Road Investment Strategy 2

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
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14795
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by nowster »

RichardA35 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:06Simister Island tender documents issued recently, apparently..
What's planned there?
M5Lenzar
Banned
Posts: 4477
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 14:39

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by M5Lenzar »

Debaser wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:19 Looks like there may be a challenge to RIS2.
Who gives these tree-hugging morons money to do such things?
A320Driver
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by A320Driver »

The article suggests they are trying for crowd-funding. Morons indeed.
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5694
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by RichardA35 »

nowster wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 13:17
RichardA35 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:06Simister Island tender documents issued recently, apparently..
What's planned there?
The basic scope from RIS 2 is "M60/M62/M66 Simister Island Interchange – improvement of the intersection between the M60 (junction 18), M62 and M66 north of Manchester that improves the traffic flow on the M60."
I am told a value range of £150-250M is in mind
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14795
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by nowster »

RichardA35 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 13:58
nowster wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 13:17
RichardA35 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:06Simister Island tender documents issued recently, apparently..
What's planned there?
The basic scope from RIS 2 is "M60/M62/M66 Simister Island Interchange – improvement of the intersection between the M60 (junction 18), M62 and M66 north of Manchester that improves the traffic flow on the M60."
I am told a value range of £150-250M is in mind
I remember now. It's converting the D4M there to D5ALR between Whitefield and Simister, and adding extra VSL matrixes to the gantries.
User avatar
hoagy_ytfc
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 00:10

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by hoagy_ytfc »

M5Lenzar wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 13:20 Who gives these tree-hugging morons money to do such things?
How about maybe recognising thar reasonable people can have a view that endless road-building isn’t always the answer. Using terms like “moron” seems unnecessarily rude. And you’re not the only one.

Surely we can move on from a pave-everything attitude? People can be against some of the plans without having their intelligence being insulted.
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15721
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Chris Bertram »

hoagy_ytfc wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 01:46
M5Lenzar wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 13:20 Who gives these tree-hugging morons money to do such things?
How about maybe recognising thar reasonable people can have a view that endless road-building isn’t always the answer. Using terms like “moron” seems unnecessarily rude. And you’re not the only one.

Surely we can move on from a pave-everything attitude? People can be against some of the plans without having their intelligence being insulted.
Well yes, but the attitude that road-building is *never* the answer is also extremely blinkered, and much of the language that emanates from that side is very, well, "emotional", to be very kind to them.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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!
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Barkstar »

There will always be debate over expanding road infrastructure but I'm not seeing this suggestion as being a solution
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52371140
Hyper-fast broadband in being touted as some kind of panacea. Of all those now home working how many really need those higher speeds? And it ignores the fact that huge numbers of workers can't work at home no matter what. Perhaps at some time way in the future the balance may tip but it isn't in our near futures. It's right we can't simply pave away our congestion problems away ad infinitum but giving me fast broadband should be an as well and not an instead of.
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Debaser »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:00
hoagy_ytfc wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 01:46
M5Lenzar wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 13:20 Who gives these tree-hugging morons money to do such things?
How about maybe recognising thar reasonable people can have a view that endless road-building isn’t always the answer. Using terms like “moron” seems unnecessarily rude. And you’re not the only one.

Surely we can move on from a pave-everything attitude? People can be against some of the plans without having their intelligence being insulted.
Well yes, but the attitude that road-building is *never* the answer is also extremely blinkered, and much of the language that emanates from that side is very, well, "emotional", to be very kind to them.
Do or do not internal combustion engines as currently designed produce waste products (NOx, COx, particulates, etc.) which are harmful to humans and, arguably, the environment?

This is not 'emotional' this is a question of fact. Do they or do they not?

The fact is they do (and ironically it is those within the cabin of motor vehicles who suffer most from them), BUT, as a society, at present we are choosing to accept those hazards in return for the utility of motor vehicles to our economic and social lives. Do not be surprised if this attitude of acceptance is not universal, nor that the majority of the population may not change their mind.
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15721
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Chris Bertram »

Debaser wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:22
Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:00
hoagy_ytfc wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 01:46 How about maybe recognising thar reasonable people can have a view that endless road-building isn’t always the answer. Using terms like “moron” seems unnecessarily rude. And you’re not the only one.

Surely we can move on from a pave-everything attitude? People can be against some of the plans without having their intelligence being insulted.
Well yes, but the attitude that road-building is *never* the answer is also extremely blinkered, and much of the language that emanates from that side is very, well, "emotional", to be very kind to them.
Do or do not internal combustion engines as currently designed produce waste products (NOx, COx, particulates, etc.) which are harmful to humans and, arguably, the environment?

This is not 'emotional' this is a question of fact. Do they or do they not?

