A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon "news"

[Chris5156]

So a Phase 3 expy should have an AxM number and Phase 4 expys should have an Mx number.

Highways England’s own literature is quite clear that expressways will have Ax(M) numbers, not M numbers.

[DJ Mike]

Jonathan Tracey has obligingly done a before and after video already!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tl5i6JkuWk

The A14 through Bar Hill also appears to be open again, a day early!

[A9NWIL]

So a Phase 3 expy should have an AxM number and Phase 4 expys should have an Mx number.

Highways England’s own literature is quite clear that expressways will have Ax(M) numbers, not M numbers.

Yes in practice Ax(M) for lower standard 'expressway' motorways.

[ManomayLR]

So a Phase 3 expy should have an AxM number and Phase 4 expys should have an Mx number.

Highways England’s own literature is quite clear that expressways will have Ax(M) numbers, not M numbers.

Yes in practice Ax(M) for lower standard 'expressway' motorways.

With VSL and MS4 it will not necessarily be of lower standards.

[ManomayLR]

So a Phase 3 expy should have an AxM number and Phase 4 expys should have an Mx number.

Highways England’s own literature is quite clear that expressways will have Ax(M) numbers, not M numbers.

Yes I was just suggesting what might be a good idea.

[c2R]

Was a right problem here yesterday afternoon, the A1198 diversion route for the A14 was closed by an accident, which then meant highways had to close the A14 east at both Alconbury and Brampton hut with traffic having to go further down the A1 and take the A428, clearly shows the issues with diverting that amount of traffic down an S2 road.

I suspect the issue would have been worse if they'd have kept the A14 open and accidently dropped the bridge onto live traffic... I've been avoiding the area all weekend (got some good C road photos from the east of the county instead), but the reality is, what choice do they have?

[A9NWIL]

Highways England’s own literature is quite clear that expressways will have Ax(M) numbers, not M numbers.

Yes in practice Ax(M) for lower standard 'expressway' motorways.

With VSL and MS4 it will not necessarily be of lower standards.

Compared to a motorway that could run on its own 99% of the time it is! Smart motorways are (supposedly) a cheap way to try and increase the capacity instead of doing the job properly and widen or create new routes that would remove some of the traffic else where!
M25 is a prime example of lets just increase it instead of building new motorways like extending the coastal M27 to Dover and a Winchester-Oxford-Cambridge-Felixstowe motorway.

So yes they do lower standards as the job hasnt been done properly!

[A9NWIL]

Was a right problem here yesterday afternoon, the A1198 diversion route for the A14 was closed by an accident, which then meant highways had to close the A14 east at both Alconbury and Brampton hut with traffic having to go further down the A1 and take the A428, clearly shows the issues with diverting that amount of traffic down an S2 road.

I suspect the issue would have been worse if they'd have kept the A14 open and accidently dropped the bridge onto live traffic... I've been avoiding the area all weekend (got some good C road photos from the east of the county instead), but the reality is, what choice do they have?

Perhaps they could have just closed the road temporarily, eg just hold up the traffic for 5 minutes while the bridge was lowered into place?
It would have backed up a bit sure but wouldnt have been so bad as sending all traffic down an S2.

[Jeni]

Was a right problem here yesterday afternoon, the A1198 diversion route for the A14 was closed by an accident, which then meant highways had to close the A14 east at both Alconbury and Brampton hut with traffic having to go further down the A1 and take the A428, clearly shows the issues with diverting that amount of traffic down an S2 road.

I suspect the issue would have been worse if they'd have kept the A14 open and accidently dropped the bridge onto live traffic... I've been avoiding the area all weekend (got some good C road photos from the east of the county instead), but the reality is, what choice do they have?

Perhaps they could have just closed the road temporarily, eg just hold up the traffic for 5 minutes while the bridge was lowered into place?
It would have backed up a bit sure but wouldnt have been so bad as sending all traffic down an S2.

I don't claim to be an expert but I'm 99% sure it takes a hell of a lot longer than 5 minutes to put a bridge into place.

I'm also sure they won't have closed it for any longer than they have to.

[WHBM]

Came south this way last Friday afternoon and noticed the bridge sections all on huge transporters ready to roll.

Northwards on the preceding Wednesday at 8pm the M11 just had one VMS "A14 closed J31-28", with no indication of where these might be, approaching J13 the A428 Bedford road. Presumably for overnight preparations.There were already matrix signs visible in the far distance beyond, starting to close off the M11. No other signage at all, no suggested diversion. So I made a quick turnoff and my own routing via Papworth Everard, but I seemed the only one doing so. I wonder which way I would have been sent from further on rather than what I did, not at all obvious.

[KeithW]

Perhaps they could have just closed the road temporarily, eg just hold up the traffic for 5 minutes while the bridge was lowered into place?
It would have backed up a bit sure but wouldnt have been so bad as sending all traffic down an S2.

Have you seen the size of those bridges ?

