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.
Trevatanus wrote:Oh good.
Finished at the end of June you say?
Location : The M3 eastbound entry slip at junction J4A . Lane Closures : The hard shoulder is closed. Reason : Roadworks. Status : Currently Active. Period : expect disruption until 05:30 on 1 October 2017.
Location : The M3 eastbound entry slip at junction J4A . Lane Closures : Lane one will be closed. Reason : Roadworks are planned. Status : Pending. Schedule : Expect disruption everyday between 20:00 and 05:30 from 4 September 2017 to 6 September 2017. Lanes Closed : All lanes will be closed.
Location : The M3 eastbound entry slip at junction J4A . Reason : Roadworks scheme is planned. Status : Pending. Schedule : From 20:00 on 4 September 2017 to 05:30 on 6 September 2017.
Location : The M3 westbound between junctions J3 and J4A . Lane Closures : Lanes 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be closed. Reason : Roadworks are planned. Status : Pending. Schedule : Expect disruption everyday between 20:00 and 05:30 from 4 September 2017 to 6 September 2017. Schedule : Expect disruption everyday between 20:00 and 05:30 from 11 September 2017 to 13 September 2017. Lanes Closed : All lanes will be closed.
Location : The M3 westbound between junctions J3 and J4A . Reason : Roadworks scheme is planned. Status : Pending. Schedule : From 20:00 on 4 September 2017 to 05:30 on 13 September 2017.
As has been explained several times there is a bridge being rebuilt that was outside the scope of the smart motorway scheme. Working overnight has been determined as the most expedient way to progress construction while minimising disruption to the public.
The alternative would have been to not rebuild the bridge works for a few months until the smart motorway was finished with a bit of temporary tie in to allow traffic to run. They could have then restarted the bridge works with a long period of 50mph running through the worksite in the day and still probably needed night closures.
Such a sequence was used on the M1 where the new Dunstable link came in and it was noticeably frustrating to have to slow for the worksite restriction when either side was free of roadworks and I kept wondering why they couldn't have done both the smart motorway works and the bridge at the same time. Now they have done that on the M3 and still people complain.
I don't think anyone doubts that replacing the bridge at the same time as the road works is wise.
The issue is that nobody outside HE and their contractors gives two hoots about what is and isn't part of the Smart Motorway scheme.
So when an HE press release says that road works have finished... customers are right to expect they can drive down the M3 without seeing cones. This situation can be avoided by managing expectations through the comms process. If there are some bits and pieces to finish off, then it's fine to say so.
The trouble is, there has been a national farce with the SMART motorways when it comes to their scope of works. I recall on the M25 J5-7 SMART motorway, the Highways Agency at the time viewed the installation of a new central reserve concrete barrier as being a separate project to the SMART motorway itself, even though the two were intrinsically linked and the roadworks happened all as one. It was to the point of "we are taking the opportunity to replace the barrier in advance of the SMART motorway works". The same thing happened on the M1 from J16-19. Then there is the matter of resurfacing. On the M25 J5-7 SMART motorway, the SMART motorway project only resurfaced new lanes 1 and 4, leaving lanes 2 and 3 in a right mess. In an embarrassing turn of events, they had to come back six months later and do the resurfacing that they missed. The M3 J2-4a SMART motorway would have been the same if it weren't for local campaigning by MPs and the media to force Highways England to be sensible and do the due/overdue resurfacing as part of the project. As for Woodlands bridge, it was another example of the unexpected expected. Looking at the rust stains from bridges on that part of the M3, it should come as no surprise that they might be in structurally poor condition.
It's a matter of common sense. Highways England does seem to be getting better with newer SMART motorways in the fact that it is looking more to renewing all the assets at the same time as upgrading the roads, unlike on the earlier SMART motorways like MM-HSR where they literally did the bare minimum, not replacing life expired assets even if they could have done with it. There was no talk about the M3 J2-4a concrete barrier being a separate scheme unlike with the M25 and M1; they accepted that it was integral to the project.
ChrisH wrote:I don't think anyone doubts that replacing the bridge at the same time as the road works is wise.
The issue is that nobody outside HE and their contractors gives two hoots about what is and isn't part of the Smart Motorway scheme.
So when an HE press release says that road works have finished... customers are right to expect they can drive down the M3 without seeing cones. This situation can be avoided by managing expectations through the comms process. If there are some bits and pieces to finish off, then it's fine to say so.
But there lies my problem, "lies" being the operative word.
We are told that the works finished at the end of June, but they are still building a bridge. I Accept that. What I don't accept. is the road being closed between 4a and 3 (the bridge sits between 2 and 3). Not being able to join the M3 from the M25, as the junction is closed, but you CAN use the M3, if you drive from M25, north, up to Sunbury, round the roundabout and back down the M3, past the M25. In other words, the M3 is not closed, just the slip between the M25 and the M3, because the Smart motorway is NOT finished
Sorry I'm unusually late to the party with this one - the south east is usually a bit of a pain for me to get to! Anyway, after dropping by to see Chris I decided that the M3 was on the way back north.
Unusual to see MS4s mounted in the central reserve, too.
I do hope so, that will mean lots of fine diversions from 4a to perhaps J8, via the A30. The concrete road bridges must be due for replacement by now as well, like at Windlesham. I've tried pouring corrosive liquids down the joints, without success so far.
