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.
lotrjw wrote:Thats fine for local traffic but long distance stuff really needs a new route!
A better option would likely be a new D2M link from the M8 at the point that the M9 connects to it heading on a new alignment to the A1, perhaps using part of the A68 and A697 corridor to get round to just south of Berwick Upon Tweed. It wouldnt need that many junctions, only intersecting the major roads it passes by.
It could be called the M7!
That would leave the A720 as a local bypass of Edinburgh, which would then be much less busy.
Won't the Pentland Hills get in the way of that? The section of hill between the A70 and A702 is strictly protected as the last undeveloped bit of hill near Edinburgh, as well as the source of Edinburgh's water. And surely most road freight to England will go the M74 route anyway.
There were plans until fairly recently for an improved route through Leith bypassing the Bernard Street bottleneck, which would be an alternative way of reducing congestion by providing better access through north Edinburgh - there are sections of good road it could link with, although other sections of the route are very congested already. As development continues in north Edinburgh, that gets less and less likely, especially as there's no obvious western connection.
lotrjw wrote:Thats fine for local traffic but long distance stuff really needs a new route!
A better option would likely be a new D2M link from the M8 at the point that the M9 connects to it heading on a new alignment to the A1, perhaps using part of the A68 and A697 corridor to get round to just south of Berwick Upon Tweed. It wouldnt need that many junctions, only intersecting the major roads it passes by.
It could be called the M7!
That would leave the A720 as a local bypass of Edinburgh, which would then be much less busy.
Won't the Pentland Hills get in the way of that? The section of hill between the A70 and A702 is strictly protected as the last undeveloped bit of hill near Edinburgh, as well as the source of Edinburgh's water. And surely most road freight to England will go the M74 route anyway.
There were plans until fairly recently for an improved route through Leith bypassing the Bernard Street bottleneck, which would be an alternative way of reducing congestion by providing better access through north Edinburgh - there are sections of good road it could link with, although other sections of the route are very congested already. As development continues in north Edinburgh, that gets less and less likely, especially as there's no obvious western connection.
In that case it could tunnel under that hill in ways that avoid the reservoirs and their connecting pipes. If that really isnt possible it would mean using the A703 route up to the A720 for a short distance (which would need widening to D4 for a short distance) then diverging alongside the A70 until it could head north to meet the M9.
The main thing would be avoiding Balerno and Penicuik, which is why the tunnelling option would be the better option.
paully wrote:I reckon the best the A720 will see will be something similar to the A1 around Gateshead/Newcastle: an upgrade to D3 within the same space, with a 50 limit and narrow lanes through junctions etc. The route badly needs upgrading, and other than a few sections around Baberton/Calder/Hermiston it shouldn't be too difficult to do.
I said much the same upthread. Frankly it won't need more than three lanes as it's not anywhere close to 100k AADT as the A1 is. Hermiston Gait and Gogar are the bigger issue and (relatedly) the lack of northern extension to the A90.
If Sherrifhall, Hermiston and Gogar were sorted (possible freeflow at A1 as well) , I wonder if there would be the same queues. Free-moving traffic might solve the perception that the road was at capacity.
I think the bypass only really needs a third lane between the A701 and Hermiston as that's where most traffic merges from and where the queues (outside of Sheriffhall) tend to be. What would be ideal is a 2+2 arrangement between the A701 and Hermiston so that direct traffic won't be interrupted by all the merging traffic. Freeflow to the M8 is necessary, as is a 3rd lane between Hermiston and J2.
If you look at google earth and the satellite view its interesting - the land take of the bypass and the immediate land either side of the bypass is pretty much unused. Id say with some careful design and integration then the bypass could be sorted out relatively easily. Its a pinch point and it creates a lot of congestion in the Edinburgh area. A ring road that uses the North of Edinburgh to complete a ring round the city would be pretty expensive to say the least.
If they were to sink the city bypass and create a cutting along the section that passes under the A70, cut and cover then they would be able to landscape that area and lessen the impact of the road to the immediate area. If the road was sunk then a surface road could be added on top for local traffic. It could even be formed to create a direct link with the M8. thus remove the M8 traffic from that section of the bypass and really thin down the traffic to local use. The bypass should be the M8 anyway.
And it's in the news again, with members of the Scottish Parliament concluding it's no longer fit for purpose and a bit of a national embarrassment. Talk of smart motorway technology (not much use when traffic is stationary or crawling for miles, I would have thought), but even widening. On the other hand, the people quoted don't seem very hopeful about the planning process just for the Sheriffhall upgrade, the only works currently under consideration.
stuartf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 16:39
And it's in the news again, with members of the Scottish Parliament concluding it's no longer fit for purpose and a bit of a national embarrassment. Talk of smart motorway technology (not much use when traffic is stationary or crawling for miles, I would have thought), but even widening. On the other hand, the people quoted don't seem very hopeful about the planning process just for the Sheriffhall upgrade, the only works currently under consideration.
