A13, millions spent, limits now lower

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
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

ndp wrote:
Truvelo wrote:The Lodge Avenue will have to be 40 but I can't see why it couldn't be 50 either side. Anyone scraping the underside of their car on the flyover will remember not to go so fast over it next time. The section to the west can't be compromised because of this.
The trouble is that if the limit were to go up to 50 on the western side, it is likely that a significant number of vehicles would pay little attention to the brief 40 limit over the flyover. Enforcement simply wouldn't be practical due to the nature of the flyover. So what could you do about about people who take the flyover too fast? What about the ones who crash first time they take it too fast? What about those who get away with it the first time and get cocky because of it?
I think a specific 40 over the flyover would be more likely to gain drivers' attention than the current generalised 40. And it could even be an advisory 40. The objective is to get drivers to think "I need to be careful through here".
ndp wrote:Additionally, the divided footway/cycleway shown at http://sunilprasannan612.fotopic.net/p18999234.html is rather narrow. I think it would be questionable to permit traffic to travel at 50mph given that.
A poor cycle facility - but cyclists travel on the road on plenty of similar roads with 50 and 60 limits. If there are no, or virtually no, property accesses than I see no reason why a road with footways can't be a 50.
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Sunil_of_Yoxley
Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
Location: Ilford, East London
Contact:

Post by Sunil_of_Yoxley »

Truvelo wrote:I don't mean to cause offence but I'm only stating the facts.

One of the points mentioned on TFL's letter is the lower the speed limits get as you get further into London. If this is so then I propose the following:
70 where it present starts at Dagenham
50 between Ripple Road and Canning Town
40 between Canning Town and the westen portal of Limehouse Tunnel
30 west of Limehouse Tunnel..
Well, I agree, the main portion of the Dagenham to Canning Town section should be 50 (except the Lodge Avenue Flyover of course!), and 40 west of there (Aspen Way is already 40). As for people using the adjacent footway, well, where did you think I took the bulk of the photos from? :wink:

Just to quote the actual speed limits:

NSL: all the way from Sadlers Hall Farm in Essex past Basildon, Thurrock, the M25 and the GLA boundary to just before Goresbrook (A1306 western end, Dagenham; there's a bend to the northwest here). [in fact the first NSL sign eastbound is visible in my entry for PotM this month]
Approximately 20-21 miles, or 70% of the A1203/A1261/A13 dual carriageway corridor (about 30 miles)

50: From just east of Goresbrook to just east of Renwick Road westbound-only lights (NOT east of Lodge Avenue junction as I previously reported)
Approximately 1.5 miles (5%)

40: From just east of Renwick Road past the S4 flyover onto the newly upgraded section past the A406 through to just east of Canning Town Flyover (lane drops for S4 flyover and the A406)
Approximately 4.5 miles (15%)

30: ISTM that Canning Town Flyover (with its quadruple carriageway, none of which have safety barriers) might be 30 westbound on approach to the Totso (lane drop) with the A1261 East India Dock Link (itself 30), but 40 eastbound. I haven't seen signs eastbound here, only to the east of the flyover back up to 40). Could be 30 eastbound therefore! If you want to stick to the A13, I think it's 40 up to the Blackwall tunnel then 30 west of there.
Approximately 1.1 miles via A1261 tunnel (4%)

40: Aspen Way on the surface, D4 then D2 over the A1206 flyover, past the Canary Wharf lights (perhaps even more pointless than Renwick Road! I swear in 1994 when I first visited the area, Aspen Way was fully freely flowing.)
Approximately 0.9 miles (3%)

30: Finally, after one final lane-drop to D2, the Limehouse Link constitutes the final mile and a bit underground, the western end of the dual carriageway section. Was the scene of some frightful accidents in its early years, with its bends and also a subterranean junction with the western half of the A1206. Ends at the lights with Butcher Row and the Highway (the latter being S4 and a good alternative to the A13 Commercial Road connecting to Butcher Row at its northern end).
Approximately 1.2 miles (4%)
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
User avatar
ndp
Member
Posts: 1145
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 13:35

Post by ndp »

PeterA5145 wrote:
ndp wrote:Additionally, the divided footway/cycleway shown at http://sunilprasannan612.fotopic.net/p18999234.html is rather narrow. I think it would be questionable to permit traffic to travel at 50mph given that.
A poor cycle facility - but cyclists travel on the road on plenty of similar roads with 50 and 60 limits. If there are no, or virtually no, property accesses than I see no reason why a road with footways can't be a 50.
Its not so much the footways, but the standard footways. With the cycletrack, that footway is rather narrow for a 50 limit.

