M181

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

Post Reply
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14007
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: M181

Post by nowster » Sat Jan 19, 2019 17:36

Owain wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 13:41
If you want to see the ultimate crazy-weaving-junction, try driving through here at 5pm. It's just as bad on the other side.
You want to try accessing the A34 from the M60 or vice versa at rush hour! https://goo.gl/maps/zrRVqCv5kzA2

User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 8905
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: M181

Post by Berk » Sat Jan 19, 2019 18:04

Jamesabout29 wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 22:50
I wonder if this will see the M181 number dropped and the remaining section relegated to a spur of the M180? Sad if so. :(
Where exactly does the motorway go to?? It’s only a link for Scunthorpe.

It’s not as if it’s trying to provide another Humber Crossing, and bypass Hull.

M19
Member
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2001 05:00
Location: Rothwell, Northants

Re: M181

Post by M19 » Sun Jan 20, 2019 17:26

Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 17:17
Johnathan404 wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 16:08
I wonder if the other problem with the terrible non-GSJ is that they wrongly believed you can't have a compact GSJ at the end of a motorway.

Do standards dictate that motorway off-slips have to be a particular standard?
Nope. However people read the DMRB and see the default for everything is a roundabout and work from there...

Skills shortage is crippling infrastructure. Rubbish standards guidance is not helping.
You don't have to be an engineer though to see how it should be done properly. Is anyone objecting to this and making it obvious that this is just bonkers, or are they just rolling over and letting it happen?

The housing growth at all costs (to everyone except the developer) is ridiculous. Good infrastructure is more important and should be core in the thinking and not an afterthought.
M19

User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 8905
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: M181

Post by Berk » Sun Jan 20, 2019 18:33

I still need to point out, the M181 is a dead end. It’s a bit like the A1260 in Peterborough. You can do NSL for all of... 3 miles?? It’s exactly the same here.

If it was the M180 we were taking abiut, that’d be different. People seem to think the M181 was a runner for a cross-Humber motorway.

Although I don’t support reducing capacity and speed limits on roads with excessive development, this is probably the least worst place for it to go.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30131
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M181

Post by Bryn666 » Sun Jan 20, 2019 19:27

It's the whole point that a road that has been perfectly fine for 40 years needs to be ripped up to facilitate a stupid roundabout that has no sustainable transport credentials whatsoever. A motorway is being removed to allow thousands of cars to swamp a new junction.

It's entirely at odds with reducing car dependence and making livable communities for everyone.

No one disputes we need housing but this and other schemes, e.g. A40 at Witney, A516 at Derby, just show that developers are allowed to destroy the major road network with inadequate designs as long as they're providing towards housing targets.

It's typical British short termism. Results today, disaster tomorrow.
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
Berk
Member
Posts: 8905
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: M181

Post by Berk » Sun Jan 20, 2019 19:28

I think the disaster (a bit like the B-word) will only become apparent after the event, and the trunk road network isn’t able to operate as efficiently as it should...

All the same, I struggle to see why a housing scheme right bang next to Scunthorpe will ‘harm’ the motorway. Especially as it seems to be tailor-made. Downgrading what it is basically a distributor road, which only leads to another section of rural A-road.

It’s not like it links to another motorway (other than the original one).

I do agree about the junction, though, it does look under-capacity. And will create another car-dependent community. Someone at government level should’ve spotted this. The whole scheme relies on government funding.

User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: M181

Post by A303Chris » Mon Jan 21, 2019 13:09

Bryn666 wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 19:27
It's the whole point that a road that has been perfectly fine for 40 years needs to be ripped up to facilitate a stupid roundabout that has no sustainable transport credentials whatsoever. A motorway is being removed to allow thousands of cars to swamp a new junction.

It's entirely at odds with reducing car dependence and making livable communities for everyone.

No one disputes we need housing but this and other schemes, e.g. A40 at Witney, A516 at Derby, just show that developers are allowed to destroy the major road network with inadequate designs as long as they're providing towards housing targets.

