End of the M48?
Moderator: Site Management Team
- Jonathan B4027
- Member
- Posts: 2238
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2002 21:45
- Location: Oxford or Birmingham
End of the M48?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... d-21888816
Not sure how they could do it without having an un-numbered stub to Aust and the same at the Magor end. A403 or A466 across the bridge?
Not sure how they could do it without having an un-numbered stub to Aust and the same at the Magor end. A403 or A466 across the bridge?
Casino Manager: "It was a good night. Nothing Unusual."
Harold Shand: "Nothing unusual," he says! Eric's been blown to smithereens, Colin's been carved up, and I've got a bomb in me casino, and you say nothing unusual ?"
Harold Shand: "Nothing unusual," he says! Eric's been blown to smithereens, Colin's been carved up, and I've got a bomb in me casino, and you say nothing unusual ?"
Re: End of the M48?
"Not enough traffic uses the M48 to justify a GSJ, so let's build several sets of traffic lights/roundabouts and cause it to become congested because now all the local roads can access it."Jonathan B4027 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 09:10 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... d-21888816
Not sure how they could do it without having an un-numbered stub to Aust and the same at the Magor end. A403 or A466 across the bridge?
This is what traffic engineering has become now has it? Put a new GSJ in if that's what is really wanted and retain the damn motorway. It could have been funded by the tolls they were all so quick to abolish.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
-
- Member
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
- Location: Gone
Re: End of the M48?
There is probably some merit in a new junction (with A48) near Crick... but no logic in downgrading
This may be especially useful given the suggested development of Caerwent Training Area (to re-home the units at Beachley Barracks)
This may be especially useful given the suggested development of Caerwent Training Area (to re-home the units at Beachley Barracks)
Re: End of the M48?
Bring on the logistics sheds and car-dependent housing!
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Re: End of the M48?
Sounds like they are planning a GSJ or GSJs, but want to save money by removing motorway regs and thereby building to a lower standard:
I still think the change of regs is stupid pennypinching but it's not as bad as at-grade junctions - though I wouldn't be surprised if this Welsh govt twists it into that.
In any case, the basic idea of a new GSJ or GSJs is a good one as the road is under utilised and Caldicott is badly served.
I was also struck by this outbreak of commonsense from the UK Department for Transport:
You can't for instance build a compact GSJ on a motorway. Even for a full GSJ there are some differences.However, a new junction built to full motorway standards would be a sledge hammer to crack a nut – costing more and taking up more land than the M48’s traffic would justify.
Changing the M48 to a trunk A road would not diminish the road’s capacity – which is valuable when the Prince of Wales Bridge is disrupted – but would simplify the new junction’s planning and construction.
I still think the change of regs is stupid pennypinching but it's not as bad as at-grade junctions - though I wouldn't be surprised if this Welsh govt twists it into that.
In any case, the basic idea of a new GSJ or GSJs is a good one as the road is under utilised and Caldicott is badly served.
I was also struck by this outbreak of commonsense from the UK Department for Transport:
any mid-way change in the road’s classification would need to be at a junction, to enable non-motorway traffic to leave the road.
Re: End of the M48?
It all sounds eminently logical and reasonable to me. I don't see any case for preserving the motorway status.
- Steven
- SABRE Maps Coordinator
- Posts: 19172
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
- Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
- Contact:
Re: End of the M48?
It's not about the "status" as what are the benefits of removing being a Special Road? What benefits are given by allowing additional classes of traffic to use a road that's not designed for them? What benefits would be to allowing the gas board to dig it up and put a gas main down the middle of it?
It's not just the blue line on a map that should be considered - there's a lot more to it than that.
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: End of the M48?
Precisely this, once developers get their hands on it, what was once the M48 will invite BS like this on the A446: https://goo.gl/maps/WYZi7M4wFAE74wMN8Steven wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:34It's not about the "status" as what are the benefits of removing being a Special Road? What benefits are given by allowing additional classes of traffic to use a road that's not designed for them? What benefits would be to allowing the gas board to dig it up and put a gas main down the middle of it?
It's not just the blue line on a map that should be considered - there's a lot more to it than that.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
- Steven
- SABRE Maps Coordinator
- Posts: 19172
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
- Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
- Contact:
Re: End of the M48?
Indeed - if it's no longer a Special Road, then it's not protected from frontage development, or a developer wanting to stick a mini-roundabout in to access a bunch of new tin sheds.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:36Precisely this, once developers get their hands on it, what was once the M48 will invite BS like this on the A446: https://goo.gl/maps/WYZi7M4wFAE74wMN8Steven wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:34It's not about the "status" as what are the benefits of removing being a Special Road? What benefits are given by allowing additional classes of traffic to use a road that's not designed for them? What benefits would be to allowing the gas board to dig it up and put a gas main down the middle of it?
