Given that it's not very often that 10 months of roadworks take place at the end of your road (despite the local authorities coming very close to doing so), I thought I'd come up with this thing where every now and again I'll take photos to see how the works are going on.

Here is the first batch, they were taken today (20/01/08). So far all that's happened is that the cones have come out, but the works only started yesterday.

http://motorwayservicesonline.co.uk/roads/m27/0120/

I'll sort out captions and that later.

I've got a couple of questions myself:
Interestingly they seem to be working on the central reservation before the verge, I'm intrigued to know why. At the time of taking, it seemed like they were preparing to let westbound traffic use the hard shoulder as well.
I'd also like to know whether they're going to move the matrix signs, or just drop the hard shoulder.
In picture two, the Highway Boundary comes very close to the road. Will it fit?
And a month or so ago they replaced the boundary fencing and put up driver location signs - couldn't that have waited until now?

Nice pics, it'll be interesting to see how this one progresses.

In this pic: http://motorwayservicesonline.co.uk/ima ... hJan04.jpg

The uphill carriageway already seems to have a climbing lane. Are they going to add another one??

Thanks. The extra lane in that photo is just a very long acceleration lane (in the pic you can just make out erased kicker arrows to mark the end of it), although whether or not it doubles up as a climbing lane I don't know. The works will involve extending it, not adding a new one.

From the exhibition I got the impression they were going to be widening the carriageway before rebuilding the central reservation.

Those cones look excessively close together. If they want to cut down on roadworker deaths durnig cone laying, a solution would be to increase the spacings a little. Revove a third of the cones from those intense sections and there would still be a lot.

By the way, works on J3-4 start on the 23rd February.

There seems to be 3 running lanes by the cones. Perhaps they're like this due to the volume of traffic?

Yellow vultures - but there's only two cameras on each pole so one lane isn't being monitored.

They should be at 9 metre spacings, which is the same as the roadmarkings - 3m line / 6m gap, and they appear to be that...
put them too far apart and people will nick through them
The tapers are closer, as you are trying to achieve a solid wall effect.
The safest way to lay out cones would be to get the HATO's / Police to rolling block the traffic

It is often the case on schemes like this to have a split contraflow with two lanes on one c/way and one on the other. The c/reserve works are likely to be constructing new crossovers, or stripping down CRSF on existing ones

I don't know the answer to the VMS question

There seems to be enough room within the current highway boundary, they may have purchased more land, or they may pinch some of the c/reserve

Schemes are dropped and resurrected at will (including this one), if those works weren't done it could be ages before you get the monies for it. Grab the chance when you can! For example, if people had held of doing schemes because a bigger one was in the offing, nothing would have been done on the A27 from the M27 to A3(M) since 1988

SotonSteve wrote:


When large schemes like this go ahead you put all the traffic into one lane approx. 400m prior to what will be the proper taper position through to what will be the end of the works. This enables tapers, "return walls", contramark studs to be placed in greater safety. At the end of the placement of these items you remove this temporary closure to leave the proper closure. As Nova posted, rolling blocks can and are used. I have posted in the past on the extensive trials Area 3 have done with Safetcone too

Ref Picture 8, I don't like the way traffic joins the main c/way. As the traffic joins it is heading to the offside just as traffic on the main c/way is being pushed to the nearside. I would prefer the traffic on the main c/way remained to the offside till at least 200m beyond this merge, then push it all to the nearside

Heading westbound, the immediate section to be widened is very tight indeed, with the fencing pretty much right next to the hard shoulder. It'll be interesting to see what happens here.

If you mean the section where the motorway is in cut, remember, the fence you see from the motorway may not be the boundary, it may be a sound barrier and the boundary fence is beyond that

As a rule of thumb aren't boundary fences those small wooden ones instead of the solid sound walls?

Post and four rail is certainly popular but not necessarily used all the time. Deer, agriculture, residential areas etc etc can all mean different types are required

That makes sense. The M65 does have a solid boundary fence where it passes the property of a high school - obviously imperative to prevent teenagers accessing the carriageway and causing havoc!

highwaymana31, do you know what's going to happen regarding lighting?

