£300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

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

User avatar
ScottB5411
Member
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 20:04
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by ScottB5411 »

The European and American idea of having lights that go in a flashing red for side road and flashing amber for main road at night is a great one. Why the UK insists on making life so difficult to get anything done is beyond me. Most of the traffic light controlled roundabouts around Preston need the lights for a total of probably 1 hour in each rush hour and then they are not warranted or needed at all for the remaining 22 hours of the day, yet then spend 22 hours holding people up for no reason at all. Baffling. I'd also suggest the right (left in UK) on red as a fantastic idea too but anyone who works in H&S will implode at the thought ;-)
How about some more beans Mr. Taggart?
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by Berk »

Can I just add, it’s not always traffic-managing signals that are only needed part-time. Some have been installed at crossroads, to improve pedestrian safety. But in rural areas they may only be needed during daylight hours (which is basically 8 - 4 in the winter, 7 - 7 now).

The ones installed here (at Northorpe crossroads near Bourne) are so bright and obtrusive they can easily be seen from here (Elsea Park roundabout), a mile away. There is no need for that crossing to be permanently lit and primed overnight - no-one uses it when the buses are not running.

And can I just say, in these times when we’re meant to be looking after the planet and reducing CO2 emissions, it doesn’t look good when we keep installing more and more devices to “keep our roads safe”, all of which are switched on 24/7, all of which are using more and more electricity, and contributing to light pollution.

Some aspects of roads safety are at odds with environmental protection, clearly.
ais523
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 19:52
Location: Birmingham

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by ais523 »

ScottB5411 wrote: Sun Apr 07, 2019 22:09 The European and American idea of having lights that go in a flashing red for side road and flashing amber for main road at night is a great one.
I've thought for a while that "you may enter the junction, but there's no guarantee it will be clear" would be the most sensible generalization of the flashing amber signal (and in particular, might be better than a green for junctions which have non-signal-controlled traffic joining). That seems like a further generalisation of the same idea.

What are the exact rules for flashing red? The same as a Give Way sign? The same as a Stop sign?
User avatar
ScottB5411
Member
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 20:04
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by ScottB5411 »

ais523 wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 02:54
ScottB5411 wrote: Sun Apr 07, 2019 22:09 The European and American idea of having lights that go in a flashing red for side road and flashing amber for main road at night is a great one.
I've thought for a while that "you may enter the junction, but there's no guarantee it will be clear" would be the most sensible generalization of the flashing amber signal (and in particular, might be better than a green for junctions which have non-signal-controlled traffic joining). That seems like a further generalisation of the same idea.

What are the exact rules for flashing red? The same as a Give Way sign? The same as a Stop sign?
The flashing red is a Stop and the flashing yellow is proceed with caution.
How about some more beans Mr. Taggart?
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9705
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by WHBM »

ScottB5411 wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 04:51 The flashing red is a Stop and the flashing yellow is proceed with caution.
The normal US requirement of Give Way to any pedestrian wanting to cross at an intersection also applies of course, as the Walk/Don't Walk signals will be out.

You do also, at some rural intersections (possibly those with an accident history) also come across just a single light over the centre of an unsignalled junction, Flashing Red for the minor road and Flashing Yellow for the main.

While decidedly useful for the UK, unfortunately the flashing yellow on a signal has already been taken here for Pelican crossings.
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7517
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by Big L »

WHBM wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 07:05
ScottB5411 wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 04:51 The flashing red is a Stop and the flashing yellow is proceed with caution.
...While decidedly useful for the UK, unfortunately the flashing yellow on a signal has already been taken here for Pelican crossings.
That flashing yellow means proceed if it's clear, which is not a very big jump from proceed with caution.
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9705
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by WHBM »

Big L wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 07:56 That flashing yellow means proceed if it's clear, which is not a very big jump from proceed with caution.
The UK flashing yellow means Give Way to Pedestrians (like a Zebra crossing), which is a very big jump from You Have Priority over Joining Traffic, but Just Watch for Them (like 'Slow' painted in the road..
brummie_rob
Member
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 00:16

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by brummie_rob »

The A500 and A50 pinch-point improvements also made queues worse backing down the D Road as they removed the fast link.
User avatar
ScottB5411
Member
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 20:04
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by ScottB5411 »

WHBM wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 07:05
ScottB5411 wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 04:51 The flashing red is a Stop and the flashing yellow is proceed with caution.
The normal US requirement of Give Way to any pedestrian wanting to cross at an intersection also applies of course, as the Walk/Don't Walk signals will be out.

You do also, at some rural intersections (possibly those with an accident history) also come across just a single light over the centre of an unsignalled junction, Flashing Red for the minor road and Flashing Yellow for the main.