Imagine being a tourist, you've just landed at Edinburgh airport, picked up your hire car, which is going to be a right hand drive manual. Now it's time to drive to your hotel in Edinburgh. After stalling your way out the car park and nearly taking your wing mirror off on a lamp* followed by trying to work out what the faded road markings mean, you'll soon be faced with stop-start traffic and queues before you've even seen the start of the turn-off for the bypass. Welcome to Scotland. I'm getting a little teary eyed just thinking about how proud that makes me.
*the lamp part is reflective of my first time driving a left hand drive car. Thankfully, it was an auto so no gear faffing to worry about but it took a few miles before my road positioning was middle of the lane as opposed to skimming the drain.
stuartf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 16:39
And it's in the news again, with members of the Scottish Parliament concluding it's no longer fit for purpose and a bit of a national embarrassment. Talk of smart motorway technology (not much use when traffic is stationary or crawling for miles, I would have thought), but even widening. On the other hand, the people quoted don't seem very hopeful about the planning process just for the Sheriffhall upgrade, the only works currently under consideration.
Imagine being a tourist, you've just landed at Edinburgh airport, picked up your hire car, which is going to be a right hand drive manual. Now it's time to drive to your hotel in Edinburgh. After stalling your way out the car park and nearly taking your wing mirror off on a lamp* followed by trying to work out what the faded road markings mean, you'll soon be faced with stop-start traffic and queues before you've even seen the start of the turn-off for the bypass. Welcome to Scotland. I'm getting a little teary eyed just thinking about how proud that makes me.
*the lamp part is reflective of my first time driving a left hand drive car. Thankfully, it was an auto so no gear faffing to worry about but it took a few miles before my road positioning was middle of the lane as opposed to skimming the drain.
I wonder why the hire car companies dont do automatic en mass, as that would help a lot of people especially those from countries that nearly everyone learnt just automatic in the last 30 odd years.
The hire companies could order a large number straight from manufacturers.
stuartf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 16:39
And it's in the news again, with members of the Scottish Parliament concluding it's no longer fit for purpose and a bit of a national embarrassment. Talk of smart motorway technology (not much use when traffic is stationary or crawling for miles, I would have thought), but even widening. On the other hand, the people quoted don't seem very hopeful about the planning process just for the Sheriffhall upgrade, the only works currently under consideration.
Imagine being a tourist, you've just landed at Edinburgh airport, picked up your hire car, which is going to be a right hand drive manual. Now it's time to drive to your hotel in Edinburgh. After stalling your way out the car park and nearly taking your wing mirror off on a lamp* followed by trying to work out what the faded road markings mean, you'll soon be faced with stop-start traffic and queues before you've even seen the start of the turn-off for the bypass. Welcome to Scotland. I'm getting a little teary eyed just thinking about how proud that makes me.
*the lamp part is reflective of my first time driving a left hand drive car. Thankfully, it was an auto so no gear faffing to worry about but it took a few miles before my road positioning was middle of the lane as opposed to skimming the drain.
I wonder why the hire car companies dont do automatic en mass, as that would help a lot of people especially those from countries that nearly everyone learnt just automatic in the last 30 odd years.
The hire companies could order a large number straight from manufacturers.
People who can't drive a manual are unlikely to end up renting a manual car. It's lose-lose for both the person and the hire company, so why bother? Rental companies at airports will have disproportionately high numbers of automatics available just because they serve tourists so much.
Burns wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 16:54
Imagine being a tourist, you've just landed at Edinburgh airport, picked up your hire car, which is going to be a right hand drive manual. Now it's time to drive to your hotel in Edinburgh. After stalling your way out the car park and nearly taking your wing mirror off on a lamp* followed by trying to work out what the faded road markings mean, you'll soon be faced with stop-start traffic and queues before you've even seen the start of the turn-off for the bypass. Welcome to Scotland. I'm getting a little teary eyed just thinking about how proud that makes me.
*the lamp part is reflective of my first time driving a left hand drive car. Thankfully, it was an auto so no gear faffing to worry about but it took a few miles before my road positioning was middle of the lane as opposed to skimming the drain.
I wonder why the hire car companies dont do automatic en mass, as that would help a lot of people especially those from countries that nearly everyone learnt just automatic in the last 30 odd years.
The hire companies could order a large number straight from manufacturers.