Originally, the whole widened stretch was to be lit from the verges, but that proposal was dropped on environmental grounds I believe. Is the currently lit stretch going to be lit from the verges, or will the lighting stop dead at the start of the westbound climbing lane where the barrier turns concrete?

Ah, that will explain why there is a wall of cones within the coned off hard shoulder. I had always presumed that rolling road blocks were the only way these things take place.



I ask because if you look at photo two you'll see that within that small space there's two VMSs and a bridge. If they don't move any of them the hard shoulder will drop so much they may may as well not bother building it.



Yeah, now I look at it again it you're probably right. I doubt any more land has been purchased.



Fair enough, but given that the date of the start of the roadworks has been definite for a while now (the cones went out a few months ago) it wouldn't have hurt to wait a few weeks.



I'm sure there must have been a better way of doing it. For a start, you've brought a very busy sliproad down to one lane and given the vehicles on it practically no space to merge. This morning I passed through the Delme Roundabout and both it and the eastbound flyover were pretty much solid. Although I can't be sure, I've got a pretty good idea that it was this merge that was causing it.

Also, if the sliproad is only single-lane, have lanes been coned off on the roundabout and the approach or is there space for a quick 'merge in turn' at the top of the sliproad?

Cheers highwayman

Like everyone else on this forum I am in favour of improving Britain's road network, but at the risk of proving controversial I have to say that I think this scheme is totally unnecessary and a complete waste of public money that could be used to better effect elsewhere.

The scheme is purely for the benefit of commuters. There is no problem at all for 22 hours a day. The problem eastbound is only between 07:00 and 09:00 and the problem westbound is only between 16:30 and 19:00.

Then the problem is only on weekdays, never on Saturday and Sunday. During school holidays there is no problem eastbound in the morning.

From experience I know there are many long distance commuters to the Portsmouth area, some even from as far as Ringwood and Basingstoke. If they want to live there, fine, but I see no reason to spend vast amounts of public money building roads just for them. What a waste.

I must admit I was very surprised when I first heard about the scheme, as I have never seen this bit of road as a big problem compared to the rest of the motorway network.

I know lots of people who live in Portsmouth and work in Fareham, and they all use the motorway because the A27 is rubbish. This comes back to the original problem with the motorway network: whether you're making your journey because it's part of your job, because you need to get to your job, because you're trying to get from one side of the country to the other or because you're trying to get to the local golf course you'll need to use the same road. The M42 is a good example.

Whenever you get to D4M I think that alternative routes should be considered first. And the fact that the problem is only evident between J11 and J12 makes it seem to me that a link between Portsmouth and Gosport should be, at the least, considered as not only would it clear the M27 but the A32 as well.

And whilst we've got the cones out why don't we go the whole way and add make it D4M all the way between J11 and J12? Now we're going to have a situation where the road is going to lose a lane a mile before a busy junction. If we're considering widening M27 J9-11 for no apparent reason then we might as well finish this job whilst we're at it.

Johnny, the rush hour problem is just on the uphill sections, eastbound up the hill from J11 and westbound up the hill from J12. Once on the top of the hill the traffic moves swiftly downwards 24 hours a day, so there is no need at all to make that 4 lanes.

You mention that somewhere there are plans to make J9 to J11 4 lanes. Well, I had not heard of that. Someone does indeed have money to burn. What a total waste of money even to plan it.

In all parts of the country there are villages and towns with Victorian road networks that have been asking for bypasses for years and years. "No money" is the reply. Yet now a perfectly good 1976 stretch of D3 motorway is being widened for little reason.

Oh yes, it was just a few years back that many millions were spent improving the communications signs on this stretch. I suppose that all be have to be redone. Money, money, money scattered to the wind.

It's part of the 'Solent Transport Strategy' that sotonsteve linked to, although we're looking at many, many years before the idea will be taken even the slightest bit seriously, should it be taken seriously at all.

In the early design stages for this scheme I attended a meeting due to the absence of a colleague. What was said at that meeting was that the RSPB had raised an objection to the lighting aspect of the works as it was on a "migratory route" for many birds. I assume that this was the "enviroMENTAL grounds".

From what I could gather this evening, the current lit section will pretty much remain as it is, but 18 columns are due to be removed in the next few days and will not be replaced