 Started 
33 M6 junctions 21a-26 North West RP2 
34 M60 junctions 24-27 and junctions 1-4 North West RP2 
35 A19 Testos North East and Yorkshire 2018-19 Q4 Started 
36 M54 to M6 junction 11 Midlands RP2 
37 A27 Chichester bypass14 South East and London 
38 A38 Derby junctions Midlands RP2 
39 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet South East and London 2019-20 Q4 
40 M62 junctions 10-12 North West 2017-18 Q4 Started 
41 M56 junctions 6-8 North West 2019-20 Q4 
42 M3 junctions 9-14 South East and London 2019-20 Q4 
43 A19 Downhill Lane junction improvement North East and Yorkshire RP2 
44 A19 Norton to Wynyard North East and Yorkshire 2019-20 Q4 
45 A1 and A19 technology enhancements15 North East and Yorkshire 
46 M1 junction 45 improvement North East and Yorkshire 2019-20 Complete 
47 M621 junctions 1-7 improvements North East and Yorkshire 2019-20 Q3 
48 M62/M606 Chain Bar North East and Yorkshire
49 M62 junctions 20-25 North East and Yorkshire 2019-20 Q3 
50 A585 Windy Harbour – Skippool North West 2019-20 Q4 
51 A5036 Princess Way – access to Port of Liverpool2 North West RP2 
52 M6 Junction 22 upgrade 
53 M53 junctions 5-11 North West 
54 M56 new junction 11a North West 2019-20 
55 M6 junction 19 improvements North West 2019-20 Q4 
56 A500 Etruria widening Midlands 2018-19 Q4 
57 M1 junctions 23a-24 Midlands 2019-20 Complete 
58 M6 junction 10 improvement Midlands 2019-20 Q4 
59 A5 Dodwells to Longshoot widening Midlands RP2 
60 M42 junction 6 Midlands 2019-20 Q4 
61 A46 Coventry junction upgrades Midlands 2019-20 Q4 
62 M40/M42 interchange smart motorways Midlands 2019-20 Q4 
63 A45/A6 Chowns Mill junction improvement Midlands 2019-20 Q4 
64 M5 junctions 5,6 and 7 junction upgrades Midlands 2019-20 Complete 
65 A43 Abthorpe junction Midlands 2019-20 Complete 
66 A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet East RP2 
67 M11 junctions 8-14 – technology upgrade15 East 
68 A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening East RP2 
69 A12 whole-route technology upgrade East 
70 A1(M) junctions 6-8 smart motorway East 2019-20 Q4 
71 M11 junction 7a – junction upgrade East 2019-20 Q4 
72 A34 Oxford junctions South East and London 2019-20 Q2 
73 A34 technology junction enhancements5 South East and London 2019-20 Q2 
74 M25 junction 25 improvement South East and London RP2 
75 M25 junction 28 improvement South East and London RP2 
76 M4 Heathrow slip road South East and London 2017-18 Q2 Complete 
77 M2 junction 5 improvements South East and London 2019-20 Q4 
78 M25 junctions 10-16 South East and London RP2 
79 M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange South East and London RP2 
80 M3 junction 9 improvement South East and London RP2 
81 M3 junction 10-11 improved sliproads South East and London 2019-20 Q4 
82 M3 junctions 12-14 improved sliproads South East and London 2019-20 Q4 
83 M27 Southampton junctions South East and London RP2 
84 M271/A35 Redbridge roundabout upgrade South East and London 2019-20 Q1 
85 A31 Ringwood South East and London RP2 
86 M49 Avonmouth junction South West 2019-20 Started 
87 M5 Bridgwater junctions10 South West RP2 
88 A52 Nottingham junctions Midlands 2019-20 Started 
89 A14 junction 10a Midlands 
90 A5 Towcester relief road Midlands 2019-20 
91 A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross South West 2019-20 Q4 
92 A1 North of Ellingham North East and Yorkshire 2019-20 Started 
93 A1 Morpeth to Ellingham dualling North East and Yorkshire RP2 
94 A1 Scotswood to North Brunton North East and Yorkshire 2019-20 Q4 
95 A1 Birtley to Coal House widening North East and Yorkshire RP2 
96 A628 climbing lanes North East and Yorkshire 
97 A61 Westwood Roundabout North East and Yorkshire 2019-20 Q4 
98 Mottram Moor link road North West RP2 
99 A57(T) to A57 link roadNorth West RP2 
100 A47 North Tuddenham to Easton East RP2 
101 A47 Blofield to North Burlingham dualling East RP2 
102 A47 Acle Straight East 2019-20 Complete 
103 A47 and A12 junction enhancements13 East 2018-19 (Original date) 
104 A47/A11 Thickthorn junction East RP2 
105 A47 Guyhirn junction East RP2 
106 A47 Wansford to Sutton East RP2 
107 A27 Arundel bypass South East and London RP2 
108 A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements South East and London 2019-20 
109 A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down South West RP2 
110 A303 Sparkford – Ilchester dualling South West 2019-20 Q4 
111 A358 Taunton to Southfields2 South West RP2 
112 A50 Uttoxeter (Project A) Midlands 2015-16 Q3 Complete


----------



## sponge_bob

The budget speech today mentioned £27bn for RIS2 projects between 2020 and 2025 or £5.4bn a year average for English strategic road improvements.... but from what hungrykitten posted above there is a whole lot of RIS1 (2015-2020) to finish first (RIS1 was all supposed to be either at construction or complete by April 2020). 

If the residual RIS1 schemes not prefunded separately, as I suspect, then the £27bn for RIS2 will be considerably reduced to pay for the tail of RIS1 in the end. 

In RIS 2 there are 2 schemes that will gobble up the guts of £10bn between them, the Stonehenge tunnel and the East of London Thames Tunnel. This could well mean that apart from those 2 schemes there is only £17bn for every other schemes marked in red on the list above whether they are part of RIS1 or RIS2. Least that is my reading of the above list and the chancellors speech. 

The Chancellor also mentioned filling 50 MILLION Potholes as well.


----------



## sponge_bob

aaaaaaand here is RIS2 itself, in full. (10mb pdf)

https://assets.publishing.service.g...1978/road-investment-strategy-2-2020-2025.pdf



> In total, RIS2 commits the Government to
> spend £27.4 billion during RP2. *Some of this
> will be used to build new road capacity, but
> much more will be used to improve the quality
> and reduce the negative impacts of the
> existing SRN*, so that every part of the country
> will benefit


OK. so the £27.4bn figure is for the SRN, the 2400 miles of key trunk roads in England, but is this the total Highways England budget we are looking at and not the money earmarked for the enormous backlog of necessary improvements. 

First of all, there is £400m for replacing concrete pavement. 

This leaves £27bn....but wait......wait! There are operations, maintenance, resurfacing etc leaving.......



> *RIS2 will Start or complete £14.7bn of upgrades*,
> including the Lower Thames Crossing
> 
> Begin planning 32 more projects – half of which
> by value are in the North and Midlands.


so the real number is *£14.7bn then. And that includes "or complete" RIS1 projects under construction and yet to start, £2.9bn a a year that is. *

Around £12.5bn, or £2.5bn a year is for OandM.

Over the course of RIS1 Highways England had £3.4bn in 2017 and £3.8bn in 2018 and *between 2015 and 2019 they only spend £6.3bn total on new build projects*, £1.6bn a year averaged. 

That would have left ~£2.0bn a year for OandM in the 2015-2019 period which broadly compares to the proposed £2.5bn a year in the next 5 years (including £100m a year for rebuilding concrete pavement on 1960s roads) . That is not a huge uplift for O and M per annum. *Source for 2015-2019 data here.* 














*The headline number for new roads , therefore, is that the money available has increased from ~£1.6bn a year to £2.9bn a year or by 50%. 
*
But there are 2 mega schemes (cashflow wise) in there, the A303 and Lower Thames Crossing, which will swallow up £9-10bn between them and *leaving £1bn a year, total, for every other new scheme on the SRN in England starting from now to 2025*. 

*£1bn a year split across the other 30m people in England ain't very much at all, is it?*??? But they will get £500m a year (separate to HE funds) for pothole filling.


----------



## hungrykitten

Do bear in mind that many projects in the great big list I posted above will be funded out of RIS1. In addition, much of the Spending for the Stonehenge tunnel and the Lower Thames crossing will come from RIS3- and they will not wholly be constructed within the RIS2 period.

Overall however, the amount of money provided is fantastic- enough to get some major upgrades underway. It is around 12 billion pounds more than RIS1- and is frankly very ambitious in its scope.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> *The headline number for new roads , therefore, is that the money available has increased from ~£1.6bn a year to £2.9bn a year or by 50%.
> *
> But there are 2 mega schemes (cashflow wise) in there, the A303 and Lower Thames Crossing, which will swallow up £9-10bn between them and *leaving £1bn a year, total, for every other new scheme on the SRN in England starting from now to 2025*.
> 
> *£1bn a year split across the other 30m people in England ain't very much at all, is it?*??? But they will get £500m a year (separate to HE funds) for pothole filling.


Good analysis, but I don't see that it can be right that all the other schemes listed will be possible for £5bn, I expect the A66 to cost £1bn+. It may be the case that the Thames tunnel is not being entirely funded from the HE budget and is being centrally funded instead - that was certainly being suggested previously, with the cost being borrowed and repaid from the tolls


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> Do bear in mind that many projects in the great big list I posted above will be funded out of RIS1.


_This could be true had the government accrued unspent RIS1 funds as of April 2020_. EG were there €1bn sitting in an account from RIS1 for A303 Stonehenge and £250m for the A30 scheme in Cornwall.

I believe no such accrual took place and that *completing RIS1* will:

1. Take much of the time allocated for RIS2
2. Take much of the money allocated during the RIS2 timeframe.
3. Meaning that the RIS3 window will be devoted to completing RIS2 projects in the same way.  

In other words I believe the chancellor announced a spending envelope of £27.4 bn over the next 5 years but not that this envelope was ringfenced for RIS2 and for OandM on the HE network given the large carry over of unstarted RIS1 projects. 

I think we all accept that the £27.4bn is not for new builds in the next 5 years and are merely disputing whether 'RIS1 funds' somehow exist in some parallel universe, unspent.

Referring back to the HE graphic I inserted in my previous post, the claimed 'expenditure' on 'build' projects on the HE network of £6.3bn over 4 years amounted to *less than 0.1% of annual UK GDP* over that reference time period. I am perfectly well aware that England is not the UK....but it is most of it.  I say 'expenditure' because some of it was likely maintenance not new build. 

I doubt the Tories spent £1.6bn a year on new build myself and actual expenditure could have been as low as 0.05% of GDP at that time.  

1% of UK annual GDP between 2015 and 2019 would have been £20bn a year or so and the proposed expenditure of £14.7bn over 5 years on new build on the HE SRN, while an improvement, is still less than 0.2% of GDP a year.


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> Good analysis, but I don't see that it can be right that all the other schemes listed will be possible for £5bn, I expect the A66 to cost £1bn+.


if you look at the RIS2 doc I linked the A66 was the only biggie that had the magic word "complete" mentioned alongside. It was notably missing from other schemes. I agree the A66 alone will come in for £1bn or so. 



> It may be the case that the Thames tunnel is not being entirely funded from the HE budget and is being centrally funded instead - that was certainly being suggested previously, with the cost being borrowed and repaid from the tolls


This could be the case were it a PPP which could be handled from a central fund. It would show up in DoT current expenditure rather than from HE current expenditure then. 

As the Thames crossing is mooted at £7bn now then taking that all that out of the £14.7bn RIS2 new build capital envelope would free up half the funds for spending elsewhere ........and a giant sigh of relief would resound across the land I am sure.


----------



## hungrykitten

sponge_bob said:


> _This could be true had the government accrued unspent RIS1 funds as of April 2020_. EG were there €1bn sitting in an account from RIS1 for A303 Stonehenge and £250m for the A30 scheme in Cornwall.
> 
> I believe no such accrual took place and that *completing RIS1* will:
> 
> 1. Take much of the time allocated for RIS2
> 2. Take much of the money allocated during the RIS2 timeframe.
> 3. Meaning that the RIS3 window will be devoted to completing RIS2 projects in the same way.
> 
> In other words I believe the chancellor announced a spending envelope of £27.4 bn over the next 5 years but not that this envelope was ringfenced for RIS2 and for OandM on the HE network given the large carry over of unstarted RIS1 projects.
> 
> I think we all accept that the £27.4bn is not for new builds in the next 5 years and are merely disputing whether 'RIS1 funds' somehow exist in some parallel universe, unspent.
> 
> Referring back to the HE graphic I inserted in my previous post, the claimed 'expenditure' on 'build' projects on the HE network of £6.3bn over 4 years amounted to *less than 0.1% of annual UK GDP* over that reference time period. I am perfectly well aware that England is not the UK....but it is most of it.  I say 'expenditure' because some of it was likely maintenance not new build.
> 
> I doubt the Tories spent £1.6bn a year on new build myself and actual expenditure could have been as low as 0.05% of GDP at that time.
> 
> 1% of UK annual GDP between 2015 and 2019 would have been £20bn a year or so and the proposed expenditure of £14.7bn over 5 years on new build on the HE SRN, while an improvement, is still less than 0.2% of GDP a year.


I agree that not all of it is for new capital projects, the RIS2 document explicitly mentions that. However, this 27.4 billion that the chancellor mentioned comes from the national roads fund- which is the revenue earned from Vehicle Excise Duty. ALL of this money has been ringfenced to Highways England, to maintain and upgrade the strategic road network. Many of the funds in RIS2 will be used on RIS1 projects, but that is because many of those projects, such as the A428 black cat to caxton gibbet, and the A47 and A1 dualling, were always intended for delivery in RIS2. Essentialy- all the ones that are listed as under construction will have their funds come from RIS1, while the ones listed as commited for RP2 will have their funding come from RIS2.


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> while the ones listed as commited for RP2 will have their funding come from RIS2.


The funding will come from RIS3 for most of them. 

Retrospectively lets look at RIS1, this link is from 4 years into the 5 year plan. IE a year back, and this is an interview with the CEO of Highways England in April 2019. 

https://www.transport-network.co.uk/10-of-RIS-1-schemes-shelved-on-value-for-money-grounds/15817

*10% of RIS 1 schemes shelved on value for money grounds*

So that reduced an initial 112 schemes to 101. 

Of the 101



> 29 have already been completed, 15 are in construction, *18 are expected to start this year and 37 now start in RIS 2.*


Actually that lot adds up to 99 so another 2 were plain lost somewhere I suppose.  In a nutshell.

1. There was a 5 year plan.
2. 10% of it was fiction, perhaps a tad more. 
3. _4 years in_ .... only 25% was complete. (29 out of 112) 
4. _4 years in_ .... 49% had not even started (55 out of 112) or over 50% if you add the 2 lost ones.


----------



## hungrykitten

sponge_bob said:


> The funding will come from RIS3 for most of them.
> 
> Retrospectively lets look at RIS1, this link is from 4 years into the 5 year plan. IE a year back, and this is an interview with the CEO of Highways England in April 2019.
> 
> https://www.transport-network.co.uk/10-of-RIS-1-schemes-shelved-on-value-for-money-grounds/15817
> 
> *10% of RIS 1 schemes shelved on value for money grounds*
> 
> So that reduced an initial 112 schemes to 101.
> 
> Of the 101
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that lot adds up to 99 so another 2 were plain lost somewhere I suppose.  In a nutshell.
> 
> 1. There was a 5 year plan.
> 2. 10% of it was fiction, perhaps a tad more.
> 3. _4 years in_ .... only 25% was complete. (29 out of 112)
> 4. _4 years in_ .... 49% had not even started (55 out of 112) or over 50% if you add the 2 lost ones.


Looking at the list of RIS1 schemes which i posted above, you can see that many of the schemes that were cancelled were relatively minor such as technology upgrades on A roads.
Also bear in mind that many schemes have started since that interview, some have finished, and others are very close to finishing.

Secondly- it was never the intention to get the whole of RIS1 done in 5 years.
To give you an idea of what stages the most significant of the newly announced schemes have to go through:

1) Options selection and consulation.
2) then analysing the consultation and making a preferred route announcement.
3) Then having a statutory consulation.
4) Then, for the most important schemes, having to go through the DCO(development consent order process) which takes around a year and a half.

So many of those newly announced schemes were never intended to be built or completed during RIS1, considering how long the planning and consultation process takes


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> 1. There was a 5 year plan.
> 2. 10% of it was fiction, perhaps a tad more.
> 3. _4 years in_ .... only 25% was complete. (29 out of 112)
> 4. _4 years in_ .... 49% had not even started (55 out of 112) or over 50% if you add the 2 lost ones.


One thing you have missed is if you go back to the 2015 plan, lots of schemes were listed as not starting until year 5 anyway, so even then they were aware they needed to build up capacity for the number of projects going on. 

The accounting is not very clear at all i.e. is there a theoretical separate pile of money for RIS1 schemes which hasn't been spent? There should be, but the way HE is funded means that it doesn't show up in the accounts as 'cash at bank' or whatever, as it's only notional as the Treasury only releases funds when needed.


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> The accounting is not very clear at all i.e. is there a theoretical separate pile of money for RIS1 schemes which hasn't been spent? There should be, but the way HE is funded means that it doesn't show up in the accounts as 'cash at bank' or whatever, as it's only notional as the Treasury only releases funds when needed.


I doubt if HE ever finished a year with other than nominal sums in the bank. 

Furthermore, by their own admission in the graphic some 5 or 6 posts back they had spent around £6.3bn on new schemes in years 1-4 of the 5 year RIS1 period. 

Yet the alleged target during RIS1 was that:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-investment-strategy



> Over the next 5 years the first RIS will:
> 
> *see £15.2 billion invested in over 100 major schemes* to enhance, renew and improve the network


It is realistic to assume that around £15.2bn was likely spent by HE during RIS1 *but that at most £8bn was spent on the "100 Major Schemes"* over the course of the RIS1 funding period and the remainder was spent on OandM activities like resurfacing, gritting, signage and replacement of the life expired concrete carriageway in some parts.

In fact HE said as much themselves, 3 years back,  read page 77 of this. 

https://assets.publishing.service.g...Highways_England_Annual_Report_V25_-_Web_.pdf



> *Around £7.7bn of our total capital budget is invested into major schemes*, many of which will continue into the next period of investment from 2020.


£7.7bn over 5 years is an average of £1.55bn a year or* less than 0.1% of UK GDP* over that period which is an utterly miserable and short sighted investment for a developed country.


----------



## hungrykitten

However much the total amount invested per year is- the fact remains that this highways plan is basically the most ambitious since the Thatcher govt.

There are large, multi billion dollar projects like the stonehenge tunnel, Lower Thames crossing and A66 duallling. The UK has not seen this sort of investment in decades, and so whilst I of course would like to see more invested- the fact remains that this is a very ambitious scheme of works- that will hugely enhance our strategic road network.

Moving onto the specific schemes within RIS2- it was a shame however to see that no new dualling on the A47 is proposed, other than the dualling outlined in RIS1. It would have been nice to see the Acle straight section dualled-hopefully this can be included in RIS3!


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> However much the total amount invested per year is- the fact remains that this highways plan is basically the most ambitious since the Thatcher govt.!


The 'plan' itself certainly is, the delivery is constrained hugely by the outrageous prices that HE seem to consider 'normal'. 

The legacy of Carillion and the Major/Blair reliance on the City to build English infrastructure is a tragic one for the taxpayer.


----------



## 10ND0N

sponge_bob said:


> aaaaaaand here is RIS2 itself, in full. (10mb pdf)
> 
> https://assets.publishing.service.g...1978/road-investment-strategy-2-2020-2025.pdf


I skimmed this. I don't know much about this sector but it feels like a solid plan to me. A few comments and questions for the thread.

1. the price tag on some of these projects seem astronomical to me. Just from a common sense POV. I don't know how much this is due to monopolies in the sector/incompetence in HE/EU procurement rules/H&S gone mad. My question is if anything is/can be done to give the public a bigger bang for their buck?

2. Is this guys Eliott Shaw? still in charge of HE? He do not come across to me as someone who can get much done. He comes across like a civil servant who could be working in Education or Foreign Affairs tomorrow. No deep insight, no clout. Has he done a good job so far?

3. The document seem to walk away from the expressway terminology which I think is a good thing. However it would be nice to see a map of the UK network of motorways plus truck roads which are for all practical purposes motorways. Does a map like that exist? is there an pre RIS1/post RIS1/post RIS2 comparison? That would be interesting and a help in comparing the UK network to those of France and Italy for instance.

4. Despite the analysis in this thread it seems that everyone agrees this is a step up in investment. Does anyone think that we can realistically go beyond this level given labour shortages and capacity bottlenecks?

5. As a Londoner these plans don't help me much as our roads are under the Mayor of London jurisdiction. I can't see Mr Khan doing much for road users so the situation. My though is that in the future Brighton>London or Birmingham>London will be fairly smooth - until you hit the M25 after that you will continue to spend a couple of hours crawling to your destination on London roads. Is anyone addressing that?


----------



## sponge_bob

10ND0N said:


> 3. The document seem to walk away from the expressway terminology which I think is a good thing. However it would be nice to see a map of the UK network of motorways plus truck roads which are for all practical purposes motorways. Does a map like that exist? is there an pre RIS1/post RIS1/post RIS2 comparison? That would be interesting and a help in comparing the UK network to those of France and Italy for instance.


I'll touch on this. HE is responsible for the strategic road network of 4300 Miles (7000km) in England. It may add and remove a few bits and pieces as it changes priorities, likely across the penniines. 

The SRN comprises. 

All the Motorways bar some AM isolates.
Most but certainly not all of the A Road dual carrigeways. 
A selection of important SC A roads. Some are right goat tracks like the Woodhead Pass road across the pennines between Manchester and Sheffield. 

My crude estimate is that 2000 miles of the 4300 miles are motorway and the remainder are either DC or SC. Below is a map of that entire SRN network. It is difficult to make out DC/SC A roads, but possible. 

EG the 50 miles of Transpennine A66 is mainly DC but there are 5 or 6 bits of SC interspersed in there for a total length of 20 miles from the 50. These are to be upgraded during RIS2 but some of the existing A66 DC is substandard with at grade crossings which should also be addressed....but probably won't be. There are other bits of A66 that are not to be upgraded, EG around Darlington.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/860488/Network_management_08-01-2020.pdf


----------



## geogregor

A20 Swanley bypass on the outskirts of London, on Saturday:

DSC02695 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02696 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02699 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02694 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## hungrykitten

The Dft have published this very helpful map showing all of the RIS1 and RIS2 committements, as well as some projects planned for RIS3.





Road Investment Strategy







maps.dft.gov.uk





Also, the A1 in Northumberland dualling plans are expected to now be submitted to the planning inspectorate in May this year.


----------



## geogregor

Planning verdict delayed on five major transport schemes



> The Department of Transport has pushed back development consent order decisions on five major schemes by around three months.
> 
> The projects together are worth up to £3bn with the Stonehenge tunnel scheme the biggest of the delayed batch.
> 
> Transport secretary Grant Shapps said the delay was needed to allow for further work to be carried out before they are determined.
> 
> *Transport scheme DCO decision delays*
> 
> *Lake Lothing 3rd Crossing Lowestoft: *New multi-span single highway opening bascule bridge over Lake Lothing in Lowestoft. Current deadline for a decision was 5 December 2019, now extended to 5 May 2020
> *West Midlands Strategic Rail Freight Interchange: *Proposed development by Four Ashes of a new Strategic Rail Freight Interchange and other supporting infrastructure works near Junction 12 of the M6 motorway in South Staffordshire District. Current deadline for a decision was 27 February 2020, now extended to 5 May 2020
> *A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling*: Dual carriageway on the A303 linking the Podimore Bypass and the Sparkford Bypass. Deadline for a decision was 12 December 2019, now extended to 17 July 2020
> *A63 Castle Street Improvement – Hull:* Improvement to 1.5km of the A63 and connecting side roads in Hull between Ropery Street and the Market Place/Queen Street junction. Current deadline for a decision was 24 March 2020, now extended to 31 May 2020.
> *A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down:* New two-lane dual carriageway for the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down in Wiltshire. Deadline for a decision was 2 April 2020, now extended to 17 July 2020.


----------



## hungrykitten

The Lake Lothing River crossing has just had its DCO granted.


----------



## hungrykitten

The A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon project has now been completed. This was the biggest UK road project- I guess we will have to wait until the Stonehenge project begins before we can see any more massive ones.

Some Project updates: The start of the A30 dualling between Chiverton and Carland Cross will begin this Autumn; the contract has been awarded, and it has gone through all the statutory processes.

The A38 Derby Junctions project, in which 3 junctions will be grade separated, has had the planning examination extended till September- though hopefully it will be over quicker than that.

M42 Junction 6 upgrade- preliminary demolition work has apparently started, and it is hoped that the Development Consent Order will be granted by the 21st of May.

The DCO for the A63 Castle street grade separation in Hull is expected to be granted by 31st of May - construction will begin after that.


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> The A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon project has now been completed. This was the biggest UK road project- I guess we will have to wait until the Stonehenge project begins before we can see any more massive ones.


The 26KM A6 scheme in NI is the largest scheme under construction in the UK now. 2 years from official completion. Here is a recent flythrough of the eastmost third , or so, of the scheme, thank God they kept the earthmoving going through the lockdown.






Here is the middle part of the scheme. The last month has been the best weather since the scheme first started, pretty much, and that makes a big difference in this sort of terrain which is rather boggy to say the least. 






Images from the Sky Photography Youtube Channel here.....









sky photography


Drone footage from around Ireland




www.youtube.com


----------



## sponge_bob

Costain have signed a £210 DB contract for 12.5km of A30 DC in Cornwall.









Costain signed for £210m A30 upgrade


Highways England has handed Costain a £210m design and build contract to upgrade part of the A30 that runs to the north of Truro in Cornwall.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk





The most remarkable aspect to my mind is that _the cost came in under £30m a mile_ in Cornwall whereas the A6 upgrade in NI (videos in the last post) , _in more difficult terrain_, is costing around £15m a mile or so. Both are the same standard of D2 HQDC spec road in rural areas.


----------



## hungrykitten

sponge_bob said:


> Costain have signed a £210 DB contract for 12.5km of A30 DC in Cornwall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Costain signed for £210m A30 upgrade
> 
> 
> Highways England has handed Costain a £210m design and build contract to upgrade part of the A30 that runs to the north of Truro in Cornwall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theconstructionindex.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most remarkable aspect to my mind is that _the cost came in under £30m a mile_ in Cornwall whereas the A6 upgrade in NI (videos in the last post) , _in more difficult terrain_, is costing around £15m a mile or so. Both are the same standard of D2 HQDC spec road in rural areas.


Yes that does seem remarkably expensive- whilst it is being built to essentially motorway standard, I don't see why it is turning out to be so expensive. Even worse, the RDP's didn't win the contract as expected, because they couldn't agree on the price- suggesting they had priced it even higher than that. It will be interesting to see whether or not this scheme exceeds £210 million.


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> Yes that does seem remarkably expensive- whilst it is being built to essentially motorway standard, I don't see why it is turning out to be so expensive. Even worse, the RDP's didn't win the contract as expected, because they couldn't agree on the price- suggesting they had priced it even higher than that. It will be interesting to see whether or not this scheme exceeds £210 million.


It is a DB contract so £210m is all Costain will get as they will design it themselves subject to HE final approval and take the hit on any overruns.

Sub €30m a mile is _remarkably cheap_ by English standards compared to the outrageous estimates of €80-90m a mile for some proposed schemes further east in the home counties. 

Land purchase and advance works will bring the full cost of the A30 scheme up to around_ £30m a mile or £19m a km._ I have seen estimates of £50m a mile for the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester scheme which is an insane price in my opinion.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Land purchase and advance works will bring the full cost of the A30 scheme up to around_ £30m a mile or £19m a km._ I have seen estimates of £50m a mile for the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester scheme which is an insane price in my opinion.


Estimates? The construction contract was let for £135m alone, with legal, planning etc. costs it comes to £175m. Which is totally off the charts insane for a road with no civil engineering of any significance


----------



## sponge_bob

Almost 50 Years Ago a government minister named Peter Walker provided a written reply to a question in the House of Commons and in it he promised that the English and Welsh (not Scottish) motorway network, combined, was to reach 1000 miles by the end of 1972* and that the Motorway Network would be 2000 miles long by 1980*.






2000 miles of motorway | 25th June 1971 | The Commercial Motor Archive


'2000 miles of motorway' first printed in the 25th June 1971 issue of Commercial Motor



archive.commercialmotor.com





40 years after that target date of 1980, the combined English and Welsh Motorway Networks is now ....._*2029 miles*_.



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/860180/rdl0101.ods



Mind you the same minister promised to dual the A303 from the M3 to Honiton......by 1980 as well.


----------



## geogregor

New Covid-related road signs:
Reallocating road space in response to COVID-19: statutory guidance for local authorities


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Gosh that's really rather depressing.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Video of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, which recently completed 8 months early:


----------



## hungrykitten

The Development Consent Order for the M42 Junction 6 Scheme has been granted today.
It involes 2 freeflow left turns at Junction 6 itself. A new junction will be created on the M42 south of Junction 6- and there will be a dual carriageway link road from this new junction to the Clock interchange. It's a shame that the new junction can't be freeflow- apparently that is because there could potentially be a new motorway service area plugged into it.


----------



## da_scotty

UK's love for roundabouts is unrivaled. Two new roundabouts where non are needed.


----------



## sponge_bob

da_scotty said:


> UK's love for roundabouts is unrivaled. Two new roundabouts where non are needed.


A low capacity dumbbell junction on a busy motorway in this day and age, the traffic will be tailed back to Stratford on the M40 from that thing.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The entire link road is pointless. J6 could have been rebuilt as a largely freeflow interchange for this absurd ~£300m price tag.


----------



## hungrykitten

Essentialy, what this scheme appears to be doing is redistributing the congestion away from junction 6 and onto the Clock interchange- effectively creating a gyratory of sorts. It should certainly improve the functioning of the junction, but in the long-term, I think there will need to be a radical redesign of J6, perhaps as a whirlpool. The M42 will also likely need to be widened as well.


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> It should certainly improve the functioning of the junction, but in the long-term, I think there will need to be a radical redesign of J6, perhaps as a whirlpool. The M42 will also likely need to be widened as well.


Seemingly HE have a price tag of £282m (€300m) for this M42 J6 scheme, for that you get. 

1. No new motorway
2. No widening of existing M42
3. No widening of existing A45 DC across J6
4.* 2.5km* of new offline DC
5. 3km of 'a country road'.

and

6, 2 Partial motorway junctions.

Have I missed anything??


