A1(M) Leeming - Barton

[Mark Hewitt]

If there is still a sign in Ripon saying "Newcastle (A1)" in 20 years time it is not going to confuse anyone's navigation, nor is it going to send prohibited traffic onto a motorway.

And if you are prohibited traffic; such as a bicycle, you will know fine well where the motorway is, as route planning is important as you don't want to end up on a fast dual carriageway or busy motorway junction if you can help it.

[Haydn1971]

Read the DfT announcement again this morning, it claims a 2013/14 start, completion by 2016 and a "3 year construction period"

[Stevie D]

If there is still a sign in Ripon saying "Newcastle (A1)" in 20 years time it is not going to confuse anyone's navigation, nor is it going to send prohibited traffic onto a motorway.

If you take that view, it surely won't matter if the road is called the M1 either...

[Gav]

So heading north on M1 and you are signed say to the M18 and A1 for the north - this would be the logical way ? distribution of traffic from the M1 to the A1 when it is as close and connected by a motorway ? It also drops traffic from the M1 north so gives more capacity in the sheffield area to deal with local traffic distribution.

North bound M1 north of sheffield you would not sign south out of sheffield to the M18 it would be north. The M1 reroute at Leeds to the A1 providing a more direct route for Leeds / Bradford area traffic to the A1. Also providing cross link for east bound M62 to A1 traffic.

Heading south on the A1 ? Ive often stayed on the A1 till the M18 and missed the leeds congestion.....

[Mark Hewitt]

Yes the M1 makes sense for Leeds and Sheffield traffic. But for North of Hook Moor you want the M18/A1.

[Ritchie333]

I don't often venture up this way, but is it not still the case at the M1 / M18 split that left is for Leeds and Sheffield, while right is for THE NORTH (ie: further away) and Doncaster?

[Mark Hewitt]

There have been works on this since I was last there. But then it was turn off to the left for M18.

[wrinkly]

Still no page for the revived scheme on the HA website.

Meanwhile these seems to be a proposal for signage changes on the existing road - no details known.

I suppose this is an example of unavoidable institutional inertia. The signage changes, whatever they are, will have been planned before Osborne's announcement, and they are continuing to proceed through the pipeline.

[Haydn1971]

It's often the case that low cost safety schemes have a very short payback, I'm sure the new scheme will have been considered in the determination of these traffic sign works

[Debaser]

Then again, it is the HA...left hand, meet right hand...

[Haydn1971]

Fair comment, well argued

[Debaser]

I speak as someone accused by someone at the HA of having removed one of their existing signs and not replacing it, a sign which existed only in the accusers imagination.

(I was also accused of this by a local regarding a different sign on the same scheme. Yet again this proved to be a figment of their imagination. It's scary that people 'see' signs which aren't there and are completely convinced of it, although much less so than people not seeing signs which do exist).

[wrinkly]

And now this.

The signs stuff is presumably part of it.

[ScottB5411]

And now this.

The signs stuff is presumably part of it.

If its being upgraded to motorway this is just an utter waste of taxpayers money in my eyes, what difference is it really going to make now other than annoy locals who'll have to go miles out of thier way to turn round with no LAR

[Debaser]

To be fair, having read that second press release, 5 deaths in five years and 21 serious collisions over the same period isn't acceptable. If they prevent one death in the interim then they've paid back the £1.1m cost (last figure I saw was that a fatal collision cost* £1.5m or so, it will have increased since then). Still, that's lots of stuff that's just going to be taken out again when the upgrade starts on site.



*(It's not actually the cost to the economy of a fatal, but the cost we are willing to pay to prevent one IIRC).

[Haydn1971]

If its being upgraded to motorway this is just an utter waste of taxpayers money in my eyes, what difference is it really going to make now other than annoy locals who'll have to go miles out of thier way to turn round with no LAR

What do you care ? Your paying US Taxes now

Seriously though, £1.1M is a drop in the ocean considering they claim that about 5 KSI's occur each year - it's not just about safety, but network resilience - a closed A1 due to an accident makes a lot of Geordies very cross and that could get messy the motorway upgrade could be another 18 months before it starts, traffic will be using the existing carriageway for another could of years after that - so potentially 3-4 years worth of casualty savings.

[NICK 647063]

So will this be closing all the gaps? any gaps on this stretch of A1 are very dangerous given the huge amount of HGV traffic on the A1, I think even if this is in place only a year before the motorway upgrade rips it out it will be worth it, how much does each fatal accident cost?

Accident figures before where high add this to the fact that now each side of this the road is motorway for miles people Just are not expecting crossing traffic through gaps ect!

I think the figure of 5 deaths is Just related to the gaps as a family of 4 were killed in 1 accident alone a few years back! so the figure will be higher!

Either way safety must come first!

[mehere]

So will this be closing all the gaps? any gaps on this stretch of A1 are very dangerous given the huge amount of HGV traffic on the A1, I think even if this is in place only a year before the motorway upgrade rips it out it will be worth it, how much does each fatal accident cost?

Accident figures before where high add this to the fact that now each side of this the road is motorway for miles people Just are not expecting crossing traffic through gaps ect!

I think the figure of 5 deaths is Just related to the gaps as a family of 4 were killed in 1 accident alone a few years back! so the figure will be higher!

Either way safety must come first!

Well said. Besides they did this last time , Just before the current scheme was done, Or maybe it was further south.
The gaps would probably be shut during works anyway, Though so much for a 2013 start of works!.
It ought to make it safer if nothing else.
What is to happen at the northern end though, Or have they glossed over the last inspectors report?

[NICK 647063]

Well said. Besides they did this last time , Just before the current scheme was done, Or maybe it was further south.
The gaps would probably be shut during works anyway, Though so much for a 2013 start of works!.
It ought to make it safer if nothing else.
What is to happen at the northern end though, Or have they glossed over the last inspectors report?

Think its getting brushed over by it being cancelled then put back on again they more than likely now have the upper hand as people don't want to rock the boat and risk the scheme been cancelled again!

As for the issue with the gaps we all have a rough idea of the cost of each fatal accident never mind the pain caused to loved ones, 1.3 million is well worth it if only one person is saved!

by having this 12 mile gap in the motorway we now have this situation where what is in effect "motorway traffic" dealing with things that should never appear on a motorway, are there any other examples of a road like the A1 with a short gap in the motorway? I know the M6 north of Carlisle had this but that didn't have gaps? and is now sorted!

[mehere]

It's a very bad bit of judgement by the government to cancel the scheme in the first place.
Utter lunacy!!