The fact is they do (and ironically it is those within the cabin of motor vehicles who suffer most from them), BUT, as a society, at present we are choosing to accept those hazards in return for the utility of motor vehicles to our economic and social lives. Do not be surprised if this attitude of acceptance is not universal, nor that the majority of the population may not change their mind.
And we are also at the start of a long-term trend where ICE vehicles will be replaced by electric vehicles (I'm not there yet personally, but it will happen). The emissions issue will abate. But these vehicles will still need the tarmac on which to travel. Do we wait for the transition to happen, or build now? I vote that we build.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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!
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19181
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by KeithW »

Barkstar wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:18 There will always be debate over expanding road infrastructure but I'm not seeing this suggestion as being a solution
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52371140
Hyper-fast broadband in being touted as some kind of panacea. Of all those now home working how many really need those higher speeds? And it ignores the fact that huge numbers of workers can't work at home no matter what. Perhaps at some time way in the future the balance may tip but it isn't in our near futures. It's right we can't simply pave away our congestion problems away ad infinitum but giving me fast broadband should be an as well and not an instead of.
Probably because fibre broadband is happening anyway and I for one having been using video conferencing for almost 20 years. I had 2 yesterday and another 2 lined up this week and it works fine over the same cables I used to watch 4K TV. Nobody is going to give you fast broadband, like anything else you have to pay for it but it will be a lot cheaper than driving or catching a train, When I started using video conferencing you needed a leased line or ISDN2. Now most people have access to much faster broadband through normal domestic phone services.

I would support better rollout in rural regions but this is hardly relevant to RIS2.

I have noted with some interest that wrt to video conferencing it has worked fine to the Netherlands, Scandinavian Countries and North America, less so with France and attempted conferences with people in Germany have been abysmal as at best most connections are DSL and the domestic network is clearly overloaded. Most people also have data caps and once you exceed that cap throughput is throttled. The response to the extra load brought on by the lock down has been to reduce connection speeds. Netflix were ordered by the EU to reduce quality to try and keep things working. My first call on Monday was with a German colleague and that had to be scheduled at 7 AM my time to guarantee he had enough bandwidth. A planned call yesterday failed due to his line speed being inadequate.

There is an interesting chart at the link below showing how Covid has impacted internet speeds worldwide, the UK has come out rather well.
https://www.speedtest.net/insights/blog ... rformance/#/
MayzieY
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 09:28

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by MayzieY »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:43
Debaser wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:22
Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:00 Well yes, but the attitude that road-building is *never* the answer is also extremely blinkered, and much of the language that emanates from that side is very, well, "emotional", to be very kind to them.
Do or do not internal combustion engines as currently designed produce waste products (NOx, COx, particulates, etc.) which are harmful to humans and, arguably, the environment?

This is not 'emotional' this is a question of fact. Do they or do they not?

The fact is they do (and ironically it is those within the cabin of motor vehicles who suffer most from them), BUT, as a society, at present we are choosing to accept those hazards in return for the utility of motor vehicles to our economic and social lives. Do not be surprised if this attitude of acceptance is not universal, nor that the majority of the population may not change their mind.
And we are also at the start of a long-term trend where ICE vehicles will be replaced by electric vehicles (I'm not there yet personally, but it will happen). The emissions issue will abate. But these vehicles will still need the tarmac on which to travel. Do we wait for the transition to happen, or build now? I vote that we build.
Chris, see this recent article on non-exhaust emissions, quote copied from the start of its Executive Summary:

"Non-exhaust emissions (NEE) from road traffic refers to particles released into the air from
brake wear, tyre wear, road surface wear and resuspension of road dust during on-road
vehicle usage. These emissions arise regardless of the type of vehicle and its mode of power,
and contribute to the total ambient particulate matter burden associated with human ill-heath
and premature mortality. No legislation is currently in place specifically to limit or reduce NEE
particles, so whilst legislation has been effective at driving down emissions of particles from
the exhausts of internal-combustion-engine vehicles, the NEE proportion of road traffic
emissions has increased. "


https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/docu ... _Final.pdf
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15721
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by Chris Bertram »

MayzieY wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:46
Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:43
Debaser wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 09:22
Do or do not internal combustion engines as currently designed produce waste products (NOx, COx, particulates, etc.) which are harmful to humans and, arguably, the environment?

This is not 'emotional' this is a question of fact. Do they or do they not?

The fact is they do (and ironically it is those within the cabin of motor vehicles who suffer most from them), BUT, as a society, at present we are choosing to accept those hazards in return for the utility of motor vehicles to our economic and social lives. Do not be surprised if this attitude of acceptance is not universal, nor that the majority of the population may not change their mind.
And we are also at the start of a long-term trend where ICE vehicles will be replaced by electric vehicles (I'm not there yet personally, but it will happen). The emissions issue will abate. But these vehicles will still need the tarmac on which to travel. Do we wait for the transition to happen, or build now? I vote that we build.
Chris, see this recent article on non-exhaust emissions, quote copied from the start of its Executive Summary:

"Non-exhaust emissions (NEE) from road traffic refers to particles released into the air from
brake wear, tyre wear, road surface wear and resuspension of road dust during on-road
vehicle usage. These emissions arise regardless of the type of vehicle and its mode of power,
and contribute to the total ambient particulate matter burden associated with human ill-heath
and premature mortality. No legislation is currently in place specifically to limit or reduce NEE
particles, so whilst legislation has been effective at driving down emissions of particles from
the exhausts of internal-combustion-engine vehicles, the NEE proportion of road traffic
emissions has increased
. "


https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/docu ... _Final.pdf
Well, of course it will if the absolute quantity of emissions reduces as a result of tailpipe emission reductions only. But this is sly use of language which some people will interpret to mean that NEE emissions themselves are increasing, which they are not. Now, I'm not saying that efforts should not be made to reduce NEE emissions per vehicle, but asserting that the switch to EVs would not be an improvement in and of itself is dishonest.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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!
User avatar
M4 Cardiff
Member
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 15:12
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by M4 Cardiff »

Looking at the list of schemes that are being considered, it looks like most are either junction improvements (to reduce congestion) or smart-motorway works, which improve speed limit compliance and allow for environmental speed limit reductions (as at Sheffield on the M1). Since both of these should be able to result in environmental betterment, yes those who are attempting the legal challenge, and the lawyers working for them, are MORONS.
Driving thrombosis caused this accident......a clot behind the wheel.
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14795
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by nowster »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:57Well, of course it will if the absolute quantity of emissions reduces as a result of tailpipe emission reductions only. But this is sly use of language which some people will interpret to mean that NEE emissions themselves are increasing, which they are not. Now, I'm not saying that efforts should not be made to reduce NEE emissions per vehicle, but asserting that the switch to EVs would not be an improvement in and of itself is dishonest.
Of course, when you get rid of the things at the top of the list, things further down the list gain prominence.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by jackal »

nowster wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 19:14
RichardA35 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 13:58
nowster wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 13:17
What's planned there?
The basic scope from RIS 2 is "M60/M62/M66 Simister Island Interchange – improvement of the intersection between the M60 (junction 18), M62 and M66 north of Manchester that improves the traffic flow on the M60."
I am told a value range of £150-250M is in mind
I remember now. It's converting the D4M there to D5ALR between Whitefield and Simister, and adding extra VSL matrixes to the gantries.
Converting ~1km of hard shoulders to running lane isn't what is meant by junction improvement (though they may be packaged together). See RIS2 quote above and this from RIS1:

"M60 Simister Island interchange
– comprehensive improvement of the
intersection between the M60 (junction
18), M62 and M66 north of Manchester,
upgrading the critical junction for traffic
heading eastwards over the Pennines."

Also from the summary of assumptions released at the time:

"Improvement to the Simister Island interchange between the M62, M60 and M66 to the northeast of Manchester. Introduces more free-flowing movements to substantially improve one of the busiest junctions in the North West
Developed for next road period
£100-250m"

HE are being less specific than 'more free-flowing movements' now, presumably to give them scope to bodge it like Wisley, but there will be substantial works at the interchange.
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14795
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by nowster »

jackal wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 15:45 HE are being less specific than 'more free-flowing movements' now, presumably to give them scope to bodge it like Wisley, but there will be substantial works at the interchange.
All left turns are free-flowing already. The only logical way to make it work better (other than to turn it into a four-level stack) would be to remove the existing four lane roundabout and replace it with a light-controlled crossroads (only two phases for the four right turn movements) in the middle. In other words, flattening a four level stack design into three levels. (Credit for this idea to Chris5156)
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by SouthWest Philip »

nowster wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 17:43
jackal wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 15:45 HE are being less specific than 'more free-flowing movements' now, presumably to give them scope to bodge it like Wisley, but there will be substantial works at the interchange.
All left turns are free-flowing already. The only logical way to make it work better (other than to turn it into a four-level stack) would be to remove the existing four lane roundabout and replace it with a light-controlled crossroads (only two phases for the four right turn movements) in the middle. In other words, flattening a four level stack design into three levels. (Credit for this idea to Chris5156)
A similar effect in removing conflicts between right turners could be achieved by making the roundabout flow anticlockwise, although that would require significant and probably impractical changes to all the slip roads joining the roundabout.
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14795
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by nowster »

SouthWest Philip wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 17:50A similar effect in removing conflicts between right turners could be achieved by making the roundabout flow anticlockwise, although that would require significant and probably impractical changes to all the slip roads joining the roundabout.
A little bit of thinking about this says that it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the number of conflicts to run the roundabout anticlockwise. Each section between slip roads would have weaving.
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: Road Investment Strategy 2

Post by SouthWest Philip »

nowster wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 17:57
SouthWest Philip wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 17:50A similar effect in removing conflicts between right turners could be achieved by making the roundabout flow anticlockwise, although that would require significant and probably impractical changes to all the slip roads joining the roundabout.
A little bit of thinking about this says that it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the number of conflicts to run the roundabout anticlockwise. Each section between slip roads would have weaving.
Indeed it would cause weaving conflicts which would have to be controlled with signals but I think, and am happy to be corrected, that you could quite easily create a green wave that would in effect be the equivalent of the two phase that the signalised crossroads would give but without requiring new structures. Although in reality, this probably wouldn't be possible anyway!
Post Reply