It's not just the blue line on a map that should be considered - there's a lot more to it than that.
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: End of the M48?
It’s not a rule they’ve been enforcing in England since the 1990s, so yes, good to see it said. It appears to be in response to this inexplicable statement from the Welsh Government:
But… of course it could!The Welsh Government believes the M48 could not become an A road west of Chepstow while remaining a motorway further east.
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
Re: End of the M48?
The locals need better provision in terms of junctions, and by removing it as a Special Road that will make it easier to do so.Steven wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:34It's not about the "status" as what are the benefits of removing being a Special Road? What benefits are given by allowing additional classes of traffic to use a road that's not designed for them? What benefits would be to allowing the gas board to dig it up and put a gas main down the middle of it?
It's not just the blue line on a map that should be considered - there's a lot more to it than that.
What does it matter if additional classes of traffic end up being allowed on it? As it stands the motorway is absolutely of no benefit to anyone who lives in that area. This road needs to cater for local needs, not for long-distance through traffic that has long since been using the M4, as it should.
Why does that matter when the road serves no other purpose other than for the locals (who would be the ones using those developments)?
- Steven
- SABRE Maps Coordinator
- Posts: 19172
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
- Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
- Contact:
Re: End of the M48?
Well, for a start you're suddenly introducing NMU traffic onto a road that's not designed for them, compromising safety. It's almost always better to build in properly appropriate provision instead - emphasis on "properly", rather than the half-hearted way that tends to be done.
That's not true - it allows for five lanes of long-distance traffic across the Severn, and allows for journey reliability. Just because the UK is generally terrible at offering alternative parallel provisions (unlike most of the rest of Europe), doesn't mean where it does exist that it should be removed.As it stands the motorway is absolutely of no benefit to anyone who lives in that area. This road needs to cater for local needs, not for long-distance through traffic that has long since been using the M4, as it should.
The same argument extended somewhat could be used against any restricted access road - for example, the M26 is of no benefit to anyone who lives in the area, and long distance traffic should be using M20/M25 instead. And besides, it is of use for local traffic - that's why there's a junction serving Chepstow! Other than that, there's no town of significant size along that stretch.
This is demonstrably untrue, as it clearly does serve a long-distance purpose.Why does that matter when the road serves no other purpose other than for the locals (who would be the ones using those developments)?
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: End of the M48?
None of those answers sufficiently address the point that this road ought to cater for local needs now, not long distance traffic which has abandoned it. If it does serve a long-distance purpose, why does barely any long-distance traffic use it nowadays? It's basically just a back-up road for the M4 - which in an ideal world is lovely, it would be wonderful to have back-up roads for all major routes, but it's a waste when the road could be doing much more for the local situation, which as the article points out is a nightmare. It has the potential to unclog local roads, which for me is a far better use of it than just simply keeping it as it is as a useful backup for when the M4 gets stuck.Steven wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:57Well, for a start you're suddenly introducing NMU traffic onto a road that's not designed for them, compromising safety. It's almost always better to build in properly appropriate provision instead - emphasis on "properly", rather than the half-hearted way that tends to be done.
That's not true - it allows for five lanes of long-distance traffic across the Severn, and allows for journey reliability. Just because the UK is generally terrible at offering alternative parallel provisions (unlike most of the rest of Europe), doesn't mean where it does exist that it should be removed.As it stands the motorway is absolutely of no benefit to anyone who lives in that area. This road needs to cater for local needs, not for long-distance through traffic that has long since been using the M4, as it should.
The same argument extended somewhat could be used against any restricted access road - for example, the M26 is of no benefit to anyone who lives in the area, and long distance traffic should be using M20/M25 instead. And besides, it is of use for local traffic - that's why there's a junction serving Chepstow! Other than that, there's no town of significant size along that stretch.
This is demonstrably untrue, as it clearly does serve a long-distance purpose.
Why does that matter when the road serves no other purpose other than for the locals (who would be the ones using those developments)?
Plus, we don't actually know what the plans would end up being, the most likely scenario is that it would not have any at-grade junctions added, hence it wouldn't really compromise it much anyway. Assumptions are being made, quite probably wrongly, on how this would all turn out.
EDIT: The one junction you mention of for Chepstow is not enough, as the article discusses.
Last edited by danfw194 on Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:41, edited 1 time in total.