It's typical British short termism. Results today, disaster tomorrow.
I can not agree with you more and I have worked in local government as a Transport Development Control manager at various local authorities and for the last 4 years back in the private sector advising various clients. As well as the ones you have mentioned there is also the roundabout on the A601(m) , A329 in Bracknell and I am also looking to do something similar to facilitate development somewhere in the UK. I hate it but unfortunately the experience within Local Government is appalling now.

I want to go for a grade separated junction but the client, planning adviser etc know that we can make a roundabout work and be DMRB compliant. The M181 and A601 (M) schemes both of which have HE approval are being used to back the case. There is no fight back from the local authority, it's a tick box exercise and as long as it works on there Saturn transport model it's fine, even though there is a fundamental flaw in it. We just have to show viability and everyone backs over, although a case can be made by the LA that delays caused will have serious implications for the economy etc, but if there approved model is wrong what can you do. I know of 4 LA transport models which are flawed. It's not helped that officers do not have modelling software, one local authority I have dealt with do not have modelling software as they say its not required as the applicants have done the work. My rule one, was always check the dimensions used, check the traffic flows and model it yourself. If similar results given the how measurement was done fine, if not alarm bells would ring.

It's the same as maintenance, i trained as an extended maintenance which basically was rebuilding a road from new, undertaking deflectograph surveys and determining if the failure was down to reflective cracking in the sub base, drainage failure etc. Now it's all plane 40mm off and resurface. Here in Reading roads surface 3 years ago are failing as a half baked job was done, total false economy.

It seems to be in local government as long as you have a degree in whatever, they will give you a job and a bean counter will teach you. No on the job training from experienced engineers, technician training programmes or apprenticeships, so the knowledge is appalling. I did a four year OND/HND part time when on a technician training programme in the late 80's, then became professionally qualified in the mid 90s. It is awful at the moment. Last week I even had one highway authority refuse the results of an ATC as it was in 15 minute segments over a 7 day period, the standard results from an ISO survey company. They want to see the count of every vehicle and speed observed so they can check the 85th percentile. Road has 18,000 vehicles per day that's 126,000 pieces of data.

I drive in France and Spain and see there improvement schemes to ours and it makes me cringe on how bad we are now. Rant Over
The M25 - The road to nowhere

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14405
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by Chris5156 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 16:19

Berk wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 19:28
All the same, I struggle to see why a housing scheme right bang next to Scunthorpe will ‘harm’ the motorway. Especially as it seems to be tailor-made. Downgrading what it is basically a distributor road, which only leads to another section of rural A-road.

It’s not like it links to another motorway (other than the original one).

I do agree about the junction, though, it does look under-capacity. And will create another car-dependent community. Someone at government level should’ve spotted this. The whole scheme relies on government funding.
The point is not that anyone here thinks the M181 is a major trans-continental superhighway. The point is that it's presently an uninterrupted and free-flowing route, and could have a new access point for this development while remaining so. The problem is that the way the new development will connect to the M181 will interrupt the route and cause delays for through traffic, and that is completely and easily avoidable. They are replacing the existing overbridge with a brand new one, building all sorts of new roundabouts and sections of road, and still somehow contriving to interrupt the existing dual carriageway with a roundabout.

It's not about the M181 being more than a distributor road for western Scunthorpe. It's about horrendous design, no matter what the road is that's being unnecessarily disrupted.

User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 8905
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: M181

Post by Berk » Mon Jan 21, 2019 16:26

Another aspect is when a similarly-designed motorway or parkway has its limit cut for no substantive reason.

When the A1139 was widened from J1 to J3 (to D3), an application was also made to reduce the limit from NSL to 60 (and SPECS enforced) “due to issues with traffic weaving, and exiting due to a new township”.

Well yes, there has been a new township built just off of J2, but did it really need the speed limit reducing on a high-quality DC (“motorway standard”, even) simply due to that??