Its not something you can do in 5 minutes. See
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... s-15117969

[A9NWIL]

Perhaps they could have just closed the road temporarily, eg just hold up the traffic for 5 minutes while the bridge was lowered into place?
It would have backed up a bit sure but wouldnt have been so bad as sending all traffic down an S2.

Have you seen the size of those bridges ?

Its not something you can do in 5 minutes. See
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... s-15117969

Well perhaps they should have sent traffic down the A421 then A1 anyway?

[Johnathan404]

Yes in practice Ax(M) for lower standard 'expressway' motorways.

With VSL and MS4 it will not necessarily be of lower standards.

Compared to a motorway that could run on its own 99% of the time it is! Smart motorways are (supposedly) a cheap way to try and increase the capacity instead of doing the job properly and widen or create new routes that would remove some of the traffic else where!

You are both forgetting that 'standard' doesn't really mean what type of signs it has. Alignment, width and physical safety features are much more important, and are likely (but not guaranteed) to be compromised on an upgraded all-purpose road.

[ManomayLR]

With VSL and MS4 it will not necessarily be of lower standards.

Compared to a motorway that could run on its own 99% of the time it is! Smart motorways are (supposedly) a cheap way to try and increase the capacity instead of doing the job properly and widen or create new routes that would remove some of the traffic else where!

You are both forgetting that 'standard' doesn't really mean what type of signs it has. Alignment, width and physical safety features are much more important, and are likely (but not guaranteed) to be compromised on an upgraded all-purpose road.

True. Are expressways mostly meant to be D2M/D2ALR because the A14 animated tour shows a D3ALR arrangement.

[SteveA30]

From the BBC report...

The change would create an unbroken motorway link between London and Peterborough, via the M11, new A14(M) and A1(M).

Hopefully that will mean the A1 will be left alone as a great old style D2.
Black Cat still needs GSing though, along with the new A421 eastwards.

[A9NWIL]

With VSL and MS4 it will not necessarily be of lower standards.

Compared to a motorway that could run on its own 99% of the time it is! Smart motorways are (supposedly) a cheap way to try and increase the capacity instead of doing the job properly and widen or create new routes that would remove some of the traffic else where!

You are both forgetting that 'standard' doesn't really mean what type of signs it has. Alignment, width and physical safety features are much more important, and are likely (but not guaranteed) to be compromised on an upgraded all-purpose road.

Yes they will be better than all purpose roads, but not as good as traditional motorways utilised properly with width and a decent selection of routes for different places.
So there is now 2 tiers of motorways in this country. Im glad that we may finally see some roads become motorways though, like the new section of A14 becoming the A14(M), but its still not as good as doing the job properly.

[M5Lenzar]

Highways England’s own literature is quite clear that expressways will have Ax(M) numbers, not M numbers.

Does this mean existing Ax(M)s will be re-numbered?

[ManomayLR]

Compared to a motorway that could run on its own 99% of the time it is! Smart motorways are (supposedly) a cheap way to try and increase the capacity instead of doing the job properly and widen or create new routes that would remove some of the traffic else where!

You are both forgetting that 'standard' doesn't really mean what type of signs it has. Alignment, width and physical safety features are much more important, and are likely (but not guaranteed) to be compromised on an upgraded all-purpose road.

True. Are expressways mostly meant to be D2M/D2ALR because the A14 animated tour shows a D3ALR arrangement.

This would also affect the standards. And signs do matter, because smart motorways with MS4s have less congestion than motorways with only central reserve MS1s. Let's start a new campaign: MATRIX SIGNS MATTER!

[A9NWIL]

From the BBC report...

The change would create an unbroken motorway link between London and Peterborough, via the M11, new A14(M) and A1(M).

Hopefully that will mean the A1 will be left alone as a great old style D2.
Black Cat still needs GSing though, along with the new A421 eastwards.

So you would leave the 36.5km between Radwell and Brampton not upgraded to motorway? Surely that redundancy would be quite advantageous? Also do you really expect someone from west London to travel over to the M11 if they want to get to somewhere on the A1 north of Peterborough?
Really the whole A1 needs to become D3M where its currently not motorway, except the bits actually in London or Edinburgh. The UK and Scottish capitals would be directly connected via 1 motorway then.

[Chris5156]

Highways England’s own literature is quite clear that expressways will have Ax(M) numbers, not M numbers.

Does this mean existing Ax(M)s will be re-numbered?

No, they said existing Ax(M) routes will remain, so that will be a further mixed bag of standards and meanings for an already very confusing classification.

This would also affect the standards. And signs do matter, because smart motorways with MS4s have less congestion than motorways with only central reserve MS1s.

That’s a bold and sweeping statement. Would you like to demonstrate how any MS4-equipped smart motorway - let’s say the M25, junctions 5 to 7 - has less congestion than the M50 or M180?

The fact is that Smart Motorways are installed where congestion is a problem and those routes continue to be very heavily used and therefore prone to congestion despite the upgrade work.