----------



## hungrykitten

sponge_bob said:


> Seemingly HE have a price tag of £282m (€300m) for this M42 J6 scheme, for that you get.
> 
> 1. No new motorway
> 2. No widening of existing M42
> 3. No widening of existing A45 DC across J6
> 4.* 2.5km* of new offline DC
> 5. 3km of 'a country road'.
> 
> and
> 
> 6, 2 Partial motorway junctions.
> 
> Have I missed anything??


Once again, a scheme that is hideously expensive for what it delivers! There will however be 3 new freeflow left turn links- and some of these, e.g A45 East to M42 North will be rather long. There will also be roundabout widening, and the road to the airport ( Bickenhall lane) will have an additional lane added on in each direction. 

What probably makes the cost so extortionate is the fact that the link road will be placed in a cutting- so that is a load of additional earthworks that need to be carried out.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

A proper rebuild into an octopus/windmill was considered:










It was rejected at a project workshop at an early stage:

"Interchange (3D) – Provides good journey time benefits for traffic travelling in
all directions but will impact traffic attending the NEC & NMM; has significant
buildability impact with considerable disruption to road users during
construction; significantly exceeds budget thus providing limited return in
value for money; some safety issues from GD04 assessment regarding
impact to road workers => DISCOUNT"

In the Technical Appraisal Report it's costed at £441m compared to £272m for a layout similar to what's actually being built, though in both cases including widening that isn't now being taken forward.



https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/m42-junction-6-improvement/supporting_documents/Technical%20Appraisal%20Report_web.pdf


----------



## Stuu

da_scotty said:


> UK's love for roundabouts is unrivaled. Two new roundabouts where non are needed.


I would put my money on them being so that some exciting new housing or distribution developments can be put in later. Next to nothing is built in the UK which doesn't facilitate 'development' in one way or another (as opposed to making existing journeys better)


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The A66 Northern Trans-Pennine preferred route has been announced. This will complete the dual carriageway between the M6 at Penrith and A1(M) at Scotch Corner. 18 miles (29km) of single carriageway will be upgraded, and junction improvements will take the scheme to a cool £1bn. Construction is to start in 2024.


----------



## sponge_bob

This link has a more detailed description of the A66 improvements.



https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/cip/a66-northern-trans-pennine/results/prabrochurefinal.pdf





> A total of *2333 people attended the exhibition*s and we received 854 responses to the consultation.
> 
> A total of 394 were received as paper response forms, 375 via the online response form, 84 responses were received by email and 4 as posted correspondence. The public response to our proposals was overwhelmingly positive with *92.5% of 769 respondents being in favour of dualling the remaining single carriageway sections of the A6 *


The blended AADT across the scheme is around 16K with around 4000 HGVs a day in the mix which is a very high HGV % for any road. 

There were less than 100 objections across the entire scheme. This will not stop the less than 100 ecomentalists from claiming overwhelming support for their whatboutery shite when the inevitable public hearings start, in 2022 or so.


----------



## hungrykitten

The M25 Junction 28 upgrade plans have now been submitted to the planning inspectorate. These involve a new freeflow 2 lane loop between the M25 Northbound and the A12 Eastbound.





M25 junction 28 improvements - National Highways


Upgrading junction 28 of the M25 between the M25 and the A12 in Essex.




highwaysengland.co.uk





Considering how long the DCO approval process takes- it will be around a year and a half before any construction can begin.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> There were less than 100 objections across the entire scheme. This will not stop the less than 100 ecomentalists from claiming overwhelming support for their whatboutery shite when the inevitable public hearings start, in 2022 or so.


As long as they promise to cycle the length of the route in February they can object all they want


----------



## hungrykitten

The Development Consent Order for the A63 castle street upgrade in Hull has now been granted. The Examining Authority had in fact recommended that the DCO not be granted, party due to effect it would have had on listed structures, and the fact that crossing the A63 would have become harder due to removal of At-grade crossings. 

The scheme would result in the grade separation of the Mytongate junction through the provision of an underpass. Part of the A63 eastbound would be widened to 4 lanes, and all at-grade crossings would be removed. Side road accesses would also be closed. A new footbridge is being built, and a pedestrian underpass would also be provided.


<iframe width="900" height="506" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> The Development Consent Order for the A63 castle street upgrade in Hull has now been granted. The *Examining Authority* had in fact recommended that the DCO not be granted, party due to effect it would have had on listed structures, and the fact that crossing the A63 would have become harder due to removal of At-grade crossings.


Is the "examining authority" a planning inspector, a planning tribunal or a minister, just wondering where the override came from here???


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Is the "examining authority" a planning inspector, a planning tribunal or a minister, just wondering where the override came from here???


The examining authority is the Planning Inspectorate, they run the enquiries and make a recommendation to the Minister, who then takes the final decision


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The examining authority is a small panel appointed by the Planning Inspectorate.


----------



## hungrykitten

Construction of a flyover on the A46 at Binley Junction, east of Coventry can now proceed- as the relevant legislation is now in place. The main construction work will start this autumn, according to Highways England. Plans are also being progressed to grade separate the Walsgrave junction on the A46 Coventry bypass.






A46 Coventry junctions upgrade - National Highways


The A46 is a strategic link between the East and West Midlands, connecting Coventry and Warwickshire to the motorway network. Current congestion levels are having a serious effect on communities and businesses and could constrain future development in the area




highwaysengland.co.uk















There will also be a consultation starting at the end of this month on plans to upgrade the Simister island interchange.


----------



## Penn's Woods

hungrykitten said:


> Construction of a flyover on the A46 at Binley Junction, east of Coventry can now proceed- as the relevant legislation is now in place. The main construction work will start this autumn, according to Highways England. Plans are also being progressed to grade separate the Walsgrave junction on the A46 Coventry bypass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A46 Coventry junctions upgrade - National Highways
> 
> 
> The A46 is a strategic link between the East and West Midlands, connecting Coventry and Warwickshire to the motorway network. Current congestion levels are having a serious effect on communities and businesses and could constrain future development in the area
> 
> 
> 
> 
> highwaysengland.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 197945
> 
> 
> 
> There will also be a consultation starting at the end of this month on plans to upgrade the Simister island interchange.


Very close to where Hyacinth Bucket’s house - I mean the real-life House used as hers in exterior shots - is. Did anyone check with her?


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Penn's Woods said:


> Very close to where Hyacinth Bucket’s house - I mean the real-life House used as hers in exterior shots - is. Did anyone check with her?


They did change the aesthetics of the design, so maybe  Originally it was to have two short single span bridges for the roundabout with retaining walls through the middle; the multispan flyover shown above is to make it more open.


----------



## hungrykitten

Some more news on the Stonehenge tunnel- the deadline for the DCO decision is the 17th July. 









Highways England starts search to find archaeological specialists for A303 upgrade near Stonehenge


Highways England is today launching its search to find archaeological specialists to carry out excavation work ahead of the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down upgrade past Stonehenge.




www.gov.uk





The deadline for the A303 sparkford to Ilchester dualling DCO decision is also the 17th of July- considering the level of govt support for upgrading the A303 it is obvious consent will be granted.

A consultation on the A428 dualling opens on the 24th of June- and there will also be a consultation later this month on upgrading the Simister Island Interchange.









Highways England to launch further A428 consultation as plans are refined


A project to transform one of the busiest road links in the East of England will begin its next phase of consultation in two weeks on Wednesday 24 June 2020.




www.gov.uk


----------



## hungrykitten

Consultation on the Simister Island upgrade proposals has now opened:






M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange - June to August 2020 - National Highways - Citizen Space


Find and participate in consultations run by Highways England.



highwaysengland.citizenspace.com


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The Northern Loop option would be a great upgrade that would finally allow freeflow movement along the M60 clockwise:






The less said about the Inner Link option the better:


----------



## geogregor

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> The less said about the Inner Link option the better:



Is that a joke, or real design???


----------



## EmoriAz96

I do not get what is wrong with a Whirlpool? They're compact and could fit in that tight space. Means no more stopping at any lights or roundabouts


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

EmoriAz96 said:


> I do not get what is wrong with a Whirlpool? They're compact and could fit in that tight space. Means no more stopping at any lights or roundabouts


Well, there's already a three-level stacked roundabout there that has to be kept open during construction. The normal way you would do that is by building the whirlpool outside the existing interchange. This was considered at Wisley (M25 J10) and you can see how huge the land take is compared to the little stacked roundabout in the middle:










They did something similar to replace the stacked roundabout outside Lummen, Belgium (Google Maps), and the interchange is again very large - 25 hectares compared to 6 hectares for Simister Island. If you did the same at Simister you'd be wiping out half of Simister village!

I would like to see a full freeflow interchange but given budget and site constraints (e.g. the village as well as maintaining weaving lengths on the M60 to the west) the Northern Loop proposal is probably the best that can be hoped for. It could also be incorporated into a fuller rebuild in the future.


----------



## geogregor

During the weekend a new bridge was installed over the M42. It will be part of the new road layout around Birmigham Interchange station which will be part of HS2:

Laing O’Rourke completes first HS2 bridge in two days



> Laing O’Rourke joint venture LM has completed the installation of a 65-metre bridge over the M42, in just two days forming the first permanent structure to be delivered for HS2.
> 
> The 2,750 tonne bridge structure was carried along the motorway on a self-propelled modular transporter.
> 
> The 448-wheel transporter took just one hour and 45 minutes to move the bridge span 150 metres into position, where it was affixed to a composite concrete deck to complete the overall bridge structure.
> 
> The successful installation marks the completion of the first of four bridges to be built close to the new Interchange Station at Solihull.
> 
> It will form part of the major remodelling of the regional road network to improve the circulation of traffic around the HS2 railway line and connect the existing road network to the new Interchange Station.





> “By delivering factory made components and assembling them on site, we have constructed abutment walls in 5 days, compared to between 8-12 weeks for traditional methods, achieved with a site team averaging just eight operatives.”




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292416605113274369









Later in the year they will also install bridge above the A446


----------



## stingrayj

hungrykitten said:


> Yes, some tech work is still outstanding, I think the MS4's hadn't been fully installed when the 4th lane was opened. SVD will also have to be retrofitted at a later date.
> 
> .



M23 still 50mph restricted. no progress for months now


----------



## hungrykitten

A few major updates:

1) Highways England have got around to publishing their strategic business plan and their delivery plan for 2020-25, containing details of every project that they plan to build across the next 5 years. Many of these projects were part of RIS1- but weren't completed/started. There are some new ones, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, Simister Island upgrade, and the A46 Newark Bypass.


https://highwaysengland.co.uk/media/emmlqpmd/strategic-business-plan-2020-2025-final.pdf




https://highwaysengland.co.uk/media/vh0byhfl/5-year-delivery-plan-2020-2025-final.pdf



2) Overall progress during RIS1- 36 out of the original 112 projects were completed during RIS1, with a further to completed since then. Overall, Highways England had a target of 73 projects to be started or completed during RIS1, of which it managed 69, which isn't too bad. 

3) The Decision on the A303 stonehenge project, and the A303 sparkford dualling has been delayed till November, in light of the recent archaeological discoveries.

4) The A30 dualling will commence this September, having received its development consent order this February. 

<iframe width="900" height="506" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> 3) The Decision on the A303 stonehenge project, and the A303 sparkford dualling has been delayed till November, in light of the recent archaeological discoveries.


I thought they had been delayed largely because the hearing of the 'carbon' case by ecomentalists, against RIS2, is due in September or October.


----------



## hungrykitten

sponge_bob said:


> I thought they had been delayed largely because the hearing of the 'carbon' case by ecomentalists, against RIS2, is due in September or October.


No- it was about the recent archaeological 'find' - you can read the consultation about it here - A303 Stonehenge | National Infrastructure Planning

The environmental case is supposed to be heard around october- they had 4 grounds of challenge, 3 of which have been dismissed. Therefore the only point of argument in this case will be climate change, the others ( e.g air quality) having already been dismissed.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Someone on Facebook just shared this: Multimillion-pound junction remains unused months after completion due to lack of link road

And what’s the yellow thing on the sign?


----------



## hungrykitten

The yellow square is a diversion sign.
The Junction remains unused because the private developers have yet to build the link roads!


----------



## VITORIA MAN

edit


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

These seem to be the biggest RIS2 schemes by value:

1. Lower Thames Crossing (£6.8bn)
2. A303 Stonehenge (£1.7bn)
3. A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon (£1.5bn)
4. A12 to A120 widening (£1.2bn)
5. A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet (£1.1bn)
6. A66 Northern Trans-Pennine (£1bn)
7. M4 J3-12 smart motorway (£848m)
8. A46 Newark Bypass (£450m)
9. M1 J13-J16 smart motorway (£373m)
10. A63 Castle Street (£355m)
11. M62 J20-25 smart motorway (£338m)
12. M25 J10-16 smart motorway (£300m)
13. M42 J6 (£282m)


----------



## hungrykitten

Great List. Just one quibble- where did you see that the Newark Bypass was going to cost £450 million- I thought it was only going to be in the region of £100-150.


----------



## Stuu

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> 3. A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon (£1.5bn)


How can that be included in RIS2, it was the biggest scheme in RIS1


----------



## hungrykitten

Stuu said:


> How can that be included in RIS2, it was the biggest scheme in RIS1


Some of the schemes from RIS1 that were not completed during the first road period (2015-20) have been carried into RIS2. The A14 upgrade is essentialy complete, however there is still some finishing work requiring temporary lane closures- hence its inclusion in RIS2.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

hungrykitten said:


> Great List. Just one quibble- where did you see that the Newark Bypass was going to cost £450 million- I thought it was only going to be in the region of £100-150.


Thanks. That was actually the only one I couldn't find a recent official source for, but the local press have followed this issue closely and say £450m:









Funding to dual A46 approved


A £450m investment to upgrade the A46 Newark by-pass campaign has been approved by Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajjid Javid.




www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk





HE said £100m-£250m back in 2015 but many of their projections in that document are far below current projections (e.g. A12 Chelmsford to A120 at £100m-£250m rather than over a billion!) so I consider £450m more credible.



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381496/roads-investment-strategy-summary-of-schemes.pdf



They don't seem to have released an equivalent document for RIS2, hence my list.


----------



## hungrykitten

I agree with £450, that sounds like a far more reasonable estimate considering they are going to have to build one new GSJ, and sort out the A1/A46 junction.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The Newark MP mentions £400m in the new article below. Apparently there will be a consultation in the winter.









Details of plans for £27.4bn investment in strategic roads network unveiled


Among a series of major upgrades are 17 in the Midlands while three further schemes, among them the A46 Newark bypass, will open beyond 2025.




www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk





Dualling the bypass will be complex as it's on embankment with two bridges over the Trent and three over rail lines. Two new GSJs will be required as well as an upgrade to the A1 junction. £400m seems low for the scale of works so there's a likelihood the crucial A1 junction will be some cheap bodge.


----------



## kostas97

Quick question; Is metric used anywhere in British roads besides indicating height and width limits??


----------



## sponge_bob

kostas97 said:


> Quick question; Is metric used anywhere in British roads besides indicating height and width limits??


It is used in the road design bible (DMBR) and standard warning signage (yellow signs) is metric and imperial both

EG > https://assets.publishing.service.g...50114/network-rail-bridge-strike-protocol.pdf

Speed limits and Distance signs are imperial only.

Even though both Ireland and the UK went 'decimal' with decimal currencies at the same time around 1970 and with metric being taught in all schools from around then the UK never went fully metric and most people can calculate in both now. Ireland went a bit further than the UK in metricisation, changing speed limits only in 2005 or so, but people still use non metric measures daily....especially the beloved pint.


----------



## Penn's Woods

sponge_bob said:


> It is used in the road design bible (DMBR) and standard warning signage (yellow signs) is metric and imperial both
> 
> EG > https://assets.publishing.service.g...50114/network-rail-bridge-strike-protocol.pdf
> 
> Speed limits and Distance signs are imperial only.
> 
> Even though both Ireland and the UK went 'decimal' with decimal currencies at the same time around 1970 and with metric being taught in all schools from around then the UK never went fully metric and most people can calculate in both now. Ireland went a bit further than the UK in metricisation, changing speed limits only in 2005 or so, but people still use non metric measures daily....especially the beloved pint.


Resist needless uniformity!

There’s widespread unofficial use of traditional measures in Canada as well, even among Francophones. I learned metric in U.S. schools in the 70s, and can deal with both.


----------



## sponge_bob

Penn's Woods said:


> I learned metric in U.S. schools in the 70s, and can deal with both.


Just you remember that your imperial is not kosher, you learnt "US Survey" miles and "US Survey" acres you did.  Also remember you learnt "meters" and we learnt "metres" but they are exactly the same bar the spelling.


----------



## Penn's Woods

sponge_bob said:


> Just you remember that your imperial is not kosher, you learnt "US Survey" miles and "US Survey" acres you did.  Also remember you learnt "meters" and we learnt "metres" but they are exactly the same bar the spelling.


Our “imperial” may be intentionally not kosher; I don’t know the history. Given that we got over the bizarre, medieval need to have a family we can consider ourselves inferior to nearly a quarter of a millennium ago.  Which is why I don’t use the word “imperial” for it. (Seriously, I don’t use the word “imperial” because I know there are differences.)


----------



## Stuu

Penn's Woods said:


> I remember a soft-drink machine in a Montreal hotel about 2006 that said its contents were “froid - 37F.” That wasn’t for an American audience. (“Froid” = “cold” in French.)


You would think that the Quebecois would be even less likely to use imperial units.. temperature is another weird combination in the UK, in the recent past hot weather was in Fahrenheit, cold always in Celsius, it's generally always in C now. I've no idea what 37F is, but I would know that 90F is hot


----------



## Stuu

Penn's Woods said:


> A liter is a little more than a quart. At least this side of the pond.


And a mile is, as everyone knows, 8 furlongs. Or a third of a league


----------



## Penn's Woods

Stuu said:


> And a mile is, as everyone knows, 8 furlongs. Or a third of a league


That’s where you lose me. Also stone. I have no idea what I weigh in stone.


----------



## Stuu

Penn's Woods said:


> That’s where you lose me. Also stone. I have no idea what I weigh in stone.


14 lbs is a stone, obviously! Obviously I'm not really going to defend the logic of using such ludicrous units, but there is an odd US trait to use bigger numbers than are necessary, like describing the Saturn V rocket as weighing 6 million pounds, rather than 300 tonnes


----------



## sponge_bob

Did you mean 3,000 short tons as in 60,000 hundred weight...over yonder that is.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Did you mean 3,000 short tons as in 60,000 hundred weight...over yonder that is.


I was going to reply but this is getting silly. So here's £250m being spent on some earth-moving in South Wales


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> So here's £250m being spent on some earth-moving in South Wales


Is that section still not finished?? It is around a year over contract deadline now isn't it???

I do note the contract for the next and final section of the A465 road is to be finalised in October with work to start this year, allegedly. It will cost £28m a km or £44m a mile, ouch. 









A465: section 5 and 6 Dowlais Top to Hirwaun | GOV.WALES


We are converting the A465 from Dowlais Top to Hirwaun to 2 lanes in each direction.




gov.wales


----------



## hungrykitten

The A19 Downhill Lane project has started construction this week; it involves the conversion of a grade separated diamond junction into a more convetional multi-lane roundabout. It is project number 43 on the RIS1 list.

Construction of a flyover at the Binley Junction on the A46 also is starting imminently- its project 61.

The new A30 dual carriageway construction is also commencing this month.
<iframe width="900" height="506" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Overall, 38 projects out the 112 have now been completed.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Is that section still not finished?? It is around a year over contract deadline now isn't it???
> 
> I do note the contract for the next and final section of the A465 road is to be finalised in October with work to start this year, allegedly. It will cost £28m a km or £44m a mile, ouch.


No, not finished, it was due to be finished last year. The next section is through fairly tough land, with a couple of viaducts and lots of rock to be shifted, it's not the alps but it's pretty bumpy. That's still cheaper than some projects in flat agricultural land in England...


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> So here's £250m being spent on some earth-moving in South Wales


It's still quite hard to see but Brynmawr Junction, in the middle of the video, will be one of the more impressive pieces of highway engineering in the UK. The Gateway Bridge itself is an arch bridge with suspended deck (similar to the Hulme Arch Bridge in Manchester and Clyde Arc AKA 'Squinty Bridge' in Glasgow). The carriageways underneath are at different levels with a long and high retaining wall between them. The slip roads on the eastbound carriageway cross each other in pseudo-braided style to resolve the vertical alignment.

You can see it a bit better here (CGI could be better):






Or see the plan:



https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2017-09/a465-heads-of-the-valleys-section-2-scheme-plan-brynmawr-to-clydach.pdf


----------



## Luki_SL

The first cone-laying vehicle without a driver :





__





Automated cone laying vehicle spotted on roads in new trial - National Highways


A pioneering cone-laying vehicle will eliminate the need for roadworkers to do the job from the back of a truck




highwaysengland.co.uk


----------



## IanCleverly

Vale of Glamorgan Council said:


> *Vale of Glamorgan Council seeks views on a possible new M4 to A48 link road route*
> 
> ​*The Vale of Glamorgan Council is asking people which, if any, route for a new road connecting the M4 Junction 34 with the A48 they prefer*
> 
> ​
> ​
> Wednesday, 30 September 2020
> *Vale of Glamorgan
> Rural Vale*​
> ​
> ​Images of the two proposed routes, and two alternative upgrade schemes to the existing roads, can be viewed on the Council website, where the public can have their say on which if any they would opt for.
> ​
> This consultation process will be open from September 30 to December 23, after which point the Council will analyse the responses and decide the best way forward.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> *Cllr Peter King, Vale of Glamorgan Council Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services and Transport said:* “The Council has taken no view to date on the possible options for a new road at this location.
> 
> “The possible options are at a concept design stage only. Before any decisions are taken on whether to progress a new road to the next stage of the transport assessment process, we are first seeking the views of the public.
> 
> “All interested parties are invited to share their thoughts by visiting the Council website. These will be fully considered before a decision is taken on what happens next. I would encourage everyone to consider the options carefully and feedback to us by December 23 with their views.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​A dedicated webpage has been set up with all the information needed to complete the feedback form.
> ​
> There is also an email address for anyone with queries to contact Council officers.
Click to expand...


----------



## sponge_bob

This will not be done, probably not even started, any near side of 2030 but I must confess I have never seen more route options in my life. 

This distant project is called *"**Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)**"*















__





Project Corridor Options - Access to Argyll and Bute (A83) | Transport Scotland







www.transport.gov.scot


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> This will not be done, probably not even started, any near side of 2030 but I must confess I have never seen more route options in my life.
> 
> This distant project is called *"**Access to Argyll and Bute (A83)**"*


I would bet that the crazier routes are entirely to avoid objections later on, so they can say that they have considered every possible option and rejected them for good reasons


----------



## sponge_bob

It is a cost thing as well. Argyll and Bute has a population of 90k persons spread across a whole mess of islands and peninsulas. The furthest point is 250km from Glasgow by road. SEE

If you built options 7 or 9 or 11 you would bring most of those 90k people to around an hours drive from Glasgow. Options 7 9 and 11 would include 2 - 3 major bridges each and I would expect one of those bridges to be tolled as well. Scotland has history clipping off long journeys around sea lochs with more direct bridges but the last major effort was when they built the Kessock and Cromarty bridges on the A9 north of Inverness around 40 years ago.

The do nothing option is still expensive. There are extensive and frequent landslips on the A83 existing road (shown as Option 1) which crosses a mountain pass and they are down £80m trying and failing to fix that stretch already with another landslip closing it only last week, 









It's the pits: £80m taxpayers' money 'wasted' over multiple failed fixes to iconic Scots road


MINISTERS have been accused of wasting nearly £80m on over a decade of failed solutions to landslides on the iconic A83 Rest and Be Thankful road…




www.heraldscotland.com


----------



## sponge_bob

The peasantry is pouring cold water on the Boris bridge to NI, the one that would be closed 30 days a year by high winds if built. Boris appointed someone to 'review' it last week.









Stormont minister says Scotland-Northern Ireland bridge is PM's 'vanity project'


A STORMONT minister has expressed doubt about a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland, saying Boris has a long history of “vanity” projects…




www.thenational.scot







> (NI) Infrastructure minister Nichola Mallon said the cash, if delivered by Boris Johnson, would be better used on other priorities.
> 
> “He has a long past of vanity bridges which he has never been able to get over the line,” she said.


and



> *“I would not want to be in a position of squandering £20 billion on a bridge that neither the Scottish Government nor I, as our infrastructure minister, see as a priority.” *


Never mind that there is no UK company left who can handle megaprojects like this since the demise of Trafalgar Bridge over 20 years ago so _Boris would need furriners to build it for him_.


----------



## hungrykitten

A new consultation has opened on the A417 Upgrade in Gloucestershire- covering some minor design changes:

*





A417 Missing Link Supplementary Consultation - October 2020 - Highways England - Citizen Space


Find and participate in consultations run by Highways England.



highwaysengland.citizenspace.com




*
Meanwhile- the preferred route for the arundel bypass has now been announced!



https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/++preview++/he/a27-arundel-bypass-preferred-route-announcement/supporting_documents/GFD20_0090%20Arundel%20A27%20Bypass%20Consultation_PRA%20October%202020%20PRINT.pdf


----------



## Eulanthe

Stuu said:


> I would bet that the crazier routes are entirely to avoid objections later on, so they can say that they have considered every possible option and rejected them for good reasons


Thing is, there could be sense in it. Building a bridge from north of Achnaba to Lagiemore would only be around 2.5km, while a bridge south of Dunoon would be around 3.5km. Buld a spur to Bute via Rhubodach - Colintraive and you can eliminate three ferries from state funding overnight. Timewise, it would be about 30-45 minutes quicker than the existing Rothesay-Wemyss Bay ferry too. Such a route would also become the main route to Oban and beyond, so it would make sense. 

The problem would be the cost: it's a lot of money for not many people.


----------



## Luki_SL

> *A27 Arundel bypass*
> *Our preferred route*
> 
> We’ve chosen *Grey (Option 5BV1) *as our preferred route for the A27 Arundel bypass.


more : 




__





A27 Arundel bypass - National Highways


As the main road serving the south coast, the A27 is a crucial route through the south east. National Highways is developing options for how the route could be improved.




highwaysengland.co.uk


----------



## geogregor

Luki_SL said:


> more :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A27 Arundel bypass - National Highways
> 
> 
> As the main road serving the south coast, the A27 is a crucial route through the south east. National Highways is developing options for how the route could be improved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> highwaysengland.co.uk


Now, let the battle with NIMBYs begin!


----------



## hungrykitten

A few more updates on road schemes:
1) An archaeological contract for the Stonehenge tunnel has now been awarded - with the decision on the DCO application due to be made by the 13th of November. The preliminary works contract has also been awarded yesterday. If the DCO is granted on time, and the indications are that it will, then preliminary works should start in Spring 2021.

2) The M54-M6 link road has now entered the examination phase- meaning that if all goes to plan, it should have its DCO granted in a years time.


----------



## sponge_bob

The preferred bidder for the last bit of the A465 'Heads of the Valleys' dualler in Wales is a consortium of FCC, Roadbridge and some others.

Singing is expected imminently (next week) with mobilisation starting in the early spring. 18km of DC here at an estimated cost of around £400m to build and in difficult geology down in a gorge. Costain have booked more than one loss on a nearby scheme in the same terrain.

Elsewhere, as Hungrykitten noted, not one but 2 advance works contracts were signed today for the A303 Stonehenge scheme including a £35m  archaeology contract, surely a UK record that and possibly even a world record.  The archaeology ALONE _comes in at £5m+ a mile. _ 









Osborne wins prelims for £1.7bn Stonehenge route


Record £35m archaeological protection and excavation deal also signed




www.constructionenquirer.com


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Elsewhere, as Hungrykitten noted, not one but 2 advance works contracts were signed today for the A303 Stonehenge scheme including a £35m  archaeology contract, surely a UK record that and possibly even a world record.  The archaeology ALONE _comes in at £5m+ a mile. _


It does seem a lot but then very few roads are built through world heritage sites, where so much of the landscape needs to be carefully surveyed and who knows how many things dug and recorded. Having to do it all in a short space of time means throwing resources at it, and archaeology is very people-intensive, and therefore expensive


----------



## sponge_bob

Given the amount of archaeological prep work done over the past 10 years on the A303 Stonehenge Project....going right back to route selection times...I am astonished that there is that much left to do as _*'advance works*_' . 

It is possible that the contract includes all on demand and monitoring services across the build phase of the scheme as well which would only seem reasonable????


----------



## hungrykitten

Going by the value of the tender I doubt it- I would imagine that would be part of the main works contract, which is yet to be awarded.

There is also another major piece of news out today- the DCO for the Lower Thames Crossing has been submitted today- with the planning inspectorate having 28 days to decide whether to accept it for examination or not. This means we are around a 18 months from the DCO being granted- so construction should start in roughly 2 years.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Given the amount of archaeological prep work done over the past 10 years on the A303 Stonehenge Project....going right back to route selection times...I am astonished that there is that much left to do as _*'advance works*_' .
> 
> It is possible that the contract includes all on demand and monitoring services across the build phase of the scheme as well which would only seem reasonable????


I'm not sure all that much physical archaeology has been done, there has been a lot of surveying work but not much actual digging. It's not advance works, that's something else. The contract bid info is here, it's an 8 year contract, so it must include on demand services as work progresses


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> it's an 8 year contract, so it must include on demand services as work progresses


Worth pointing out perhaps that it will not take another 8 years to build the road if the minister signs off on it but that the 8 years also includes 3 or 4 years at the end to write up dig reports and preserve any finds.


----------



## hungrykitten

sponge_bob said:


> Worth pointing out perhaps that it will not take another 8 years to build the road if the minister signs off on it but that the 8 years also includes 3 or 4 years at the end to write up dig reports and preserve any finds.


Bear in mind that if the DCO is granted, works are only due to start in late 2022, so it will take 8 years to complete the road. All the archaeology has to be carried out first, the detailed design has to be done, and there will be lots of DCO requirements to discharge before construction can begin.


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> It will take 8 years to complete the road.


Jesus, how is that possible???


----------



## hungrykitten

Sorry 7- its due to be completed by 2027. Though really, it will only take 5, as until late 2022, its all preliminary works- and the archaeological stuff.


----------



## hungrykitten

Major piece of news- The stonehenge tunnel has just been granted its Development Consent Order!


----------



## geogregor

hungrykitten said:


> Major piece of news- The stonehenge tunnel has just been granted its Development Consent Order!