FWIW, I accept your earlier points, but don’t really see the relevance for the M181 to stay as motorway. Even though it does not require this design of junction.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30131
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M181

Post by Bryn666 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 17:51

Berk wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 16:26
FWIW, I accept your earlier points, but don’t really see the relevance for the M181 to stay as motorway. Even though it does not require this design of junction.
Other than the fact the M181 leads inescapably to the M180. I mean you could downgrade the last 600 yards of it to an A-road but you'd probably have to replace the trumpet with another roundabout - whilst we're at it we could downgrade the M180 to A180 between Brigg and the M18, as it isn't like that's a major route either unless you live in Grimsby or are taking a truck to Immingham.
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/

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 2878
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: M181

Post by Conekicker » Mon Jan 21, 2019 18:10

Bryn666 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 17:51
Berk wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 16:26
FWIW, I accept your earlier points, but don’t really see the relevance for the M181 to stay as motorway. Even though it does not require this design of junction.
Other than the fact the M181 leads inescapably to the M180. I mean you could downgrade the last 600 yards of it to an A-road but you'd probably have to replace the trumpet with another roundabout - whilst we're at it we could downgrade the M180 to A180 between Brigg and the M18, as it isn't like that's a major route either unless you live in Grimsby or are taking a truck to Immingham.
There are a significant number of abnormal load movements to/from Immingham Docks. It's an important commercial port for the north of the country.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30131
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M181

Post by Bryn666 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 20:40

Conekicker wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 18:10
Bryn666 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 17:51
Berk wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 16:26
FWIW, I accept your earlier points, but don’t really see the relevance for the M181 to stay as motorway. Even though it does not require this design of junction.
Other than the fact the M181 leads inescapably to the M180. I mean you could downgrade the last 600 yards of it to an A-road but you'd probably have to replace the trumpet with another roundabout - whilst we're at it we could downgrade the M180 to A180 between Brigg and the M18, as it isn't like that's a major route either unless you live in Grimsby or are taking a truck to Immingham.
There are a significant number of abnormal load movements to/from Immingham Docks. It's an important commercial port for the north of the country.
You missed my Lancashire sarcasm! In response to claims that downgrading motorways doesn't matter ;-)
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
Berk
Member
Posts: 8905
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: M181

Post by Berk » Mon Jan 21, 2019 22:59

Bryn666 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 17:51
Berk wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 16:26
FWIW, I accept your earlier points, but don’t really see the relevance for the M181 to stay as motorway. Even though it does not require this design of junction.
Other than the fact the M181 leads inescapably to the M180. I mean you could downgrade the last 600 yards of it to an A-road but you'd probably have to replace the trumpet with another roundabout - whilst we're at it we could downgrade the M180 to A180 between Brigg and the M18, as it isn't like that's a major route either unless you live in Grimsby or are taking a truck to Immingham.
Some counties have more than their fair share of motorways (*cough* Lancs *cough*).

Others like Lincolnshire (county) do not. So yes, you wouldn’t even be talking about downgrading at all. I think it was only built as a motorway because (1) it was in Humberside; (2) it lead to a PD (or two for the M180).

At the same time we're asking whether the entire A14 should be a motorway. I don’t think it does the network any favours to keep historical spurs as part of the ‘network’.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30131
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M181

Post by Bryn666 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 06:56

I didn't realise we allocated motorways on some kind of "fairness" quota as opposed to where the traffic is, but let's review that suggestion...

Should we lose the following motorways that are all spurs that using your logic of just branching off the mainline for a short distance even though they mostly inescapably lead to other motorways do "nothing" for the network?

A3(M)
A38(M)
A57(M)
A58(M)
A64(M)
A66(M)
A167(M)
A627(M)
A308(M)
A329(M)
A404(M)
A601(M)
A823(M)
M4 Heathrow Spur
M25 Orpington Spur
M45
M55
M67
M271
M275
M602
M606

Yeah. We don't need any of these inconsequential spur motorways at all do we?
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
Euan
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 07:59
Location: North Ayrshire

Re: M181

Post by Euan » Tue Jan 22, 2019 08:46

Bryn666 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 06:56
I didn't realise we allocated motorways on some kind of "fairness" quota as opposed to where the traffic is, but let's review that suggestion...

Should we lose the following motorways that are all spurs that using your logic of just branching off the mainline for a short distance even though they mostly inescapably lead to other motorways do "nothing" for the network?

