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.
That leaves everything in between. First I'd separate off country lanes in tourist areas (National Parks and similar areas) where you get a lot of walkers and horse riders. These users should be able to feel safe using these roads, and I'd have no problem with a considerable speed limit reduction on S1s and narrow S2s in these areas.
Then you've got "normal rural roads" - i.e. S2s with no pavement - and urban roads that are used by more than just people accessing premises. Here we need to rub along together as equals, each following both common sense and the rules of the road. That does not mean restricting motor traffic to very low limits because a pedestrian might run out into the road: the pedestrian has as much duty to behave themself as the driver does. Of course, you should always drive with the possibility in mind that someone may do something unexpected or stupid, but that is very different from forcing people to behave as if that unexpected thing will happen on every metre of a given road.
Realistically most rural roads have no footpaths and often the only place for a pedestrian to step into is a ditch. Further on country roads you should ALWAYS be expecting something to pop out , its more often a cow, sheep, dog, fox, deer or badger than a pedestrian, most of them dont squeeze under a hedge or pop out of a field in a gap between trees. Animals tend to do this.
As a driver you really had better be ready to avoid a pedestrian or cyclist here which was part of my daily commute, they have nowhere to go.
Agreed - you should be able to stop in the distance you can see is clear and be ready to react if something happens within that apparent distance.
It is slightly ironic, therefore, that most of the discussions for and against lower speed limits focus on urban areas (20 zones and reducing 40s to 30s) where the majority of affected roads have separate pedestrian footways, rather than rural roads, which by and large don't. Sure, there are ongoing discussions about whether NSL should be 60, or whether it should be blanketly reduced to 50, or whether certain kinds of road should be 40. But nowhere AFAIK is anyone suggesting 20s in such circumstances.
Of course, there are far more users of all kinds in towns, but as someone pointed out on one of the cycling threads, there is also safety in numbers. I'd imagine my likelihood of being knocked down is far greater on a country road than it is when I'm on a pavement in a 30 limit, and the consequences are also likely to be worse.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
I've just been looking through the evidence presented to the Parliamentary Committee on Transport for their investigation and report into "Local Roads Funding and Governance"
Evidence was presented by a Mr Frank Bedford which was totally ignored in the report, yet it seems to me to explain why we are in such a mess at the moment with local roads. Everybody accepts that funding has been cut over the years, but doesn't really explain why we are in such a total mess. Mr Bedford's evidence supplies that explanation in the total failure at all levels of government (central and local) to acknowledge and accept that the use of "modern" and "innovative" materials since the 1990s has brought us to this pretty pass.
Whilst the scope of the inquiry is stated to be ‘local roads funding and governance’, almost all of the written evidence submitted by Suffolk County Council, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, and the Asphalt Industry Alliance, and the oral evidence given to the Transport Committee on 19 November 2018 concentrated on the need to increase roads funding, but failed to consider whether the actual road maintenance process was effective in terms of both performance and whole-life cost.
Regrettably, there has been an apparent reluctance on the part of those overseeing this work, whether they be in house highway authority technical staff or external consultants, to recognise and question the road materials being specified and used in terms of their performance and cost effectiveness. There has been a return to the use of hot rolled asphalt and dense bitumen macadam (now referred to as asphaltic concrete) and surface dressing in recent years by some authorities.
Also, the material suppliers, represented by the Asphalt Industry Alliance, have also been very silent on surfacing material performance of the materials that have been used to a large extent over the last 15-20 years or so. This has resulted in increased prices of materials supplied compared to the previous materials, and no doubt have helped to maintain or increase profits, offsetting reducing funds available to highway authorities.
It’s partly bad materials, and partly due to excessive utility works, sometimes caused by mains replacement/leaks etc. or new broadband, but quite often due to home improvements.
Why does a home have to be ripped apart just because a family want to move into it?? Not only the rooms but the water and gas supply as well?? Seriously?? It’s beyond a joke.
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 22:36
It’s partly bad materials, and partly due to excessive utility works, sometimes caused by mains replacement/leaks etc. or new broadband, but quite often due to home improvements.
Why does a home have to be ripped apart just because a family want to move into it?? Not only the rooms but the water and gas supply as well?? Seriously?? It’s beyond a joke.
Generally because the old utility supplies (electricity especially) are undersized for modern requirements, especially if the building is being converted from a single dwelling to multiple occupancy. There are also issues around safety and installation regulations i.e. what was considered safe before a refurbishment can no longer be considered so (e.g. around isolation/stop valves and meter locations)
Perhaps so, but is beyond belief when you see one house after another book works separately. Again, a separate scheme of works for each utility, more digging, more trenches etc. It’s obvious the authority has no involvement as to when works take place, and is unable to schedule works to take place around the same time(s). They just dish our permits left, right and centre.
