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.
Blame the Treasury and its obsessiveness around CBA, which is almost always short sighted. It will almost always show a 3-level stack-about as the best C-B ratio for a new strategic route interchange.
Although it is to be noted, that we have seemingly learned to build them wider from the start now, as shown by Black Cat.
Can't blame the treasury on that one. An option with freeflow for all major movements got only 27% support in public consultation because it was too "complex". 60% supported the stackabout. The myth of the big roundabout that solves everything is deeply embedded in the British psyche.
But how much weight is given to public preference? This is a relatively technical subject where the public is not really to be expected to be able to have an informed opinion.
Usually options presented for consultation are buildable and meet CBA requirements, so they're quite happy for the public to make the decision for them, even if it's on less than informed grounds. That's what seemed to happen with Black Cat.
Lofthouse is quite unusual in that NH pretty much admit that two of the three options don't really do the job, which makes me a bit worried that they're looking for an excuse to save themselves a couple of hundred million by building something that they know is a short term bodge "because public opinion"...
jackal wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 08:24
Can't blame the treasury on that one. An option with freeflow for all major movements got only 27% support in public consultation because it was too "complex". 60% supported the stackabout. The myth of the big roundabout that solves everything is deeply embedded in the British psyche.
But how much weight is given to public preference? This is a relatively technical subject where the public is not really to be expected to be able to have an informed opinion.
Usually options presented for consultation are buildable and meet CBA requirements, so they're quite happy for the public to make the decision for them, even if it's on less than informed grounds. That's what seemed to happen with Black Cat.
Lofthouse is quite unusual in that NH pretty much admit that two of the three options don't really do the job, which makes me a bit worried that they're looking for an excuse to save themselves a couple of hundred million by building something that they know is a short term bodge "because public opinion"...
That seems a pretty poor way of doing it as the average person is not going to have a clue about the capacities of say a stackabout v four level stack, they're just going to see the former as something a bit like what they're familiar with at the entrance to Tesco and the latter as incomprehensible spaghetti.
booshank wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 18:35That seems a pretty poor way of doing it as the average person is not going to have a clue about the capacities of say a stackabout v four level stack, they're just going to see the former as something a bit like what they're familiar with at the entrance to Tesco and the latter as incomprehensible spaghetti.
The fact that something is a terrible idea is no barrier to doing it anyway, in the world of British highway design
This one will also require a bit of a redesign in light of the ALR crackdown, though minor compared Simister - I guess they will drop the proposed fifth lane northbound approaching the junction, and possibly the DHS east of the junction will stay (which is silly as it's ALR in the other direction).
Is it too much to hope that the money saved on smart motorways might make the better/more expensive options here and at Copdock more palatable?
jackal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 08:40This one will also require a bit of a redesign in light of the ALR crackdown, though minor compared Simister - I guess they will drop the proposed fifth lane northbound approaching the junction, and possibly the DHS east of the junction will stay (which is silly as it's ALR in the other direction).
There are already five lanes northbound between J41 and 42 - this is probably the first (and maybe now only) example of five lane ALR. Southbound is four lanes, though, and IIRC the plan was to provide five lanes there, so that will indeed need a rethink.
jackal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 08:40This one will also require a bit of a redesign in light of the ALR crackdown, though minor compared Simister - I guess they will drop the proposed fifth lane northbound approaching the junction, and possibly the DHS east of the junction will stay (which is silly as it's ALR in the other direction).
There are already five lanes northbound between J41 and 42 - this is probably the first (and maybe now only) example of five lane ALR. Southbound is four lanes, though, and IIRC the plan was to provide five lanes there, so that will indeed need a rethink.
My memory playing tricks.
They only proposed four lanes southbound, which I've already had a whinge about as they were widening the difficult bit (ECML and road bridges) to accommodate the merge:
Makes a whole lot more sense in the context of not being able to build 'new' ALR (which widening would presumably count as).
Looking again at the detailed plan it seems they were not going to change the DHS heading east of the junction as part of this scheme, so actually they don't need any revisions to accommodate the anti-ALR zeitgeist. Phew!
jackal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 09:44They only proposed four lanes southbound, which I've already had a whinge about as they were widening the difficult bit (ECML and road bridges) to accommodate the merge:
M1 J41-J42 - Copy.PNG
That's a shame, but at least then the bridge widening will be done, and a fifth lane will be easier to tack on later... with or without discontinuous hard shoulder.
5 lanes would make a lot more sense. Without it this is the only one of the 8 merges/diverges that isn't a double lane gain/drop. But for now I'm perfectly happy for them to leave as is, so the nice stack doesn't get tangled up in the smart motorway panic.
jackal wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 18:03
The consultation summary report has been published, with 84% favouring option C (the full stack), and only 5% and 10% support for options A and B.
If they sort this and M60 J18 out that would be two of the worst M62 sites solved.
This leaves the disasteroid that is Gildersome but it's hard to really see what can be done here given it's always going to be too many lanes merging into one carriageway. In a sensible world M62 J25-30 would have been C/D lanes and the strategic port to port traffic wouldn't be mixing with local junction hoppers.
We could learn from the Dutch here.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
D5M could be put in relatively easily, and that should be sufficient given the long junction spacing. Volumes, while high, are not SW M25 or NW M60 high. The Dutch are not averse to D5M, or even D6M as on the A4 north of the A44. They do not use C/D lanes willy nilly - usually it's in areas with high junction frequency.
Sadly even the ALR conversion, which might have helped a bit, is on the backburner, and the once-mooted Chain Bar freeflow is less likely still.
Truvelo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 18:37
Will they honour the result of the consultation and go ahead with the stack or proceed with one of the other options citing cost as the reason?
The 84% support seems, if anything, to confirm that public thinking is in line with NH's here. The consultation materials made it quite plain they thought it was the best option.