Yep, more here:

A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down (A303 Stonehenge) project granted development consent

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2020/11/12/planning-green-light-for-1-7bn-stonehenge-tunnel/



> *Planning green light for £1.7bn Stonehenge tunnel*
> 
> The new section of dual carriageway will ease congestion on the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down.
> 
> The application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration by Highways England back in October 2018.
> 
> The Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive, Sarah Richards said: “There has been a great deal of public interest in this project.
> 
> “A major priority for us over the course of the examination was to ensure that communities who might be affected by this proposal had the opportunity to put forward their views.
> 
> “As always, the Examining Authority gave careful consideration to these before reaching its conclusion.”
> 
> Three consortia have been shortlisted for job which involves a 2-mile tunnelling project and 8-miles of dual carriageway upgrade.


Basic map for reference.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Very good news. Videos of the scheme heading westbound:


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The £1bn project to upgrade 18 miles of the A66 took another step forward today with the release of a project update, including junction designs. 9 new grade-separated junctions are proposed, mostly to a 'compact' design, and four existing GSJs are also to be upgraded. There will be no roundabouts between the M6 and A1(M). Construction should start in 2024-25.












https://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roads/road-projects/A66+Northern+Trans-Pennine/A66_Junction_Brochure_WEB.PDF


----------



## VITORIA MAN

which is the meaning of this " white barrier" in the 40 limit sign ? : Google Maps


----------



## sponge_bob

VITORIA MAN said:


> which is the meaning of this " white barrier" in the 40 limit sign ? : Google Maps


advance warning c 100m.


----------



## VITORIA MAN

isnt it more clear a 100 m sign ?


----------



## sponge_bob

VITORIA MAN said:


> isnt it more clear a 100 m sign ?


Look 100m away!


----------



## hungrykitten

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> The £1bn project to upgrade 18 miles of the A66 took another step forward today with the release of a project update, including junction designs. 9 new grade-separated junctions are proposed, mostly to a 'compact' design, and four existing GSJs are also to be upgraded. There will be no roundabouts between the M6 and A1(M). Construction should start in 2024-25.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roads/road-projects/A66+Northern+Trans-Pennine/A66_Junction_Brochure_WEB.PDF


It's good to see that there will be no gaps to allow right turns in the central reservation- with some of the existing ones being removed. It's a shame that there are no details yet on the upgrade to the 2 terminal roundabouts- though Isuspect that those improvements will merely comprise of more lanes on the slip roads, and maybe an extra lane on the roundabout. Highly unlikely to see freeflow links IMO, though that is understandable considering that the project is expensive as it is.


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> Highly unlikely to see freeflow links IMO, though that is understandable considering that the project is expensive as it is.


I'd say that will happen once traffic patterns establish themselves, right now it is a bit of an unknown. I'm still damned how they are spending £50m a mile seeing as the hard bit across the top of the moor is already done


----------



## hungrykitten

One of the reasons why we are having all these hard shoulder conversions on motorways into running lanes is simply because roads spending has woefully failed to keep up with the increased demand placed upon the Strategic Road Network as a result of a growing population and increased levels of commuting. Up until the creation of the Road Investment Strategy for 2015-2020 and RIS2 for 2020-25, there hasn't been the right level of investment- and this has created a massive backlog of urgently needed widening projects that simply couldn't all be completed if we had to physically increase the land take of the motorway. The main culprits for this mess are Major and Blair/Brown.

Another thing to note is that if the motorway were to be physically widened, this would fall outside of HE's permitted development rights- due to the land take- meaning that a DCO would have to be applied for, which is a long process including a 6 month public examination- with the process taking around a year and a half to complete. By widening within land already owned by HE, the statutory powers are far less onerous, and thus quicker.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

A major cost of road widenings is the replacement of bridges and overpasses. Land acquisition can be costly but most motorways run through fairly rural areas. Some could have a right-of-way that can accommodate a widening without having to acquire more land. 

When I was reading about the M25 ALR schemes, the cost seemed high compared to the Netherlands. If the shoulder is wide enough or needs only minimal expansion, the cost shouldn't be much higher than that of a typical pavement overhaul, plus ITS implementation. Yet several schemes were around 20 million pounds per mile if I remember correctly. This would approach the cost of a regular widening in countries like Netherlands, France or Germany.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

ChrisZwolle said:


> A major cost of road widenings is the replacement of bridges and overpasses. Land acquisition can be costly but most motorways run through fairly rural areas. Some could have a right-of-way that can accommodate a widening without having to acquire more land.
> 
> When I was reading about the M25 ALR schemes, the cost seemed high compared to the Netherlands. If the shoulder is wide enough or needs only minimal expansion, the cost shouldn't be much higher than that of a typical pavement overhaul, plus ITS implementation. Yet several schemes were around 20 million pounds per mile if I remember correctly. This would approach the cost of a regular widening in countries like Netherlands, France or Germany.


M4 J3-12 is £848 million for about 33 miles, or £26m per mile. This is one of the more expensive ALR schemes with many bridge replacements.

Obviously it is expensive compared to other countries, but the relevant thing from a policy perspective is how it compares to UK widening, which you can be sure would cost several times as much. Highways England don't widen motorways any more so there isn't a recent direct comparison. But you can look at schemes widening four lane (D2) expressways to six lane. The A13 scheme, which is very basic online widening, is £120m for 1.5 miles! Or for a longer, if not entirely comparable (because partially offline) scheme, the A12 which is coming in at £1.16bn for 12 miles, or £96m per mile! An extra lane can cost a lot more than £26m per mile in the UK.

The basic problem with full widening is that you pay as much, or nearly so, for an extra lane as you do for an entire new expressway. Highways England have taken the pragmatic view that they get more value from ALR and new alignments than they do from widening motorways. Widening only really happens for expressways like the A12, A13 or A19 that have no hard shoulder so therefore no option of ALR.

I expect much the same is true in other countries in terms of the relative cost of alternative interventions, but as everything is cheaper widening isn't so intolerably expensive.






M4 junctions 3-12: smart motorway - National Highways


We’re improving the M4 between junction 3 at Hayes and junction 12 at Theale by upgrading it to a smart motorway.




highwaysengland.co.uk









A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening scheme (junctions 19 to 25) - National Highways


We’re looking to widen the A12 between junction 19 (Chelmsford) and junction 25 (A120 interchange) to ease congestion and cope with increasing traffic demands.




highwaysengland.co.uk












A13 Road Widening Project


The A13 Road Widening Project is being delivered by Kier on behalf of Thurrock Council. The works include adding an additional lane in both directions between Orsett and Stanford-le-Hope and replacing four bridges. It will support economic growth, reduce congestion and enhance safety.




www.kier.co.uk


----------



## geogregor

The important question is why everything cost so much more in the UK? It looks like the Netherlands or France can do projects cheaper, despite being high wage rich economies.


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> The important question is why everything cost so much more in the UK?


England really, Scotland and NI can do projects cheaper. EG the sub £10m a km A6 scheme in NI which is mainly offline HQDC as compared to the proposed A66 HQDC scheme in Northern England in broadly similar terrain but at nearer £40-50m a km.


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> England really, Scotland and NI can do projects cheaper. EG the sub £10m a km A6 scheme in NI which is mainly offline HQDC as compared to the proposed A66 HQDC scheme in Northern England in broadly similar terrain but at nearer £40-50m a km.


Ok, but question still stands, why? Why is it so expensive in England?


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> Ok, but question still stands, why? Why is it so expensive in England?


I suspect a revolving door between Highways England and the City PPP financiers and their semi tied contractors. NI does not have many PPPs to date. It requires a serious forensic accounting analysis because the prices in England amount to a serial and serious ongoing fraud on the taxpayer in my opinion.

30 years ago it cost less than £5m a mile to build the 3+3 M40 section between Oxford and Birmingham and with a lot of British contractors competing for the work. Nowadays there would likely be 3 or 4 contractors only. 

The lack of capable contractors and competition can be partially blamed on Major and especially Blair who gave the industry nothing. But it cannot explain the crazy prices which started once PPPs came in.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

sponge_bob said:


> I suspect a revolving door between Highways England and the City PPP financiers and their semi tied contractors. NI does not have many PPPs to date. It requires a serious forensic accounting analysis because the prices in England amount to a serial and serious ongoing fraud on the taxpayer in my opinion.
> 
> 30 years ago it cost less than £5m a mile to build the 3+3 M40 section between Oxford and Birmingham and with a lot of British contractors competing for the work. Nowadays there would likely be 3 or 4 contractors only.
> 
> The lack of capable contractors and competition can be partially blamed on Major and especially Blair who gave the industry nothing. But it cannot explain the crazy prices which started once PPPs came in.


No current English schemes are PPP. I think it's still used in Scotland and Wales.

Also some major highway contractors have gone bust, so pretty hard to believe they're pulling a fast one. Compared to most sectors there are a lot of contractors (a dozen decent sized players maybe?).

And if it was so easy to build cheap British roads, foreign contractors would come in and lower the prices through competition. They've come in but the prices never went lower.

Nor do I really think the 'elf and safety culture is so much more demanding in England. It's almost identical in Scotland and Wales, and I've never heard anyone say it is less stringent in other western European countries.

Legal processes are now very streamlined in England - no public inquiries or anything, legal challenges very rare and always (to my knowledge) swiftly won by Highways England. They still have public inquiries in Scotland and Wales.

Land costs are high in England, especially Southern England, but the schemes we are talking about are predominantly on farmland, which can only be an insignificant fraction of a £50m+ per mile road.

The one potentially significant factor I've seen is that English prices often account for costs that may not be reported elsewhere. Take a look at how costs magically double between the base estimate and outturn estimate in the attached (taken from the A120 Scheme Assessment Report).

I'd love there to be some grand conspiracy, so we can smash it and get more essential road infrastructure built, but the explanation is probably more prosaic.


----------



## hungrykitten

It's also worth noting that if the M40 were to be built today- along with the inflation that has taken place since then, there would also be the costs of all the additional technology, the miles of ducting and cabling, the gantries and MS4's that come with it, so it isn't really a like for like comparison. There would also be a lot more environmental mitigation as well, such as the creation of additional woodland, and stuff like upgrades to the PROW (public rights of way) and biodiversity enhancement. Essentially all I am trying to say is that it isn't just the cost of the road, there is all the other stuff that comes with it as well. 
On top of that these scheme cost numbers are also including the price for all the option development that takes place, as well as the statutory procedures phases as well, which although they have been streamlined, are rigorous and intensive processes ( as they should be).


----------



## geogregor

hungrykitten said:


> It's also worth noting that if the M40 were to be built today- along with the inflation that has taken place since then, there would also be the costs of all the additional technology, the miles of ducting and cabling, the gantries and MS4's that come with it, so it isn't really a like for like comparison. There would also be a lot more environmental mitigation as well, such as the creation of additional woodland, and stuff like upgrades to the PROW (public rights of way) and biodiversity enhancement. Essentially all I am trying to say is that it isn't just the cost of the road, there is all the other stuff that comes with it as well.
> On top of that these scheme cost numbers are also including the price for all the option development that takes place, as well as the statutory procedures phases as well, which although they have been streamlined, are rigorous and intensive processes ( as they should be).


I get that things got more complicated and expensive over the years. But you would think those costs and complexity rises would be similar in jurisdictions outside England too. And yet, English road projects are very expensive comparing with many others.

As for hard shoulders, interesting ruling by the coroner:









Smart motorways present ongoing risk of death, says coroner


Coroner concludes lack of hard shoulder on M1 in South Yorkshire contributed to deaths of two men




www.theguardian.com







> A coroner has called for a review into smart motorways, concluding that the lack of a hard shoulder contributed to the deaths of two men.
> 
> Sheffield’s coroner, David Urpeth, said smart motorways, which allow motorists to drive on the hard shoulder, present an ongoing risk of future deaths. He said he will be writing to Highways England and the secretary of state for transport to request a review.


It is not only tabloids who are critical, as defenders of HE would like us to believe.

A lot of argument for their safety is based on the fact that they improve traffic flow thus reduce traffic jams and in that way reduce risk of collisions.

But what happens when the extra capacity is filled? The initial benefit is lost, we are back to square one. But this time without hard shoulder which always offer extra space to maneuver, for example for emergency services.

I do think it is expensive long time mistake to get rid of them.


----------



## hungrykitten

Some more news:
1) The A1 Birtley to Coal House widening project has been granted its development consent order- it will involve widening of the A1 between junction 65 and 67 near Newcastle.










A1 Birtley to Coal House Improvement Scheme granted development consent


Today, Tuesday 19 January 2021, the application for the A1 Birtley to Coal House Improvement Scheme has been given development consent by the Secretary of State for Transport.




www.gov.uk





Meanwhile- the M25/A3 Wisley Interchange upgrade project has had its decision delayed until May- whilst haggling continues of appropiate replacement land ratios....


----------



## sponge_bob

Hadn't noticed till now but a contract was signed in November to upgrade the remnant 2+1 section of the A465 Heads of the Valleys road around Merthyr Tydfil in Wales to HQDC. *18km for a "project spend" of £400m *in pretty difficult terrain, plus it is online. 

Construction imminent. As this is a DBFO project I assume project spend = construction cost









Written Statement: A465 Heads of the Valleys Dualling - Sections 5 & 6 Dowlais to Hirwaun Contract Award (10 November 2020) | GOV.WALES


Ken Skates, Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales




gov.wales


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Hadn't noticed till now but a contract was signed in November to upgrade the remnant 2+1 section of the A465 Heads of the Valleys road around Merthyr Tydfil in Wales to HQDC. *18km for a "project spend" of £400m *in pretty difficult terrain, plus it is online.
> 
> Construction imminent. As this is a DBFO project I assume project spend = construction cost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written Statement: A465 Heads of the Valleys Dualling - Sections 5 & 6 Dowlais to Hirwaun Contract Award (10 November 2020) | GOV.WALES
> 
> 
> Ken Skates, Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gov.wales


It's going to cost more than that. The figure of £400m refers to project spend _in Wales_, not the total. The scheme page says construction costs are £590m, but as it's a DBFO the finance and operation will be additional


----------



## sponge_bob

So, £55m a mile then Stuu but this one is_ online HQDC in difficult terrain with old mine works about,_ not in dead flat countryside in East Anglia.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

^ The actual cost of the PFI is £1.14bn, or over £100m per mile. And even that does not include VAT or inflation.









Highways Magazine - Heads of the Valleys dualling scheme to cost over £100m a mile


The Welsh Government has denied understating the construction cost of the final A465 dualling scheme as details of the future cost to taxpayers over three decades have belatedly emerged.




www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk





It rather confirms my thought that the apparently high English costs are largely because Highways England report full costs unlike authorities in many other countries. And it would also partly explain why earlier English schemes (often using PFI) were so much cheaper.


----------



## Stuu

I'm not convinced that is the only reason for the massive cost differential. For example the Baldock bypass opened in 2006 and cost £6.5m per km, and features some fairly heavy civil engineeering. Construction inflation has been a lot higher than in the whole economy, but even at 5% per year that is £13.5m per km now.

Costs in England are vastly higher than that now - the A120 referenced above is estimated at £60-80m per km. Neither HE or ORR (HE's regulator) don't seem to have any international benchmarking available publicly which would be useful. There must be more to it


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

It's not the only reason but a major element. As above, half of the estimated cost on the A120 comes from inflation, risk, uncertainty, etc. That is no small thing. £30m-£40m per km is high in international terms but not fruit loop crazy like £60m-£80m.


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> That is no small thing. £30m-£40m per km is high in international terms but not fruit loop crazy like £60m-£80m.


I have seen more than one scheme in flat east anglia quoted in the high 10s of millions a mile for HQDC. Meanwhile in the Irish thread you can now see a very recent video of an _Irish 100kph MQDC_ scheme in what is non trivial terrain. This will include at least 2 ducts each side, perhaps more depending on design freeze date,

That construction contract in Ireland is in non trivial terrain as the video clearly shows and with rather a lot of structures (overbridges and river crossings + 2 or 3 C-GSJ junctions), and came in at €8.5m a km which is £7.5m a km or* £12m a mile*, see contract notice here, €186m for 22km. Even allowing for recent currency movements no more than £13m a mile 

It really is time for some proper forensic accounting on where the money is actually going in England and although aggregate in East Anglia would be imported (from Leicestershire or even by ship from Scotland or Norway)... the land is flat and you would not need vast amounts of it to build a road bed.


----------



## madannie

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> The £1bn project to upgrade 18 miles of the A66 took another step forward today with the release of a project update, including junction designs. 9 new grade-separated junctions are proposed, mostly to a 'compact' design, and four existing GSJs are also to be upgraded. There will be no roundabouts between the M6 and A1(M). Construction should start in 2024-25.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roads/road-projects/A66+Northern+Trans-Pennine/A66_Junction_Brochure_WEB.PDF


Highways England's project director for the A66 has been briefing Cumbria County Council and has stated that the government is looking to accelerate the project, bringing completion forward to 2029 rather than the currently expected 2035, according to the News & Star. Preliminary ground investigations and on-site environmental assessments are due to begin next week with major works starting in early 2024.









Highways England hope to deliver £1bn Penrith to Scotch Corner A66 upgrade before 2030


Highways England hope to complete the £1bn upgrade to the A66 in Cumbria before 2030, following indications from the Government that it backs an…




www.newsandstar.co.uk


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The preferred route announcement has been made for the M60 Simister Island improvement near Manchester. M60 clockwise traffic currently has to navigate the eponymous island (i.e., roundabout). The improvement will provide a freeflow loop for this movement, among other changes.


----------



## hungrykitten

It's no great surprise that this was 'cancelled' - it was never a committed scheme in RIS1 or RIS2- and there was a lot of local opposition to it- I guess people in this area are already being screwed once by HS2 and don't want to be screwed over again by an expressway that will inevitably bring with it large amounts of housing- though that housing will still probably materialise. 
That being said- something really does need to be done to improve connections between Oxford and Milton Keynes- maybe it should be in the form of smaller scale bypasses and on-line improvements.


----------



## sponge_bob

Ah well, roll on the 'crap' Aylesbury bypass so  although that is not an HE project as it is not 'strategic' right now.









Plans for another stretch of Aylesbury link road published


Plans for another, new part of the link road around Aylesbury have been...




planetradio.co.uk


----------



## hungrykitten

More news on the A30 upgrade:








Businesses sign up to play a part in Highways England’s A30 upgrade in Cornwall


Highways England’s call for smaller, local companies to play a part in the A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross upgrade has received an encouraging response from businesses.




www.gov.uk





Also, a picture from the Highways England twitter account of a TBM being used to divert a water main as part of the project.


----------



## geogregor

A428 will be build by Skanska:









Skanska clinches £507m A428 dualling job


Highways England awards 16km road upgrade around St Neots in Cambridgeshire




www.constructionenquirer.com







> Skanska will build a 16km dual carriageway between the Black Cat roundabout at St Neots and Caxton Gibbet.
> 
> The A428 between St Neots and Caxton Gibbet is the only stretch of single carriageway between the M1 near Milton Keynes and Cambridge.
> 
> Several junction improvements will be made, including a new three-tier junction at the Black Cat roundabout allowing free flowing traffic onto the A1 and the new carriageway.


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> A428 will be build by Skanska:


Not £1.4bn but £507m + land acquisition (farmland) plus planning and contract supervision by consultants. It should come in around £600m tops unless there is some private finance funny business costing £800m somehow????


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Not £1.4bn but £507m + land acquisition (farmland) plus planning and contract supervision by consultants. It should come in around £600m tops unless there is some private finance funny business costing £800m somehow????


Must be the cost over 30 years of financing or something. There is no way the planning and other costs come to £900m, even in England! £500m seems entirely reasonable to me, £32m/km and that includes the stackabout.


----------



## sponge_bob

Seems a tad high to me @Stuu but it is somewhat digestible. The problem here is that if a proper international company bid £500m in the end then _how many REPUTABLE companies_ _did not even bid_ when they saw the earlier estimates and what did _that_ do to the end price for the taxpayer.

This seems to be a design build (traditional-ish) contract from the link Geogregor provided. Maybe it was conceived as a DBFO and that was where the £1.4bn came from. I don't even think that this scheme had early contractor involvement (ECI) which has turned out to be an awful racket if you ask me


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Seems a tad high to me @Stuu but it is somewhat digestible. The problem here is that if a proper international company bid £500m in the end then _how many REPUTABLE companies_ _did not even bid_ when they saw the earlier estimates and what did _that_ do to the end price for the taxpayer.
> 
> This seems to be a design build (traditional-ish) contract from the link Geogregor provided. Maybe it was conceived as a DBFO and that was where the £1.4bn came from. I don't even think that this scheme had early contractor involvement (ECI) which has turned out to be an awful racket if you ask me


I have found out that the cost is the total cost over 60 years including inflation. I have no idea if this is to make the numbers seem bigger or if it is a new way of accounting for schemes. I would assume that any requests for tenders would have given the estimated construction cost, rather than the 60 year outturn cost though


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> I have found out that the cost is the total cost over 60 years including inflation


So that £1.9bn Stonehenge tunnel is gonna come in at ~£7-800m then.


----------



## hungrykitten

Assuming it manages to get through the legal challenge in June


----------



## hungrykitten

Highways Magazine - VolkerFitzpatrick wins A31 widening deal


VolkerFitzpatrick has bagged the contract to carry out a widening of the A31 at Ringwood in Hampshire, which is expected to cost between £25m and £30m.




www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk





works to start this year- also 'appears' to be reasonably priced...


----------



## sponge_bob

What is the story exactly about this dumb smart motorway stopped vehicle algorithm that seemingly does not work. It is supposed to pick up 'stopped' cars on a smart motorway if the radar cannot see them stopped.









Smart motorway radar could miss 15% of stopped vehicles | Autocar


Report suggests tech fails to detect 15% of stationary vehicles, as Highways England admits to errors




www.autocar.co.uk







> Highways England now says the SVD system worked 237 times out of 277, a success rate of 85.6% and above the 80% benchmark required to meet the minimum standard, even allowing for a 3.9% margin for error. It admits that 40 missed detections were genuine, including seven instances attributed to ‘blindspots’ in the radar system.
> 
> _Analysis conducted by Highways Magazine__ - which disputes the explanations given by Highways England -* indicates that 2400 stationary vehicles could be missed annually on just a 13km (eight-mile) stretch of the smart motorway network.*_


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> What is the story exactly about this dumb smart motorway stopped vehicle algorithm that seemingly does not work. It is supposed to pick up 'stopped' cars on a smart motorway if the radar cannot see them stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smart motorway radar could miss 15% of stopped vehicles | Autocar
> 
> 
> Report suggests tech fails to detect 15% of stationary vehicles, as Highways England admits to errors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.autocar.co.uk


What algorithm do you mean? At the moment there is *no* stopped vehicle detection, other than by CCTV operators hopefully paying attention and not playing poker as Hollywood would like us to believe


----------



## hungrykitten

Stuu said:


> What algorithm do you mean? At the moment there is *no* stopped vehicle detection, other than by CCTV operators hopefully paying attention and not playing poker as Hollywood would like us to believe


There is currently SVD, but its only on the M3 and M25- though it's being rolled out to all of the ALR smart motorways. Whether it will prove to be effective is questionable going off media report; frankly the whole situation is an unfortunate bodge, but when motorways need to be widened, and there isn't enough money to do it conventionally ( properly), then what can one do. The best solution ( and the most expensive) IMO would have been to conventionally widen with a new hard shoulder whilst also adding all the smart motorway technology along with it.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Here are the highest 2019 AADFs in Great Britain according to DfT data (via SABRE):

Road Junctions Standard HGVs All motor vehicles

1 M25 14 15 D6M 18320 216108
2 M25 12 11 D4M 14887 200854
3 M25 16 15 D4M* 19730 198709
4 M25 12 13 D5M 14431 186335
5 M60 13 12 D4M 17702 180501
6 M25 18 19 D4M 15242 179442
7 M60 16 17 D4M 18784 176066
8 M25 20 21 D4M 15661 175216
9 M56 4 3 D4M 9271 174693
10 M60 17 18 D4M* 19683 173470
11 M6 20 21 D4M 23441 173201
12 M25 16 17 D4M 20081 171584
13 M25 11 10 D4M 13546 171458
14 M25 13 14 D5M 13507 169182
15 M1 11 11A D3DHS* 24975 168763
16 M25 17 18 D4M 14502 168010
17 M1 8 9 D4M 20698 166400
18 M1 7 8 D4M+D3 17563 166213
19 M6 21 21A D4M 22937 164994
20 M60 15 16 D4M 18630 164171
21 M1 6A 7 D4M 18249 163886
22 M60 2 3 D4M 7714 163291
23 M4 4B 4 D4* 8217 161807
24 M62 26 27 D3DHS* 21987 161700
25 M1 42 43 D5M 12794 160527
26 M6 6 8 D3DHS* 26117 160494
27 M8 15 14 D5 6563 160484
28 M1 9 10 D4M 18748 160373
29 M6 8 9 D3DHS* 25538 159878
30 M1 11A 12 D4ALR 22532 159866
31 M6 31 31A D4M 13909 159430
32 M25 8 7 D4M 13118 159115
33 M1 21 21A D4M 20848 157383
34 M25 23 24 D4ALR 22553 156903
35 M6 30 31 D4M 13152 156190
36 M8 16 15 D4+ 8347 156136
37 A2 B262 A227 D4H 10951 155800
38 M42 5 6 D3DHS* 16451 154532
39 M6 5 4A D3DHS* 23750 153997
40 M42 6 7 D3DHS* 18102 153666
41 M60 2 1 D3M 8634 153636
42 A2 A296 A2260 D4H 11977 152879
43 M25 21A 21 D3M+D2M 20883 152662
44 M1 31 32 D4M 21357 152214
45 M25 9 9 D4M 13006 151686
46 M56 5 4 D4M 8729 150675
47 M25 10 9 D4M 12931 150539
48 M61 2 3 D3M+D3M* 15754 150331
49 M25 16 17 D4M 15364 150227
50 M1 10 11 D3DHS* 21005 149909
51 M1 23A 24 D4M 20078 149587
52 M25 9 8 D4M 13009 149347
53 M25 30 29 D4M 29207 148117
54 M6 6 5 D3DHS* 26987 147812
55 A38(M) M6 A38 S7 7458 146908
56 A406 M11 A104 D5 7388 146775
57 A27 A2030 A3M D4H 5607 146531
58 M25 26 25 D4ALR 19882 146475
59 M6 9 10 D3DHS* 22655 146339
60 M25 15 15 D3M 11077 146054
61 M8 A8 A814 5+3+2 6563 145658
62 A2 A227 Singlewell D4H 11126 145487
63 M25 28 27 D4M 25738 144785
64 M42 4 5 D3DHS* 16417 144518
65 M60 13 14 D3M+ 15994 144170
66 M8 25A 25 D4M 6597 143987
67 M25 7 6 D4M 14660 143608
68 M25 21A 22 D4M 20824 143542
69 M25 19 20 D4M 13474 143411
70 M1 12 13 D3DHS* 21151 143195
71 A1(M) 43 44 D4M 20216 143012
72 M4 2 1 D2+D2 13449 142887
73 M1 41 42 D4+ALR 13299 141474
74 M60 7 6 D3M+D2M 6445 140967
75 M25 26 27 D4ALR 20549 140908
76 M25 24 25 D4ALR 22687 140778
77 A2 M25 A296 D4H 12472 140335
78 A13 A117 A406 D4 8245 140314
79 M4 6 5 D3M* 9914 140070
80 M60 12 11 3M+2M+2M 7972 139929
81 M62 25 26 D4ALR 18404 138654
82 M62 18 19 D4ALR 21775 138627
83 M56 6 5 D4M 9197 138257
84 M60 6 5 D4M 6565 137785
85 M62 18 19 D4ALR 18816 137618
86 A2 A2260 B262 D4H+1H 10779 137591
87 M1 10 10 D4M 16414 137538
88 M8 17 16 D4 6889 137242
89 M1 25 26 D4M 19731 136912
90 M1 26 27 D4M 20875 136910
91 M3 13 14 4M+2M+2M 11003 136659
92 M1 28 29 D4ALR 19468 136601
93 M42 3A 4 D3DHS* 16035 136542
94 M60 25 24 D3M 7433 136088
95 M60 1 27 D3 7452 135796
96 M25 29 28 D4M 27262 135657
97 M8 25A 26 D4 6405 135427
98 M6 21 21 D4M 14177 135278
99 M6 10 10A D3DHS* 21361 135136
100 M6 24 25 D3M* 14265 134966
101 M1 11 11 D4ALR 18259 134930
102 M4 4 3 D3M* 7268 134750
103 M27 3 4 D4M 10338 134210
104 A2 A227 A227 D4H 11889 133849
105 A2 Shorne M2 D4H* 11110 133669
106 M8 25 24 D4M 9017 133542
107 M25 23 22 D4M 19898 133526
108 M40 3 2 D4M 9643 133490
109 A2 Singlewell Shorne D4H* 10944 133422
110 M1 32 33 D4ALR 14749 133126
111 M8 24 23 D4 6874 133014
112 M6 31A 32 D4M 11409 132849
113 M3 4 3 D4ALR 6860 131873
114 A13 A1261 A1011 D3+D1 7594 131402
115 M25 6 5 D4ALR 14396 131244
116 M62 25 26 D4ALR 16604 130999
117 A27 A3 A2030 D3H 6112 130949
118 A40 A312 A4127 D3 7949 130751
119 M25 3 2 D4M 15325 130741
120 A406 A118 A124 D3 8399 130569
121 M27 11 12 D3M 6370 130554
122 M60 23 22 D4M 7589 130542
123 M1 27 28 D4M 17384 130347
124 A282 31 1a 4+2+2 18640 130265
125 M4 5 4B D4M 10011 130187

*Does not include scheduled upgrade

Glossary for the international audience:

D4M=eight lane divided with a hard shoulder and under motorway conditions
D4H=eight lane divided with a hard shoulder and not under motorway conditions
D4=eight lane divided without a hard shoulder (may or may not be under motorway conditions)
D4ALR=eight lane divided without hard shoulder and under smart motorway conditions
D3DHS=six lane divided with dynamic hard shoulder and under smart motorway conditions (all examples are to be upgraded to D4ALR)


----------



## hungrykitten

Highways England unveils multi-million pound initiative to revitalise ageing concrete roads


The project will make sure that concrete roads are safer, quieter and easier to maintain for the future.




www.gov.uk





Highways England has published plans for concrete surfaces- some will be rehabilitated, others will be completely removed and re-laid with a tarmac surface.









Highways England rules out Stonehenge Tunnel ERAs


Consultants looked at two safety lay-bys per tunnel on £1.7bn project




www.constructionenquirer.com




Meanwhile the Stonehenge saga grinds on..


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> Highways England rules out Stonehenge Tunnel ERAs
> 
> 
> Consultants looked at two safety lay-bys per tunnel on £1.7bn project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.constructionenquirer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the Stonehenge saga grinds on..