Jeni wrote:Sorry I'm unusually late to the party with this one - the south east is usually a bit of a pain for me to get to! Anyway, after dropping by to see Chris I decided that the M3 was on the way back north.
Unusual to see MS4s mounted in the central reserve, too.
The orange layby signs are a mash of current and the specially authorised version. That inconsistency won't be helping their experiment.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
J9-14 is due to start by the end of RIS1. It is strange that the M27 is being prioritised over the bottom end of the M3, as the bottom end of the M3 is consistently busier in terms of traffic volumes and suffers congestion and poor journey time reliability for a far greater proportion of the time. And to think it was only little over 20 years ago that this road was only dual two lanes!
sotonsteve wrote:J9-14 is due to start by the end of RIS1. It is strange that the M27 is being prioritised over the bottom end of the M3, as the bottom end of the M3 is consistently busier in terms of traffic volumes and suffers congestion and poor journey time reliability for a far greater proportion of the time. And to think it was only little over 20 years ago that this road was only dual two lanes!
sotonsteve wrote:J9-14 is due to start by the end of RIS1. It is strange that the M27 is being prioritised over the bottom end of the M3, as the bottom end of the M3 is consistently busier in terms of traffic volumes and suffers congestion and poor journey time reliability for a far greater proportion of the time. And to think it was only little over 20 years ago that this road was only dual two lanes!
You could argue that the M3 is being prioritized as junction 9 is getting a full rebuild and each of 10-14 are having the slips improved. As the works are more complex, they take longer to design.
I was under the impression the slip road improvements weren't going to be overly dramatic. I mean, what improvement can you do to a two lane slip road with a tiger tail for example?
As for Junction 9, the works there will have limited impact on the smart motorway as it is at the extreme end of the scheme. The smart motorway needs to be finished before the junction is made free flow, but the smart motorway does not depend on the junction being made free flow and there would be negligible waste of money if it were temporarily tied in to the existing layout.
M3 Jn 10 to Jn 11 (Winchester south): improvements for merging traffic to include technology, widening and lane realignment; lane gain and lane drop will smooth flow of traffic onto the M3 and assist flow to Southampton port
£<25m
M3: Jn 14 (M27 interchange) to Jn 12 (Eastleigh) northbound: carriageway widening and junction reconfiguration to improve capacity through the junction
£<25m
I'd have thought the benefits of doing the smart motorway, slip roads, and J9 in a single two-year period were rather obvious. Much rage would come HE's way if they needlessly spread the disruption over three or four years.
jackal wrote:I'd have thought the benefits of doing the smart motorway, slip roads, and J9 in a single two-year period were rather obvious. Much rage would come HE's way if they needlessly spread the disruption over three or four years.
For an example of this just look up a couple of posts on this very thread, where people are ranting that the Woodlands Bridge works haven't run alongside the smart motorway works.
jackal wrote:
You could argue that the M3 is being prioritized as junction 9 is getting a full rebuild and each of 10-14 are having the slips improved. As the works are more complex, they take longer to design.
Junction 9 the sooner the better, even at 1pm on Thursday, the off slip northbound was solid with both lanes jammed and a mile queue to get off
jackal wrote:HE description of the sliproad schemes:
M3 Jn 10 to Jn 11 (Winchester south): improvements for merging traffic to include technology, widening and lane realignment; lane gain and lane drop will smooth flow of traffic onto the M3 and assist flow to Southampton port
£<25m
M3: Jn 14 (M27 interchange) to Jn 12 (Eastleigh) northbound: carriageway widening and junction reconfiguration to improve capacity through the junction
£<25m
I'd have thought the benefits of doing the smart motorway, slip roads, and J9 in a single two-year period were rather obvious. Much rage would come HE's way if they needlessly spread the disruption over three or four years.
That's somewhat contradictory to the smart motorway isn't it?
Junction 10 to 11 lane gain and lane drop, so that would mean four lanes rather than three between the junctions. Except the smart motorway will no doubt result in four lane through junction running, so there would be no lane gain and lane drop. Alternative to this would be five lanes between these two junctions, but with the constraints of the cutting I would be intrigued to see this shoehorned in. Technology, does this mean ramp metering? And doesn't ramp metering contradict provision of a lane gain? Normally you have one or the other, not both. Those up the top end of the M3 don't appear to have been brought back into service. Lane realignment, again, you're very constrained with what you can do.
Junction 14 to 12. Carriageway widening. Isn't this exactly the same as what the smart motorway is doing? Junction reconfiguration? There's not much scope given the constraints of the area.
My thoughts are that the J10-11 and J14-12 northbound schemes will be ditched entirely with elements absorbed into the scope of the smart motorway. As standalone schemes they make sense, but with the smart motorway they make no sense at all. It's as if they've been thrown in the forward programme as short term fixes with the thought that the smart motorway might be cancelled or significantly delayed.
You're right that in engineering terms it doesn't really make sense that the slip roads and smart motorway are separate schemes. Now I've checked the below document it seems this may simply be because the smart motorway was announced in 2013 and the slip road improvements a year later. I'm sure in reality they will be delivered essentially as a single scheme, but there are all kinds of administrative and planning reasons why it may make sense to have them listed as two separate schemes (e.g. because it is more acceptable to add extra budgetary items than to increase the budget on an existing item, thereby creating the appearance of overspend).