While decidedly useful for the UK, unfortunately the flashing yellow on a signal has already been taken here for Pelican crossings.
Modern lights, the lights come back on for a couple of cycles to allow the pedestrian to cross, assuming they push the button.

Your last point, I don not see why it could not be adapted, considering the highway code rule 196 says "When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution" there is no reason it couldn't be adapted for other use. Unless you are on about the pointless red tape the UK insists on wrapping itself up in and making things 200 times more difficult than they need be? I'd rather drive around at 3am without having to stop at every single set of lights for 3 minutes for no reason.
How about some more beans Mr. Taggart?
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by jackal »

djw1981 wrote: Sun Apr 07, 2019 17:31 Is it possible that whilst of longer duration, that journey time is more predictable and road systems better capable of dealing with current traffic levels, ie sharing the delays due to congestion more evenly?
The study found that there was no improvement in journey time reliability across the 54 schemes:
Figure 3-3 shows that overall, at OYA, the sample of schemes has had little impact on
journey time reliability when all time periods are considered. Indeed, there are slight
indications of a worsening of reliability. However, if the AM and PM peak periods are
solely considered the sample has improved journey time reliability, with the spread of
peak time journeys observed after schemes had opened less than the spread of those
observed before. Furthermore, the difference between the fastest and slowest journeys
observed before is greater than that observed after. What is noticeable is that this
variation is being reduced by the implementation of the schemes and those using the
roads during the most congested periods of the day are experiencing a slight
improvement in the time it takes to travel through the scheme.

However, it appears that like the findings of the journey time analysis earlier, peak
period benefits have been offset by off peak dis-benefits. And again, it is considered
that these results are strongly influenced by schemes involving signals, which made up
a large proportion of the sample. It should be noted that signals have historically been
found to have these effects.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _draft.pdf
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by A303Chris »

It is very much like the M4 Bus Lane, which the HA stated improved vehicle times by 20 seconds in the peak times, however they had to say in free flow conditions reducing 6 miles of the M4 from 70mph to 50mph, had to have severe implications on journey times.

Classic examples for signal issues were the A303 / A360 Longbarrow Crossroads, which were taken out virtually as soon as they were switched on and at the A37 Podimore roundabout which have definitely created queues of peak.

What ever happened to the peak period only signals!
The M25 - The road to nowhere
ColinB
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 14:51

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by ColinB »

The M40J9 phase 2 came out as one of the worse. I'm not surprised. Phase 1 which provided a third lane through the roundabout for SB M40 to A34 traffic IME worked well. Prior to the work congestion back onto the M40 was common. After it could be slow because of the traffic lights, but no congestion at the roundabout. The only congestion I've experienced was on the M40 because the amount of traffic leaving was more than the lane drop could cope with. I believe this junction needs a diverge from lane 2.

Whereas phase 2 for NB traffic IME made congestion worse. Previously for A34 to M40 NB there were 2 lanes, one free flow (albeit with a kink) one with a give way. This was changed to 2 lanes with traffic lights. Not an obvious improvement.

I don't know why they got rid of the free flow lane. They could have smoothed out the kink. I assume the kink was why the advance signs did not show it. So drivers unfamiliar with the junction would slow down in expectation of a give way.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9705
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by WHBM »

A303Chris wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:47 It is very much like the M4 Bus Lane, which the HA stated improved vehicle times by 20 seconds in the peak times, however they had to say in free flow conditions reducing 6 miles of the M4 from 70mph to 50mph, had to have severe implications on journey times.
Those figures were further fraudulent because they only measured before/after on the section from J3 towards J2, the bus lane section itself. However during its operation it caused peak time traffic to back right up to J4B at the M25, and had a substantial impact on traffic exiting at J3. As they had not measured "before" journey times from that far back, they could then ignore such delays in the comparison.
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by A303Chris »

WHBM wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:25
A303Chris wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:47 It is very much like the M4 Bus Lane, which the HA stated improved vehicle times by 20 seconds in the peak times, however they had to say in free flow conditions reducing 6 miles of the M4 from 70mph to 50mph, had to have severe implications on journey times.
Those figures were further fraudulent because they only measured before/after on the section from J3 towards J2, the bus lane section itself. However during its operation it caused peak time traffic to back right up to J4B at the M25, and had a substantial impact on traffic exiting at J3. As they had not measured "before" journey times from that far back, they could then ignore such delays in the comparison.
Good point, although after the removal of the bus lane, they left the lane drop in place so it still causes queues back to J4 in the evening peak as I am about to find out again in the next hour
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
Johnathan404
Member
Posts: 11478
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:54

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by Johnathan404 »

ColinB wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:14 The M40J9 phase 2 came out as one of the worse. I'm not surprised. Phase 1 which provided a third lane through the roundabout for SB M40 to A34 traffic IME worked well. Prior to the work congestion back onto the M40 was common. After it could be slow because of the traffic lights, but no congestion at the roundabout. The only congestion I've experienced was on the M40 because the amount of traffic leaving was more than the lane drop could cope with. I believe this junction needs a diverge from lane 2.