Is someone being really really stupid here? 



> Consultants are being asked to cost the cheaper option of two laybys per tunnel, spaced at 1000m centres, constructed using sprayed concrete lining techniques, or increasing the diameter of the tunnels to incorporate a hard shoulder lane over the entire length of the tunnel.


----------



## sponge_bob

Seeming.....this is called a NO PRIORITY junction.  WTF 











Story. 









Safety fears as drivers slam ‘confusing’ Wirral junction


Many drivers thought it was a roundabout




www.liverpoolecho.co.uk


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Is someone being really really stupid here?


I guess the construction method, ground conditions, delays to the schedule etc *might* make it more economic to just build a bigger tunnel.... seems very unlikely though


----------



## geogregor

Bids called for £1.9bn Lower Thames Crossing link roads


Highways England has issued its call for tenders for £1.9bn of new roads for the Lower Thames Crossing.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk







> Two contracts are in play: a £600m contract for new roads in Kent and a £1.3bn contract for new roads on the north side of the crossing.
> 
> The two successful bidders will build a total of 14.3 miles of new roads that will connect the longest road tunnel in the UK to the strategic road network.
> 
> Construction of the Lower Thames Crossing itself – twin 2.6-mile-long road tunnels connecting Kent and Essex – is a £2.3bn package that was put out to tender in November 2020.
> 
> In February US consulting engineer Jacobs was given a £162.5m contract to oversee construction of the entire £7bn project.
> 
> The latest tender process is for two roads contracts:
> 
> – The £600m Kent roads contract is a two-stage design and build contract for the part of the route from the A2/M2 corridor to 1km south of the southern tunnel entrance, with strategic utilities and environmental interfaces. It comprises 6km of new road, including a multi-level junction to connect the A2 to the Lower Thames Crossing.
> 
> – The £1.3bn roads north of the Thames contract is also a two-stage design and build contract, delivering the route from 1km north of the northern tunnel entrance to Junction 29 of the M25. The chosen contractor will build 16km of new road and more than 30 new and/or upgraded structures, embankments, cuttings and retaining walls. New link roads are required to connect the route with the A13, the A1089 and junction 29 of the M25, including two viaducts at Tilbury over Tilbury Loop Railway and at across Orsett Fenn over the Mardyke flood plain.














> However, all this still depends on Highways England getting planning permission to build the new crossing. It submitted an application for a development consent order to the Planning Inspectorate in October 2020 but had to withdraw it after being told that it lacked necessary details.
> 
> Highways England plans to resubmit its application for a development consent order later this year.
> 
> Highways England’s director for the Lower Thames Crossing, Matt Palmer, said: “The Lower Thames Crossing is the most ambitious road project this country has seen since the M25 was completed 35 years ago. These contracts show our commitment to this project, which will support 22,000 jobs during its construction and provide a huge economic boost to the UK economy when it opens for traffic.”


----------



## bartek76

@geogregor 
Looks like you cocked up languages a bit


----------



## geogregor

bartek76 said:


> @geogregor
> Looks like you cocked up languages a bit


Corrected.

Bloody bilingualism. That what happens when you post in too many threads in different languages at the same time...


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

geogregor said:


> Bids called for £1.9bn Lower Thames Crossing link roads
> 
> 
> Highways England has issued its call for tenders for £1.9bn of new roads for the Lower Thames Crossing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


Followers of UK road prices will notice that the contracts put out to tender come to about £4bn (£1.9bn for the roads, £2bn for the tunnels, £160m for integration). This continues the trend of a sharp discount relative to astronomical publicised costs, which were around £7bn in this case.


----------



## sponge_bob

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Followers of UK road prices will notice that the contracts put out to tender come to about £4bn (£1.9bn for the roads, £2bn for the tunnels, £160m for integration).


It is still exceptionally high, or astronomical with no capital A. The 'roads' estimate is £1.9bn for only 14 miles (23km) of DC in flat countryside with a bit of marsh that might need piling in spots. I could be wrong on the total length of approach roads and would gladly take a correction on that. If I am right that is not far off £100m a km and includes 3 major interchanges (M25/A13/M2)

The tunnel section is 4km long or £500m a km. Denmark is building the Fehmarn tunnel which is 18km long for just under £7bn right now but that is a quad tunnel (twin motorway and and twin high speed rail ) in parallel and I understand it includes a deal of electrification of the Danish rail network as well, anyway that is £400m a km that and includes a hard shoulder. 

The Dartford Bridge (opened 1991) cost £30m a km (it is 3km long) with another £30m spent in total on road tie ins at ground level.


----------



## sponge_bob

This M25 section has been number 1 for years now but AADT has fallen from the absolute peak which was set in 2014. 

2014 262,842
2018 219,492
2019 216,108



Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Here are the highest 2019 AADFs in Great Britain according to DfT data (via SABRE):
> 
> Road Junctions Standard HGVs All motor vehicles
> 
> 1 M25 14 15 D6M 18320 *216108*


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> It is still exceptionally high, or astronomical with no capital A. The 'roads' estimate is £1.9bn for only 14 miles (23km) of DC in flat countryside with a bit of marsh that might need piling in spots. I could be wrong on the total length of approach roads and would gladly take a correction on that. If I am right that is not far off £100m a km and includes 3 major interchanges (M25/A13/M2)
> 
> The tunnel section is 4km long or £500m a km. Denmark is building the Fehmarn tunnel which is 18km long for just under £7bn right now but that is a quad tunnel (twin motorway and and twin high speed rail ) in parallel and I understand it includes a deal of electrification of the Danish rail network as well, anyway that is £400m a km that and includes a hard shoulder.
> 
> The Dartford Bridge (opened 1991) cost £30m a km (it is 3km long) with another £30m spent in total on road tie ins at ground level.


The plain road costs are fairly reasonable, two of the interchanges are enormous, especially the one with the A2. It's as complicated as anything else in the country. Add to that the costs of the traffic management on the three existing roads and it gets costly.

The tunnel does seem expensive, but it is going to be the third widest bore in the world apparently. I would imagine building a longer tunnel would be cheaper per mile as the fixed costs of getting to the point of construction are enormous. It's not hugely different to the current project in Antwerp in terms of cost


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> This M25 section has been number 1 for years now but AADT has fallen from the absolute peak which was set in 2014.
> 
> 2014 262,842
> 2018 219,492
> 2019 216,108


Which is strange, that's a massive drop with no obvious explanation. There's no alternative new route or anything else. Change in methodology perhaps?


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> Which is strange, that's a massive drop with no obvious explanation. There's no alternative new route or anything else. Change in methodology perhaps?


It is a clear multiyear pattern. My feeling is that employment patterns have changed and that modern successful companies are more city centre than orbital business park based in the last decade (the same sort of employer has grown strongly in many cities not just London).

So this change will create_ more radial journeys than orbital journey_s as people travel to work. Put another way the population of central London dropped steadily from WW2 to around when the M25 was finally finished in 1986 and the population only started to climb in central London from the mid 1980s on. That pattern has been established 35 years but the growth of the orbital based companies took longer to change than the population settlement pattern did.

The most successful company 20 years ago was based in Newbury out the M4. That was Vodafone then. On a large scale i think that is what you are seeing on the M25 Stuu.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> It is a clear multiyear pattern. My feeling is that employment patterns have changed and that modern successful companies are more city centre than orbital business park based in the last decade (the same sort of employer has grown strongly in many cities not just London).
> 
> So this change will create_ more radial journeys than orbital journey_s as people travel to work. Put another way the population of central London dropped steadily from WW2 to around when the M25 was finally finished in 1986 and the population only started to climb in central London from the mid 1980s on. That pattern has been established 35 years but the growth of the orbital based companies took longer to change than the population settlement pattern did.
> 
> The most successful company 20 years ago was based in Newbury out the M4. That was Vodafone then. On a large scale i think that is what you are seeing on the M25 Stuu.


That may be a factor over a long period, but there hasn't been that much of a change in employment over the last 6 years. Figures I have found show that health, education and retail were the fastest growing roles in the London area. Those won't be based centrally. I would also say the proportion of people using the M25 to access jobs in central London would be minute, something like 5% of people drive to work in central London last time I saw figures.

The biggest employer that way is Heathrow, by a huge margin. It could be that journeys to the airport by both passengers and employees have changed mode. It's a massive change in traffic though


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> It's a massive change in traffic though


You can see what I mean in Govia Thameslink stats here (compared to other franchisees) . Their catchment is northern M25 into London and across London. Their journeys increased hugely over that time. Crossrail will make a difference too. 



Passenger rail usage | ORR Data Portal











File:Govia Thameslink Railway Map.svg - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







simple.wikipedia.org


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> You can see what I mean in Govia Thameslink stats here (compared to other franchisees) . Their catchment is northern M25 into London and across London. Their journeys increased hugely over that time. Crossrail will make a difference too.


The Thameslink franchise took over routes from other operators in 2018 once the upgrading work qas finished. More services will have increased passenger numbers a bit, but not much. I don't think that adequately explains how a fifth of the traffic volume has vanished over 5 years.


----------



## geogregor

You could also add rise of home working. It was trend visible even before the pandemic. It also caused drop in numbers of season tickets sold by the railway companies.

And people owning nice plush homes in villages around the M25 might be tho ones most likely to switch to work from home rather than drive to suburban office parks.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It would be interesting to see the pre-2014 data, whether 262,000 was a one-time jump or unrepresentative count.


----------



## Stuu

ChrisZwolle said:


> It would be interesting to see the pre-2014 data, whether 262,000 was a one-time jump or unrepresentative count.


I had thought the same thing before I saw your post...

This is the last 15 years' data:









I suspect either 2014 was due to something else happening on the road network nearby, or is just wrong. It's a complete outlier. 2011 seems a bit dubious too

The traffic counts for the next section south (J13-14) are:









And the section to the north (M4-M40)









The section to the north has increased and then stayed fairly flat. The section to the south has also been fairly flat until 2019. Neither changed dramatically in 2014 so I would go with it being an error


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> The plain road costs are fairly reasonable, two of the interchanges are enormous, especially the one with the A2.


Indeed:
















And an overview of the Lower Thames Crossing scheme:


----------



## sponge_bob

The Dartford crossing is unusual because the toll scheme has been kept even though the crossing is long paid off. Is that toll scheme being used to fund the lower Thames crossing and will it apply on the lower Thames same as Dartford???


----------



## LegEnd

sponge_bob said:


> The Dartford crossing is unusual because the toll scheme has been kept even though the crossing is long paid off. Is that toll scheme being used to fund the lower Thames crossing and will it apply on the lower Thames same as Dartford???


Dartford Crossing is a congestion charge akin the central London. The aim is basically to make fewer vehicles use it, and raising money is more of an added bonus. That being said, the money goes to the Department of Transport to spend on roads, so in theory could partially go towards the new crossing.
The new crossing will certainly be tolled to pay for it's construction.


----------



## sponge_bob

LegEnd said:


> Dartford Crossing is a congestion charge akin the central London.


I know, I meant unusual because most UK crossing tolls are abolished once the asset is paid off and a maintenance kitty is built up, EG the Severn a few years back. It makes sense to have a unified toll scheme on the Dartford and Lower Thames because even though congestion should not be an issue there is £2bn (hopefully no more) to be paid off. The £2bn can also be spun out as a bond and not lie around on the national debt for 50 years either.


----------



## sponge_bob

Of the corollary, had the Severn toll been retained then the Welsh might have decided they could afford the M4 Newport Bypass after all.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> I know, I meant unusual because most UK crossing tolls are abolished once the asset is paid off and a maintenance kitty is built up, EG the Severn a few years back. It makes sense to have a unified toll scheme on the Dartford and Lower Thames because even though congestion should not be an issue there is £2bn (hopefully no more) to be paid off. The £2bn can also be spun out as a bond and not lie around on the national debt for 50 years either.


They aren't abolished as a rule. Plenty of toll crossings are still tolled, such as the Humber, Itchen, Mersey tunnels etc. The Scottish Government chose to abolish all tolls it controlled. The Severn bridge toll was also removed for political reasons, rather than any link with how much of the asset cost had been repayed


----------



## sponge_bob

60kph, lets see what it does to lane utilisation then (spacing). My theory is that it will drop massively. 100 autonomous cars will stay much further from each other, even at 60kph.








UK government green lights ‘self-driving’ cars on motorways


The UK government on Wednesday became the first country to announce it will regulate the use of self-driving vehicles at slow speeds on motorways, with the first such cars possibly appearing on public roads as soon as this year.




www.reuters.com


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> 60kph, lets see what it does to lane utilisation then (spacing). My theory is that it will drop massively. 100 autonomous cars will stay much further from each other, even at 60kph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK government green lights ‘self-driving’ cars on motorways
> 
> 
> The UK government on Wednesday became the first country to announce it will regulate the use of self-driving vehicles at slow speeds on motorways, with the first such cars possibly appearing on public roads as soon as this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com


Classic distraction technique from the corruption allegations... I bet nothing comes of it


----------



## geogregor

It is completely moronic and meaningless proposal. As Stuu says, pure distraction.


----------



## geogregor

A few questions about fire procedures after fire in Blackwall Tunnel:









Latest Blackwall Tunnel blaze could prompt fire safety rethink | New Civil Engineer


The video, taken from inside a motorist’s vehicle, shows a car on fire inside the northbound tunnel. The video also shows traffic passing the blaze and




www.newcivilengineer.com







> “The way that we currently plan is for traffic to stop if there is a fire within a tunnel,” Tarada told _NCE_.
> 
> “The tunnel’s ventilation and fire systems will have been designed to push the smoke forwards through the tunnel, due to the assumption that traffic will stop.
> 
> “Obviously, from this video, that is clearly not the case.”









> An initial review of the CCTV footage shows the fire igniting at around 10:05 am. The clock seen on the dashboard of the video in question shows that the footage was taken at 10:12am meaning vehicles continued to pass the car for seven minutes - shortly after emergency services reached the scene and temporarily closed the tunnel.
> 
> Consequently Tarada believes that “further research into human behaviour” needs to be carried out to determine if fire safety systems need to be rethought.
> 
> “This does not mean that fire safety systems are unsafe,” Tarada said. “However, it does show that assumptions made about human behaviour are not necessarily accurate 100% of the time, so there does need to be a conversation and there should be further research carried out.


----------



## Stuu

Given that you wouldn't have seen the car on fire until the last minute because of the sharp bend, I think not stopping and wanting to get past asap is the completely normal reaction.

Perhaps not using infrastructure designed for horse and carts would be sensible? Something people against the Silvertown tunnel should think about


----------



## hungrykitten

The decision for the M25 Junction 10 upgrade (expanded roundabout) is due to be made by tomorrow, after a 4 month delay.
Up north, the A19 widening between Norton and Wynard (project 43 in RIS1) is expected to be completed half a year early, opening later this year instead of Spring 2022. The A19 Testos upgrade (project 35) will also be opening this summer


----------



## LegEnd

hungrykitten said:


> The decision for the M25 Junction 10 upgrade (expanded roundabout) is due to be made by tomorrow, after a 4 month delay.
> Up north, the A19 widening between Norton and Wynard (project 43 in RIS1) is expected to be completed half a year early, opening later this year instead of Spring 2022. The A19 Testos upgrade (project 35) will also be opening this summer


And delayed again... Shapps delays decision on £250M M25 junction upgrade for second time | New Civil Engineer


----------



## Stuu

LegEnd said:


> And delayed again... Shapps delays decision on £250M M25 junction upgrade for second time | New Civil Engineer


Good, replacing a roundabout with a bigger roundabout and spending £250m in the process is insane


----------



## hungrykitten

Stuu said:


> Good, replacing a roundabout with a bigger roundabout and spending £250m in the process is insane


Thanks to the way our planning system works- and considering who the owners of the nearby land are- its the best we are going to get- so we may as well go ahead and build it, even if it will offer less long-term relief than the other options. Even if the roundabout itself is a bodge, the widening of the A3 to 4 lanes, and the increase to 4 running lanes for the M25 through J10 are very welcome.


----------



## sponge_bob

SURPRISE!!!!! a new MOTORWAY. 









Surprise! A new motorway


Appearing unexpectedly on signs in Lincolnshire last week, a brand new motorway has suddenly come into existence. And it's a weird one.




www.roads.org.uk





Seemingly it is a former Mxxx Motorway, one of the few that was not a member of the Trunk Road network, and which was deliberately downgraded by the addition of inline roundabouts and then given the title of A1007(M)


----------



## geogregor

Hexham junction structures wheeled into place


Tilbury Douglas has passed a key milestone on its A69 Bridge End junction upgrade in Hexham, Northumberland.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


----------



## hungrykitten

Plans continue to progress for the A12 J19-25 widening- apparently there will be a consultation next month now that purdah is over... https://assets.highwaysengland.co.u..._Chelmsford_to_A120_newsletter_May21final.pdf

Other Sections of the A12, between J13-15 and 25-26 will have their concrete surfaces removed and reconstructed with tarmac in 2022, which is very welcome news considering the horrific state of the road surface. The M27 between J5-7 will also have its surface reconstructed to remove the concrete- but this will take place after the smart motorway works have concluded- meaning two sets of roadworks!!


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

hungrykitten said:


> Thanks to the way our planning system works- and considering who the owners of the nearby land are- its the best we are going to get- so we may as well go ahead and build it, even if it will offer less long-term relief than the other options. Even if the roundabout itself is a bodge, the widening of the A3 to 4 lanes, and the increase to 4 running lanes for the M25 through J10 are very welcome.


The early stages of the study actually showed the elongated roundabout had a higher land take than providing a single freeflow right turn:
















They never actually consulted on the single freeflow right turn because they considered the double freeflow right turn to be better value, which it is:








They consulted on two options, the elongated roundabout and double freeflow, and double freeflow received much more public support (64% to 29%).

But then something strange happened and it was decided that land take had to be minimised. But instead of reviewing all options (including the single freeflow right turn) in light of that they only considered the two consulted options, and as the roundabout had lower land take than the double freeflow right turn, they chose the roundabout.

So in short, there isn't even an environmental case for the roundabout. It was only selected due to a flawed, inconsistent process and really has nothing going for it.

PS: In case you're wondering why the single freeflow right turn would not be in the same direction as either of the turns in the double freeflow option, West to South is the busiest movement, but North to West and South to East are 2nd and 3rd and much busier than East to North.


----------



## hungrykitten

Would be interesting to find out why that single freeflow was never part of the initial options consultation- its pretty evident that land take and not public support was the primary reason behind the picking of the elongated roundabout- so had that freeflow right turn been in the original consultation it might have been what we ended up with, which whilst still underpowered would have been better than what we have now- and would likely be easier to modify to add additional freeflow links later.
That being said, considering that the decision has just been delayed for 6 months, and that if the DCO is granted it may well be judicially reviewed by RHS, we may be ending up with nothing, expect for a bill from the consultants!


----------



## Stuu

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> But then something strange happened and it was decided that land take had to be minimised. But instead of reviewing all options (including the single freeflow right turn) in light of that they only considered the two consulted options, and as the roundabout had lower land take than the double freeflow right turn, they chose the roundabout.
> 
> So in short, there isn't even an environmental case for the roundabout. It was only selected due to a flawed, inconsistent process and really has nothing going for it.
> 
> PS: In case you're wondering why the single freeflow right turn would not be in the same direction as either of the turns in the double freeflow option, West to South is the busiest movement, but North to West and South to East are 2nd and 3rd and much busier than East to North.


If land take is the big issue, the rigidity of the design standards needs to be looked at. Why not go for some innovative solution with sharper turns like on the Dublin M50? The N4 junction manages complete grade separation in all directions in less space. Yes, some of the loops are very tight but they are better than a roundabout with traffic lights


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> If land take is the big issue, the rigidity of the design standards needs to be looked at. Why not go for some innovative solution with sharper turns like on the Dublin M50? The N4 junction manages complete grade separation in all directions in less space. Yes, some of the loops are very tight but they are better than a roundabout with traffic lights


You would be down to 25mph through them, are curves that slow acceptable in the UK in_ a freeflow_ scenario? They are fine leading into a gyratory where you would stop a lot of the time.

Also remember the approaches to the Dublin M50 whirlygigs are already restricted to no more than 60mph on the M50 mainline and less from other directions so you are not required to slow down from 70mph to 25mph in a short distance. 

This is all a tad non standard in the UK which would catch unwary motorists out.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> You would be down to 25mph through them, are curves that slow acceptable in the UK in_ a freeflow_ scenario? They are fine leading into a gyratory where you would stop a lot of the time.


You wouldn't have to copy it exactly, but doing something with lower than usual standards could be considered. Given that the A3 isn't a motorway (bizarrely but that's a different issue), then it's not a motorway to motorway junction so drivers are slightly pre-warned that it might be lower standard than other freeflow junctions.

How about something like this?









The red eastbound loop would descend once across the M25 and go below the blue southbound loop and the north to west route - there's about 120m of road so easily doable. The blue loop would use the existing roundabout and then climb once under the A3 to go over the south side of the rounadbout. Repeat for the opposite side. Building it would be tricky but nothing is tighter than the existing roundabout and there is barely an extra land take


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> You wouldn't have to copy it exactly, but doing something with lower than usual standards could be considered. Given that the A3 isn't a motorway (bizarrely but that's a different issue), then it's not a motorway to motorway junction so drivers are slightly pre-warned that it might be lower standard than other freeflow junctions.
> 
> How about something like this?
> View attachment 1529626
> 
> 
> The red eastbound loop would descend once across the M25 and go below the blue southbound loop and the north to west route - there's about 120m of road so easily doable. The blue loop would use the existing roundabout and then climb once under the A3 to go over the south side of the rounadbout. Repeat for the opposite side. Building it would be tricky but nothing is tighter than the existing roundabout and there is barely an extra land take


I like the idea but it's not quite as simple as 'repeat for the opposite side'. You have to do what you've done there in all four corners. It's a massive job in a tight space and I'm not sure the levels would all resolve. And you'd certainly need to close the roundabout for several months so the carriageway can be lowered, which isn't acceptable.

There a tight turbine in Albany, NY that's kind of similar, though I assume purpose built:









Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.co.uk


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> Why not go for some innovative solution with sharper turns like on the Dublin M50? The N4 junction manages complete grade separation in all directions in less space.


Actually there's a bit of a myth about how tight the M50 junctions are. The N4 junction is vastly bigger than Wisley and about the same size as the freeflow A19/A66 junction near Middlesbrough:









Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.co.uk












Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.co.uk












Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.co.uk





(All at same zoom.)


----------



## Stuu

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> I like the idea but it's not quite as simple as 'repeat for the opposite side'. You have to do what you've done there in all four corners. It's a massive job in a tight space and I'm not sure the levels would all resolve. And you'd certainly need to close the roundabout for several months so the carriageway can be lowered, which isn't acceptable.


Why would you need to do the same in all four corners? There are only four right turns, and what I have drawn deals with two of them....unless I'm being thick. I agree it's almost certainly unbuildable though, but I do think there seems to be a lack of innovative design, and something better than what they proposed could be achieved, especially for £250m


Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Actually there's a bit of a myth about how tight the M50 junctions are. The N4 junction is vastly bigger than Wisley and about the same size as the freeflow A19/A66 junction near Middlesbrough:


True, I did think the roundabout at J10 is a lot bigger than it actally is. Might have been thinking of South Mimms or somewhere else


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> Why would you need to do the same in all four corners? There are only four right turns, and what I have drawn deals with two of them....unless I'm being thick. I agree it's almost certainly unbuildable though, but I do think there seems to be a lack of innovative design, and something better than what they proposed could be achieved, especially for £250m


In a turbine/whirlpool design such as this you need eight bridges (two in each corner) just for the right turns to clear each other. 

It's a bit counterintuitive and derives from the fact that each right turn crosses the opposite right turn twice (e.g., white needs to cross red twice in your example).


----------



## sponge_bob

Here is the whole selection of M50 junctions for you guys so. 



https://www.etoll.ie/driving-on-toll-roads/toll-rates/M50.pdf


----------



## hungrykitten

Work on RIS1 project 95 the A1 widening to 3 lanes Northbound and 4 Southbound between J65-67 Birtley to Coal house is now commencing- this will link up with an earlier scheme that widened the A1 between Coal House and Metro Centre. The project will include the complete replacement of the bridge over the ECML. 






A1 Birtley to Coal House - National Highways


This section of the A1 suffers congestion, particularly during peak hours, which can result in unreliable journey times. Traffic is also expected to grow with new housing and employment developments planned for the area. Road improvements are needed to support this growth.




highwaysengland.co.uk


----------



## geogregor

This technically part of British road infrastructure:  







DSC01558 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## geogregor

A6 in NI:
https://twitter.com/BenbradaghDji









https://twitter.com/aerialvisionni




































Another section nearing completion:


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Supplementary consultation on a revised design for M3 J9 has opened:











M3 Junction 9 Supplementary Preliminary Design Public Consultation - National Highways - Citizen Space


Find and participate in consultations run by Highways England.



highwaysengland.citizenspace.com


----------



## hungrykitten

Good to see they've taken onboard the feedback in this thread and decided to link to major trunk roads together via mini-roundabouts and cycle tracks... being serious this is a really good design!


----------



## hungrykitten

Dualling of the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester is due to start in August of this year, after the DCO was granted in January- it will be the first of the 3 A303 corridor projects to get spades in the ground- the A303 Stonehenge scheme still hasn't got a main works contractor appointed yet- and has to get through the legal challenge.





A303 Sparkford to Ilchester - National Highways


We’re upgrading a three-mile section of the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester, to make the road safer and more reliable. The delivery of this scheme is part of a long term aim to create a high-quality dual carriage way link between London and the South East and the South West.




highwaysengland.co.uk


----------



## hungrykitten

The A19 Testos flyover (RIS1 project 35) has opened to traffic today










Testo's Roundabout A19 flyover opens to cars at last


Traffic can now pass straight along the A19 at Boldon without having to negotiate the roundabout




www.chroniclelive.co.uk


----------



## geogregor

Jct 5 on M2 got green light for upgrade:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1406960151203037188





M2 junction 5 improvements - National Highways


Improvements to the slip roads and junction approaches at the M2 junction 5.




highwaysengland.co.uk





Biggest change will be new flyover over the at grade roundabout on A249:


















The current layout:









Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.com


----------



## geogregor

From this article it looks like the main contractor is already selected:








Go-ahead for £100m M2 junction 5 scheme


Graham to start construction of Stockbury Interchange expansion in Kent




www.constructionenquirer.com





So when can we actually expect physical start on site?


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> From this article it looks like the main contractor is already selected:


In 2019, yes. Must be an 'ECI' DB contract where the design solution had to be finalised. 



https://www.graham.co.uk/about-us/news/graham-awarded-highways-england-contract-to-transform-m2-junction-5


----------



## geogregor

Wales transport: Freeze on all new road building projects


Plans for a third Menai crossing and other new routes are put on hold while a review is held.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## sponge_bob

Wales, a country divided by roads...or the lack of them.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Consultation on the A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening scheme opened yesterday. The current road is mostly four-lane divided (D2 in local parlance) and fully grade separated, but with some property frontages, substandard alignments and tight junctions. 19km of modern six-lane road will be provided, with all junctions upgraded or replaced, at a cost around £1bn.





















A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Preliminary Design Consultation June 2021 - National Highways - Citizen Space


Find and participate in consultations run by Highways England.



highwaysengland.citizenspace.com


----------



## ChrisZwolle

geogregor said:


> Wales transport: Freeze on all new road building projects
> 
> 
> Plans for a third Menai crossing and other new routes are put on hold while a review is held.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk


I'm wondering if Wales has completed any major road upgrades over the past 30 years?


----------



## sponge_bob

ChrisZwolle said:


> I'm wondering if Wales has completed any major road upgrades over the past 30 years?


They have done the A465 in that time, with the final section underway since last year. They also completed the A55 in North Wales since 1990, especially the Anglesea portion. They have also done some offline S2 sections in the more rural parts but have not finished any major S2 road.

This is the main north south road in Wales today.  It doesn't need dualling, just decent S2.


----------



## geogregor

ChrisZwolle said:


> I'm wondering if Wales has completed any major road upgrades over the past 30 years?


Depending what we mean by "major" 

I general nut much road building happened in Wales in recent decades. The second Severn Crossing was finished in 1996 so 25 years ago. But that's the only major project I can think of.

They also slowly keep building "Heads of the Valleys Road".

EDIT:
sponge was faster and more informed 

I forgot about upgrading A55 in Anglesey


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> I forgot about upgrading A55 in Anglesey


And I forgot the second Severn bridge.  But Wales is a true oddity of a country which has a population in the North and another in the South and no decent road between them. It takes over 4 hours to drive north to south coasts even though it is less than 300km



distance from llandudno to swansea - Google Search



Google maps will happily tell you to go via England instead, EG



distance from llandudno to cardiff - Google Search


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> And I forgot the second Severn bridge.  But Wales is a true oddity of a country which has a population in the North and another in the South and no decent road between them. It takes over 4 hours to drive north to south coasts even though it is less than 300km
> 
> 
> 
> distance from llandudno to swansea - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> Google maps will happily tell you to go via England instead, EG
> 
> 
> 
> distance from llandudno to cardiff - Google Search


That's because Wales hasn't been governed as an independent country at any point until the Welsh Government was established 20 years ago. The infrastructure exists where the people are. The north looks to Liverpool as it's major city, and Mid Wales to Birmingham - the need for people to travel to Cardiff hasn't historically existed for most of the geographical area of Wales, so there is no need for decent travel links in that direction.

As well as the A465 and A55 improvements, the M4 around Cardiff was widened ~10 years ago, and the missing section of the M4 around Swansea was completed in in the late 1990s


----------



## ChrisZwolle

You never read much about Wales in terms of road infrastructure, or from my foreign point of view, anything at all except the occasional election. Is the area in decline since the major industries waned? According to Wikipedia 23% of the population lives in poverty, this seems very high to me.


----------



## sponge_bob

ChrisZwolle said:


> this seems very high to me.


West Wales was the poorest region in Western Europe ( north of Iberia) when the UK was in the EU and the state of the roads into and out of it would have quite a lot to do with that.


----------



## Stuu

ChrisZwolle said:


> You never read much about Wales in terms of road infrastructure, or from my foreign point of view, anything at all except the occasional election. Is the area in decline since the major industries waned? According to Wikipedia 23% of the population lives in poverty, this seems very high to me.


