Forth Replacement Crossing

[Squigs]

Good Morning,

With the construction of the FRC due to start within days, I have been reading through the transport scotland information on the project.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/roa ... t-crossing

I have a few small queries regarding the scheme.

1) It is clear to me that the new bridge will be crossed by an extended M90. Does this mean the M90 will now terminate at the scotston interchange, or will the M9 Spur be renumbered to allow the M90 to terminate at M9 J1a?

2) How will the M90's junction numbers cope with the addition of Admiralty, Ferrytoll, South Queensferry and Scotston junctions all going in before J2

3) Will the scheme effectivly prohibit Lothian's learner drivers from venturing into the Kingdom of Fife? (Bearing in mind the old bridge will be closed to private vehicles)

[orudge]

3) Will the scheme effectivly prohibit Lothian's learner drivers from venturing into the Kingdom of Fife? (Bearing in mind the old bridge will be closed to private vehicles)

Are Bristolian learner drivers prevented from venturing into South Wales? They just have to take the long way round, as I imagine would be the case here - assuming, of course, that classes prohibited from the motorway aren't allowed onto the old bridge, which potentially could still happen.

[Trebeck]

Good Morning,

With the construction of the FRC due to start within days, I have been reading through the transport scotland information on the project.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/roa ... t-crossing

I have a few small queries regarding the scheme.

1) It is clear to me that the new bridge will be crossed by an extended M90. Does this mean the M90 will now terminate at the scotston interchange, or will the M9 Spur be renumbered to allow the M90 to terminate at M9 J1a?

2) How will the M90's junction numbers cope with the addition of Admiralty, Ferrytoll, South Queensferry and Scotston junctions all going in before J2

3) Will the scheme effectivly prohibit Lothian's learner drivers from venturing into the Kingdom of Fife? (Bearing in mind the old bridge will be closed to private vehicles)

I read that the bridge is to be motorway standard, ie. HQDC (which allows Learners), cyclists will continue to use the old bridge.

The authorities hate motorways because:
- It gets Swampy and his pals all upset
- It means you have to build a parallel route for restricted traffic

Motorway standard connecting roads which link to the A90 and M9 in the south, making use of the recently completed M9 spur
Motorway standard connecting roads linking the M90/A90 in the north, with junction enhancements at Ferrytoll

[Squigs]

I accept that it does claim to be Motorway Standard, rather than motorway, but if you look at the FAQ page on Transport Scotland, it says the following:

"Q: Why does the crossing have to be motorway standard?
The classification of the replacement crossing as a motorway will prevent a reduced level of service that would arise from use of the crossing by non-motorway traffic"

and

"Q: What provision has been made for motorcycles?
As a consequence of the motorway status of the bridge, motorcycles with an engine capacity less than 5Occ will not be permitted on the Forth Replacement Crossing. Learner riders with a Compulsory Basic Training certificate will be allowed to use the existing Forth Road Bridge on motorcycles, displaying “L-plates" with an engine capacity of less than 50cc. Those wishing to cross the Forth Replacement Bridge' on a motorcycle with an engine capacity of 50cc or greater will have to ensure that they are in possession of a full licence."

Also, in the computer generated pictures of the roads, all the signs are blue, not green.

[wrinkly]

When government documents describe a road as "motorway standard", it is not always safe to deduce from that either that it will be officially a motorway, or that it won't.

I seem to remember from previous discussions that in this case the bridge will be part of the M90, but that part of the southern approach will be, for reasons not satisfactorily explained, a non-motorway Special Road (like the A720 and part of the A1). So probably the M9 spur will not become M90.

I imagine there'll be some fiddling with junction numbers, as with the M74 and M80 completions.

It seems standard for motorways in Scotland to have problems with junction numbers.

[M5Lenzar]

Motorway standard roads should nearly always be motorways. It's time we stopped listening to lunatics like Swampy and his ilk, and got on with improving the areas of our road network that are still inadequate.

[Trebeck]

I accept that it does claim to be Motorway Standard, rather than motorway, but if you look at the FAQ page on Transport Scotland, it says the following:

"Q: Why does the crossing have to be motorway standard?
The classification of the replacement crossing as a motorway will prevent a reduced level of service that would arise from use of the crossing by non-motorway traffic"

and

"Q: What provision has been made for motorcycles?
As a consequence of the motorway status of the bridge, motorcycles with an engine capacity less than 5Occ will not be permitted on the Forth Replacement Crossing. Learner riders with a Compulsory Basic Training certificate will be allowed to use the existing Forth Road Bridge on motorcycles, displaying “L-plates" with an engine capacity of less than 50cc. Those wishing to cross the Forth Replacement Bridge' on a motorcycle with an engine capacity of 50cc or greater will have to ensure that they are in possession of a full licence."