However, I think if you removed the cycleway, it would be wide enough, though cycling on the carriageway wouldn't be a barrel of laughs (and there could be a liability issue if a cyclist on the carriageway was knocked down). Ideally, you'd have a dedicated motorway for motor vehicles and a service road (possibly over a tunneled motorway) - but regardless of all that, the cycle way is there, and narrow, and close the the carriageway, and the footway is similar. Given what is there, I'd suggest the 40 limit is appropriate.
User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

ndp wrote:However, I think if you removed the cycleway, it would be wide enough, though cycling on the carriageway wouldn't be a barrel of laughs (and there could be a liability issue if a cyclist on the carriageway was knocked down). Ideally, you'd have a dedicated motorway for motor vehicles and a service road (possibly over a tunneled motorway) - but regardless of all that, the cycle way is there, and narrow, and close the the carriageway, and the footway is similar. Given what is there, I'd suggest the 40 limit is appropriate.
Cycling is permitted on all-purpose grade-separated roads with limits up to 70 mph. To say that the presence of particular cycle facilities alone should justify a reduction from a no-brainer 50 to a 40 is a ludicrous example of the tail wagging the dog.
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Post by Bryn666 »

I guess the A14 will be made 40mph then because cycles cross sliproads at 90 degree angles? :shock:
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
User avatar
ndp
Member
Posts: 1145
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 13:35

Post by ndp »

PeterA5145 wrote:
ndp wrote:However, I think if you removed the cycleway, it would be wide enough, though cycling on the carriageway wouldn't be a barrel of laughs (and there could be a liability issue if a cyclist on the carriageway was knocked down). Ideally, you'd have a dedicated motorway for motor vehicles and a service road (possibly over a tunneled motorway) - but regardless of all that, the cycle way is there, and narrow, and close the the carriageway, and the footway is similar. Given what is there, I'd suggest the 40 limit is appropriate.
Cycling is permitted on all-purpose grade-separated roads with limits up to 70 mph.
Well yes, but whats your point? Its not the presence of cyclists, but the nature of the cycle track which causes the problem, see below.
To say that the presence of particular cycle facilities alone should justify a reduction from a no-brainer 50 to a 40 is a ludicrous example of the tail wagging the dog.
Maybe so, but the cycle facility is there, and the speed limits have to consider what is there.
Bryn666 wrote:I guess the A14 will be made 40mph then because cycles cross sliproads at 90 degree angles?
But those don't create a situation where cyclists are given an exclusive bit of roadspace that is perceptually far from the carriageway, despite butting up to the carriageway. That's a potential hazard - where cyclists were to pass each other within that track the one nearest the carriageway would be rather close to the edge of the kerb - you certainly wouldn't want fast moving vehicles causing any significant amount of turbulance which may affect the rider.

It's crap, I'll give you that. But as I said, the cycle track is there, so it has to be considered when setting the speed limit.
SarahJ
Member
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 02:22
Location: Brighton, South Coast

Post by SarahJ »

Sunnil, you said that Renwick road lights are pointless. Just one thing, I used to live just off that junction and used it most days. It's also access to a major container terminal as well.

SJ
User avatar
Sunil_of_Yoxley
Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
Location: Ilford, East London
Contact:

Post by Sunil_of_Yoxley »

Sunil, you said that Renwick road lights are pointless. Just one thing, I used to live just off that junction and used it most days. It's also access to a major container terminal as well.
I said the Canary Wharf lights are even MORE pointless :)
(you can get to/from Canada Square via the Prestons Road roundabout to the east and Westferry Road to the west)

Also, did you see this?
And maybe this?
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
SarahJ
Member
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 02:22
Location: Brighton, South Coast

Post by SarahJ »

I think the lights at canary warf were there to gain to the parking area and a market, though I only ever saw some one come out the lights at 2.30am. :?

Since I've moved I have noted they narrowed the railway bridge at the Renwick rd. What used to happen was when they did a HGV check further down, all the HGV's would pull of here, drive down choats lane, then cross the railway line at Dagenham dock. Used to cause chaos. Once they narrowed choats lane that helped. The plans for that whole area are very grand and the new railway bridge replacing the crossing at Dagenham dock did help, though that was built for the CTRL.

SJ
Post Reply