UK unemployment looks like this. 2015 numbers but the pattern won't have changed. The South Wales valleys are where a lot of the Welsh population live, and since the end of coal and other heavy industries there is persistent unemployment. Lots of money has been spent, especially on the road network up the valleys - not motorways but much higher quality links than previously. There have been ongoing schemes to bring employment, factories move in and then close once the incentive payments run out. Fundamentally there are more people than the area can support without primary industry supporting them any more.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> West Wales was the poorest region in Western Europe ( north of Iberia) when the UK was in the EU and the state of the roads into and out of it would have quite a lot to do with that.


It's just peripheral, and sparsely populated, without much of a USP... the best road links in the world aren't going to change that.


----------



## sponge_bob

Donegal and Kerry in Ireland are equally peripheral with populations around that of Gwynedd but there is still some kind of a plan to build 2 decent roads in and out of each of them. Same with Mayo.

I don't understand why Wales has seemingly given up on the idea of a single decent north south road.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> I don't understand why Wales has seemingly given up on the idea of a single decent north south road.


There *never *has been an idea for a decent north-south road. The A55 is a decent road, the M4-A40 corridor is a decent road. Links in Wales go East-West, not North South


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> There *never *has been an idea for a decent north-south road. The A55 is a decent road


Speaking of which, I hope the long running plan to remove the last 2 roundabouts on the A55 hasn't been canned.









A55 roundabout removal could start in December and cost more than £55m


The Welsh Government has published draft orders and environmental statements for the planned work at Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr




www.dailypost.co.uk


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

ChrisZwolle said:


> You never read much about Wales in terms of road infrastructure, or from my foreign point of view, anything at all except the occasional election. Is the area in decline since the major industries waned?


They're doing quite well in the football 

Roads have been devolved to Wales since 1999. Over that time Wales has had a permanent Labour government (sometimes with a junior coalition partner).

Perhaps unsurprisingly Welsh Labour are terribly complacent. As mentioned above, they have progressed one major project (the A465), but have others like the M4 Newport Bypass and A55/A494/A548 at Deeside in a permanent cycle of progression-cancellation-progression-cancellation. They seem to think the economy can get by on consultancy fees alone.

In consequence Wales has a terrible record of infrastructure delivery compared to England and Scotland over this period. It's not a matter of finances - per capita public spending is much higher in Wales than in England.


----------



## hungrykitten

The M2 J5 Approval is great news- and it's good to see that technology is going to be incorporated on the A12 widening- something that has been absent from other HE A road schemes. Let's not mention the J19 bodge though...

The Welsh Government's position on roads is myopic and short sighted in the extreme. The country is already far poorer than England, and a few piddly bike lanes and park and rides are not going to change that. Granted, there may not be a case for improved North-South links, but the M4 Newport Bypass was a slam-dunk example of investment that needed to happen; roundly endorsed by the independent inspector, it's cancellation on lies about impact on the environment, claims rejected by the public inquiry- is a prime example of why Wales isn't going to progress any time soon.


----------



## hungrykitten

__





Lower Thames Crossing - Latest news - New consultation - National Highways


Lower Thames Crossing - Latest news - New consultation




highwaysengland.co.uk




looks like there will be another consultation in advance of the DCO being submitted later this year.

The A47 Blofield to North Burlingham dualling has now commenced the examination phase- if all goes well the DCO should be granted this time next year.


----------



## sponge_bob

This one is in the high court. The issue is whether _a minister can _make a national policy decision ...basically. Hopefully it is booted clean outta the park and we have diggers onsite this year. 









Stonehenge tunnel: Minister acted 'unlawfully'


Grant Shapps is accused of ignoring his own experts when approving a tunnel near Stonehenge.



www.bbc.com


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> Speaking of which, I hope the long running plan to remove the last 2 roundabouts on the A55 hasn't been canned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A55 roundabout removal could start in December and cost more than £55m
> 
> 
> The Welsh Government has published draft orders and environmental statements for the planned work at Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailypost.co.uk


It might be affected as all the others where diggers are not already on site. I suspect we will see delay here, at best...


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Speaking of which, I hope the long running plan to remove the last 2 roundabouts on the A55 hasn't been canned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A55 roundabout removal could start in December and cost more than £55m
> 
> 
> The Welsh Government has published draft orders and environmental statements for the planned work at Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailypost.co.uk


The EU is paying half the cost so I imagine this will get through, as otherwise they will lose that money



sponge_bob said:


> This one is in the high court. The issue is whether _a minister can _make a national policy decision ...basically. Hopefully it is booted clean outta the park and we have diggers onsite this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stonehenge tunnel: Minister acted 'unlawfully'
> 
> 
> Grant Shapps is accused of ignoring his own experts when approving a tunnel near Stonehenge.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


It isn't at all that, it's about whether the minister fulfilled his legal obligations. Now I want this scheme to go ahead as much as anyone, but I don't want to live in a country where ministers don't obey the law. They are bad enough as it is

If the case is defeated, then the plan is two years of major archaelogy with no construction on site until 2023


----------



## Stuu

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> In consequence Wales has a terrible record of infrastructure delivery compared to England and Scotland over this period. It's not a matter of finances - per capita public spending is much higher in Wales than in England.


Per capita spending is higher because Wales is poorer, more social security etc. That doesn't equate to more money available for anything else. The Wales Government budget this year include about £800m annually for "transport and economy", of which around half is for road building. That means at most one big scheme at a time, they have also delivered some fairly large projects on the A40 and A477 in Pembrokeshire, Newtown bypass, or the Caernarfon bypass which is under construction. Even the new bridge at Machynlleth is costing nearly £40m now


----------



## geogregor

Stuu said:


> There *never *has been an idea for a decent north-south road. The A55 is a decent road, the M4-A40 corridor is a decent road. Links in Wales go East-West, not North South


Sure, there will never be motorway leading from north to south. But now many roads are not better than glorified goat tracks. They do need some improvements between the two corridors.

I have recently spent a week driving around northern Wales. Apart from A55 corridor the rest of the roads are narrow and with little overtaking opportunities, even on the main corridors like the A5. There is definitely room for improvement. 

In different subject, nice shot of Queen Elizabeth II Bridge on London orbital. From one of the regular posters on London forums:

https://twitter.com/archoptical


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> Sure, there will never be motorway leading from north to south. But now many roads are not better than glorified goat tracks. They do need some improvements between the two corridors.
> 
> I have recently spent a week driving around northern Wales. Apart from A55 corridor the rest of the roads are narrow and with little overtaking opportunities, even on the main corridors like the A5. There is definitely room for improvement.


Definitely. And there have been some: Porthmadog was bypassed in the last 10 years, Caernarfon is being built right now - once done that will mean most of the route from east of Porthmadog to the A55 is new build or at least reasonable quality. Elsewhere segments of the A470 have been straightened, there was a long section of new road north of Builth Wells in the last 10 years, and Newtown has a recent bypass too. 

I would bet that the policy change re new roads does not include bypasses for towns and straightening out sections of road, there will be some weasel words to get those included.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> Per capita spending is higher because Wales is poorer, more social security etc. That doesn't equate to more money available for anything else. The Wales Government budget this year include about £800m annually for "transport and economy", of which around half is for road building. That means at most one big scheme at a time, they have also delivered some fairly large projects on the A40 and A477 in Pembrokeshire, Newtown bypass, or the Caernarfon bypass which is under construction. Even the new bridge at Machynlleth is costing nearly £40m now


Unemployment is lower in Wales than the UK as a whole: Wales unemployment rate falls to 4.4%

The bits and pieces you mention are in no way similar to the big projects we've seen in Scotland, at best they're like the A737 Dalry Bypass or Clackmannanshire Bridge, the likes of which Scotland builds in addition to the big schemes.

The A465 is there in the credit column but really nothing else. It alone can hardly compare to the M74 extension, M8 completion, M80 completion, Queensferry Crossing, etc. The Welsh Government had their equivalent schemes developed (M4 and A494) but chickened out of them.

They decide how much of their (higher than UK average) spending goes on road building, and the answer is not much.


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> I have recently spent a week driving around northern Wales. Apart from A55 corridor the rest of the roads are narrow and with little overtaking opportunities, even on the main corridors like the A5. There is definitely room for improvement.


The A5 is not a main corridor any more and arguably has not been since the decision was made c.50 years ago to do the A55 instead. It was a better option than the A55 ...especially in summer...up to the mid 1980s or so. The heavyweight political muscle to do the A55 was an MP on the North Coast of Wales.

The overall experience of driving across north Wales was such a grim trek on either the A5 or A55 that the main ferry route from Ireland to the UK was Dublin - Liverpool before 1980 and even as late as 1990 you would often choose it for a night crossing rather than tackle north Wales at night in winter. That only really changed c.1990 when the A55 was finally a good road from Chester to Bangor and Liverpool became a bit of a backwater for ferries after that. The grimness of the roads once you reached Ireland was another factor before 1990 too and at least you could sleep on the Liverpool ferry. 

If I were taking a daytime ferry from Holyhead to Dublin in summer I could tackle the A5 for the scenery as long as I were across the border into Wales around dawn after a night trek up the motorway from London


----------



## Stuu

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> They decide how much of their (higher than UK average) spending goes on road building, and the answer is not much.


Higher than average spending per capita is irrelevant when there aren't many people, and Scotland receives more. Scotland receives £11,247 per capita, and Wales £10,656 - 6% higher per person, which is quite significant

The Welsh Government spends over 75% of it's budget on health, housing and education, which are all pretty much non-discretionary spending. The Scottish Government spends 66% on those services. There is far more room in the Scottish government budget for major infrastructure projects than in Wales


----------



## geogregor

A6 in Northern Ireland


----------



## geogregor

Speaking of Wales:









Heads of the Valleys: Frustration over 50mph limit plans


After years changing a five-mile stretch into a dual carriageway, its speed limit could stay.



www.bbc.co.uk





A whopping 8km stretch...


----------



## sponge_bob

6km of DC









Ferrovial signs £107m deal to build Norwich western link road


Ferrovial Construction has been awarded a £107m contract to design and build the Norwich western link road for Norfolk County Council.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


----------



## hungrykitten

sponge_bob said:


> 6km of DC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ferrovial signs £107m deal to build Norwich western link road
> 
> 
> Ferrovial Construction has been awarded a £107m contract to design and build the Norwich western link road for Norfolk County Council.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


It's better than the rest of the Norwich northern bypass due to the fact that there aren't going to be loads of pesky flat roundabouts. It'll link into a currently single carriageway stretch of the A47 that is planned to be dualled in the A47 North Tuddenham to Easton project.


----------



## hungrykitten

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/2107751/m5j10-pra-leaflet.pdf



The route for the M5 J10 upgrade has been announced- it appears to be a rather conventional grade-separated roundabout replacing the limited access arrangements in place currently. There's also some dualling to the east of the junction.


----------



## hungrykitten

The A417 missing link project has now been accepted for examination- this project would result in a complete dual carriageway link between the M4 and M5. Here's a nice document showcasing the design of the scheme.


https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010056/TR010056-000600-7.7%20Design%20Summary%20Report.pdf



The A57 mottram bypass scheme was also yesterday submitted to the planning inspectorate, kickstarting its DCO process.


----------



## hungrykitten

£130 million upgrade set to unlock huge benefits for thriving North East


After more than a million hours of work – around 60 per cent of that time coming from a local workforce – a £130 million junction improvement in the North East is complete.




www.gov.uk




Press release on A19 Testos Junction completion


----------



## geogregor

M20 in Kent is main artery linking London (and the rest of the UK) to Channel crossings (ferries in Dover and Eurotunnel in Folkestone). I was walking along River Medway and the trail took me across the M20. So here are a few shots.

First from west of Jct 5. Here mororway was recently widened to 4+4 profile.

Looking west, towards London:

DSC00063 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00071 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00075 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Looking east:

DSC00066 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00068 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## geogregor

And few more shots from footbridge further east, beyond Jct 5.

Here we have collector lanes around Jct 6 for Maidstone and A229 (linking M20 and M2).

Looking East:

DSC00275 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00277 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00279 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00283 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00284 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00295 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00291 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Looking west, towards London:

DSC00286 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


20210715_173334 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00301 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC00307 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## hungrykitten

The Highways England 2021-22 delivery plan has now been published...


https://highwaysengland.co.uk/media/bz3kjnck/delivery-plan-update-2021-22_final-web-version-1.pdf



The only thing that really stood out to me is how far back the A303 Amesbury to Berwick down (Stonehenge) scheme start of construction date is- at this rate teleportation will have been invented by the time the scheme starts...


----------



## Stuu

hungrykitten said:


> The Highways England 2021-22 delivery plan has now been published...
> 
> 
> https://highwaysengland.co.uk/media/bz3kjnck/delivery-plan-update-2021-22_final-web-version-1.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that really stood out to me is how far back the A303 Amesbury to Berwick down (Stonehenge) scheme start of construction date is- at this rate teleportation will have been invented by the time the scheme starts...


The scheme has always had two years of archaeology between authorisation and main construction. Fingers crossed they don't actually find anything major, otherwise it will almost certainly be more delay


----------



## geogregor

Speaking of M20, operation "Brock" returns:









M20: Operation Brock barriers to be reinstalled in Kent


Operation Brock will be reinstalled on the M20 to help ease holiday traffic from the continent.



www.bbc.co.uk







> *Barriers installed on a motorway in Kent in case of a no-deal Brexit are to return as lockdown is lifted.*
> 
> Operation Brock will return from Monday to help the flow of heavy traffic expected due to the school holidays and easing of Covid restrictions for holidaymakers.
> 
> The concrete barriers allow lorries heading to the Port of Dover to use one side of the M20.
> 
> All other traffic is restricted to a contraflow system on the opposite side.
> 
> It covers a 16-mile stretch of the M20 between Maidstone and Ashford, and will be reinstalled over the weekend.
> 
> The system was initially designed in the event of a no-deal Brexit plan, but was removed in April.
> 
> Fully vaccinated British residents returning from destinations on the Amber travel list no longer have to quarantine from Monday.
> 
> Operation Brock has been unpopular with local residents, but travel authorities say the system reduces disruption. Kent County Council's highways director Simon Jones said: "We believe that this is the right thing to give people the best opportunity to reach their destination quickly and safely."Passengers who plan to travel through Kent are being warned to prepare for longer journeys.




















Operation Brock will be reinstalled on the M20 in time for July 19 'freedom day'


Highways England is expecting an influx of passengers hoping to travel from the Port of Dover from Monday




www.kentlive.news







> The hated contraflow system of Operation Brock on the M20 will be back in place from Monday, Highways England has confirmed.
> 
> They say the lifting of coronavirus lockdown restrictions from Monday (July 19), dubbed as 'freedom day' by many, has triggered the next deployment of the moveable barrier system to prepare for increased passenger numbers.
> 
> It is a precautionary measure taken by the government and Kent Resilience Forum in anticipation of increased international travel by car drivers from Monday via the Eurotunnel or Port of Dover.
> 
> Operation Brock creates a contraflow road layout on the M20 London bound carriageway between junctions 8 and 9 (from Maidstone to Ashford), while allowing lorries heading for mainland Europe to queue on the coastbound carriageway.
> 
> To install the barriers the M20 will close at 8pm on Saturday night (July 17) between junctions 7 and 9, with both carriageways set to reopen by 8am on Sunday 18 July with the contraflow active.












Surely there must be some better long terms solution...


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> Surely there must be some better long terms solution...


Some sort of trade federation?


----------



## geogregor

Stuu said:


> Some sort of trade federation?


Sure, we are both remainers. But we are where we are. 

There must be better solution than closing half of bloody motorway every time when there is expectation of a bit higher traffic (which actually won't happen this time as they just announced that people coming from France will still have to isolate). Maybe they should upgrade A2 to motorway all the way to Dover? That way in situation like now we could have one route for trucks and one fore general traffic


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> Sure, we are both remainers. But we are where we are.
> 
> There must be better solution than closing half of bloody motorway every time when there is expectation of a bit higher traffic (which actually won't happen this time as they just announced that people coming from France will still have to isolate). Maybe they should upgrade A2 to motorway all the way to Dover? That way in situation like now we could have one route for trucks and one fore general traffic


Actually I think it's not too bad a solution. The alternatives are spending more on peak cross-channel capacity (seems unlikely), or spending money on an alternative queueing site, which won't be used very much. The M20 is used by 50k vehicles per day along there which isn't too horrendous for two lanes to cope with.

What I don't understand is why it is needed now - why would trucks need to queue? They don't set off without a booking on a ferry or train, and neither do people in cars, I thought this usually happened when there was disruption not just increased traffic?


----------



## devo

They need to queue because of the border facilities are only just coping with lockdown-level of freight traffic. Usually freight takes up 1/4 of the capacity but because of all the new paperwork needed for outbound checks (leaving GB, entering EU) this now demands 3/4 of the capacity, to my knowledge. With travel restrictions lifted there will be an increase in travel and unless they expand the facilities (and train more people) they can't handle both freight and regular traffic. 

TL;DR: This has nothing to do with bookings or ferry/train capacity. It's all a border check capacity issue.

But I agree, given the situation, this solution isn't actually too bad.


----------



## sponge_bob

devo said:


> But I agree, given the situation, this solution isn't actually too bad.


So do I and if you think Brock is bad look at the mess in Heathrow at 10-20% of normal traffic.


----------



## geogregor

Britain is simply very good at creating chaos. Just look at the latest mess regarding travel to France...


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> Britain is simply very good at creating chaos. Just look at the latest mess regarding travel to France...


Travel _from_ France dear boy.


----------



## Corvinus

The Daily Mail writes that in September, the code [GB] will be changed to [UK] and in consequence the decals on vehicles will have to be replaced. Can someone confirm?


----------



## Shenkey

Corvinus said:


> The Daily Mail writes that in September, the code [GB] will be changed to [UK] and in consequence the decals on vehicles will have to be replaced. Can someone confirm?


What will happen to Northern Ireland and British isles?


----------



## Stuu

Corvinus said:


> The Daily Mail writes that in September, the code [GB] will be changed to [UK] and in consequence the decals on vehicles will have to be replaced. Can someone confirm?


It's the first I have heard of it, but a Google search leads to the official confirmation from the UN, so it is true.

You would think the UK government had more important things to worry about. And it means everyone with EU plates including GB on them will need to change them if they want to drive abroad


----------



## MichiH

Stuu said:


> It's the first I have heard of it, but a Google search leads to the official confirmation from the UN, so it is true.


If so (I still doubt that it is final)... Is there any info when people can start using UK? And, is there a deadline how long GB will remain valid? I already googled and failed finding any info.


----------



## Stuu

The confirmation under the Vienna Convention is here. It says from the 28 September it will be official. There are some UK press articles but it hasn't been anything like headline news here. Very strange. I can't find an official government statement about it either


----------



## hungrykitten

Stuu said:


> The scheme has always had two years of archaeology between authorisation and main construction. Fingers crossed they don't actually find anything major, otherwise it will almost certainly be more delay


Its now been moved from a 2022-2023 start date, to 2023-24 Q2!!!


----------



## Stuu

hungrykitten said:


> Its now been moved from a 2022-2023 start date, to 2023-24 Q2!!!


Which means Jul-Sep 2023 (I think), it hasn't actually slipped by a lot, given the permission wasn't granted until November 2020


----------



## sponge_bob

Shenkey said:


> What will happen to Northern Ireland and British isles?


NI has old skool plates.Yella at the back and all.

As NI is not part of GB...and never was....UK is the more apposite country code for them unless they choose to ensticker an "IRL" as many do, which is why they still have Old Skool plates.


----------



## Corvinus

Shenkey said:


> What will happen to Northern Ireland and British isles?


I think the very idea behind the change to [UK] is to formally include Northern Ireland. Presently, NI-registered verhicles have to display the [GB] when abroad, correct? That despite it not being part of Great Britain, so it's inconsistent. The update to [UK] therefore appears legit.



Stuu said:


> The confirmation under the Vienna Convention is here. It says from the 28 September it will be official.


_“this change will apply only to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and will not extend to any territories for the international relations of which the United Kingdom is responsible”_

Thus, Gibraltar to stay with [GBZ], the Isle of Man with [GBM], the Channel Islands with their [GBx], if I got that right.


----------



## sponge_bob

Corvinus said:


> I think the very idea behind the change to [UK] is to formally include Northern Ireland. Presently, NI-registered vehicles have to display the [GB] when abroad, correct? That despite it not being part of Great Britain, so it's inconsistent. The update to [UK] therefore appears legit.


EXCEPT this new arrangement is inimical to "overstickering" as practised by many in NI today.









Travelspot Car Magnetic Ireland National Plate (IRL) : Amazon.co.uk: Automotive


Buy Travelspot Car Magnetic Ireland National Plate (IRL) at Amazon UK. Free delivery on eligible orders.



www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## Stuu

Corvinus said:


> I think the very idea behind the change to [UK] is to formally include Northern Ireland. Presently, NI-registered verhicles have to display the [GB] when abroad, correct? That despite it not being part of Great Britain, so it's inconsistent. The update to [UK] therefore appears legit.
> 
> 
> _“this change will apply only to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and will not extend to any territories for the international relations of which the United Kingdom is responsible”_
> 
> Thus, Gibraltar to stay with [GBZ], the Isle of Man with [GBM], the Channel Islands with their [GBx], if I got that right.


Logically, UK makes more sense. However, I have serious doubts that this has been suggested right now because of the need to right an historic wrong. It's pointless gesture politics that no one wanted or needed.


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> It's pointless gesture politics that no one wanted or needed.


It is rather, hopefully it only applies to newly issued plates and motorists are not forced to replace perfectly good ones.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Well my understanding is that the old euroband ones are indeed not technically valid now and should be replaced if people want to drive to the continent. I guess we'll find out when covid passes whether people will actually do this or not in practice. I've only seen one car with a new style blue GB band with a blank space where the stars were.


----------



## geogregor

A6 in NI:

https://twitter.com/BenbradaghDji


----------



## sponge_bob

DanielFigFoz said:


> . I've only seen one car with a new style blue GB band with a blank space where the stars were.


The whole thing sounds like bollox because AFAIK if an EU directive is repealed removing the EUisation elements of a plate then it defaults back an old UN Vienna Convention from the 1960s pre the europlates which appeared first in the 1990s AFAIR. So you will need a GB sticker ESPECIALLY if the plates says "UK" instead of GB. You might not if your plate says GB like most have in the last 20 years. 






Distinguishing Signs of Vehicles | UNECE







unece.org





*ARTICLE 37
Distinguishing sign of the State of registration*

1. (a) Every motor vehicle *in international traffic* shall display at the rear, in addition to its registration number, the distinguishing sign of the State in which it is registered.

(b) *This sign may either be placed separately from the registration plate or may be incorporated into the registration plate. *


----------



## MichiH

DanielFigFoz said:


> Well my understanding is that the old euroband ones are indeed not technically valid now and should be replaced if people want to drive to the continent.


I think that the "old euroband" number plates are still allowed but you currently need an additional GB sticker for traveling to the continent.






Displaying number plates


How to display number or licence plates, get plates made up, replace lost, damaged or stolen plates, and the national letters, flags and symbols you can display.




www.gov.uk







> *Travelling in Europe*
> 
> If your number plate includes the GB identifier with the Union flag (also known as the Union Jack), you do not need a GB sticker. But you will need to display a GB sticker clearly on the rear of your vehicle if your number plate has any of the following:
> 
> a Euro symbol
> a national flag of England, Scotland or Wales
> numbers and letters only - no flag or identifier
> If you’re in Spain, Cyprus or Malta, you must display a GB sticker no matter what is on your number plate.


----------



## geogregor

All this sticker business looks like quite old school solution...

Confirmation that upgrade of Jct 5 on M2 in Kent will start in September:









Graham to start £92m M2 junction upgrade in September


Major improvements will make life easier for motorists in Kent




www.constructionenquirer.com





I wonder how long will it take. Two years?


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

geogregor said:


> All this sticker business looks like quite old school solution...
> 
> Confirmation that upgrade of Jct 5 on M2 in Kent will start in September:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Graham to start £92m M2 junction upgrade in September
> 
> 
> Major improvements will make life easier for motorists in Kent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.constructionenquirer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how long will it take. Two years?


Due to open 2024-25.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

MichiH said:


> I think that the "old euroband" number plates are still allowed but you currently need an additional GB sticker for traveling to the continent.


Well yes, I don't see the British government ever requiring people to replace their euroband plates but they have been rendered legally useless. I suspect though that most British cars with eurobands have never left the UK. 

Anyway, seeing as you see so many British cars on the continent with no identifiers the question is whether or not this will all start to be enforced. I suppose this will only really concern freight any time soon.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> The whole thing sounds like bollox because AFAIK if an EU directive is repealed removing the EUisation elements of a plate then it defaults back an old UN Vienna Convention from the 1960s pre the europlates which appeared first in the 1990s AFAIR. So you will need a GB sticker ESPECIALLY if the plates says "UK" instead of GB. You might not if your plate says GB like most have in the last 20 years.


No, unfortunately it isn't bollox, the UK government have informed UNECE and as a result from September, cars have to to display UK, not GB. GB plates will still be acceptable, as long as there is a UK sticker. 

I'd be interested to know how many cars ever get stopped for not having one though. Must need a very bored policeman


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> No, unfortunately it isn't bollox, the UK government have informed UNECE and as a result from September, cars have to to display UK, not GB. GB plates will still be acceptable, as long as there is a UK sticker.


Yep, the white UK sticker will be required from september, the UK wrote to the secretary general of the UN actually as article 45 of the Vienna Convention of 1968 dictates they must.


----------



## garethni

The name of the UK and its parts etc confuses many people, even if they are British. Coming from NI, it gets tiring. Anyway, in terms of such things, the other day I heard a further episode of old story again from a friend (and I have experienced it myself when using a British passport) that the border guard only understands/notices the word 'Ireland' at the end of the full country name on the front of the passport and misidentifies their citizenship. Explanations are then required to explain, no, no, that's not it.

But more on topic, I look forward to getting onto the new parts of the A6 when I get home after it become more easy post-pandemic. It all looks great.


----------



## geogregor

I was walking in Kent again. My route took me across the M2 motorway, so here are some photos. 

M2 is crossing chalk hills south of Rochester. It is surprisingly challenging topography, with two carriageways on different elevations.

Here London bound carriageway, but looking east towards the Channel:

DSC02443 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Coast bound carriageway is higher up the slope:

DSC02448 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02449 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02452 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02458 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Looking west, towards Medway Valley and London:

DSC02454 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02457 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02473 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

In the distance are bridges carrying the M2 over the river Medway. On the lefts is bridge carrying high speed railway:

DSC02463 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## Stuu

As built the eastbound carriageway was a 2+2 motorway. Then in the early 2000s the new westbound carriageway was added and the original motorway rebuilt into the 4 lane eastbound carriageway. All done at the same time as Hs1 was being built, so it was a massive construction site at the time


----------



## geogregor

Stuu said:


> As built the eastbound carriageway was a 2+2 motorway. Then in the early 2000s the new westbound carriageway was added and the original motorway rebuilt into the 4 lane eastbound carriageway. All done at the same time as Hs1 was being built, so it was a massive construction site at the time


It is now impressive transport corridor. 

Here are all the bridges:

DSC02523 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02520 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

There are also some good vantage points to HS1:


DSC02513 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02549 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Sorry for railway off topic


----------



## geogregor




----------



## DanielFigFoz

Always neat to see the trains on HS1 go past.


----------



## hungrykitten

Image of the Downhill lane junction upgrade (project 43 of RIS1) from the HE or whatever it's called website- the diamond interchange is being converted to a convetional two bridge roundabout:


----------



## sponge_bob

Highways Magazine - A9 dualling moves forward as Greens sign up to road building


The Scottish Government is seeking a main contractor for the next stage of the A9 Perth to Inverness dualling as a landmark agreement between the SNP administration and the Scottish Green Party left the country’s two main roadbuilding schemes, costed at £3bn each, largely untouched.




www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk





These 2 x £3bn schemes are the A96 and A9 , both east of Inverness. No chance one of them will be done by 2030 though.



> The Scottish Government is seeking a main contractor for the next stage of the A9 Perth to Inverness dualling as a landmark agreement between the SNP administration and the Scottish Green Party left the country’s two main roadbuilding schemes, costed at £3bn each, largely untouched.*Transport Scotland has published the contract notice for the £115m A9 Dualling: Tomatin to Moy project, the most northerly section of the Scottish Government’s £3bn programme to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness*


----------



## geogregor

B1383 close to Essex - Cambridgeshire boundary. On a quiet day British roads can be fun to drive:


DSC02812 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02894 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


----------



## geogregor

It looks like the last at grade roundabout will finally disappear from the Edinburgh bypass:









Midlothian welcomes interchange approval


Midlothian Council has welcomed City Region Deal approval for grade separation at a congested junction on the Edinburgh City Bypass.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk





Current layout:









Proposed solution:


----------



## sponge_bob

While £120m for a relatively simple overpass across a roundabout may seem a lot, even by British standards, there are a large number of old mine workings abandoned under this site and they could be pumping in grout for quite a while before anyone is brave enough to construct an overpass foundation. 



geogregor said:


> Proposed solution:


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Gatwick Airport is consulting on plans to bring the second runway into regular use. They include grade separating the junctions for both terminals.


----------



## hungrykitten

They're good plans, and it's good to see that a throughabout isn't being proposed instead of a flyover! Shame nothing is being done about M23 J9, a freeflow from M23 SB onto the spur would have been nice.

Speaking of throughabout, the A45/A6 Chowns Mill throughabout upgrade ( project 63 in RIS1) has now opened, with a few months of finishing work left. ( picture not my own)


----------



## sponge_bob

I would have thought such a scheme should be paid for by Gatwick themselves and not from an RIS budget. We'll no doubt see M23 alterations IF Gatwick runway 2 is permitted. I always thought Gatwick was the logical place for an extra runway in the London area given it could be built on the existing airport footprint...unlike any other airport down there. 

When RIS2 was formulated there was no proposal to add a runway to Gatwick, some committee or other had earmarked Heathrow around 5 years back. The proposal postdates RIS2 formulation. 



hungrykitten said:


> They're good plans, and it's good to see that a throughabout isn't being proposed instead of a flyover! Shame nothing is being done about M23 J9, a freeflow from M23 SB onto the spur would have been nice.


A second runway would give Gatwick a capacity of around 65m passengers a year up from the 40m it did before Covid. That would be 300k extra passengers a week and the M23 retrofit to 3 lane running is already completed.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

sponge_bob said:


> I would have thought such a scheme should be paid for by Gatwick themselves and not from an RIS budget. We'll no doubt see M23 alterations IF Gatwick runway 2 is permitted. I always thought Gatwick was the logical place for an extra runway in the London area given it could be built on the existing airport footprint...unlike any other airport down there.
> 
> When RIS2 was formulated there was no proposal to add a runway to Gatwick, some committee or other had earmarked Heathrow around 5 years back. The proposal postdates RIS2 formulation.


