Ummm.... that also rules out the A3 (m25-Guildford) and A303 too...
Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Moderator: Site Management Team
-
- Member
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
- Location: Gone
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Michelin has a defn of expressway on their maps, as you see some parts of the A1 & A14 are shown as dual carriageway and other parts as ExpressWay
Likewise A3 & A303 are shown as a mixture“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Johnny Mo
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
The situation with Spanish Autopistas and Autovias is a little unusual, in that they started out as quite different standards of road, but are now largely the same. Autovias seem to use prohibition signs as far as I can see, and like you say they can be a little inconsistent in what they allow.c2R wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 23:00I'm sure though that Spanish autovias are included in their length, despite some of these in more remote areas permitting cyclists.
They seem to build them as an alternative to Autopista but they're not really that different, being basically motorways, including hard-shoulders.
It's a different situation to French Autoroutes and Voie Express's, or Italian Autostrada and Superstrada though, where the latter are noticeably lower quality.
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Thanks, I took a look at the Michelin maps. They're pretty good, useful but not perfect.
I think what they're trying to show is just "is the road grade-separated". They don't take into account features like private-property side accesses, which would really rule out expressway status.
Also it seems a little confused about what really is grade-separated. For instance, it's grade-separated section of the A3 includes the Ham Barn roundabout, though the expressway colouration is not used on the roundabout itself.
- Vierwielen
- Member
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
The OECD has a definition for motorways (fr:autoroute) which should be used in all OECD publications, The definition is:
Road, specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, and which:
(a) is provided, except at special points or temporarily, with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each other, either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic, or exceptionally by other means;
(b) does not cross at level with any road, railway or tramway track, or footpath;
(c) is specially sign-posted as a motorway and is reserved for specific categories of road motor vehicles.
Entry and exit lanes of motorways are included irrespectively of the location of the sign-posts. Urban motorways are also included.
I don't think that anybody can complain about this definition. The crunch point is that many of our trunk roads permit bicycles, though I do not see many cyclists on roads such as the A3. As usual, our legislators are so tied by tradition, that they cannot see the wood for the trees.
Road, specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, and which:
(a) is provided, except at special points or temporarily, with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each other, either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic, or exceptionally by other means;
(b) does not cross at level with any road, railway or tramway track, or footpath;
(c) is specially sign-posted as a motorway and is reserved for specific categories of road motor vehicles.
Entry and exit lanes of motorways are included irrespectively of the location of the sign-posts. Urban motorways are also included.
I don't think that anybody can complain about this definition. The crunch point is that many of our trunk roads permit bicycles, though I do not see many cyclists on roads such as the A3. As usual, our legislators are so tied by tradition, that they cannot see the wood for the trees.
- RichardA35
- Committee Member
- Posts: 5705
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
- Location: Dorset
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Or, alternatively they are remarkably prescient and can see that powered vehicles are a passing fad* and the right to travel along a highway under a person's own power is a fundamental right to be preservedVierwielen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:05...The crunch point is that many of our trunk roads permit bicycles, though I do not see many cyclists on roads such as the A3. As usual, our legislators are so tied by tradition, that they cannot see the wood for the trees.
(* opinions on timescales may differ)
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15744
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Vehicles that are powered in some way, whether by fossil fuels or by some other means, are, I think, here to stay, and will continue to run at speeds that make mixing them with bicycles unwise. Unless you believe teleportation is on the horizon?RichardA35 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:16Or, alternatively they are remarkably prescient and can see that powered vehicles are a passing fad* and the right to travel along a highway under a person's own power is a fundamental right to be preservedVierwielen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:05...The crunch point is that many of our trunk roads permit bicycles, though I do not see many cyclists on roads such as the A3. As usual, our legislators are so tied by tradition, that they cannot see the wood for the trees.
(* opinions on timescales may differ)
“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!
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!
- RichardA35
- Committee Member
- Posts: 5705
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
- Location: Dorset
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
That rather begs the question of whether pedestrians and equestrians should also be allowed to travel under this proposed new world order or at what speed or traffic flow should we all be banned wholesale from the highway?Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 19:07Vehicles that are powered in some way, whether by fossil fuels or by some other means, are, I think, here to stay, and will continue to run at speeds that make mixing them with bicycles unwise. Unless you believe teleportation is on the horizon?RichardA35 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:16Or, alternatively they are remarkably prescient and can see that powered vehicles are a passing fad* and the right to travel along a highway under a person's own power is a fundamental right to be preservedVierwielen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:05...The crunch point is that many of our trunk roads permit bicycles, though I do not see many cyclists on roads such as the A3. As usual, our legislators are so tied by tradition, that they cannot see the wood for the trees.
