Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

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

Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 16:59 Needs an accepted definition though... which is quite a problem, as I wouldn't call a 70 limit D2 with at-grade pedestrian crossings an expressway - so that rules out roads like the A56 at Haslingden.
Ummm.... that also rules out the A3 (m25-Guildford) and A303 too...
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JohnnyMo »

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
Sabre Express.jpg
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
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JRN »

c2R wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 23:00
JRN wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 21:41
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 16:59

Needs an accepted definition though... which is quite a problem, as I wouldn't call a 70 limit D2 with at-grade pedestrian crossings an expressway - so that rules out roads like the A56 at Haslingden.
Yes this is tough Especially in the UK. With no law generally prohibiting pedestrians, cyclists etc. from fast roads, I guess any kind of pedestrian access, whether it's a crossing or an adjacent footway means it would be pretty difficult to prohibit them.
I'm sure though that Spanish autovias are included in their length, despite some of these in more remote areas permitting cyclists.
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.
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.
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JRN »

JohnnyMo wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:19 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
Sabre Express.jpg

Likewise A3 & A303 are shown as a mixture
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.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by Vierwielen »

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.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by RichardA35 »

Vierwielen 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.
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)
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by Chris Bertram »

RichardA35 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:16
Vierwielen 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.
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)
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?
“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
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by RichardA35 »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 19:07
RichardA35 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 16:16
Vierwielen 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.
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)
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?
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?
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by Chris Bertram »

RichardA35 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 20:27
Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 19:07
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)
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?
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?
Given that the thread is about expressways, let's consider the matter in that context. Urban streets are, of course, a completely different world.
“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!
booshank
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:05

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by booshank »

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.
Rob590
Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:21

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by Rob590 »

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.
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JRN »

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.
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.
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.
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JohnnyMo »

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.
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.
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.

Personally I would include HQDC as these meet the spirit of 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.
With evidence of a foot path crossing the central reservation to the road opposite.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JRN »

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.
Yeah, I guess this is the problem.
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.
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JRN »

JohnnyMo wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 08:40
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.
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.
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.

Personally I would include HQDC as these meet the spirit of 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.
With evidence of a foot path crossing the central reservation to the road opposite.
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..
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JohnnyMo »

JRN 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..
There is a sliding scale for laybys -- normal, painted, with curb, Picnic area
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
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JRN »

JohnnyMo wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:59
JRN 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..
There is a sliding scale for laybys -- normal, painted, with curb, Picnic area
Pincic area in France, in effect a service area without any services just a toilet.
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.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by Herned »

JohnnyMo wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:59 Picnic area
How many others of those are there on British dual carriageways - I can't think of any off the top of my head
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JohnnyMo »

Herned wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 18:48
JohnnyMo wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 14:59 Picnic area
How many others of those are there on British dual carriageways - I can't think of any off the top of my head
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
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Wikipedia has incorrect figure for UK Expressway length

Post by JohnnyMo »

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.
Motorway's have no stopping except in an emergency, TRO have no such restrictions, so nothing to suspend.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Post Reply