Highways England's 2021-22 Delivery Plan lists all the outstanding RIS schemes, as well as all housing infrastructure schemes and "Schemes delivered by third parties with a funding contribution from Highways England" due to start by Spring 2025. As no Gatwick scheme is listed, but it is hoped to start in this timeframe, I take it that it is not funded by Highways England/National Highways. Similarly the Gatwick proposals are referred to as privately funded from everything I've seen.

Btw, the current Gatwick proposals date from October 2018, so there would have been plenty of time to include them in RIS2 (released March 2020) if they were going to be included. They are independent of the much larger 'additional runway in the South East' project, which as you say was assigned to Heathrow.


----------



## madannie

*A66*

Another consultation about the dualling of the A66 from Scotch Corner to Penrith has been announced, starting today and ending on November 6th. This one is about the chosen route and potential modifications about feedback already received.

Plenty of visual flythroughs are now available giving more of an idea on the alignments and junctions proposed for the road.

Lots more detail about the route, the various in-person consultations at places along or near the route (about 20 of these) and links to the online documents.





A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Design Consultation September 2021 - National Highways - Citizen Space


Find and participate in consultations run by Highways England.



highwaysengland.citizenspace.com


----------



## sponge_bob

Undercover probe finds one in 10 smart motorway cameras not working


A Daily Mail reporter spent six weeks under cover at a control room and discovered alarming problems with the deadly roads where the hard shoulder is converted to a live lane.




www.dailymail.co.uk





"Smart motorways' horrors exposed: Undercover probe finds one in 10 vital safety cameras is not working... and the failings are so bad that staff are caught on tape saying 'start praying to your God'"

that moron Transport Minister Schapps promised an 'inquiry' to the Mail.


----------



## Stuu

Flythrough video for the A358 dualling in Somerset. Please don't laugh at the M5 junction


----------



## sponge_bob

The M5 Jn is 60 secs in rather than 660 Stuu. I am amazed there is no freeflow for westbound A358 traffic heading south to Devon though.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> The M5 Jn is 60 secs in rather than 660 Stuu. I am amazed there is no freeflow for westbound A358 traffic heading south to Devon though.


It's an appalling way to join a motorway to a more-or-less motorway. No idea why there isn't some sort of free flow lane at the very least, they took out the proper links to the M5 s/w bound to save money but you would think they could afford some paint


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> It's an appalling way to join a motorway to a more-or-less motorway.


Strictly speaking there is a gap between the motorway and more or less motorway and the HQDC terminates on another roundabout named "Nexus 25" around 400m east of the M5. Then it follows a link road between 2 roundabouts which surely won't be signed at 70mph and ends up on the gyratory under the M5. 










But the biggest shock I got from the flythrough is that indicating to change lanes will be abolished.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Absolutely, nor is it surprising the government_ booked the loss_ and has no intention of making it up in later years.


What loss?


----------



## hungrykitten

Stuu said:


> The budget document mentions spending £24bn on strategic roads between 2021-25. The budget for RIS 2 (2020-25) was £27bn, so given we are 18 months into RIS2 the difference is down to what has already been spent, logically. There isn't obviously any change to budgets, although cost inflation will have a big impact on what is actually delivered for the money


No the 24 billion was in reference to 2020-25, so accounting for the 2020-21 financial year- hence why the budget has been changed. The question is whether that's due to the stonehenge tunnel being cut- as it is not given a single mention- or simply reprofiling of the 3bn into the next roads period.


----------



## Stuu

hungrykitten said:


> No the 24 billion was in reference to 2020-25, so accounting for the 2020-21 financial year- hence why the budget has been changed. The question is whether that's due to the stonehenge tunnel being cut- as it is not given a single mention- or simply reprofiling of the 3bn into the next roads period.


You're absolutely right, the text in the Spending review does refer to 2020-21 not just 2021. And very suspiciously the text refers to _"delivering over 60 upgrades, including the largest scheme in a generation – the Lower Thames Crossing – and major upgrades to the A66, A428, A417 and A12_". You would think that the Stonehenge tunnel would be at least as prominent as the A417, not looking good


----------



## sponge_bob

hungrykitten said:


> No the 24 billion was in reference to 2020-25, so accounting for the 2020-21 financial year- hence why the budget has been changed. The question is whether that's due to the stonehenge tunnel being cut- as it is not given a single mention- or simply reprofiling of the 3bn into the next roads period.


It is a £3bn cutback, net. The surge in diesel prices won't do much for the remainder of RIS2 either.


----------



## hungrykitten

Good/ bad news depending on your perspective on stonehenge- the tunnel isn't infact cancelled- instead the spending 'cut' is due to reprofiling as a result of planning delays. These delays have reached stupid levels now- the A1 dualling, M54-M6 link road, M25 J10, M25 J28, A303 Stonehenge and A38 derby Junctions are all waiting on a DCO decision...









Highways Magazine - Govt pledges continued commitment to Stonehenge scheme, despite cuts


The transport secretary is still committed to the £1.9bn Stonehenge Tunnel scheme and plans to 'redetermine' its planning application, the Department for Transport has said, despite the Treasury appearing to cut its funding.




www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk


----------



## sponge_bob

Ah here. 



hungrykitten said:


> Good/ bad news depending on your perspective on stonehenge- the tunnel isn't infact cancelled- instead the spending 'cut' is due to reprofiling


Moving £3bn back to RIS3 is a cutback. Whether a cutback from RIS2 or 3 is a zen jedi trick.  

Reprofiling is spending it in later years of RIS2 rather than now. It is most _especially_ a cutback now the government knows diesel prices for plant have gone thru the roof and that £3bn may be needed just to deal with that alone. 



> The Government is still spending £27bn on major roads schemes, just over a slightly longer period as a result of delays to some major schemes, including Stonehenge.'
> 
> Last year the Government announced £27.4bn for the National Highways over 2020-2025 but this was cut to £24bn in this week's Budget.


----------



## geogregor




----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

sponge_bob said:


> Ah here.
> 
> 
> 
> Moving £3bn back to RIS3 is a cutback. Whether a cutback from RIS2 or 3 is a zen jedi trick.
> 
> Reprofiling is spending it in later years of RIS2 rather than now. It is most _especially_ a cutback now the government knows diesel prices for plant have gone thru the roof and that £3bn may be needed just to deal with that alone.


Well, you could say it's an underspend rather than a cutback. According to the 2020-25 Delivery Plan HE/NH intended to spend £2.7bn on the Lower Thames Crossing alone in RIS2 - they'll actually be barely started on it, and there simply aren't the dozens of shovel ready schemes necessary for absorbing that kind of money. So it's been returned to the Treasury.

I do agree that it would become a cut by stealth* if *the RIS3 budget is not increased by that amount. But that's a complaint for another day - here and now I don't really see what else could be done.


----------



## hungrykitten

2 new consultations have opened, on upgrades to the Lofthouse and Copdock interchanges. These are 'pipeline' schemes, with no committed funding, though reading between the lines on Copdock, the DfT is heavily pushing it, and its almost 100% guaranteed to be funded. Suprisingly, there are very good options on both consultations...


https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/a14-j55-copdock-public-consultation/




https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/m1-m62-lofthouse-interchange-public-consultation/


----------



## hungrykitten

2 new consultations have opened, on upgrades to the Lofthouse and Copdock interchanges. These are 'pipeline' schemes, with no committed funding, though reading between the lines on Copdock, the DfT is heavily pushing it, and its almost 100% guaranteed to be funded. Suprisingly, there are very good options on both consultations...


https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/a14-j55-copdock-public-consultation/




https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/m1-m62-lofthouse-interchange-public-consultation/


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

^ The best of National Highways' options for Lofthouse interchange (M1/M62 near Leeds) is a full stack:










And the best one for Copdock interchange (A12/A14 near Ipswich) provides a bidirectional freeflow bypass of the roundabout:









At both sites there's also the usual National Highways option of pointless roundabout widening. Hopefully common sense prevails this time though.


----------



## sponge_bob

As this is nowhere near England the words "how" and "why" come to mind.  

Does HE have an additional remit to do with long distance paths in the UK by any chance. ?????









Two mile-long Victorian tunnel controlled by Highways England to be transferred back to Wales


A two-mile-long victorian tunnel in the Rhondda which is currently under the control of Highways England will be transferred to Welsh ownership, the Secretary of State for Transport has said. Campaigners are hoping to connect communities in the Rhondda and Afan valleys by reopening the 3,443...



nation.cymru


----------



## sotonsi

National Highways (as it now is) is not an England-only department, but rather a UK-/GB-wide department that has had its role outside England handed over to devolved bodies. OK, it spent some time, until recently, branded as "Highways England" (having been the Highways Agency before that) which creates some confusion.

Its not hard to see how they wound up keeping onto this tunnel despite being in Wales. It's not part of a trunk road, and if you are handing over trunk roads to the Welsh Government you'd go along each trunk road and list the assets to handover. It slipped through the net.

The question is why the MoT (as it was then) gave this railway tunnel to their trunk road department to look after when the railway closed, when there were no plans for a trunk road there.


----------



## madannie

When British Rail was broken up and privatised in the mid 1990s responsibility for non-operational railway land (old trackbeds, tunnels, bridges etc) was passed to the British Rail Board (Residuary), which had responsibility for several other functions as well.

When British Rail Board (Residuary) was abolished about a decade ago all the remaining railway land was transferred to the Highways Agency as its Historical Railways Estate. It seems a bit illogical but I suppose there was no other government agency to transfer it to at the time. Recent actions by Highways England (or whatever they are called this week) in filling in tunnels and bridge arches suggests they don't really want it or the liabilities which come with it.


----------



## Stuu

Some recent videos (not mine) of ongoing work to dual the A465 in South Wales. The road was expensively built as a three-lane road in the 1960s, and is now being even more expensively upgraded to grade-separated dual carriageway. The first one is the Gilwern to Blaenavon section which is nearly finished, it's needed some significant engineering to get to this stage, and is several years late and somewhat over budget:






Secondly the Hirwaun-Dowlais section, which started earlier this year, this is the final section, so once done in a few years the whole road will be dual from the M4 to the M50. There's some substantial viaducts on this section, it crosses some steep, deep valleys.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

madannie said:


> When British Rail was broken up and privatised in the mid 1990s responsibility for non-operational railway land (old trackbeds, tunnels, bridges etc) was passed to the British Rail Board (Residuary), which had responsibility for several other functions as well.
> 
> When British Rail Board (Residuary) was abolished about a decade ago all the remaining railway land was transferred to the Highways Agency as its Historical Railways Estate. It seems a bit illogical but I suppose there was no other government agency to transfer it to at the time. Recent actions by Highways England (or whatever they are called this week) in filling in tunnels and bridge arches suggests they don't really want it or the liabilities which come with it.


The logic at the time was to reduce the number of public bodies for cost reasons, and I suppose the Highways Agency (as was) was the least bad match given its central function of managing civil engineering projects.

The former official name of the historical railways estate was the Burdensome Estate, which rather indicates how welcome these "assets" are. I'm sure National Highways would be delighted to hand them over to anyone willing to take them on...


----------



## 10ND0N

ChrisZwolle said:


> There will be an almost 20-fold increase of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London from 25 October. It will be expanded from Central London (about 20 km²) to Inner London within, but not including, the circular roads A205 and A406 (375 km²).
> 
> Access is allowed for petrol cars from Euro 4 and better and diesel cars from Euro 6 and better, otherwise a £12.50 fee applies (on top of the £15 congestion charge in Central London).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have a ULEZ?
> 
> 
> <p>The Mayor of London and TfL are helping to improve air quality for everyone’s health.</p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tfl.gov.uk


More disastrous policies from clueless politicians dead set on killing the goose that lays the eggs. One day they will have succeeded - and everyone can go back to where they came from.


----------



## geogregor

10ND0N said:


> More disastrous policies from clueless politicians dead set on killing the goose that lays the eggs. One day they will have succeeded - and everyone can go back to where they came from.


^^^
More exaggerated outrage...


----------



## Stuu

10ND0N said:


> More disastrous policies from clueless politicians dead set on killing the goose that lays the eggs. One day they will have succeeded - and everyone can go back to where they came from.


Reducing air pollution for millions of people is disastrous? How so?

I would be interested in any empirical basis for your claim that people driving 10+ year old vehicles in London are a significant reason for economic growth. So please show your workings


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The problem is that those who drive old cars are less likely to be able to afford a new(er) car.

I've been to garages where I've seen people crying and in panic when they got an € 800 repair bill. Those people drive old cars and cannot afford to buy a newer vehicle.

It sounds easy: just spend € 5000 on an another vehicle. But even € 5000 is an impossible amount of money if you end the month with zero euros / dollars / pounds. This type of people can only get by with occasional windfalls. So things like the ULEZ hits them hard.


----------



## Stuu

LarsFut said:


> the j19 junction that is a lot of bridge for only two lanes, i feel a lot of wasted concrete, unless theres more going to be added?


Doing it that way means you can minimise the closures to the main motorway, which will have been a very important consideration.

Still a shabby bodge though


----------



## sotonsi

LarsFut said:


> the j19 junction that is a lot of bridge for only two lanes, i feel a lot of wasted concrete, unless theres more going to be added?


The width allows for sight lines to be unimpeded by safety railings.

And the easier construction Stuu mentions.


----------



## sponge_bob

I'm not sure what it is, An Inverse Diverging Diamond Interruptus????









M6 Junction 19 new £43m roundabout opens to drivers for first time


The new M6 J19 bridge and roundabout opened to drivers for the first time this weekend - it should cut journey times and ease traffic flow




www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk














The heavy box crossing the M6 makes it look like someone originally planned a 3 level stack and then built only half of it with the skyward portion coming in a future phase 2 .


----------



## sotonsi

It's a modified hamburger. Instead of the straight on movements being removed from the roundabout, it's the major right turn and its parallel movement (the latter because they can, and also to remove traffic from the junctions where circulating traffic crosses that major right turn's direct cut-through). They called it a 'through-about' (which is what they tend to call hamburgers anyway).

Lots of info about how this all came about (both design and construction) on the National Highways' Project Page: M6 junction 19 - Highways England


----------



## 10ND0N

Stuu said:


> You ok hun?


Stunning and brave


----------



## sponge_bob

sotonsi said:


> It's a modified hamburger.


I am still confused but speaking of Throughabouts and ordinary decent Hamburgers. Bristol is trying to build a series of them on its A4174 ring road. 









‘Hamburger’ roundabout plans for A4174 Bristol ring road shelved due to opposition


The three ‘hamburger’ throughabout junctions were part of package of improvements for five roundabouts on the ring road




www.bristolworld.com


----------



## sotonsi

sponge_bob said:


> I am still confused


Initially this junction was a big roundabout over the motorway. Then traffic got bad, so they put traffic lights at all the merges to smooth traffic flow. That, in time, became inadequate too (as this upgrade will too).

This cut through takes the busy South->Manchester flow and has it bypass one of those signalised junctions - speeding that journey up. The North->Northwich flow was similarly taken through the middle. The flows are now much more segregated (the only flows that are not are the straight on and right turns from the A556 in each direction, sharing roadway on those roundabout bridges), allowing great control over tinkering the light timings to match demand for each flow.

Here's what each flow has to do:

M6 Stoke -> M6 Warrington: take the underpasses under the junction
M6 Stoke -> A556 Manchester: go straight on at signalised junction at top of slip road, cut through the middle of the 'roundabout' and go straight on at junction at other end (can't turn anyway)
M6 Stoke -> A556 Northwich: go left at signalised junction at top of slip road
A556 Northwich -> M6 Stoke: go straight on at signalised junction to enter 'roundabout', go straight on at next signalised junction, go left at the third one to go down slip road
A556 Northwich -> A556 Manchester: go straight on at signalised junction to enter 'roundabout', go left at next signalised junction
A556 Northwich -> M6 Warrington: go left at signalised junction to go down slip road
A556 Manchester -> M6 Stoke: bypass 'roundabout' on semi-segregated filter lane before going down slip road
A556 Manchester -> A556 Northwich: go straight on at signalised junction to enter 'roundabout', go left at next signalised junction
A556 Manchester -> M6 Warrington: go straight on at signalised junction to enter 'roundabout', go straight on at next signalised junction, go left at the third one to go down slip road
M6 Warrington -> A556 Manchester: go left at signalised junction at top of slip road
M6 Warrington -> A556 Northwich: go straight on at signalised junction at top of slip road, cut through the middle of the 'roundabout' and go straight on at junction at other end (can't turn anyway)
M6 Warrington -> M6 Stoke: take the underpasses under the junction


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The A465 Gilwern to Brynmawr, in Wales, has opened. Unusually for a rural grade-separated dual carriageway it has a 50mph speed limit, due to the challenging terrain. Nice video here:


----------



## geogregor

First bits of the TBM which will dig the Silvertown Tunnel in London are arriving on site:

https://twitter.com/AJBC_1









Just to remind, they will dig from north to south, then turn the TBM and dig from south to north:














Silvertown Tunnel


We're building a new road tunnel under the Thames linking the Greenwich Peninsula and Silvertown




tfl.gov.uk


----------



## Stuu

Some great photos of the A465 upgrade which has just been finished, posted by Jeremai on SABRE


----------



## geogregor

Silvertown tunnel will be constructed by the largest TBM used in Britain so far:









Record-breaking TBM on way to Silvertown Tunnel


Big diameter TBM being shipped in pieces from Germany for Spring launch




www.constructionenquirer.com
















> The diameter of the TBM measures 11.91m – equivalent of almost three double decker buses – dwarfing other recent tunnelling machines.
> 
> First machine pieces have begun to arrive on site from maker Herrenknecht’s works keeping the programme of assembly on track for the TBM launch next Spring.
> 
> The TBM will set off from the Silvertown launch chamber, piling for which is now completed and is currently being excavated.
> 
> It will then be rotated and relaunched from the Greenwich Peninsula, to excavate the second tunnel, completing a total drive of 2.2km.
> 
> The ability to turn the TBM around is an important feature of its bespoke design which also incorporates the need for it to navigate its way through the stiff clay layers and boulders in this part of London.
> 
> When finished, it will have excavated nearly 600,000 tonnes of material, extracted by barges along the river to keep construction traffic to a minimum during the project.





> Silvertown diameter (11.9m); weight 1,800 tonnes
> Crossrail project (7.1m); 526 tonnes
> Northern line extension (6.03m); 310 tonnes
> Thames Tideway project (8.85m); 780 tonnes.
> Largest HS2 TBM (10.3m); 2,000 tonnes
> Channel Tunnel (8.8m); 1,100 tonnes


----------



## sponge_bob

Even Poland has bigger ones than that, the tunnel at the mouth of the Oder used a 13m machine. The Lower Thames tunnels will be proper pukka at 16m diameter, up with the big boys.


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> Even Poland has bigger ones than that, the tunnel at the mouth of the Oder used a 13m machine. The Lower Thames tunnels will be proper pukka at 16m diameter, up with the big boys.


Yep, the Lower Thames TBM will be a beast. 

I have to admit I didn't realize how big the TBM digging tunnel under the Oder in Swinoujscie was. I guess because they only dug one tube.

Still I'm looking forward to see the Silvertown TBM in action. Yet more tunneling in London. At times it seems we have dozens of TBMs digging at the same time


----------



## geogregor

More about dangers of "smart" motorways:









Keller director warns of smart motorway dangers after collision with HGV | New Civil Engineer


The incident occurred between junctions 10 and 11, just north of junction 10, at around 2.45pm last Wednesday. Dashcam footage from the lorry suggests




www.newcivilengineer.com







> Keller director Derek Taylor has warned of the dangers of smart motorways after a collision with a lorry on the M1.
> The incident occurred between junctions 10 and 11, just north of junction 10, at around 2.45pm last Wednesday.
> 
> Dashcam footage from the lorry suggests that markings on the road caused the HGV driver to try to change lanes, leading to the collision (see video below).
> 
> Taylor said he had an “extremely lucky escape, probably a near miss in safety terms”. A key problem, he said is that British drivers "don’t really understand these motorways" and "HGV drivers from overseas certainly don’t".
> 
> “I was travelling north on the M1,” he explained. “Warning signs were up showing 60mph and I was in lane 1, with the hard shoulder running as lane 0.
> 
> “As I approached and overtook a large lorry travelling at about 50mph on the hard shoulder I noticed a white line which seemed to guide you (like at the end of a slip road) out from the hard shoulder into lane 1 but the signs showed all four lanes to be running. I thought no more and carried on past the lorry.
> 
> “Suddenly the lorry moved out hitting my rear nearside wheel and spun me anticlockwise, pushing me sideways for what felt like 200m. All I could see were the words DAF on his radiator and [I was] thinking he would go over the top of me.”
> 
> Both vehicles eventually came to a standstill and another motorist called 999. Taylor put on a hi-viz jacket and stood behind the barrier.
> 
> “The lorry was from Lithuania and obviously left hand drive," he said. "The driver said that he never saw me."
> 
> *Traffic officers from National Highways attended the incident, and the vehicles were moved to an emergency refuge area. However there was not room for both the lorry and Taylor's car because the refuge area was intended primarily for the emergency services, not motorway traffic.*
> 
> They then drove the vehicles to the next service station as Taylor said they still perceived the next (larger) ERA as "dangerous".
> 
> He added that if there weren’t speed limit signs he would have passed the lorry much more quickly, having learnt not to linger alongside lorries on a Police Advanced Driving Course.
> 
> National Highways executive director of corporate affairs and communications Peter Allen said: "Our motorways are among the safest roads in the world but we recognise concerns continue to be raised about smart motorways.
> 
> "We’ve carried out a significant amount of activity to inform drivers about smart motorways through our campaigns run on TV, radio and social media. We also work in partnership with a number of other motoring organisations to deliver this advice to road users and are committed to providing more and better information for drivers to help them feel safer and be safe on all our roads including smart motorways."
> 
> The safety of ALR smart motorways – where the hard shoulder has been replaced by a live lane – has been repeatedly called into question. The transport select committee inquiry into the roads launched in March this year, with the committee asked to examine the benefits and dangers of the roads after a further rise in annual deaths.
> 
> Overall, the report found that existing safety data is "insufficient".
> 
> It added: “In addition, other smart motorway designs, such as controlled motorways and dynamic hard shoulder motorways, have lower casualty rates than ALR motorways. The government and National Highways are taking steps to make ALR motorways safer, but it is too early to judge the effectiveness of those measures.
> 
> “In conclusion, we are not convinced that the benefits of ALR motorways are sufficient to justify the risks to safety associated with permanently removing the hard shoulder.”
> 
> Last month, National Highways instructed Balfour Beatty to pause work on the M3 Junctions 9-14 smart motorway project following recommendations from the transport select committee inquiry that the roll out of the roads should stop until five years of safety data is available.
> 
> In February, transport secretary Grant Shapps revealed that the roll out of Stopped Vehicle Detection (SVD) technology will be accelerated across the smart motorway network. He admitted that it was “entirely wrong” to convert motorways into ALR without the SVD technology in place.
> 
> SVD technology was made operational on the M1 between junctions 32 and 35a this summer, while it will be in place between junctions 28 and 31 by March 2022.
> 
> Meanwhile in September National Highways agreed to upgrade a notoriously dangerous stretch of the M1 in South Yorkshire, after a number of breakdown collisions resulted in serious injuries and fatalities following its conversion to a smart motorway.
> 
> An additional emergency refuge area (ERA) will be added to a the road between Woodall Motorway Services and junction 31 – the same stretch of road where grandmother Nargis Begum was killed in September 2018 after her car broke down.












And little curiosity, "half hamburger roundabout" in Nottingham:









Work complete on £24M junction upgrade including ‘half hamburger’ roundabout in Northamptonshire | New Civil Engineer


The project broke ground in February 2020 and has been completed this week with the planting of the final trees on the junction. The project included the




www.newcivilengineer.com


----------



## geogregor

A few weeks ago new viaduct opened over the A2 in Kent:









New bridge near Bluewater opens four months early


A brand new road bridge as part of a huge upgrade near the shopping centre has been completed four months early.




www.kentonline.co.uk























It is part of wider improvements around set of two junctions. It is quite complex setup with multiple roundabouts and links to local roads:











The area is growing as they are building new town in Ebbsfleet, in place of old quarries.


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> More about dangers of "smart" motorways:


Time to add my moan about them then!

Where I live I don't drive on them very often, especially not in the last couple of years... Last weekend I had to drive to Birmingham up the M5. Heading onto the smart section north of Worcester, the gantry signs started indicating a lane closure ahead, and the speed limit was stepped down to 40mph, alongside the 40mph limit the message sign stated "stranded vehicle ahead". The following two signs were completely blank, giving the impression that the hazard had been cleared... then just past the northbound slip from J5, there was the stranded vehicle, luckily with a breakdown truck in attendance with all it's lights flashing. Had that not been there, the car would have been very difficult to spot as there was light rain and spray and it was ~4pm so semi-dark.

How can anyone think that is acceptable?


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

geogregor said:


> More about dangers of "smart" motorways:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keller director warns of smart motorway dangers after collision with HGV | New Civil Engineer
> 
> 
> The incident occurred between junctions 10 and 11, just north of junction 10, at around 2.45pm last Wednesday. Dashcam footage from the lorry suggests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newcivilengineer.com


You'll notice that there *is *a painted hard shoulder there. And if you watch the video in the linked story you'll see the crash was caused by the Lithuanian truck getting confused by the bizarre road markings used on the obsolete 'dynamic hard shoulder' standard - which the critics of smart motorways actually want to keep, rather than upgrading them to the current 'all-lane running standard' as National Highways propose. So if you read beyond the headline you'll see this story actually supports the modern implementation of smart motorways (which basically just paints the shoulder as a permanent running lane).

Pretty much every other developed country in the world has motorways without shoulders. Look at many US urban freeways, most Australian urban motorways, and most Swedish motorways with more than 2 lanes, for instance. It's only become a 'problem' in the UK because of the stupidity and power of our tabloid press.


----------



## geogregor

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> You'll notice that there *is *a painted hard shoulder there. And if you watch the video in the linked story you'll see the crash was caused by the Lithuanian truck getting confused by the bizarre road markings used on the obsolete 'dynamic hard shoulder' standard - which the critics of smart motorways actually want to keep, rather than upgrading them to the current 'all-lane running standard' as National Highways propose. So if you read beyond the headline you'll see this story actually supports the modern implementation of smart motorways (which basically just paints the shoulder as a permanent running lane).
> 
> Pretty much every other developed country in the world has motorways without shoulders. Look at many US urban freeways, most Australian urban motorways, and most Swedish motorways with more than 2 lanes, for instance. It's only become a 'problem' in the UK because of the stupidity and power of our tabloid press.


I never claimed that lack of hard shoulder is always bad. But implementation in the UK is a joke. Most importantly I would like to see emergency bays more often.


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> Most importantly I would like to see emergency bays more often.


You'd need them on all the non motorway DC networks as well. Signing them well in advance would tell everyone, _consistently_ , that there is no hard shoulder.


----------



## Verso

> [*GB*] United Kingdom | road infrastructure • motorways


I see that no one has noticed the code 'GB' changed to 'UK' three months ago.


----------



## Corvinus

Verso said:


> I see that no one has noticed the code 'GB' changed to 'UK' three months ago.


In practice, I already have  Spotted a UK-registered truck in Switzerland carrying the [UK] decal not long ago. 
But yes, the title should be updated.


----------



## geogregor

Corvinus said:


> But yes, the title should be updated.


Done.


----------



## sponge_bob

Covered in this thread months ago. The zen of the death of GB and all that had us enthralled for a few days.

GB never meant Northern Ireland during all its long life.


----------



## sponge_bob

The longest scheme under construction in the UK, the 25km of mainline A6 DC in NI, is nearing opening. Some updates here. 



A6 Dualling - Londonderry to Dungiven - Northern Ireland Roads Site



Were there a part opening it would likely be the eastern half bypassing Dungiven first.


----------



## belerophon

Verso said:


> I see that no one has noticed the code 'GB' changed to 'UK' three months ago.


Thats a bit fast i think. Nobody knows how long it will be united^^


----------



## sponge_bob

belerophon said:


> Thats a bit fast i think. Nobody knows how long it will be united^^


Those bloody Danes ran off with *D*isunited *K*ingdom years ago so it'll have to do.


----------



## geogregor

Does he ever makes any decisions?









National Highways left waiting again as Shapps delays yet another planning decision | New Civil Engineer


Shapps was due to rule on the planning application for the A1 upgrade between Morpeth and Ellingham in Northumberland this month. However, he has again




www.newcivilengineer.com







> Transport secretary Grant Shapps has started the new year as he ended the old one: by delaying a planning decision on a National Highways project.
> Shapps was due to rule on the planning application for the A1 upgrade between Morpeth and Ellingham in Northumberland this month.
> 
> However, he has again asked for more time to consider the application and will now not make a decision until June.
> 
> The A1 Morpeth to Ellingham project was earmarked to start construction between July and September 2022, with Costain lined up as principal contractor. The project is expected to finish in 2024/25.
> 
> National Highways project manager for the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham improvement Mark Stoneman told _NCE_ that a decision in June would "still allow us to start construction this summer as planned”.
> 
> Work will involve the upgrade of more than 12km of the A1 to a dual carriageway between Morpeth and Felton, including construction of a new dual carriageway bypassing the existing A1 between Priests Bridge and Burgham Park.
> 
> Campaigners including the Transport Action Network have previously been critical of the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham dualling, as they claim it will damage ancient woodland, a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and another nature reserve.
> 
> Shapps deferral is the latest in a long line of planning delays from the transport secretary during the last two years.
> 
> In the week before Christmas, Shapps deferred his decision on the planned M25 upgrade at Junction 28.
> 
> In October last year, he delayed his decisions on two major road schemes worth a combined £450M; for the third time Shapps delayed his planning decision on the proposed £100M to £250M upgrade of an interchange where the M25 meets the A3 in Surrey as well as his decision on the proposed M54 to M6 link road, with the deadline now extended to 21 April 2022.
> 
> In the same month, Shapps also delayed his planning decision on the restoration of the abandoned Portishead branch line due to environmental impact concerns.
> 
> In 2020, Shapps also twice delayed his decision on the controversial A303 Stonehenge Tunnel scheme before giving it the go-ahead only to be thwarted by a legal challenge which ruled that his decision was made unlawfully.
> 
> Meanwhile, during the last two years, the transport secretary has also delayed decisions on planning applications relating to the Lake Lothing crossing, West Midlands rail freight interchange, A303 Sparkford, Amesbury dual carriageways and the A63 improvement scheme.
> 
> A National Highways spokesperson added: “The Secretary of State has asked for more time to consider our proposals for upgrading the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham in Northumberland.
> 
> “We’re committed to delivering these improvements and remain confident that our proposals will deliver much needed additional capacity, with better connectivity for people and business, and safer journeys for everyone.
> 
> “We’d like to thank everyone for their engagement and contribution in the development of the scheme to date. We will continue to work with the Planning Inspectorate, local stakeholders and local authorities until the Secretary of State makes his decision, which is now expected in early June 2022.”