(* opinions on timescales may differ)
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15744
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Given that the thread is about expressways, let's consider the matter in that context. Urban streets are, of course, a completely different world.RichardA35 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 20:27That rather begs the question of whether pedestrians and equestrians should also be allowed to travel under this proposed new world order or at what speed or traffic flow should we all be banned wholesale from the highway?Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 19:07Vehicles that are powered in some way, whether by fossil fuels or by some other means, are, I think, here to stay, and will continue to run at speeds that make mixing them with bicycles unwise. Unless you believe teleportation is on the horizon?RichardA35 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:16 Or, alternatively they are remarkably prescient and can see that powered vehicles are a passing fad* and the right to travel along a highway under a person's own power is a fundamental right to be preserved
(* opinions on timescales may differ)
“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!
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!
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
It's likely that what counts as an expressway varies considerably between countries and some like the UK have no widely accepted statistics of expressways because no-one authoritative has categorised the roads.
For example Brazil has a lot of roads of dual carriageway construction with full grade separation of the more significant junctions, but many minor roads and accesses treated as RIRO, eg this one. This would probably be counted as an expressway.
For example Brazil has a lot of roads of dual carriageway construction with full grade separation of the more significant junctions, but many minor roads and accesses treated as RIRO, eg this one. This would probably be counted as an expressway.
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Returning to the original question, if I were to edit this I'd be minded, if I couldn't find anything else, to give the motorway length. It's citable, and we know all the roads included are in the spirit of the page's intention. Yes, it excludes some but the distance I'd have thought is much closer to the actual reality than the trunk road approach, and it doesn't stop someone finding a better source somewhere that also includes other stretches of expressway quality A road.
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Despite that definition, I'm not sure that in reality a lack of prohibitions per se is cause for exclusion, looking at what's included in the list. Signposting using some form of sign that identifies the road as a motorway and applies a set of traffic restrictions is de rigueur in Europe but not necessarily outside.Vierwielen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:05 The OECD has a definition for motorways (fr:autoroute) which should be used in all OECD publications, The definition is:
Road, specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, and which:
(a) is provided, except at special points or temporarily, with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each other, either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic, or exceptionally by other means;
(b) does not cross at level with any road, railway or tramway track, or footpath;
(c) is specially sign-posted as a motorway and is reserved for specific categories of road motor vehicles.
Entry and exit lanes of motorways are included irrespectively of the location of the sign-posts. Urban motorways are also included.
I don't think that anybody can complain about this definition. The crunch point is that many of our trunk roads permit bicycles, though I do not see many cyclists on roads such as the A3. As usual, our legislators are so tied by tradition, that they cannot see the wood for the trees.
The US Interstate system has no default set of prohibitions, it's left up to individual states, and bicycles may use [the shoulder of] some Interstate freeways in California.
It's not just a matter of legislation unfortunately. It would be very difficult to ban cycles from the A3, as the road has many private property accesses, and you cannot easily deny the owners or visitors to those properties the right to access them from a public highway but any mode of transport of their choice, even if in reality they are unlikely to use the A3 to access such a property, by, say, horse-drawn cart.
In contrast, the A42 could probably TRO'd tomorrow if they wanted, and I would say should count as an expressway.
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Given the OEDC defn were are talking about either just motorways 1st clause or also special roads and sub-special roads (where none motorist traffic is prohibited) 2nd clause not all HQDC.Vierwielen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:05 (c) is specially sign-posted as a motorway and is reserved for specific categories of road motor vehicles.
Personally I would include HQDC as these meet the spirit of an expressway.
With evidence of a foot path crossing the central reservation to the road opposite.For example Brazil has a lot of roads of dual carriageway construction with full grade separation of the more significant junctions, but many minor roads and accesses treated as RIRO, eg this one. This would probably be counted as an expressway.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Johnny Mo
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Yeah, I guess this is the problem.booshank wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 22:37 It's likely that what counts as an expressway varies considerably between countries and some like the UK have no widely accepted statistics of expressways because no-one authoritative has categorised the roads.