At the very least water, electric and gas (and telecoms if required) should be scheduled to visit at the same time. And if one service can’t make it, or if another householder is waiting for another appointment, tough.
Hold the works until everyone is ready to visit, so they can all be arranged at the same time.
It makes you wonder if local standards are so poor, you’d wonder whether building control would allow someone to move into a property first. Either that or current standards are unrealistically high.
I see the problem of utilities, but the problem goes far beyond carriageway reinstatement after work completion. I have seen resurfacing carried out on numerous roads in Cheshire in recent times and already those surfaces are already breaking up. The A534 Nantwich-Wrexham is a typical example. Lots of money spent and after less than five years is already breaking up in many places. It just has to be down to bad material or process.
I’m also unclear about how often surfaces need to be fully replaced. Each authority seems to have its own rules. Of course, they (sometimes) have records about when works were last completed, what materials were used/some idea of how long the work should last under “normal” conditions. Then there are things like utility works and so on.
But the fact is the intervals between surfacing are getting longer, and longer. Surface dressing, whilst OK when things are relatively good, seems to predominate. The Main Street next to mine (part of the B1162) is in a reasonable condition where it hasn’t been dug over; unfortunately the good bits are getting shorter and shorter due to works, and botched reinstatements.
The last full resurfacing was carried out in 2000 (about a mile or so). Only the worst, worst parts have been surfaced dressed since. Turn the corner, and carry on towards the fens and my parents house, and the cracks are deep and visible. And no idea when it was last resurfaced. I’ve lost count of the numbers of big holes and defects that've cropped up; the “under 40mm” and “greater than 40mm” categories on the website are a complete joke. The holes are far bigger than that.
In fact the situation is so bad that most defects I’ve reported are repaired immediately (or within 2 weeks). That suggests they are dangerous to all road users (we frequently get cyclists and equestrian riders), not just motorists.
fras wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 23:19
I see the problem of utilities, but the problem goes far beyond carriageway reinstatement after work completion. I have seen resurfacing carried out on numerous roads in Cheshire in recent times and already those surfaces are already breaking up. The A534 Nantwich-Wrexham is a typical example. Lots of money spent and after less than five years is already breaking up in many places. It just has to be down to bad material or process.
I'm convinced its a combination of material and process and/or the ground conditions causing movement than the materials can handle. Also its not just on the Cheshire side of the border that things are struggling, the A5104 (Which recently saw a massively expensive ANPR camera enforcement system installed) is not just developing potholes, but something akin to craters which I'm convinced will wipe out a cyclist/motorcyclist in the not too distant future.
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 23:04
Perhaps so, but is beyond belief when you see one house after another book works separately. Again, a separate scheme of works for each utility, more digging, more trenches etc. It’s obvious the authority has no involvement as to when works take place, and is unable to schedule works to take place around the same time(s). They just dish our permits left, right and centre.
At the very least water, electric and gas (and telecoms if required) should be scheduled to visit at the same time. And if one service can’t make it, or if another householder is waiting for another appointment, tough.
Hold the works until everyone is ready to visit, so they can all be arranged at the same time.
The issue being that most of the time they won't all be in the same trench anyway, so by scheduling them all at once, all you're doing is blocking up the road and pavement with multiple vans all trying to dig different trenches at the same time.
The infrastructure is old, as a result of when it was put in. For example, my survey documents say that although I've got mains gas, water, sewerage,and electricity - none of the utility companies have any record of how it gets to or from the property.
c2R wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 06:27
The issue being that most of the time they won't all be in the same trench anyway, so by scheduling them all at once, all you're doing is blocking up the road and pavement with multiple vans all trying to dig different trenches at the same time.
The infrastructure is old, as a result of when it was put in. For example, my survey documents say that although I've got mains gas, water, sewerage,and electricity - none of the utility companies have any record of how it gets to or from the property.
Many of those utility companies never had such records. It was common in the past just to have a work item that was ticked off when completed.
"Connect gas from main to house"
Nobody on site was worrying about people not knowing where it was in 20 years time.
The other thing of course was that the connections would me made at different times by unconnected organisations. In a city such as London, Cambridge or York many of the buildings when built would have no utilities at all. Water would come from a communal pump in the street connected to a well and sewage was hauled off from the privy or cess pit by night soil men.