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> Does he ever makes any decisions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National Highways left waiting again as Shapps delays yet another planning decision | New Civil Engineer
> 
> 
> Shapps was due to rule on the planning application for the A1 upgrade between Morpeth and Ellingham in Northumberland this month. However, he has again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newcivilengineer.com


Too many parties to go to


----------



## hungrykitten

The number of delayed decisions is starting to rack up- a rail reopening around Bristol and a host of NH DCO decisions. There does however seem to be progress on the A303 Stonehenge at least- a statement of matters was issued back in November. It does make a mockery of project speed however when the DfT are repeatedly failing to meet their own deadlines.


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Consultation on the A27 Arundel bypass opened today. This 8km grade separated dual carriageway will feature a 1.5km viaduct across the Arun Valley.


----------



## sponge_bob

The infamous _not very smart _motorway plans are now parked for 5 years. Perhaps some proper smarts can be added to the existing stock...and more pull in bays...with the money saved. 









Government delays more all-lane smart motorways for five years


More data is needed before other hard shoulders are made into traffic lanes, the government says.



www.bbc.com


----------



## sotonsi

sponge_bob said:


> with the money saved.


What money saved? It will cost money to delay improvements, only to still have to do them.

And there's all the replanning. For instance the M60/M62 junction 18 upgrade scheme utilised a short section or two of ALR to widen approaches to the junction to better deal with the free-flow turns they are adding. Now they have to replan it so that there's not ALR in an attempt to start it before 2027 (and given it was needed about 2002...)

Delaying new schemes for 5 years is a knee jerk reactionary _Daily Fail_ style solution to a problem that they know what the solution is as they are deploying those solutions on existing Smart Motorways (over 150 more laybys, better tech and better use of the tech) during those 5 years. I guess it makes sense in terms of getting the data, so that they can attack the ignorant nay-sayers head on when it comes time to roll out All Lane Running again.

It's silly to pause the ALR schemes, but not as silly as the decision to re-review the concept of Dynamic Hard Shoulders - something that they did earlier in this process of reviewing Smart Motorways. They found they were less safe and less capacious than ALR due to being more confusing and it was recommended (and agreed) to convert them to ALR - except that won't happen for 5 years now as those 7 schemes are considered to be new ALR schemes .

And, of course, the moratorium on Smart Motorway construction won't apply to the A122 Lower Thames Crossing scheme that is being designed as if it was an ALR Smart Motorway (though unable to use the tech as an A road - as they've found out on the similar A14 Brampton-Girton scheme that was given additional laybys relatively late in the day in order to meet the higher standards of ALR vs their approved design), but won't be a motorway. Worse still are the schemes where they aren't even deploying the ALR standards to a new build expressway. Because green signs have long been assumed to cover a multitude of sins that would exist if the signs were blue!


----------



## sponge_bob

sotonsi said:


> Worse still are the schemes where they aren't even deploying the ALR standards to a new build expressway.


But they have no HS so they are ALR by design, do you mean no regular laybys like older expressways?


----------



## sotonsi

sponge_bob said:


> But they have no HS so they are ALR by design, do you mean no regular laybys like older expressways?


No refuge areas. No detection tech. None of the mitigation for not having a hard shoulder. Just like the older expressways.


----------



## sponge_bob

How many km need a retrofit in that case, 2000+ I should think if not 3000km.  Is there even ducting along the modern ones built since 2000 or so for the cables???


----------



## sotonsi

sponge_bob said:


> How many km need a retrofit in that case


None. As I said "green signs cover a multitude of sins". The hysterical "there's no hard shoulder, therefore its unsafe" rants that ALR motorways get aren't made about these roads, even though they are more problematic.


----------



## Stuu

sotonsi said:


> None. As I said "green signs cover a multitude of sins". The hysterical "there's no hard shoulder, therefore its unsafe" rants that ALR motorways get aren't made about these roads, even though they are more problematic.


That's not necessarily true, a great many dual carriageways have 1m hard strips and wide verges beyond which is often used to get out of live lanes.

The statistics of ALR are more nuanced: for a vehicle going from point A to point B they are safer on average; however if they are unfortunate enough to break down, they are noticeably less safe. We, as a society, don't usually implement measures that increase risk for some people for the greater good


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

Stuu said:


> We, as a society, don't usually implement measures that increase risk for some people for the greater good


Obviously we do. E.g., allowing private motor vehicles increases risks for pedestrians and cyclists, but it's allowed due to the social benefit. In fact it's virtually the definition of a society that the individual sometimes has to bear costs and risks that benefit others.

In this case they don't even have to do that - they just have to bear risks that (on the balance of probabilities) benefit themselves as well as others, due to the overall reduction in risk with smart motorways. In other words, they just have to apply self-interest with a degree of rationality, rather than thinking whatever the tabloids tell them to think.


----------



## Stuu

Time lapse of the beams being installed on the A46 Coventry bypass here. This is the second of three roundabouts which are being removed, the final one is in planning and should be done in the next few years


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

The latest grade separation on the A46 at Coventry is out for consultation. It would replace the roundabout at Walsgrave.


----------



## Stuu

hungrykitten said:


> Looks like the A55 roundabouts project has been canned- eagerly await to see the Welsh's government plan to level up one of the poorest areas in the UK- I'm sure cycle lanes and 2 carriage trains carrying fresh air will do the trick...


Equally removing two minor roundabouts will have no noticeable effect on the local economy either. They are annoying at most. Also as the Welsh govt report makes clear, Br*x*t has significantly reduced HGV volumes so the business case has changed. Carrying on doing something when the money could be better spent elsewhere would make no sense


----------



## Robert198812345

English border places are also hit by these issues, Chester desperately needs another road bridge over the Dee, causing bottlenecks around Queensferry.

Not sure what's happening at Oswestry mile end, looks worse with 2 roundabouts when the project should be dual carriageway from Shrewsbury to A539 Llangollen junction, get rid of the Oswestry roundabouts. Or keep them but have the A5 go above. There's a issue with a level crossing on the Oswestry bypass too.

Weird sign issue: on the roundabout at welshpool, the one for Montgomery, church Stoke. The signs on the roundabout exits say Dolgellau for two different exits. Surely both ways take you through welshpool town centre.


----------



## sponge_bob

Robert198812345 said:


> English border places are also hit by these issues, Chester desperately needs another road bridge over the Dee, causing bottlenecks around Queensferry.


Has that eased with the drop in HGV traffic from Holyhead that Stuu mentioned. The drop should have some effect south along the A5 corridor as well as the A55 corridor. Dublin saw a drop of 10% in 2021 alone.









Brexit ends ‘landbridge’ route as Dublin Port records sharp fall in lorry freight


Port chief says there has been a ‘reset’ in trade between Ireland, Britain and EU




www.irishtimes.com







> _Dublin_ recorded a 9 per cent drop in the number of roll-on, roll-off (ro-ro) units – equivalent to* 99,000 trailers* – last year, while the number of lift-on, lift-off (lo-lo) units increased by 10.2 per cent – or 43,000 containers – as more traders sought to ship goods directly with Europe.


also









Holyhead sea port sees 30% fall in traffic due to Brexit


Stena Line have pledged a long-term commitment to the Anglesey port and expect the situation to improve




www.dailypost.co.uk





I was expecting a strong rebound in non HGV traffic until inflation started to eat into discretionary spending in both the UK and Ireland in recent months, now I am a lot less sure.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The M27 'smart motorway' eight lane expansion is opening soon:









After years of work, here's when roadworks on the M27 smart motorway will end - and it's soon


UPGRADES to the M27 to convert it into a smart motorway are coming to an end.




www.portsmouth.co.uk





_National Highways has announced a new lane will become available to drivers, with four lanes open to traffic in each direction.

Crews will start removing the traffic cones and barriers on the newly upgraded 15-mile stretch between junction 4 and junction 11 at Fareham on Saturday night._


----------



## geogregor

Stuu said:


> Equally removing two minor roundabouts will have no noticeable effect on the local economy either. They are annoying at most. Also as the Welsh govt report makes clear, Br*x*t has significantly reduced HGV volumes so the business case has changed. Carrying on doing something when the money could be better spent elsewhere would make no sense


Exactly, those two roundabouts are a non-issue. One of those "nice to have" projects, if money was no object.


----------



## geogregor

BTW, staying in Wales:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493569544123817987


----------



## sponge_bob

The longest major scheme in the UK at over 25km long , the A6 Dungiven to Dromahoe DC scheme in NI, is heading for a late spring or early summer opening along its entire length.







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493900090209095680
Once they empty their Asphalt plant of course.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Both Severn bridges are closed due to Storm Eunice, likely for the first time ever.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494627626945810447
Elsewhere, M4 in Wales is also closed due to overturned trucks.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494641364927189011


----------



## Stuu

A487 Caernarfon/Bontnewydd bypass opened this morning, delayed from yesterday


----------



## Stuu

And some people were so excited they crashed into each other








Caernarfon and Bontnewydd bypass reopens after crash


Motorists suffered only minor injuries and diversions were put in place until the road was cleared.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> And some people were so excited they crashed into each other


Anybody in Wales is perfectly entitled to get excited at the sight of 10km of straight road.


----------



## Eulanthe

sponge_bob said:


> The longest major scheme in the UK at over 25km long , the A6 Dungiven to Dromahoe DC scheme in NI, is heading for a late spring or early summer opening along its entire length.


I still think the road situation in Northern Ireland is an absolute disgrace. From the lack of a proper motorway connecting Belfast to Dundalk, to the lack of a motorway from Belfast to Derry, it just doesn't make any sense.

The M1 should extend to the border in Kileen, the existing M1 should be renamed M11 and extended to the A4/A5 roundabout, the M2 should be renamed M22 and extended up to the A26/A44 roundabout, the existing M22 should be the M2 and extended all the way to the Foyle Bridge in Derry. Oh, and the A8(M) extended to Larne. 

It wouldn't cost _that_ much proportionally, and it would be a huge boost to the NI economy.


----------



## sponge_bob

For a variety of reasons you can forget about any new Motorways in NI, maybe a few DCs if the Gods align


----------



## geogregor

Eulanthe said:


> the existing M1 should be renamed M11 and extended to the A4/A5 roundabout


It already is extended, as grade separated dual carriageway. There are only minor deficiencies comparing with full blown motorway, not affecting capacity at all.



> the existing M22 should be the M2 and extended all the way to the Foyle Bridge in Derry


Ideally yes. The currently under construction stretch of A6 dual carriageway will help somehow. But the next stretches are going to go through some challenging terrain (Glenshane Pass), it might take a while. And whether it is called A6 or M2 that's irrelevant. What is needed is dual carriageway linking Belfast and Derry, whether with green of blue signs it is of secondary importance.



> Oh, and the A8(M) extended to Larne


But the dual carriageway was extended to Larne. What else is needed there? It is road connecting to a few ferries a day and a small town.



> I still think the road situation in Northern Ireland is an absolute disgrace. From the lack of a proper motorway connecting Belfast to Dundalk, to the lack of a motorway from Belfast to Derry, it just doesn't make any sense.


Don't forget that population of NI (1.9 mln) is smaller than Warsaw. And it is at the end of the world, there isn't really any meaningful transit traffic, unlike in some small European countries. You can't seriously expect full blown motorway network from coast to coast to border.

For safety reason they should upgrade A1 to Newry, namely complete grade separation and redesign junction between M1 and A1. After that immediate intervention is not really essential, more like "nice-to-have" territory.



> It wouldn't cost _that_ much proportionally, and it would be a *huge boost to the NI economy.*


I'm not sure how so. NI is not manufacturing or logistics hub, and never will be, even with motorways around. Ferry crossings will always make transportation a pain for the "just in time" logistics. 

What is needed are crucial improvements, especially those affecting safety and linking local population. In fact local bypasses and junction improvements might be more important than some grand vision of motorways criss-crossing NI.

And investment in education and R&D will be bigger boost to the economy than investment in tarmac.


----------



## sponge_bob

The Newry Bypass is unusual as it was built to motorway standards but signed as A1.

The stretch of A1 from Newry to the M1 west of Lisburn is the worst, part of it limited to 40mph nowadays and certainly needs work to make it a 60mph dualler...it cannot be made into a 70mph dualler as it is really a pair of 60mph carriageways built in stages in the 70s and 80s. Same with the A3 to Bangor and the A22 south of Ballymena.

Continuing a _standards_ based 70mph DC to Coleraine and elsewhere to Omagh is justified based on traffic as is cleaning up the entrances on the dualler north of Newry. I just dont see them build any more motorways in NI and the Scots are largely focused on standards based DC from now on too.

I said before in this thread that _the less populated parts of the UK would benefit hugely from a 60mph DC standard like Scandi 2+2 instead of the 70mph national standard_ which is overkill in the likes of Wales. I'd keep the national standard for England with its larger population.


----------



## Ronnie87

sponge_bob said:


> I said before in this thread that _the less populated parts of the UK would benefit hugely from a 60mph DC standard like Scandi 2+2 instead of the 70mph national standard_ which is overkill in the likes of Wales. I'd keep the national standard for England with its larger population.


There is nothing stopping the Welsh government from applying 60 mph limits to sections of the road network that cannot safely sustain 70 mph traffic. In fact that is pretty much common practice. For example much of the newly dualled A465 in South Wales will be built for a 50 mph speed -- there is no requirement to build every new road to a 70 mph standard.

Also, 70 mph is quite a low motorway / DC speed limit -- let's not reduce it further where not absolutely necessarry.


----------



## sponge_bob

Ronnie87 said:


> Also, 70 mph is quite a low motorway / DC speed limit -- let's not reduce it further where not absolutely necessarry.


I suggested a completely _different_ standard, one optimised for 60mph rather than the current 70mph. A 'lite' standard if you will. 'Scandi' 2+2 would be for roads where forecast traffic will never exceed 25k AADT while the current 2+2 standard in the UK will handle 40k or thereabouts.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

M1 junction 13 to junction 16: smart motorway - National Highways


We’re improving the 23-mile section of the M1 between junctions 13 and 16 by upgrading it to an All-Lane Running (ALR) motorway to support economic growth and ease congestion in the area.




nationalhighways.co.uk













New stretch of smart motorway on Buckinghamshire M1 fully opens


The national rollout has been paused over safety fears but schemes already under construction are being finished




www.buckinghamshirelive.com





A 7-8 mile stretch of 'smart motorway' fully opened at eight lanes and 70 mph today through Milton Keynes (J13 to Newport Pagnell service area).


----------



## sponge_bob

Roadbridge are a key part of the consortium that won the PPP contract on the A465 heads of the valley route last year. They are not in administration, they are gone. 









Construction firm Roadbridge to go into receivership


Roadbridge, one of the country's biggest civil engineering and construction firms has announced it is to go into receivership.




www.rte.ie





I had not realised they were also working on HS2









Roadbridge goes into receivership


More than 1,600 jobs now at risk as Grant Thornton now in charge




www.constructionenquirer.com


----------



## Cookiefabric

Ooff.. that stretch of the M1 looks like it's in urgent need of a renovation (expect for the "shoulder" lane)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

20 percent on foot seems really high, I assume this includes people who work from home?


----------



## Stuu

ChrisZwolle said:


> 20 percent on foot seems really high, I assume this includes people who work from home?


It seemed high to me too, but it was 16% in 2018 so seems plausible. People working from home haven't travelled to work so it wouldn't be that


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> To celebrate ministerial assent HE are having yet another consultation.
> 
> 
> 
> https://ltcconsultation2022.nationalhighways.co.uk/


It hasn't got ministerial assent. They were told to sort out some major objections before applying for consent which is what they are doing.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

geogregor said:


> Interesting, I thought that share of car in commuting is even higher:


It should be noted that this is the share in number of trips.

If you calculate share by distance traveled, car & train would be higher while walking and cycling would be marginal. The average work trip by car is around 20 - 30 kilometers in much of Europe, while the average distance by bicycle is probably not much more than 3 kilometers.


----------



## Ronnie87

ChrisZwolle said:


> 20 percent on foot seems really high, I assume this includes people who work from home?


It seems about right to me. There are many people in the UK who live within walking distance to their workplaces, especially in smaller cities and towns.

I also used to walk to the office (around 35-40 minutes each way) back when I was working in London. I sometimes took the Tube when it rained, but more often I preferred walking, especially during the summer.


----------



## sponge_bob

The eastern half is now open. 



geogregor said:


> A6 in Northern Ireland looks almost ready to open:


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

ChrisZwolle said:


> 20 percent on foot seems really high, I assume this includes people who work from home?


The main difference in modal share between the UK and countries like the Netherlands is that walking is much higher and cycling much lower in the UK. It's kind of an irony of the fantastic cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands that it principally results in abstraction of one active mode by another. Car share is virtually the same - slightly higher in Ned I think. That's not to say that the UK shouldn't try to replicate other countries' successes with cycling, but just that it's not quite the silver bullet some imagine.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Ryme Intrinseca said:


> Car share is virtually the same - slightly higher in Ned I think.


Possibly because the Netherlands doesn't have a megacity like London. Car usage in Amsterdam itself is low, but Amsterdam is a much smaller share of the Netherlands than London is of the UK.

Cities like that are often outliers in terms of demographics and mobility, but it varies by country how big their influence is on national statistics.


----------



## Stuu

ChrisZwolle said:


> Possibly because the Netherlands doesn't have a megacity like London. Car usage in Amsterdam itself is low, but Amsterdam is a much smaller share of the Netherlands than London is of the UK.
> 
> Cities like that are often outliers in terms of demographics and mobility, but it varies by country how big their influence is on national statistics.


Car usage in outer London is barely any different to the rest of the country. It's only journeys into the centre and the central 5-10km where public transport is dominant


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

ChrisZwolle said:


> Possibly because the Netherlands doesn't have a megacity like London. Car usage in Amsterdam itself is low, but Amsterdam is a much smaller share of the Netherlands than London is of the UK.
> 
> Cities like that are often outliers in terms of demographics and mobility, but it varies by country how big their influence is on national statistics.


On the other hand the Netherlands is much more dominated by the Randstad than the UK is by London, and has a higher population density and % of the population which is urban, which are all things that should support active travel and public transport, yet the car share is stubbornly high. The best explanation may just be that, while the cycle network is excellent, so are the roads!


----------



## geogregor

TBM is going down on the construction of road tunnel in east London:









Silvertown TBM lowered into launch chamber


Sections of the tunnel boring machine (TBM) are being lowered into the launch chamber for construction of the Silvertown Tunnel in London.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk







> The Silvertown Tunnel will be a new 1.4km twin-lane road tunnel under the River Thames, linking North Greenwich and Silvertown. It will be the first new road crossing east of Tower Bridge since the Dartford Crossing was built more than 30 years ago.





> Using a 600-tonne Liebherr crawler crane with a super lift – supplied by Weldex – a four-point lifting and set down operation was undertaken. Each lift takes approximately two hours to achieve and around 20 lifting operations will be required to lower all the components into the launch chamber.





> The Herrenknecht TBM for the Silvertown Tunnel Project is the largest diameter tunnel boring machine to be used in the UK, at 11.91 metres. By comparison, TBMs used on Crossrail were 7.1 metres and Thames Tideway project 8.85 metres.
> 
> Throughout the next month, the Silvertown tunnelling team will continue to lift parts into the launch chamber before final sign-off and start of tunnelling later this summer.
> 
> The TBM has been named _Jill _in honour of Jill Viner, who in June 1974 was London’s first female bus driver.


----------



## sponge_bob

The Severn Bridge is on fire. The new one not the older one. 









M4 Prince of Wales Bridge fire causes chaos and congestion


Westbound traffic was held for hours on the Severn crossing, causing huge queues on nearby routes




www.walesonline.co.uk


----------



## madannie

National Highways plans for the A66 upgrade have been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate:









Plan for £1 billion A66 bypass takes step forward


The A66 The £1 billion plans to dual a section of the A66 have been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.




cwherald.com


----------



## geogregor

This has just landed on my Twitter:



https://www.roads.org.uk/blog/imperfectly-odd-batheaston-bypass



Interesting story. The whole blog is full of interesting stories.

I like their two sections, about road oddities:



https://www.roads.org.uk/tags/imperfectly-odd



And comprehensive overview of London Ringways, most of them were luckily never built. They would obliterate swaths of urban fabric.



https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways


----------



## geogregor

Shapps is as useless as most of his recent predecessors...









National Highways ‘about to feel’ impact of planning hold-ups | New Civil Engineer


Transport secretary Grant Shapps has repeatedly delayed making decisions on National Highways planning applications in the past two years. In fact, it has




www.newcivilengineer.com







> Transport secretary Grant Shapps has repeatedly delayed making decisions on National Highways planning applications in the past two years. In fact, it has now been more than a year since Shapps last delivered a verdict on time in relation to a National Highways DCO application.


His dithering leads to delays:








Costain cancels supply chain event on £260m road job


Preparation work for A1 upgrade stalls as Transport Secretary dithers over approval




www.constructionenquirer.com







> Shapps has been due to make a decision on the £260m scheme since January and will now take until December to make a ruling on the project which was due to start construction this summer.


He is even worse when public transport is concerned but don't let me start ranting...


----------



## Stuu

Tricky as I *really* don't want to defend Shapps... however, a lot of the delays are because they need to make sure applications are watertight, and that lies with the applicant, not the SoS. The Stonehenge court decision has caused most of this delay: the government introduced carbon budgets for five year periods and these haven't been properly included in some of these scheme applications. The Portishead railway line has also fallen into this mess.

Some of it is down to National Highways poor planning as well. The dualling of the A303 near Ilchester passes the Navy's main flight training base, and the MOD were the main objectors as NH ignored their concerns about putting drainage ponds (attractive to birds) near the end of the runway. Which seems pretty stupid to me.

The fact that he's a proven liar who ran a business under a fake name, that was almost certainly fraudulent, means he should be nearer the inside of a prison cell than the sitting in the Cabinet, does make it a bit awkward to give him any credit.


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> The fact that he's a proven liar who ran a business under a fake name, that was almost certainly fraudulent, means he should be nearer the inside of a prison cell than the sitting in the Cabinet, does make it a bit awkward to give him any credit.


I forgot Schapps was the _get rich quick scams_ Tory MP from a few years back but he could still turn out to be better than his predecessor Grayling. 









Grant Shapps admits he had second job as 'millionaire web marketer' while MP


Tory party chairman had repeatedly denied using pseudonym of Michael Green or having a second job after becoming an MP in 2005




www.theguardian.com


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> but he could still turn out to be better than his predecessor Grayling.


That is a veeeery low bar. Piece of poo would be better than Grayling...


----------



## geogregor

National Highways completes £112M A2 upgrade | New Civil Engineer


Both junctions (Bean and Ebbsfleet) have been upgraded at a cost of £112M to increase their capacity by adding new lanes to their existing roundabouts and




www.newcivilengineer.com







> National Highways' congestion-busting A2 Bean to Ebbsfleet scheme has now opened to traffic.
> 
> Both junctions (Bean and Ebbsfleet) have been upgraded at a cost of £112M to increase their capacity by adding new lanes to their existing roundabouts and slip roads.
> At Bean a new bridge has also been built over the A2 dual carriageway.​


----------



## geogregor

Inflation bites:









Half-completed road job shelved after costs spiral | New Civil Engineer


Procurement for the second phase of construction for a new junction on the A361 North Devon Link Road in Tiverton has been pulled as the local council




www.newcivilengineer.com







> Procurement for the second phase of construction for a new junction on the A361 North Devon Link Road in Tiverton has been pulled as the local council seeks funds to match inflationary cost increases.
> 
> Contractors Alun Griffiths completed construction of the west-bound slip roads was completed in 2018, but it has not progressed to the next phase, leading locals to refer to it as “the road to nowhere”.
> 
> Phase two will see the east-bound slip roads and a bridge over the A361 constructed. The project has previously received £8.2M from Homes England’s Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) as it will serve a new housing development known as Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension. An August 2021 Cabinet report said the cost of the scheme had risen to £10.1M, leaving Mid Devon District Council (MDDC) with a £1.9M shortfall.
> 
> Devon County Council, MDDC’s delivery partner, proceeded with the tendering process, but bids returned “significantly exceeded” the expected increase of £1.9M. This is due to “significant increases in construction sector costs and the need for an increased contingency to reflect the current contractor marketplace and the volatile prices of steel, concrete and aggregate,” according to MDDC.
> 
> Discussions have taken place between key stakeholder organisation to find the missing sum, but funds have not been forthcoming, therefore commencement of the works cannot be instructed at this time. The tender process has been stopped and bidders notified that MDDC will no longer be seeking a contractor for the works at this time.


----------



## Stuu

£10 says they build a roundabout instead


----------



## Ronnie87

Stuu said:


> £10 says they build a roundabout instead


There's no road to build a roundabout for 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Stuu

Very quiet morning on the M5


----------



## madannie

madannie said:


> National Highways plans for the A66 upgrade have been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plan for £1 billion A66 bypass takes step forward
> 
> 
> The A66 The £1 billion plans to dual a section of the A66 have been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwherald.com


The Planning Inspectorate has approved the A66 plans, so the project can move to the next stage, apparently called pre-examination.

_"Today, July 19, the Planning Inspectorate has confirmed the project can now move on to its next stage.

The scheme can now move to pre-examination.

At this point, people can register to become an interested party by making a summary of their views about an application, made in writing. An examining authority will also be appointed and all interested parties will be invited to attend a preliminary meeting, run and chaired by the authority."_









£1 billion A66 bypass plan reaches significant milestone


The A66 The bid to create a £1 billion A66 bypass is a step nearer to starting after another phase




cwherald.com


----------



## sponge_bob

Has a route even been selected yet ???


----------



## madannie

The proposed route was announced in 2020 and consultations took place through much of 2021, several changes being made following local concerns in several places along the route.

What I think are the latest maps of the route can be found at About the project - Highways England. These seem to have less detail than the large printed versions issued during the consultations.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*East Leeds Orbital Route opens in time for Leeds Festival weekend*
_
The new East Leeds Orbital Route (ELOR) will be fully open in time for Leeds festival goers to use ahead of the 26 August 2022, subject to completed road safety checks. 

ELOR is a two-lane dual carriageway 7km in length, connecting the A6120 (Outer Ring Road Shadwell) in the north to Manston Lane in the south where it connects to the Manston Lane Link Road (MLLR) which is delivered as part of the Thorpe Park development. When it opens, ELOR will become a new section of the Leeds outer ring road. 

The dual carriageway includes five new roundabouts at the A6120, A58, Skelton’s Lane, the A64 and Barwick Road. The A64, often an area of vast congestion during the festival weekend will benefit from the new dual carriageway increasing the road capacity for people arriving at the festival by car or coach. 

A confirmed opening date in August will be announced nearer the time. _

Full press release: East Leeds Orbital Route opens in time for Leeds Festival weekend


----------



## Ryme Intrinseca

A consultation on 10km of dualling on the A64 between York and Barton-Le-Willows has opened.













A64 Hopgrove Junction to Barton-le-Willows - National Highways - Citizen Space


Find and participate in consultations run by Highways England.



highwaysengland.citizenspace.com


----------



## ChrisZwolle

New £61 million A46 flyover in Coventry to open this week


The new flyover will help drivers on the A46 at Binley junction




www.coventrytelegraph.net





Location: Google Maps


----------



## Stuu

ChrisZwolle said:


> New £61 million A46 flyover in Coventry to open this week
> 
> 
> The new flyover will help drivers on the A46 at Binley junction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.coventrytelegraph.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Location: Google Maps


Slightly too late for the TikTok craze though


----------



## geogregor

Another project seriously affected by inflation:









Cost inflation stalls £65m Carlisle Southern Link Road


Morgan Sindall and Cumbria Council part ways after bust-up over final construction price




www.constructionenquirer.com







> The council has now decided to retender the project in an attempt to bring the 8km road scheme in on budget.
> 
> It is the largest live road project so far to be stalled by industry-wide cost inflation.


----------



## geogregor

Progress in London:









Silvertown Tunnel cutter head lowered into shaft


UK's largest ever diameter TBM nearly ready to start work




www.constructionenquirer.com







> The TBM, which measures 11.91m and is the equivalent of almost three double decker buses, is the largest diameter TBM in the UK.
> 
> The 1,800 tonne machine began being lowered into the launch chamber in pieces last month where it will be assembled before commissioning and starting to bore the 1.4km tunnel later this summer.
> 
> As well as the cutter head, parts of the TBM shield have also recently been lowered down into the launch chamber, as well as the 250-tonne main drive of the TBM.
> 
> Elsewhere on the site the conveyor which will carry tunnelling spoil from the chamber to barges to then be transported along the river is approaching completion, and the first of the concrete tunnel rings to be installed as the TBM progresses across the river have also began arriving.














> A joint venture between BAM Nuttall, Ferrovial Construction and SK Ecoplant, known as Riverlinx Construction, is delivering the 1.4km twin-lane road tunnel under the River Thames, linking North Greenwich and Silvertown.
> 
> As well as relieving pressure on the frequently congested Blackwall Tunnel, once open in 2025 the new twin-bore tunnel will also increase the number of buses able to cross the river at this point.
> 
> The tunnel will have a dedicated bus lane in each direction and will operate at least twenty zero-emission buses per hour from opening, radically improving cross-river connectivity, and allowing more people to have access to new jobs and opportunities.
> 
> Last month, Riverlinx announced that “Jill” has been chosen as the name for their TBM in recognition of Jill Viner the first female bus driver to drive a London bus in June 1974.


----------



## geogregor

More inflation delays, another retenedring:









Rebid starts for £200m M5 junction job


Cost inflation forces retender for £200m junction 10 rebuild near Cheltenham




www.constructionenquirer.com







> Council procurement chiefs had originally planned to select a contractor in July but went back to the drawing board to reconsider project risk.





> Under this new timetable, prequalification documents will need to be submitted by 4 August with shortlisted firms invited to bid in October.
> 
> A winning early involvement contractor will now be named in February 2023, for a stage 2 project start now set for November 2024. Project completion is due in April 2027.