Re: End of the M48?
Except the motorway does indeed benefit people living in the area. It's not as if people living there won't have any vehicles that can't use the motorway. Besides, the local roads that do exist are sufficient. If we're going to argue that declassifying the motorway will benefit local traffic as it's not meant for long distance travel, why not declassify all motorways that only serve local towns, like the M65 or M53?danfw194 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:48 The locals need better provision in terms of junctions, and by removing it as a Special Road that will make it easier to do so.
What does it matter if additional classes of traffic end up being allowed on it? As it stands the motorway is absolutely of no benefit to anyone who lives in that area. This road needs to cater for local needs, not for long-distance through traffic that has long since been using the M4, as it should.
It's not true that it serves no other purpose. The motorway still provides an important alternative route, especially at times when the main bridge is closed or congested. This just seems like another attempt to do what the UK does best, try to find cheap ways to "improve" roads that really don't benefit most people at all.
Re: End of the M48?
Huh. I'm really in two minds about this.
The M48 and M49 have never been that busy because they mostly form link roads between areas also covered by other motorways. The M49 has already been flagged as having extra strategic value that has no yet been tapped, but it cost an absolute fortune to build a massive junction - though I would argue in that case it was justified as the idea was that it would handle a lot of articulated traffic.
There is definitely value in relieving congestion in Chepstow and Monmouthshire by adding extra accesses on the long, otherwise uninterrupted M48. If they were to be compact GSJs this could be done without damaging the road's chances of acting as a night-time or emergency diversion route for the M4. Also if they were to be GSJs, the use of the land off the motorway for tin sheds or houses wouldn't actually damage the strategic value of the road that much given the colossal amount of capacity overhead. I can see why the Welsh Government is not a big fan of the M48 sucking down trunk road maintenance money just for it to be used for almost nothing, but then, that will stay the case unless it's detrunked which is a whole other level of controversy.
On the other hand, I'm concerned that every single proposal the Welsh Government has made regarding southeast Wales has involved in some way compromising the M48's ability to act as a diversion route, in favour of slowly degrading its status as an arterial, strategic road. My largest objection to the M4 Relief Road plans as they stood was the ludicrous M5 J11A style roundabout just plopped in the middle of the new M4/M48 complex outside Undy, which would have diverted all traffic on a PWB night-time closure through a small roundabout instead of a large interchange. There is definitely something very fishy about it, and knowing what I know about the state of the WG, I would not trust them.
So on the surface, this seems like not a terrible plan. But it could well be a slippery slope.
The M48 and M49 have never been that busy because they mostly form link roads between areas also covered by other motorways. The M49 has already been flagged as having extra strategic value that has no yet been tapped, but it cost an absolute fortune to build a massive junction - though I would argue in that case it was justified as the idea was that it would handle a lot of articulated traffic.
There is definitely value in relieving congestion in Chepstow and Monmouthshire by adding extra accesses on the long, otherwise uninterrupted M48. If they were to be compact GSJs this could be done without damaging the road's chances of acting as a night-time or emergency diversion route for the M4. Also if they were to be GSJs, the use of the land off the motorway for tin sheds or houses wouldn't actually damage the strategic value of the road that much given the colossal amount of capacity overhead. I can see why the Welsh Government is not a big fan of the M48 sucking down trunk road maintenance money just for it to be used for almost nothing, but then, that will stay the case unless it's detrunked which is a whole other level of controversy.
On the other hand, I'm concerned that every single proposal the Welsh Government has made regarding southeast Wales has involved in some way compromising the M48's ability to act as a diversion route, in favour of slowly degrading its status as an arterial, strategic road. My largest objection to the M4 Relief Road plans as they stood was the ludicrous M5 J11A style roundabout just plopped in the middle of the new M4/M48 complex outside Undy, which would have diverted all traffic on a PWB night-time closure through a small roundabout instead of a large interchange. There is definitely something very fishy about it, and knowing what I know about the state of the WG, I would not trust them.
So on the surface, this seems like not a terrible plan. But it could well be a slippery slope.
Re: End of the M48?
The local roads are not sufficient though, that's the whole reasoning behind this idea. Congestion is bad in Magor, Caldicot, and Chepstow. Air quality in Chepstow is bad. This would be relieved by adding at least one more junction onto the M48/new A-Road. The article provides an important local perspective that the majority of us on here don't have.SBRoxMan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:20 Except the motorway does indeed benefit people living in the area. It's not as if people living there won't have any vehicles that can't use the motorway. Besides, the local roads that do exist are sufficient. If we're going to argue that declassifying the motorway will benefit local traffic as it's not meant for long distance travel, why not declassify all motorways that only serve local towns, like the M65 or M53?