Even in the 1950's there were many houses in towns which had no electricity supply and just one water tap in the kitchen with the toilet being outside in the yard.
There is however an argument to be made about better joined-up planning of major works.
About 13-14 years ago NMWTRA decided that both the A487 and A489 through Machynlleth needed fully rebuilding and resurfacing. As Machynlleth is effectively a T-junction of the A487 and A489 with a town built around it this meant a lot of hard work ripping up and resurfacing the road and after they finished the quality was magnificent...
... Until Severn Trent decided to carry out a major water main refurbishment a year or so later. All that lovely, brand new surfacing was sliced up like cheese to replace the ageing water supply pipework.
All it would have taken was for Severn Trent and NMWTRA to organise it so that the water mains went in first before the road resurfacing...
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 23:04
Perhaps so, but is beyond belief when you see one house after another book works separately. Again, a separate scheme of works for each utility, more digging, more trenches etc. It’s obvious the authority has no involvement as to when works take place, and is unable to schedule works to take place around the same time(s). They just dish our permits left, right and centre.
At the very least water, electric and gas (and telecoms if required) should be scheduled to visit at the same time. And if one service can’t make it, or if another householder is waiting for another appointment, tough.
Hold the works until everyone is ready to visit, so they can all be arranged at the same time.
The issue being that most of the time they won't all be in the same trench anyway, so by scheduling them all at once, all you're doing is blocking up the road and pavement with multiple vans all trying to dig different trenches at the same time.
The infrastructure is old, as a result of when it was put in. For example, my survey documents say that although I've got mains gas, water, sewerage,and electricity - none of the utility companies have any record of how it gets to or from the property.
No, but they should be making a start at this sort of thing now, unless there are very good safety reasons for not doing so.
Another aspect is when an individual utility or householder requires work to be done after a major surfacing project, as Rhyds pointed out. We’ve often heard of these ‘major gas/water/sewer main replacement’. But these projects are going to cost time and money. They have to be planned months in advance (before the year in which the works take place).
It is beyond belief that the highway authority has no knowledge of these works, and with better coordination could organise works to run in parallel with adjacent projects. Better still, they should be making efforts to find out whether any major projects are scheduled in the next 5 years or so, to avoid disruption, rather than cause or add to it.
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 23:04
Perhaps so, but is beyond belief when you see one house after another book works separately. Again, a separate scheme of works for each utility, more digging, more trenches etc. It’s obvious the authority has no involvement as to when works take place, and is unable to schedule works to take place around the same time(s). They just dish our permits left, right and centre.
At the very least water, electric and gas (and telecoms if required) should be scheduled to visit at the same time. And if one service can’t make it, or if another householder is waiting for another appointment, tough.
Hold the works until everyone is ready to visit, so they can all be arranged at the same time.
The issue being that most of the time they won't all be in the same trench anyway, so by scheduling them all at once, all you're doing is blocking up the road and pavement with multiple vans all trying to dig different trenches at the same time.
The infrastructure is old, as a result of when it was put in. For example, my survey documents say that although I've got mains gas, water, sewerage,and electricity - none of the utility companies have any record of how it gets to or from the property.
No, but they should be making a start at this sort of thing now, unless there are very good safety reasons for not doing so.
Another aspect is when an individual utility or householder requires work to be done after a major surfacing project, as Rhyds pointed out. We’ve often heard of these ‘major gas/water/sewer main replacement’. But these projects are going to cost time and money. They have to be planned months in advance (before the year in which the works take place).
It is beyond belief that the highway authority has no knowledge of these works, and with better coordination could organise works to run in parallel with adjacent projects. Better still, they should be making efforts to find out whether any major projects are scheduled in the next 5 years or so, to avoid disruption, rather than cause or add to it.
Maintenance budgets don't roll over so if the utility company is scheduled to do work then the council has to spend the money anyway.
However telling utilities that they can only dig up on x y and z will just see lots of emergency works permits go in. Councils can't refuse emergency works.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
And if a utilities company has to tell a customer sorry, the council won't let them connect them to the network for a few months, there will be hell to pay.
Realistically, very little can be done about casual connections. There is however the possibility of getting utilities to coordinate planned maintenance works with each other, so that when one finishes their actual work, the next company takes over, sharing TM and doing a single reinstatement at the end of the works. In exactly the same way, utilities could be required to bring forward planned maintenance to coordinate with road resurfacing.
Similarly, there is scope to require unplanned work to be coordinated. Genuine emergency work will have to be carried out when it's needed, but utilities could be required to coordinate non-emergency work with other utilities who have planned work for that year - including the possibility of bringing forward the planned work to coincide with the emergency work.