People who can't drive a manual are unlikely to end up renting a manual car. It's lose-lose for both the person and the hire company, so why bother? Rental companies at airports will have disproportionately high numbers of automatics available just because they serve tourists so much.
Ah so they do do that already, which makes sense for everyone concerned!
Mark Hewitt wrote:I’ve always got the impression that Scotland’s roads are always under provisioned just because it’s Scotland and ‘they’ don’t need anything better. That’s changing of course but there’s a long way to go.
This is a somewhat eccentric view. If anything Scottish roads tend to be better provisioned than English counterparts with similar traffic volumes. The city bypass is the exception that proves the rule.
Mark's comment gives a clue as to why the M80 upgrade was downgraded from D3/4 to D2/3. I drove it yesterday afternoon and the consequences of under engineering capacity are obvious to a point where you wondered why they bothered with the upgrade at all. And it was only 14:30. Not rush hour.
The M74 south, though improved, was also jammed. The extra fourth lane when joining from the M73 later becomes a lane drop for the service area, which seems illogical, when it should have been continuous.
lotrjw wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 21:56
I wonder why the hire car companies dont do automatic en mass, as that would help a lot of people especially those from countries that nearly everyone learnt just automatic in the last 30 odd years.
The hire companies could order a large number straight from manufacturers.
a) Because they are cheaper.
b) Many European and British hirers prefer manual.
We used to get a lot of American colleagues flying in to London, none had any problem reserving an automatic, the same was true in Aberdeen. Inverness could be trickier .
Mark Hewitt wrote:I’ve always got the impression that Scotland’s roads are always under provisioned just because it’s Scotland and ‘they’ don’t need anything better. That’s changing of course but there’s a long way to go.
This is a somewhat eccentric view. If anything Scottish roads tend to be better provisioned than English counterparts with similar traffic volumes. The city bypass is the exception that proves the rule.
Mark's comment gives a clue as to why the M80 upgrade was downgraded from D3/4 to D2/3. I drove it yesterday afternoon and the consequences of under engineering capacity are obvious to a point where you wondered why they bothered with the upgrade at all. And it was only 14:30. Not rush hour.
The M74 south, though improved, was also jammed. The extra fourth lane when joining from the M73 later becomes a lane drop for the service area, which seems illogical, when it should have been continuous.
Well, this is a rather specific case because they couldn't get three lanes carriageways through the viaduct. Furthermore, full D3M for 100k AADT and D2M for 70k is considered perfectly normal in England. Really they just need to convert it to ALR and bite the bullet at the viaduct.
jackal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 14:32
Well, this is a rather specific case because they couldn't get three lanes carriageways through the viaduct.
For a while, I believe the plan was to run the hard shoulder and lane 1 under one arch and lanes 2 and 3 under another. Repeat on the other side of the road. The other solution would have been to route the M80 slightly east of its current line and cut under the railway via a modern bridge.
Mark Hewitt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 07:57
I’ve always got the impression that Scotland’s roads are always under provisioned just because it’s Scotland and ‘they’ don’t need anything better. That’s changing of course but there’s a long way to go.
I think main roads in Scotland are generally of higher standard than ones in England for any given traffic volume. The A74 motorway upgrade was completed 20 years before that of the A1 in North Yorkshire (and before devolution) though it carries less traffic.
Edit: sorry, this is a repeat of a discussion on the previous page.
Last edited by wrinkly on Sat Jun 02, 2018 20:07, edited 1 time in total.
jackal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 01:26
They could perhaps do three narrow lanes like the Newcastle/Gateshead western bypass. You'd be surprised what you can squeeze three lanes through nowadays with creative use of concrete barriers and paint
I think bridges are generally a bit wider wider on the A720 than on the formerly D2 sections of A1 at Gateshead.
Mark Hewitt wrote:I’ve always got the impression that Scotland’s roads are always under provisioned just because it’s Scotland and ‘they’ don’t need anything better. That’s changing of course but there’s a long way to go.
Mark's comment gives a clue as to why the M80 upgrade was downgraded from D3/4 to D2/3.
Entirely false. The post-devolution Scottish government downgraded the M80 from D4M/D3M to D3M/D2M to discourage long-distance car commuting. This was going to be accompanied by specific measures to restrain traffic but as far as I know they never materialised.
jackal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 14:32
Well, this is a rather specific case because they couldn't get three lanes carriageways through the viaduct.
For a while, I believe the plan was to run the hard shoulder and lane 1 under one arch and lanes 2 and 3 under another. Repeat on the other side of the road.
That's correct. The decision to reduce it to D2 removed the need for this but was not caused by the viaduct.