For example Brazil has a lot of roads of dual carriageway construction with full grade separation of the more significant junctions, but many minor roads and accesses treated as RIRO, eg this one. This would probably be counted as an expressway.
A lot of major Latin American highways are like this I think. Despite having hard-shoulders, they are more like our AP dual carriageway network, with side roads and private property accesses meaning they could not really be Expressway.
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
I would agree that HQDC meets definition of expressway, provided that there are no adjacent footways, which I think sometimes there are. The only other feature that might cause some difficult is (non-emergency) laybys, expressways in other countries don't have them. I don't think non-motorway special roads in the UK do either?JohnnyMo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 08:40Given the OEDC defn were are talking about either just motorways 1st clause or also special roads and sub-special roads (where none motorist traffic is prohibited) 2nd clause not all HQDC.Vierwielen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:05 (c) is specially sign-posted as a motorway and is reserved for specific categories of road motor vehicles.
Personally I would include HQDC as these meet the spirit of an expressway.With evidence of a foot path crossing the central reservation to the road opposite.For example Brazil has a lot of roads of dual carriageway construction with full grade separation of the more significant junctions, but many minor roads and accesses treated as RIRO, eg this one. This would probably be counted as an expressway.
But the TRO'd A130 in Essex does, so presumably it's not a big legal issue to prohibit traffic but allow a place to stop adjacent the carriageway.
Yeah I feel that things like those highways in Brazil should not really be counted, and I suspect that they are counting towards the figures on Wikipedia. The road is too open to the public, not segregated enough, to be an expressway..
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
There is a sliding scale for laybys -- normal, painted, with curb, Picnic areaJRN wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:56 I would agree that HQDC meets definition of expressway, provided that there are no adjacent footways, which I think sometimes there are. The only other feature that might cause some difficult is (non-emergency) laybys, expressways in other countries don't have them. I don't think non-motorway special roads in the UK do either?
But the TRO'd A130 in Essex does, so presumably it's not a big legal issue to prohibit traffic but allow a place to stop adjacent the carriageway.
Yeah I feel that things like those highways in Brazil should not really be counted, and I suspect that they are counting towards the figures on Wikipedia. The road is too open to the public, not segregated enough, to be an expressway..
Pincic area in France, in effect a service area without any services just a toilet.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Johnny Mo
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
The French one is so much better TBH. Ideally we would get rid of traditional laybys and replace them with these off-carriageway rest areas with proper facilities.JohnnyMo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:59There is a sliding scale for laybys -- normal, painted, with curb, Picnic areaJRN wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 13:56 I would agree that HQDC meets definition of expressway, provided that there are no adjacent footways, which I think sometimes there are. The only other feature that might cause some difficult is (non-emergency) laybys, expressways in other countries don't have them. I don't think non-motorway special roads in the UK do either?
But the TRO'd A130 in Essex does, so presumably it's not a big legal issue to prohibit traffic but allow a place to stop adjacent the carriageway.
Yeah I feel that things like those highways in Brazil should not really be counted, and I suspect that they are counting towards the figures on Wikipedia. The road is too open to the public, not segregated enough, to be an expressway..
Pincic area in France, in effect a service area without any services just a toilet.
Note that in the French example you gave, the Expressway restrictions are explicitly cancelled as you enter it, then re-instated before traffic re-enters the road, just like in a Motorway service area.
Whereas on the example you gave on the A120, even though that section has a TRO in place banning cyclists etc., there is no explicit signing of where the TRO restrictions end and start.
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
The one I showed on the A120 is the only one (pair?) I know about signed as Rest Area
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Johnny Mo
Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length
Motorway's have no stopping except in an emergency, TRO have no such restrictions, so nothing to suspend.JRN wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 18:39
The French one is so much better TBH. Ideally we would get rid of traditional laybys and replace them with these off-carriageway rest areas with proper facilities.
Note that in the French example you gave, the Expressway restrictions are explicitly cancelled as you enter it, then re-instated before traffic re-enters the road, just like in a Motorway service area.
Whereas on the example you gave on the A120, even though that section has a TRO in place banning cyclists etc., there is no explicit signing of where the TRO restrictions end and start.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Johnny Mo