Whereas phase 2 for NB traffic IME made congestion worse. Previously for A34 to M40 NB there were 2 lanes, one free flow (albeit with a kink) one with a give way. This was changed to 2 lanes with traffic lights. Not an obvious improvement.

I don't know why they got rid of the free flow lane. They could have smoothed out the kink. I assume the kink was why the advance signs did not show it. So drivers unfamiliar with the junction would slow down in expectation of a give way.
Interestingly prior to phase 2 I found the A34 would queue back to Bletchingdon Road at any time of the day, causing anybody with any sense to cut through Middleton Stoney. Since the changes I have never had this problem. So that will go down as a success to me.

Partly the problem was caused by everybody piling into one lane because for some inexplicable reason the Highways Agency refused to acknowledge that you could turn left from both lanes.
I have websites about: motorway services | Fareham
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by Truvelo »

I still go through Middleton Stoney as a matter of habit. The depressing thing these days is seeing the "no to Oxford-MK expressway" signs plastered throughout the village.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
mikehindsonevans
Member
Posts: 1359
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:44
Location: Cheshire, but working week time in Cambridge

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by mikehindsonevans »

ColinB wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:14 The M40J9 phase 2 came out as one of the worse. I'm not surprised. Phase 1 which provided a third lane through the roundabout for SB M40 to A34 traffic IME worked well. Prior to the work congestion back onto the M40 was common. After it could be slow because of the traffic lights, but no congestion at the roundabout. The only congestion I've experienced was on the M40 because the amount of traffic leaving was more than the lane drop could cope with. I believe this junction needs a diverge from lane 2.

Whereas phase 2 for NB traffic IME made congestion worse. Previously for A34 to M40 NB there were 2 lanes, one free flow (albeit with a kink) one with a give way. This was changed to 2 lanes with traffic lights. Not an obvious improvement.

I don't know why they got rid of the free flow lane. They could have smoothed out the kink. I assume the kink was why the advance signs did not show it. So drivers unfamiliar with the junction would slow down in expectation of a give way.
Yes, the free-flow lane from A34 to M40 j9 northbound was very useful, but was hidden by the lefthand hedge. Cue multiple rear-endings, almost all because the sign-designing clot got it wrong. As a result, EVERYONE has to come to a halt, increasing emissions.
Mike Hindson-Evans.
Never argue with a conspiracy theorist.
They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
vlad
Member
Posts: 2586
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 16:20
Location: Near the northern end of the A34

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by vlad »

brummie_rob wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 09:07 The A500 and A50 pinch-point improvements also made queues worse backing down the D Road as they removed the fast link.
By "fast link", do you mean the filter lane from the A500 southbound offslip to the A50? It's probably a lot safer that it's gone. Traffic was only supposed to use that lane if it was taking the first turn off the A50 (for local traffic and the B5490) whereas A50 traffic should have stopped at the lights. However, pretty much all traffic used the filter anyway then moved over, usually without checking mirrors, to rejoin the A50 after the roundabout.
"If you expect nothing from somebody you are never disappointed." - Sylvia Plath
User avatar
lefthandedspanner
Member
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 21:25
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by lefthandedspanner »

ScottB5411 wrote: Sun Apr 07, 2019 22:09Most of the traffic light controlled roundabouts around Preston need the lights for a total of probably 1 hour in each rush hour and then they are not warranted or needed at all for the remaining 22 hours of the day, yet then spend 22 hours holding people up for no reason at all. Baffling.
Which particular hour of the rush hour (or more accurately: painfully slow 4-6 hour) periods would that be?
brummie_rob
Member
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 00:16

Re: £300m traffic jam busting scheme made journeys longer, Highways England admits

Post by brummie_rob »

vlad wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 19:00
brummie_rob wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2019 09:07 The A500 and A50 pinch-point improvements also made queues worse backing down the D Road as they removed the fast link.
By "fast link", do you mean the filter lane from the A500 southbound offslip to the A50? It's probably a lot safer that it's gone. Traffic was only supposed to use that lane if it was taking the first turn off the A50 (for local traffic and the B5490) whereas A50 traffic should have stopped at the lights. However, pretty much all traffic used the filter anyway then moved over, usually without checking mirrors, to rejoin the A50 after the roundabout.
Yes the filter lane. And yes it was used wrongly which I guess caused more shunts but at least the traffic wasn't backed up down the D Road to Bradford like it is most afternoons now.
Post Reply