A3(M)
A38(M)
A57(M)
A58(M)
A64(M)
A66(M)
A167(M)
A627(M)
A308(M)
A329(M)
A404(M)
A601(M)
A823(M)
M4 Heathrow Spur
M25 Orpington Spur
M45
M55
M67
M271
M275
M602
M606

Yeah. We don't need any of these inconsequential spur motorways at all do we?
On the basis of motorway spurs only leading to other motorways, is there much point in keeping the A601(M) to motorway status? For non-motorway traffic it could otherwise act like a "bypass" such that the B6254 can be reached from the A6 north of Carnforth without actually passing through Carnforth. Essentially, the A601(M) does not eliminate access to the nearby non-motorway routes along its entire length unlike other motorway spurs where the mainstream motorway is the only way to go.
E-roads, M-roads, A-roads, N-roads, B-roads, R-roads, C-roads, L-roads, U-roads, footpaths

Robert Kilcoyne
Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 11:41
Location: Birmingham

Re: M181

Post by Robert Kilcoyne » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:07

Euan wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 08:46
On the basis of motorway spurs only leading to other motorways, is there much point in keeping the A601(M) to motorway status? For non-motorway traffic it could otherwise act like a "bypass" such that the B6254 can be reached from the A6 north of Carnforth without actually passing through Carnforth. Essentially, the A601(M) does not eliminate access to the nearby non-motorway routes along its entire length unlike other motorway spurs where the mainstream motorway is the only way to go.
If the new roundabout is built between the M6 and A6 to cater for the proposed new housing development, I would expect the A601(M) to be declassified and the B6254 re-routed accordingly. It would also enable drivers to avoid the narrow traffic light controlled bridge over the Lancaster Canal.

User avatar
jgharston
Member
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

Re: M181

Post by jgharston » Tue Jan 22, 2019 16:07

Browsing the Wiki trying to find an example to point at, the M6/A5022 junction illustrating Diamond interchange is exactly what I'd put there. The M181 already goes under the B1450, it "just" needs the four slip lanes.

From the SABRE Wiki: Diamond interchange :

A Diamond Interchange is a compact and relatively low-cost Grade Separated Junction where the minor road and major road are connected by simple slips, with simple give way junctions at the end of the slip roads onto the minor road. This forms a rough diamond shape between the four slips.

Favoured for connections to B roads and quiet A roads in the early days of motorway building, many have needed to be improved over the years to cope with modern traffic levels. The easiest

... Read More

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30131
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M181

Post by Bryn666 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 16:10

jgharston wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 16:07
Browsing the Wiki trying to find an example to point at, the M6/A5022 junction illustrating Diamond interchange is exactly what I'd put there. The M181 already goes under the B1450, it "just" needs the four slip lanes.
A conventional diamond would interfere with the M180 trumpet, but a "compact" GSJ would fit within and, even if the limit was lowered to suit the reduced weaving space, would be better than a roundabout under a replacement bridge.
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/

From the SABRE Wiki: Diamond interchange :

A Diamond Interchange is a compact and relatively low-cost Grade Separated Junction where the minor road and major road are connected by simple slips, with simple give way junctions at the end of the slip roads onto the minor road. This forms a rough diamond shape between the four slips.

Favoured for connections to B roads and quiet A roads in the early days of motorway building, many have needed to be improved over the years to cope with modern traffic levels. The easiest

... Read More

User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 8905
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: M181

Post by Berk » Tue Jan 22, 2019 16:23

Is the design developer proposed?? Can’t imagine HE would make such a mess of it.

But don’t they still have to consent before it’s handed over to local highways??

User avatar
vlad
Member
Posts: 2477
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 16:20
Location: Near the northern end of the A34

Re: M181

Post by vlad » Tue Jan 22, 2019 19:02

Berk wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 22:59
Some counties have more than their fair share of motorways (*cough* Lancs *cough*).

Others like Lincolnshire (county) do not.
I'd say that's more the fault of Lincolnshire (and its predecessor authorities) for not pushing for them rather than Lancashire for having them!
"If you expect nothing from somebody you are never disappointed." - Sylvia Plath

Post Reply