----------



## sponge_bob

Are they allowing cost escalation claims on schemes under way, EG the A30 in Cornwall??


geogregor said:


> More inflation delays, another retenedring:


----------



## geogregor

Another legal action against road expansion:









Legal challenge to £90m Norfolk road scheme


A local scientist has launched a legal challenge to the recent planning approval given to the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham scheme in Norfolk.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


----------



## geogregor

Videos from national Highways promoting Lower Thames Crossing:











And about keeping current crossing operational:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

*M6 junction 13 to junction 15 smart motorway*
_
*Upgraded motorway now open*
11 August 2022

Today we lifted the final restriction on a major motorway upgrade to a 17 mile stretch of the M6 between junction 13 at Stafford and junction 15 near Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent. This means you can now drive at the national speed limit along this route.

If you’ve been using the road recently, you’ll know that a new fourth lane was opened earlier this year. Drivers were kept at a lower maximum speed limit of 60mph while we calibrated the technology which detects stopped vehicles. Our testing shows the system is performing satisfactorily so we have increased the maximum speed to the national speed limit of 70mph along the stretch which carries on average 127,000 vehicles a day._






M6 junction 13 to junction 15 smart motorway - National Highways


We're upgrading the busy 28km stretch of the M6 between junction 13 at Stafford and Junction 15 near Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent to make it a smart motorway.




nationalhighways.co.uk





I believe this was the last of the smart motorways to be completed. M4 was completed recently as well.


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> Another legal action against road expansion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal challenge to £90m Norfolk road scheme
> 
> 
> A local scientist has launched a legal challenge to the recent planning approval given to the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham scheme in Norfolk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


Sadly another A47 scheme was just approved and could end up in the courts too. Lets hope not as both are already long delayed RIS 1 projects I believe. 









£200m A47 dualling work to start next year after government grants go-ahead


The £200m dualling of another five-and-a-half miles of the A47 in Norfolk will begin next year, after the government said the scheme can go ahead.




www.edp24.co.uk


----------



## sponge_bob

We should perhaps take a minute to mark * 100 Years of Road Classification in Britain.* Classification took about a year to complete because a detailed written description or 'schedule' of every inch had to be prepared as well as marking a line on a map.

The simple rule was A1-A6 were the main roads out of London and A7-A9 were in Scotland. More than a few of the main roads in England were on top of Roman Roads and many were old turnpikes or private toll roads built mainly 1750-1850 after which time the local authorities tended to take over roads in England. It was very like Napoleons national road system which radiated from Paris, in fact.

2 Digit A roads like the A30 and A40 were next most important and these were grouped regionally so that A10-A19 were in the east, A20-29 south east A30-39 south west etc. Then the 3 digit numbers radiated to the corners of the kingdom or cross connected the more important roads.

The MOT helpfully produced a map set showing their new network in 1923 with later revisions into the 1920s, Sabre have compiled the entire GB set for 1923 at this link below but A roads were revised afterwards so this map is of its time, in. 1923. 

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=53.13027,-0.82236&map=MoTMap&zoom=8&layer=0









The idea was that the lower the number the more that the exchequer would pay and interfere with minimum standards while so doing. The "Roads Advisory Committee" supervised the classification and were an early version of a roads agency prompting a question in parliament along the lines of 'what about cyclists' from a Colonel Wedgewood. How nothing has really changed, what!! 

Generally the M Roads paralleled the same A road number and in some cases the A Road was abolished or "declassified" after the M road was built after WW2, but not always as you can see from the M5.

The A6 still exists from London to NW England, mainly anyway, even though you _really_ should avoid it on long distance journeys and take the M1 and M6 instead.

By the 1930s it was clear that _some roads were more important than others_, and never mind the numbers. This lead to the first significant revision which was the creation of Trunk Roads, by law, and their transfer to central government control. This,however, included A1 to A9 inclusive. It put whitehall on the hook for greater funding of the more important roads than they had envisaged for themselves after WW1.






Trunk Roads Act 1936







www.legislation.gov.uk


----------



## Ronnie87

Green light for the A248 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet dualling scheme 🥳





__





Consent granted - A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet given green light from Secretary of State - National Highways


A vital upgrade to improve hundreds of thousands of journeys between Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge has today (Thursday 18 August) been given the green light to proceed. Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps granted planning permission (called a Development Consent Order) today for...




nationalhighways.co.uk


----------



## strandeed

geogregor said:


> Let's go further Challenger 2 Tank width is 3.5 m (11ft 6in). Why not driving one of those? No pothole will be scary for you
> 
> I don't know where you live but in many urban areas, with cars parked on both side of the street, you will rarely get more than lane and a half of useful space, often less
> 
> In general I don't sweat too much because I don't have to drive in city. I can just watch traffic and enjoy the mess. How many times I have watched drivers blocking each other because they either can't pass each other or someone can't fit into parking spot. Makes me smile every time


The issue with parking is a volume/behavior problem not a specific vehicle problem. More people own multiple vehicles these day's and someone with poor etiquette will park badly whatever they drive.

For the record, live in Alnwick Northumberland. I can assure you our roads are just as narrow and poorly developed, if not more so than yours


----------



## geogregor

strandeed said:


> The issue with parking is a volume/behavior problem not a specific vehicle problem. More people own multiple vehicles these day's and someone with poor etiquette will park badly whatever they drive.


Yes, the behavior can be partially responsible. 

But the truth is that road space is limited, especially in densely populated areas. Bigger cars take more space. It is simple math and physics. Three Fiats 500 will navigate easier on the narrow streets than Three Land Rovers Defenders. They will also park easier and take less space. Again, it is due to simple geometry.



> For the record, live in Alnwick Northumberland. I can assure you our roads are just as narrow and poorly developed, if not more so than yours


I guess that might be colouring your view. Your streets and roads might have similar dimensions but you have fraction of the vehicles competing for the space than in more densely populated areas.

I don't mind farmers and folks in rural areas driving pickup trucks if they need them. But people driving oversized SUVs in Clapham are just selfish idiots.


----------



## geogregor

Another legal battle:









Court challenge to Skanska road scheme


A fourth nationally significant infrastructure project in the government’s road building programme is now subject to a legal challenge.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


----------



## sponge_bob

I hate ecomentalists. 


geogregor said:


> Another legal battle:


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> I hate ecomentalists.


They use tools given to them by politicians. If I was one of them I would use exactly the same tactic. 

If you have a problem, blame politicians, they design the rules and planning laws.


----------



## geogregor

Some photos from the rebuilding of the junction between M2 and A249 in Kent.

I was expecting a bit more progress by now...









Aerial photos show scale of works at M2 junction


Exclusive drone pictures show how flyover work on one of Kent's busiest motorway junctions has progressed in a year.




www.kentonline.co.uk


----------



## geogregor

A30 dualling in Cornwall:









Future of Roads | A30 improvement will boost economy and local environment | New Civil Engineer


Significant levels of sustainability, environmental mitigation and ecological enhancement are marking out the A30 improvement scheme in Cornwall as




www.newcivilengineer.com
















> The section does not make for easy driving, particularly at peak holiday times. It is this part of the A30 which is being upgraded by a partnership between Costain and Jacobs.
> 
> “We’re building 13 new structures in all – some under, some over – with one existing structure refurbished and one bridge to be demolished,” says Costain project director John Lee.
> 
> There is also 14km of asphalt dual carriageway to lay complete with slipformed concrete central barrier, plus three crucial junctions to create. The old A30 will remain in part for necessary local access.














> Regarding the green estate, the most obvious sign of the care taken will be that of new Cornish Hedges, stretching across the landscape.
> 
> Dating from the Neolithic period, the “hedges” are described by National Highways as “traditionally 1.5m high, stone-faced earth hedgebanks with bushes or trees growing along the top”.
> 
> “We’re building a total of 12.5km of them,” Simmonds-Screech says.
> 
> The next key milestone for the project will be the moving of traffic onto the re-aligned A3075 at Chiverton. “This will enable us to continue with works to construct and configure the crucial grade separated junction there, ensuring we remain on target to open to traffic by the end of 2023,” Lee concludes.














> Thirteen new structures will be constructed as part of the A30 improvement scheme. These include (from east to west):
> 
> Carland Cross grade separated junction. The span to carry the new A30 dual carriageway will be constructed insitu. Beams, parapet edge beams and reinforced-earth wingwalls are all made of precast concrete.
> An underpass in Newlyn Downs, which will be built using a single leaf Bebo arch – a precast arch system for earth overfilled structures – with reinforced-earth wingwalls of precast concrete
> An underbridge providing connectivity between a section of de-trunked A30 and Pennycomequick Lanes. It will be built using portal units and reinforced earth wingwalls of precast concrete
> Trevalso Lane underbridge, constructed using twin leaf Bebo arch with reinforced earth wingwalls of precast concrete
> An underpass on Church Lane. For this job, single leaf Bebo arch will be used with reinforced earth wingwalls of precast concrete.
> A new Tolgogran overbridge that will replace the existing one which will be demolished. Its structure will be of composite construction with precast concrete parapet edge beams and steelwork formed with a pair of braced girders using weathering steel.
> The Marazanvose green overbridge which will have two spans, both made of precast elements.
> The Tresawsen underbridge. It will be built using a twin leaf Bebo arch with reinforced earth wingwalls of precast concrete
> A grade separated junction in Chybucca. It will be formed of an overbridge linking two new roundabouts. The structure will be built with insitu concrete pads and columns with precast concrete beams, parapet edge beams and reinforced earth wingwalls
> The Chiverton grade separated junction at the western end of the scheme. It is designed with two new underbridges forming a roundabout beneath the new A30’s dual carriageway. Built in the same way as the one in Chybucca.
> The Chiverton underpass. Two piece precast concrete units will form the underpass and will feature precast concrete reinforced earth wingwalls.


----------



## geogregor

Ups...









London flyover needs £50m structural repairs


Safety checks force 7.5t weight restriction on 200m long Brent Cross flyover




www.constructionenquirer.com


----------



## geogregor

Some updates from the UK:



https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/contractors-collaborate-for-13bn-a66-dualling





> Balfour Beatty, Costain, Keltbray and Kier will work together to widen the remaining single carriageway sections of the A66 between M6 Junction 40 (Penrith) and the A1 at Scotch Corner.





> In 2020, this project was designated a “Project Speed pathfinder”, in a bid to cut the construction time for the project by half, bringing forward completion by five years, to 2029. *This is assuming that the proposals are approved by both the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently, whoever is secretary of state for transport at that time*, allowing construction to start in 2024.





https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/morgan-sindall-mobilises-for-37m-a12-works





> National Highways has tasked Morgan Sindall with rebuilding eight miles of the A12 carriageway between Marks Tey (junction 25) and Stanway (junction 26).
> 
> The noisy and decrepit concrete road surface will be removed, along with some of the foundations, and replaced with recycled material base and a new asphalt running surface. It is expected that the scheme will be completed in early 2024.


Hammersmith Bridge saga still ongoing:



https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/hammersmith-council-backs-double-deck-bridge-plan





> A decision to lodge a planning application for the double-decker temporary truss solution was among a £5m package of measures agreed by Hammersmith & Fulham’s cabinet this week.
> 
> Planning will require consultation with stakeholders including Historic England, the Environment Agency, Port of London Authority, neighbouring Richmond Council and the Marine Management Organisation.


Interestingly it might be tolled. Was it before? I can't remember.



> In a separate procurement strategy report, also agreed by the cabinet meeting on Monday 10th October, the council sets out its intention to appoint a private sector contractor to design, renovate, finance and maintain the bridge. *The council’s construction costs and the ongoing operation and maintenance of the bridge would be funded by tolls*.


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> Interestingly it might be tolled. Was it before? I can't remember.


In the 19th century maybe.


----------



## geogregor

Junction improvement in Norwich got green light:



https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/galliford-try-cleared-to-start-norwich-junction-imporvement-despite-cost-hike





> New transport secretary of Anne-Marie Trevelyan has signed the development consent order (DCO) for the reconfiguration of Thickthorn junction, the intersection of the A47 and the A11 southwest of Norwich, despite costs on the scheme having doubled.
> 
> The original cost of the scheme was put at £50m to £100m; now the cost is £161m.
> 
> With the DCO now signed, designated contractor Galliford Try can begin enabling works ahead of main construction in the new year. Construction is expected to take two years to complete.
> 
> The redevelopment will see two free-flowing connections between the A47 and the A11 as well as additional lanes and pedestrian crossings. A new half-mile link road, with a 40mph limit, will also be built providing direct access to the junction from Cantley Lane South and Norwich Road (B1172).


Existing:









What is being built:


----------



## strandeed

sponge_bob said:


> I hate ecomentalists.


Was it some American that proclaimed the British love nothing more than hamstringing ourselves into misery?

Lets make it as hard and expensive as we can to improve our road network at the expense of the taxpayer.... All self-imposed of course.


----------



## Stuu

£161m for single slip road. Sounds like value for money


----------



## geogregor

QEII Bridge is closed for the second day due to protesters climbing the bridge:









Police remove and arrest M25 Dartford Crossing protesters


Climate change activists on the QEII bridge at Dartford leads to two days of disruption on the M25.



www.bbc.co.uk







> Police received reports of Just Stop Oil supporters scaling the bridge's masts at the Dartford Crossing at 03:50 BST on Monday.
> 
> Highways England said delays were building and there was about six miles (10km) of slow-moving traffic.
> 
> Just Stop Oil said the action was in protest against new government oil and gas licences.
> 
> Essex Police said it was working to resolve the situation as two people were still protesting "at height".
> 
> The 1.7mile (2.8km) bridge takes traffic southbound on the A282, which connects the M25 London Orbital Motorway from Essex to Kent.
> 
> All southbound traffic was being diverted through the East Bore of the Dartford Tunnel, National Highways said, leaving only the West Bore available to traffic heading north under the river.
> 
> Ch Supt Simon Anslow from Essex Police said: "We understand how frustrating this situation is for people wanting to use the bridge and go about their business.
> 
> "Let me assure you we are doing all we can to resolve this situation quickly and safely."
> He said it was a "complex situation" due to the height the protesters had reached on the bridge - about 427 ft (130m) above the water and 180ft (55m) above the road surface.












I wonder why they just don't leave protesters hanging up there until they get hungry and keep traffic running in the meantime


----------



## geogregor

Tunneling in London restarted after the September fire:









Silvertown tunnelling restarts following blaze | New Civil Engineer


Six fire engines and 40 firefighters were called to the site in London at 10.23pm on Tuesday 27 September following reports of a fire. Before the




www.newcivilengineer.com







> Transport for London (TfL) has now confirmed that, following necessary repairs to the conveyor system, tunnelling is underway again. Both the conveyor belt and tunnel boring machine (TBM) were safely restarted earlier this week.
> 
> The TBM was launched in September by the Riverlinx CJV – a joint venture between Bam Nuttall, Ferrovial Construction and SK Ecoplant. The TBM has now tunnelled more than 50m underground and 24 concrete rings have already been installed as part of the tunnelling process.





> Work continues across the project, with sheet piling for the approach roads for the tunnel approach in Newham now underway. Noise and vibration monitors are located across the worksite to ensure that any impact is kept under continuous review. The rotation chamber in Greenwich has also recently been excavated and concrete pours for the base of the chamber are underway.
> 
> Meanwhile, work to realign the road network in Greenwich to link in with the new tunnel began this week. Lane restrictions are in place on the A102 south of the Blackwall Tunnel, with one lane closed in either direction for the next two weeks, and the southbound A102 between the Blackwall Tunnel and the slip road off to Blackwall Lane will reduce from three lanes to two from 31 October until summer 2023.


----------



## geogregor

Lower Thames Crossing plans resubmitted two years after original application was pulled | New Civil Engineer


It comes almost two years after National Highways (then Highway England) was forced to pull its original plans with planners poised to knock them back.




www.newcivilengineer.com







> National Highways has finally resubmitted its development consent order (DCO) application for construction of the Lower Thames Crossing.
> It comes almost two years after National Highways (then Highway England) was forced to pull its original plans with planners poised to knock them back.
> 
> The proposed Lower Thames Crossing includes the longest road tunnel in the UK and 23km of new road that would almost double road capacity across the River Thames east of London. The twin bored tunnels will also be the largest diameter tunnels in Europe and the third largest in the world with a diameter of 16m. It is estimated to cost between £6.4bn and £8.2bn.
> 
> Lower Thames Crossing executive director Matt Palmer confirmed that the Planning Inspectorate has received the planning application for examination.





> Despite delays to the DCO, National Highways has continued with procurement. Main work has been split into three packages; tunnels and systems, road north (Essex) and Kent roads.
> 
> The shortlist for the £2.1bn tunnelling contract was announced in April 2020. It includes a joint venture between Bam Nuttall, Ferrovial Construction and Vinci (BFV JV); a joint venture between Bouygues Travaux Publics and J Murphy & Sons, supported by Mott MacDonald and Arup; and a joint venture between Dragados and Hochtief Infrastructure.
> 
> 
> The £1.3bn Roads North of the Thames contract includes 16km of new road, over 30 structures including four green bridges and viaducts, and junctions with the A13 and M25, 40km of paths and new parks and woodlands. Balfour Beatty and a JV between Kier and Eiffage will battle it out for the contract.
> 
> Meanwhile, the £600M Kent Roads package includes 6km of new road, a junction with the A2, three green bridges, 20km of pathways and a new park near Gravesend. The shortlisted bidders include a JV between Bam Nuttall, Ferrovial and Vinci; Costain; a JV between Kier and Eiffage; and Skanska.





> Main works contracts are due to be awarded in Summer 2023, with construction earmarked for the following year.
> 
> National Highways has also awarded Jacobs a £162.5M integration partner contract, as well as bringing in Turner & Townsend as commercial partner. Meanwhile, a JV between Cowi, Arcadis and Jacobs has been appointed as technical partner.


----------



## geogregor

Menai Bridge closure highlights need for third crossing, says ICE director | New Civil Engineer


ICE Wales Cymru director Keith Jones said that the degradation of the bridge could have led to a progressive collapse and "potential disaster" if left




www.newcivilengineer.com







> A director at the Institution of Civil Engineers in Wales has called for renewed efforts to secure a third crossing across the Menai Straight following the closure of the Menai Bridge for urgent works last month.
> ICE Wales Cymru director Keith Jones said that the degradation of the bridge could have led to a progressive collapse and "potential disaster" if left unchecked.
> 
> Known as one of the most famous bridges in the UK, the Menai Bridge opened in 1826. However the landmark was closed on October 24 for emergency maintenance works after “serious safety risks” were identified during a routine structural check.
> 
> The announcement was made by the Wels Government following recent testing of the bridge’s existing hangers with the bridge expected to remain closed for the rest of the year.
> 
> According to _Nation Cymru_ Jones said: "The Welsh Government was right to commission the analysis of the bridge which has uncovered this issue. They have also taken the right decision in implementing a safety-first approach by closing the bridge despite the public backlash over the disruption.
> 
> “However, this must be the wake-up call for Welsh Government. We have been talking about a third crossing for a long time and now decisions need to be made. We do not want to be here in 10 years having the same conversation when something else – or more serious – happens.”
> 
> Estimated costs for building a third crossing over the Menai Strait in Wales have more than trebled to around £400M.
> 
> A preferred option for the new crossing east of the A55 Britannia Bridge was identified four years ago but the cost of the project has now risen considerably from the original £130M.
> 
> According to Welsh deputy minister for climate change Lee Waters, if a new road bridge is finally given the go-ahead, it would take around seven years to build. Under previous plans, a two-year build was anticipated.
> 
> Jones said the issues on the Menai Bridge are indicative of why Wales must continue to invest in infrastructure, as the country lacks transport resilience.
> 
> "There is a proven link between the condition of the infrastructure of a country (Wales) and its economy." he said. "For every pound invested in infrastructure it generates £2.85 of benefits to the economy."


The bridge they had to shut is the one carrying the local road:

This one:

20210513_110837 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02421 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02426 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

Bridge on the A55 route is still open. But it is also ageing. It is weird structure. Bits of it origin as far back as 1846 when it was designed and built by famours Stephenson. But it burned down and was rebuilt in 1970, but still reusing original piers. On top of them were added new arched spans supporting two decks, one for cars, one for trains. The road profile is 2x1, creating narrow section of otherwise dualled A55









Britannia Bridge - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





From the distance:

DSC02406 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


DSC02389 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

At some point a new crossing will be needed. The sooner the start getting on with it, the better.

Oh, I really don't get how they got 7 years needed for construction. It should be 2-3 years, probably 5 including design etc.


----------



## sponge_bob

Actually both are now closed at night for repairs but the repairs to the Menai bridge are unplanned emergency repairs. 

The third bridge was canned in recent years along with _every other road project_ in planning in Wales, it limped along undead perhaps as late as 2018. 



geogregor said:


> Menai Bridge closure highlights need for third crossing, says ICE director | New Civil Engineer
> 
> 
> ICE Wales Cymru director Keith Jones said that the degradation of the bridge could have led to a progressive collapse and "potential disaster" if left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newcivilengineer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point a new crossing will be needed.


----------



## geogregor

More pretests and blockades on M25:









Just Stop Oil: Dozens of activists arrested over M25 protest


Multiple junctions of the M25 were closed and police made 35 arrests during the latest protest.



www.bbc.co.uk







> Sections of the M25 were closed throughout the Monday morning rush hour as part of the protest by Just Stop Oil.
> 
> There have been protests at seven separate locations on the M25: J2 (Darenth), J6-7 (Godstone), J8-9 (Reigate), J13-14 (Staines), J21a-22 (St Albans), J25 (Holmesdale tunnel) and J27 (M11).


----------



## Corvinus

geogregor said:


> More pretests and blockades on M25:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just Stop Oil: Dozens of activists arrested over M25 protest
> 
> 
> Multiple junctions of the M25 were closed and police made 35 arrests during the latest protest.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk





> Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist said the action was "criminality", not protest, and pledged to bring those involved to justice as quickly as possible.


Correct attitude, even if scores of leftist and green sympathisers will be unable (and worse, un_willing_) to grasp this simple fact. 
It should not stop at criminal charges against the offenders: let them also pay damages for everything (police expenses, loss of income of motorists, ...) they caused. Seizure of their assets won't cover it? Send them to hard labour, that will also help to make up their mind!


----------



## geogregor

sponge_bob said:


> The Silvertown tunnel is Made in Ireland, literally.
> 
> 
> 
> https://banagherprecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Concrete-Magazine-Article-Nov-22-Silvertown.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are doing a very long tunnel it is not worth your while setting up a casting yard onsite like they did for the Chiltern rail tunnel on HS2 which is under construction just beyond the M25. The lack of brownfield land in this area, unlike the situation before 2000, does not help either.


Interesting article about those rings.

As for HS2, only Chiltern tunnels have their own factory. Other long tunnels have segments delivered. For example TBMs digging from Ruilslip are using rings segments delivered from Kent. In fact the factory is right on the Thames estuary.



https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/hs2-gives-pacadar-its-biggest-uk-contract-to-date





> Pacadar, a Spanish company, intends to manufacture the tunnel lining at its factory in the Isle of Grain, Kent. Pacadar UK recently supplied 7.5 miles of tunnel segments on the Thames Tideway Project but the HS2 order is the largest contract that the company has ever won in the UK and will support 180 jobs in the UK. The contract value was not disclosed.


I suspect if they weren't busy with the HS2 it would be perfect supplier for Silvetown. Just drop segments on a barge and voila.

So the Irish factory was utilized. I wonder how the segments are being delivered. By road or using boats?


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> I]So the Irish factory was utilized. I wonder how the segments are being delivered. By road or using boats?


I am not sure how they brought them *from* Dublin port but they were sure trucked out of Banagher to there. While there is plenty of greeny yadda yadda in this article they carefully avoided answering _your_ question. As well as that there is almost no blast furnace within 1000km of the segment factory nowadays. 









Production of Silvertown Tunnel’s 9,000 precast concrete segments is underway | New Civil Engineer


The segments are being cast by Banagher Precast Concrete at the company's facility in Ireland. They will be transported to the East London site later in




www.newcivilengineer.com


----------



## Stuu

geogregor said:


> While it might technically be true we do need to borrow money on the international markets. So their sentiment and their view on our debt does matter. We can't simply print money as we wish and stash debts at the Bank of England.
> 
> The bottom line is that the budgets are being squeezed. I don't expect splurge on road building.


The UK government doesn't borrow money internationally, Gilts are issued in London and almost entirely in sterling, some of it gets bought by international investors but that's not the same thing. These are primarily owned by UK pension funds and other investors, as well as the bulk being with the Bank of England. It is those investors who reacted extremely badly to the recent moronic budget, because it is unfunded borrowing, and it is those who need to be kept on side. Borrowing for investment is a different matter, and is not viewed in the same way. The UK debt isn't even all that crazy by European standards. Current government decisions and policy are political, more than economics











But the second statement is of course true, there is no chance of a sudden splurge of infrastructure spending


----------



## geogregor

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597303153497554950


----------



## sponge_bob

I'll hazard a guess based on the County Durham sign that that was the A19 photographed from inside Yorkshire, because it dates from c 1990 and there were sod all 2+2 roads on the Durham county border back then . Funnily enough the local Tory MP on the Durham border thinks it i_s a still a very dangerous road today._ 









Working for a safer A19


Rishi is working to improve safety of the A19 - one of the busiest roads in North Yorkshire. Working with his neighbouring MP Kevin Hollinrake, Rishi has sucessfully pressed National Highways (formerly Highways England) to improve access points on the road.




www.rishisunak.com


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> I'll hazard a guess based on the County Durham sign that that was the A19 photographed from inside Yorkshire, because it dates from c 1990 and there were sod all 2+2 roads on the Durham county border back then . Funnily enough the local Tory MP on the Durham border thinks it i_s a still a very dangerous road today._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Working for a safer A19
> 
> 
> Rishi is working to improve safety of the A19 - one of the busiest roads in North Yorkshire. Working with his neighbouring MP Kevin Hollinrake, Rishi has sucessfully pressed National Highways (formerly Highways England) to improve access points on the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rishisunak.com


It's here. There are no more dual carriageways running north and south now, the peak for roadbuilding in the north east was in the 1970s when a lot of high quality infrastructure went in, especially in the new town of Washington, which must have more grade-separated junctions per head than anywhere else in the country. There's also some roads the plans were never finished, like here


----------



## sponge_bob

M56 roadworks to continue into 2023 as smart motorway opening delayed


The roadworks have caused major disruption for drivers in Cheshire and Greater Manchester




www.cheshire-live.co.uk


----------



## geogregor

Intersting idea. Existing British gantries have very heavy design.



https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/rethink-requested-for-highway-gantry-designs


----------



## sponge_bob

geogregor said:


> Interesting idea. Existing British gantries have very heavy design.


Power pylons were another fossilised design, until finally they weren't. This is the new Hinckley Point design that is being erected. Compare these to the 800Kw rows along the M11 into London and the Lea Valley for example. 










I don't see why signage gantries should be different and you can deal with some of the massive signs by making them somewhat porous to reduce the wind loading in a storm. Looking at the size of some of the signage would be an idea too.


----------



## Stuu

sponge_bob said:


> Power pylons were another fossilised design, until finally they weren't. This is the new Hinckley Point design that is being erected. Compare these to the 800Kw rows along the M11 into London and the Lea Valley for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why signage gantries should be different and you can deal with some of the massive signs by making them somewhat porous to reduce the wind loading in a storm. Looking at the size of some of the signage would be an idea too.


These aren't very elegant in real life, they seem much more imposing than the traditional design. They are lower but the towers are very bulky, not very clear from this streetview image


----------



## sponge_bob

If they had 2 legs you could build them over motorways and A roads and dangle the signage gantries underneath. 










Remember, Motorways had to be lit all night too, once.


----------



## bogdymol

A1 is a standard dual carriageway with a speed limit of 70 mph on most of its length. 

Yesterday I drove on it, but just north of Peterborough the speed limit was reduced to 40 mph on a considerably long section, with average speed cameras every mile or so. There was also signage stating that “speed limit reduced for safety reasons”. A bit extreme, isn’t it?


----------



## geogregor

Looks like never-ending saga...









Decision on A1 Costain dualling job delayed for third time


Development consent decision for £260m Northumberland scheme put back a further 9 months




www.constructionenquirer.com


----------



## Stuu

A dashcam video of the current works to dual part of the A303 in Somerset, this will link two longer sections of existing dual carriageway which can be a terrible bottleneck


----------



## Stuu

bogdymol said:


> A1 is a standard dual carriageway with a speed limit of 70 mph on most of its length.
> 
> Yesterday I drove on it, but just north of Peterborough the speed limit was reduced to 40 mph on a considerably long section, with average speed cameras every mile or so. There was also signage stating that “speed limit reduced for safety reasons”. A bit extreme, isn’t it?


Probably this








Motorists warned over eight months of A1 roadworks at Peterborough starting in December


Works to upgrade safety barrier start in December, with a 40mph speed limit being put in place




www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk




That section of the A1 was one of the first long distance dual carriageways in the country, and has some appalling junctions by modern standards.


----------



## sponge_bob

Far as I remember the A1 in Yorkshire, including the bit south of Scotch Corner that finally became A1M after a rebuild a few years back, was started in the 1950s and finished around 1960/1 . Wonderful in its day but its day did not last very long. 


Stuu said:


> That section of the A1 was one of the first long distance dual carriageways in the country, and has some appalling junctions by modern standards.


Some time in the 1960s the 'must do something' approach was changed and A1M standards based upgrades became the norm but I can't remember if the first bit of A1M dates from the 1960s or the 1970s


----------



## Stuu

The A1 dualling started in the 1930s, before being rudely interrupted by the Germans, it restarted a few years after the end of WW2.

The Stevenage section, Doncaster bypass and the A66-Tyne tunnel section were all 1960s. The Doncaster bypass was one of the first motorways in the country, and it shows


----------



## sponge_bob

Stuu said:


> The A1 dualling started in the 1930s,


Piecemeal. The instruction to dual the road from London to Durham..ish..dates from the 1950s some time. 



https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1939-07-19/debates/848d675c-220b-42e5-8e3e-973dbfe7ffac/GreatNorthRoad(Widening)?highlight=%22great%20north%20road%22#contribution-48bfc32d-b34c-4d34-8e47-0ff36424c224


----------



## bogdymol

I traveled again today on A1 near Peterborough, southbound. It was daylight outside and I noticed that almost all of the crashbarriers were new and almost shiny (not as shiny as you know which ones). However, at around 2-3 pm today there was no sign of any workers, work equipment, materials, nothing.

Some pictures from today. They closed the small parking area just to install the yellow cameras for average speed control.


----------



## Stuu

It's probably being done mostly at night, so they can leave two lanes running in the day time. There may be places where the barrier is incomplete and also probably narrower lanes in places where they are working. It's also much easier and, importantly, cheaper to leave the traffic restrictions the same all the time the works are ongoing. And sometimes they leave the traffic management in place for longer than is needed because it is probably subcontracted to a different company to the one doing the works. Whatever the Highways Agency is currently called has no in-house maintenance/engineering staff at all


----------

