M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6468
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by jackal » Wed Sep 04, 2019 17:14

Johnathan404 wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 15:12
jackal wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 14:48
So you're saying there is a weaving issue but it doesn't actually cause congestion? And if it doesn't cause congestion why would you even consider closing J13 nb? I don't really follow.

A common solution to weaving is provision of an additional lane (that's one thing DMRB is not wrong about) so combined with sheer volumes it seems a no brainer.
This is not an ordinary weaving problem.

An ordinary weaving problem would be that you have traffic joining at J14 and traffic leaving at J13 both fighting for space in lane one at the same point. It is clear how widening helps with this.

In this situation we will have traffic leaving the M27 westbound having to make three lane changes over a very short distance, crossing over both fast and slow traffic joining from the M27 eastbound. On a normal D4/M some traffic may need to make that many lane changes over less than a mile, but never all of it and rarely does it involve crossing such a varied and dense stream of traffic. It is not a matter of congestion but safety. I'm struggling to visualise how widening would help with this as the merging area is already as long as it can be.
As you initially said, the weaving is between traffic joining at J14 and traffic leaving at J13. M27 wb traffic that's heading up the M3 (i.e. the vast majority of it) just stays right. It's a pretty standard weaving situation and the standard solution of an extra lane would help by reducing traffic per lane and with it the intensity of the weaving.

User avatar
Johnathan404
Member
Posts: 11478
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:54
Contact:

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Johnathan404 » Wed Sep 04, 2019 21:06

mikehindsonevans wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 15:18
Closing M3j13NB to traffic from eastbound would drive that traffic off at M27j5 (Airport) - a junction already under stress and that is before the houses on Stoneham Park are fully occupied. The queues would go back past Hedge End.
Obviously it's never going to happen and I wouldn't suggest otherwise for a moment, but seeing as M3 J13 to M27 eastbound traffic has to use the back roads and cannot use the motorway, there is already a case for improving the Chestnut Avenue corridor and that awful mini roundabout. In an ideal country that road would have been upgraded before the retail parks opened.

It would make more sense for a fantasy road like that to be carrying traffic in both directions, rather than westbound traffic having to play Frogger with two busy lanes of M3.
I have websites about: motorway services | Fareham

Richardf
Member
Posts: 1617
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Richardf » Thu Sep 05, 2019 22:22

When I read this thread my heart sank. I use this section quite often and find it an uncomfortable experience with the standard motorway configuration, losing the hard shoulder could make the experience worse. I remember the old A33 days, when the road felt very claustrophobic. This is going back to those days, only multiplied!

With both this scheme and the J9 works set to go on at the same time, it sounds like the M3 will be a road to avoid for the duration, just as the eastern M27 is now.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6468
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by jackal » Thu Oct 17, 2019 17:12

Consultation on variable speed limits:

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... -motorway/

J6onM27
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 15:46

M3 Junction 9 to 14 smart motorway

Post by J6onM27 » Thu Sep 16, 2021 08:28

Looks like the preparation work is underway, the cones and yellow triffids have appeared.

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... -motorway/

User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 4130
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Vierwielen » Tue Sep 21, 2021 17:45

Will the junction where the A34 joins the M3 be part of J9 or will it become J8a?

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14876
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Chris5156 » Tue Sep 21, 2021 18:25

Vierwielen wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 17:45
Will the junction where the A34 joins the M3 be part of J9 or will it become J8a?
I don't think any decision has been taken, but the junction upgrade isn't part of this scheme anyway - it's currently due to start on site in 2023, around the time the Smart Motorway work finishes.

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6468
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by jackal » Tue Sep 21, 2021 23:05

9 and 9a would arguably be more logical

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31697
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Bryn666 » Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:05

jackal wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 23:05
9 and 9a would arguably be more logical
Agreed - which means it won't happen...

I'd also make the old junction 9A, and the strategically more important direct A34 links 9. Far too often we get this the wrong way around, which would mean the northbound junction order would end up as 10, 9, 9A, 8.

... any second now we'll hear how km based exit numbering is much better because having J102A and J102B (because they'd both be within km 102) is somehow more memorable than J9 and J9A :laugh:
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

Herned
Member
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Herned » Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:56

Bryn666 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:05
jackal wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 23:05
9 and 9a would arguably be more logical
Agreed - which means it won't happen...

I'd also make the old junction 9A, and the strategically more important direct A34 links 9. Far too often we get this the wrong way around, which would mean the northbound junction order would end up as 10, 9, 9A, 8.

... any second now we'll hear how km based exit numbering is much better because having J102A and J102B (because they'd both be within km 102) is somehow more memorable than J9 and J9A :laugh:
Junction 102.3 and 102.8 surely?

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31697
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Bryn666 » Wed Sep 22, 2021 13:30

Herned wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:56
Bryn666 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:05
jackal wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 23:05
9 and 9a would arguably be more logical
Agreed - which means it won't happen...

I'd also make the old junction 9A, and the strategically more important direct A34 links 9. Far too often we get this the wrong way around, which would mean the northbound junction order would end up as 10, 9, 9A, 8.

... any second now we'll hear how km based exit numbering is much better because having J102A and J102B (because they'd both be within km 102) is somehow more memorable than J9 and J9A :laugh:
Junction 102.3 and 102.8 surely?
Every international distance based system I'm aware of uses letter suffices for all junctions within the same km.

France, which is sequential, uses decimal points for new junctions and letters for multiple exits within the same complex, e.g. 15.1 for a new junction and 16a and 16b for a cloverleaf.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 4130
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Vierwielen » Wed Sep 22, 2021 18:20

jackal wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 23:05
9 and 9a would arguably be more logical
No, because this would mean renaming J9 as J9A. It might be more logical to name the new junction J9A and while the old J9 becomes J9B.

I would of course have no objection to the junctions becoming J100 (new M3 slip-road, northern access), J102 (new A34 slip roads - northern access) and J103 (existing M3 southern access).

Herned
Member
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by Herned » Wed Sep 22, 2021 18:54

Bryn666 wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 13:30
Every international distance based system I'm aware of uses letter suffices for all junctions within the same km.

France, which is sequential, uses decimal points for new junctions and letters for multiple exits within the same complex, e.g. 15.1 for a new junction and 16a and 16b for a cloverleaf.
I should have added a smiley, I didn't know anywhere used decimals for junctions, I have only ever come across a's and b's with distance-based numbering

ais523
Member
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 19:52
Location: Birmingham

Re: M3 junctions 9 to 14: smart motorway

Post by ais523 » Fri Sep 24, 2021 03:14

IIRC there are actual rules for this, so if you were leaving the old junction number alone, the new one would have to be either 8A or 9i. (I don't think the lowercase-Roman-numeral suffixes have ever been used? Also, I'm not confident I remember the rules for using them properly.)

Post Reply