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.
mattling wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2017 16:24
Moving the walsgrave junction further north would give better access to the hospital
Not convinced.
The layout of the hospital, and especially the approaches, is based on access from Clifford Bridge Road.
True. However there have been recent suggestions that a new staff carpark will be built behind the main hospital building and this would use a second access into the site. Having had to visit there a few times over recent months for 8/9am a second access is sorely needed.
But getting rid of the B4082 doesn't solve the "kink" although without the roundabout it could be smoothed a little bit. Mind you there's not alot of space for a south-bound left-hand diverge if the A46 is to up-and-over, so it would probably have to be a guzunder.
When the eastern bypass was originally planned, the A46 was going to pass under the B4027 Brinklow Road. This was changed to going over when it was pointed out the risk of Coombe Pool draining into the underpass. An underpass at the Walsgrave junction would be even closer to the lake.
I assume the Walsgrave junction is deliberately being held back in case the Binley junction gets canned. There seems to be no point in GSJing one of the junctions if the other one stays as it is.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir? Big and complex.
Truvelo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 13:50
Why a public inquiry just to build a flyover?
I assume the Walsgrave junction is deliberately being held back in case the Binley junction gets canned. There seems to be no point in GSJing one of the junctions if the other one stays as it is.
Because we live in a democracy.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
The words 'public inquiry' may fill sabristi with dread, but in current cases like this and M2 Junction 5 they are used as a quicker alternative to the full NSIP process. This is why in both cases construction can be planned to start within a few months of the start of the inquiry. Comparison with epic pre-Planning Act 2008 inquiries is misleading.
The Binley Road flyover may be about to start. lots of cones everywhere and cleared vegetation from the roundabout. Hope they get as much done as possible before the traffic returns but I think they should still be able to have two lanes each way open.
B6047 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 06:57
The Binley Road flyover may be about to start. lots of cones everywhere and cleared vegetation from the roundabout. Hope they get as much done as possible before the traffic returns but I think they should still be able to have two lanes each way open.
Looking at https://one.network/, formerly ELGIN and Roadworks.org, it would appear that this is the case
Driving thrombosis caused this accident......a clot behind the wheel.
“classified road” as a classification for a highway, means that the highway is not a principal road for the purposes of enactments or instruments which refer to highways classified as principal roads but is a classified road for the purpose of every enactment and instrument which refers to highways classified by the Secretary of State and which does not specifically refer to their classification as principal roads;
Wow, that's a new one. Apparently "principal roads" don't count as "classified roads", which would be a pretty major change in terminology.
Only a state bureaucracy would justify the need to have two separate legislative orders for such a small piece of infrastructure
I'm minded to contact my MP to ask him to vote against 537
I guess they're technically two independent pieces of legislation: one is to make Highways England pay for maintenance the new flyover, the other to make Coventry's council pay for maintenance of the roundabout below. If you enact one but not the other, then the same body will end up paying for both of them.
Perhaps "maybe we want to pass one of these but not the other" was the reason to separate them.
For what it's worth, I can't see a reason why HE would be interested in the roundabout (except as a diversionary route for an incident on the flyover, and those often go along non-trunk roads), so I think it makes sense to pass both.
ais523 wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 19:04
For what it's worth, I can't see a reason why HE would be interested in the roundabout (except as a diversionary route for an incident on the flyover, and those often go along non-trunk roads), so I think it makes sense to pass both.
What is interesting, though, is that sometimes legislation is passed to specifically trunk the circulatory carriageway of such a roundabout. I'm not really sure I quite understand the wheres and whys of this....!
The most annoying thing about this is, after avoiding the area during the Toll Bar works, this means the A46 is unlikely to be an advisable route from the M40 to the M1 for a while. Again.
Indeed, I avoided Toll Bar during the works and enjoyed the freeflow afterwards. Now, it's back to avoidance again. Isn't there another rbt to do along there?
SteveA30 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 09:47
Indeed, I avoided Toll Bar during the works and enjoyed the freeflow afterwards. Now, it's back to avoidance again. Isn't there another rbt to do along there?
Yes, but they're finding it hard to come up with a design for a free-flow junction that works at the B4028 roundabout (the issue being that the nearby watercourses make it hard to enlarge the roundabout to fit a flyover in), so the decision was made to upgrade the A428 roundabout first because it would provide an improvement and there was at least an obvious design for it.