Also, in the computer generated pictures of the roads, all the signs are blue, not green.

Fair enough.

Strange that they make mention of learner motorbikes, but not learners in cars.

[PeterA5145]

Strange that they make mention of learner motorbikes, but not learners in cars.

If a learner car driver needs to cross the Forth they can swap places with their qualified supervisor, an option that obviously isn't available to a learner motorcyclist.

[Mark Hewitt]

A provisional is for the purpose of learning only. There are sufficient roads either side of the crossing to achieve this goal.

[WHBM]

When government documents describe a road as "motorway standard", it is not always safe to deduce from that either that it will be officially a motorway, or that it won't.

I am aware that the Surrey police regard the A3 from London to Guildford (three-lane carriageways, all 70 mph, and all grade-separated junctions, but no hard shoulders) as "motorway standard" for policing purposes, which may well impact on the payment they receive from Central Government for road patrolling.

[SC2]

Motorway standard roads should nearly always be motorways. It's time we stopped listening to lunatics like Swampy and his ilk, and got on with improving the areas of our road network that are still inadequate.

Surely, if they had any sense, swampy would have equal objections to non- special roads built to motorway standards as a proper motorway

[Ritchie333]

Surely, if they had any sense, swampy would have equal objections to non- special roads built to motorway standards as a proper motorway

I always wondered where Swampy got all those bourbon biscuits he was eating while protesting about the A30 (IIRC) Honiton - Exeter improvements. Wonder how they got to him? Oh yeah, by a truck. On a road. D'uuuh.

[booshank]

Motorway standard roads should nearly always be motorways. It's time we stopped listening to lunatics like Swampy and his ilk, and got on with improving the areas of our road network that are still inadequate.

I agree. The presumption should be that dual carriageway roads with full grade separation should be motorways unless there is a compelling reason they should not be, such as excessive gradients, bends that are too tight, lack of hard shoulders in rural areas etc. The present system appears to be designed purely for legal and planning purposes (and dare I say it road geeks!) and not for the benefit of the average driver who doesn't understand/need to understand these complexities.

[Johnathan404]

IMO the problem is that we have an outdated classification system that we are trying to make do with.

For example, under your system, would the A55 warrant motorway status? Large sections of it are only suitable for motorway traffic, but many are also sub-standard.
What about an urban expressway, such as the Coventry Ring Road?

I think there are very few roads that you can say should definitely have been built as a motorway, and these are mostly the ones at the end of existing motorways.

[multiraider2]

...the A3 from London to Guildford (three-lane carriageways, all 70 mph, and all grade-separated junctions, but no hard shoulders).........

Perhaps not quite motorway standard but *cough* hard shoulders.

[Rain]

It's not just learners, pedestrians/cyclists will have to rely on a special bus service over the new bridge once the old bridge is demolished 12 months or so after the new one opens.

[Glen]

It's not just learners, pedestrians/cyclists will have to rely on a special bus service over the new bridge once the old bridge is demolished 12 months or so after the new one opens.

There are currently no plans to demolish the Forth Road Bridge,and no need to. Once the majority of traffic is on the new crossing the rate of deterioration of the cables will reduce vastly and there will be many years of life left for it to be used by a limited amount of traffic.

[Rain]

There are currently no plans to demolish the Forth Road Bridge,and no need to. Once the majority of traffic is on the new crossing the rate of deterioration of the cables will reduce vastly and there will be many years of life left for it to be used by a limited amount of traffic.

They were going to do keep the old bridge but this has now been rejected and instead a special bus service will be provided via the new bridge for cyclsists and pedestrians. The old bridge will be demolished shortly after the new bridge opens.

[M5Lenzar]

IMO the problem is that we have an outdated classification system that we are trying to make do with.

For example, under your system, would the A55 warrant motorway status? Large sections of it are only suitable for motorway traffic, but many are also sub-standard.
What about an urban expressway, such as the Coventry Ring Road?

I think there are very few roads that you can say should definitely have been built as a motorway, and these are mostly the ones at the end of existing motorways.

The A55 could be classified much like the A1, A55(M) where motorway standards are available and A55 where the road is sub-standard.

Urban ring roads like Coventry shouldn't really class as motorways - designations like A57(M) are pointless. And what about the 'motorways' in Leeds?

The A2 between the M25 and the M2 and the well-known non-motorway A27 should both be motorways, however.

[Ritchie333]

They were going to do keep the old bridge but this has now been rejected and instead a special bus service will be provided via the new bridge for cyclsists and pedestrians. The old bridge will be demolished shortly after the new bridge opens.

What's your source of information? Transport Scotland's website here states that the old bridge will remain as a dedicated public transport corridor for buses, taxis, pedestrians and cyclists.