AndyB wrote:
And if a utilities company has to tell a customer sorry, the council won't let them connect them to the network for a few months, there will be hell to pay.
Actually, this is exactly the situation that we found ourselves in when we moved into our present house. There was a huge hole in the road a few doors away which was there for about six months while a new gas main (I think) was being laid. The water board was not allowed to make a permanent new connection to our house - replacing lead pipes - until after the road had been reinstated. We had a temporary feed of polypipe looping through the kitchen for a month or so.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 21:40
Maintenance budgets don't roll over so if the utility company is scheduled to do work then the council has to spend the money anyway.
This is precisely the kind of back-office admin consideration that should never affect the service provided to the "customer" (in this case, the taxpayer). Of course money not spent in one FY can be carried over to the next. If I decide to put off buying a new fridge until next year, that money doesn't magically disappear; it just stays in my bank account until I either use it to buy a fridge or specifically decide to reprioritise my spending. If a council decides to postpone a given project for whatever reason, that money doesn't magically disappear either.
If maintenance budgets not rolling over causes a disruption or reduction in service to those ultimately paying for it, then they should be made to roll over. It really isn't rocket science. I appreciate that an individual council employee (like you, Bryn) has no power over this one way or another, but it's hardly surprising that confidence in "government" in the broadest meaning of the word is at rock bottom when this kind of thing is used by politicians and senior civil servants to justify poor service. A lack of money and the need to prioritise is one thing; bureaucrats being admin wonks is quite another.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
My experience of working in local government, dating back to the mid-70s, was that there was always a rush in March to use up any remaining budget (whether road maintenance or other) because the money really did 'disappear' and could not be rolled over to the next financial year.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 21:40
Maintenance budgets don't roll over so if the utility company is scheduled to do work then the council has to spend the money anyway.
This is precisely the kind of back-office admin consideration that should never affect the service provided to the "customer" (in this case, the taxpayer). Of course money not spent in one FY can be carried over to the next. If I decide to put off buying a new fridge until next year, that money doesn't magically disappear; it just stays in my bank account until I either use it to buy a fridge or specifically decide to reprioritise my spending. If a council decides to postpone a given project for whatever reason, that money doesn't magically disappear either.
If maintenance budgets not rolling over causes a disruption or reduction in service to those ultimately paying for it, then they should be made to roll over. It really isn't rocket science. I appreciate that an individual council employee (like you, Bryn) has no power over this one way or another, but it's hardly surprising that confidence in "government" in the broadest meaning of the word is at rock bottom when this kind of thing is used by politicians and senior civil servants to justify poor service. A lack of money and the need to prioritise is one thing; bureaucrats being admin wonks is quite another.
Preaching to the choir here, but the reality is councils don't actually have "money" - everything is just timesheet codes and works orders, if actual cash transferred hands I suspect work quality might be a bit better. As it stands who is actually accountable? The public can't refuse to pay their tax (well, they can, but you know what I mean), so it's not like the waste has any impetus to be controlled.
Private sector has realised this money-go-round too and is now parasitically attached, so they've no reason to seek change either. As long as the top level bonuses get paid who gives a **** what level of service the plebs get seems to be the entire mantra.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 21:40
Maintenance budgets don't roll over so if the utility company is scheduled to do work then the council has to spend the money anyway.
This is precisely the kind of back-office admin consideration that should never affect the service provided to the "customer" (in this case, the taxpayer). Of course money not spent in one FY can be carried over to the next. If I decide to put off buying a new fridge until next year, that money doesn't magically disappear; it just stays in my bank account until I either use it to buy a fridge or specifically decide to reprioritise my spending. If a council decides to postpone a given project for whatever reason, that money doesn't magically disappear either.
If maintenance budgets not rolling over causes a disruption or reduction in service to those ultimately paying for it, then they should be made to roll over. It really isn't rocket science. I appreciate that an individual council employee (like you, Bryn) has no power over this one way or another, but it's hardly surprising that confidence in "government" in the broadest meaning of the word is at rock bottom when this kind of thing is used by politicians and senior civil servants to justify poor service. A lack of money and the need to prioritise is one thing; bureaucrats being admin wonks is quite another.
It is a central government requirement unfortunately, councils and government agencies have to spend the money or there is often a budget cut the next. The only ones that can get out of that are where they can legislate the issue, this has been the case for years.
The money should be able to be rolled over into the next financial year, but when councils are being told to spend it or lose it and the equivalent next year, it gets spent.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