The M65 and M53 have sufficient junctions to serve the locals, the M48 doesn't, that's the difference.
Re: End of the M48?
One other point that I had not realised before. If the problem is junction standards requirements, is it really simpler to declassify the entire M48 across two jurisdictions than it is to be granted a departure from standards, considering the body making the proposal is also in control of the one that decides the standards? Is this all bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy?
Re: End of the M48?
What you're arguing here is inducing demand and making a quiet road a congested and dangerous conflict riddled one? The existing local roads are bad so let's turn the strategic road into another local road?danfw194 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:39The local roads are not sufficient though, that's the whole reasoning behind this idea. Congestion is bad in Magor, Caldicot, and Chepstow. Air quality in Chepstow is bad. This would be relieved by adding at least one more junction onto the M48/new A-Road. The article provides an important local perspective that the majority of us on here don't have.SBRoxMan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:20 Except the motorway does indeed benefit people living in the area. It's not as if people living there won't have any vehicles that can't use the motorway. Besides, the local roads that do exist are sufficient. If we're going to argue that declassifying the motorway will benefit local traffic as it's not meant for long distance travel, why not declassify all motorways that only serve local towns, like the M65 or M53?
The M65 and M53 have sufficient junctions to serve the locals, the M48 doesn't, that's the difference.
If access onto the M48 towards further points away is an issue, build a new junction at Crick, which is where traffic would logically want to join such the M48 and as a proper motorway junction. If people driving into Newport and causing congestion and safety issues on the A48 is the problem, then make driving harder and all the alternatives better because we don't need more cars in cities and we definitely don't need a development riddled ribbon route leading out of them, we said this was a bad idea in 1935 and seem to have run back to it to line developer pockets instead of creating a liveable country.
The question remains; do we have any actual transport experts in decision making roles now are is every office populated by people with the IQ of dried leaves?
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Re: End of the M48?
If the motorway is declassified, however, there's still the issue at both ends where new roads would have to be provided to allow non-motorway traffic to avoid joining the M4. At present I don't see how that issue could be fixed as I don't see any other roads at either end that the M48/possible new A road could connect todanfw194 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:39The local roads are not sufficient though, that's the whole reasoning behind this idea. Congestion is bad in Magor, Caldicot, and Chepstow. Air quality in Chepstow is bad. This would be relieved by adding at least one more junction onto the M48/new A-Road. The article provides an important local perspective that the majority of us on here don't have.SBRoxMan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:20 Except the motorway does indeed benefit people living in the area. It's not as if people living there won't have any vehicles that can't use the motorway. Besides, the local roads that do exist are sufficient. If we're going to argue that declassifying the motorway will benefit local traffic as it's not meant for long distance travel, why not declassify all motorways that only serve local towns, like the M65 or M53?
The M65 and M53 have sufficient junctions to serve the locals, the M48 doesn't, that's the difference.
Re: End of the M48?
The problem I think is a failure to have useful common-sense standards, and the failure of government departments to understand and apply the legislation correctly.
The A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge should be a motorway. Carpenter's Lodge shouldn't be a compact GSJ given the traffic volumes and mix on the A1. Special Roads legislation should be used more often for new build roads, even single carriageways or other bypasses on all-purpose routes (e.g. Newmarket Bypass).
I don't see any particular issue with additional GSJs being added onto the M48 here to improve life for local residents to allow the M48 to act as a bypass - but it's inevitable that these will just bring additional development.
Given the low traffic volumes on the M48, it should be easier to depart from usual standards - e.g. a single overbridge dumbbell design with sliproads that use the existing motorway hard shoulders to elongate the acceleration lanes would be relatively cheap and easy to implement - pretty much what should have been done with the M181 also.
The A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge should be a motorway. Carpenter's Lodge shouldn't be a compact GSJ given the traffic volumes and mix on the A1. Special Roads legislation should be used more often for new build roads, even single carriageways or other bypasses on all-purpose routes (e.g. Newmarket Bypass).
I don't see any particular issue with additional GSJs being added onto the M48 here to improve life for local residents to allow the M48 to act as a bypass - but it's inevitable that these will just bring additional development.
Given the low traffic volumes on the M48, it should be easier to depart from usual standards - e.g. a single overbridge dumbbell design with sliproads that use the existing motorway hard shoulders to elongate the acceleration lanes would be relatively cheap and easy to implement - pretty much what should have been done with the M181 also.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps