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.
Balfour Beatty Capital Ltd
Galliford Try Investments Ltd
Scotia Roads Group:
BAM PPP PGGM Infrastructure Coöperatie U.A.
Costain Engineering & Construction Limited
Iridium Concesiones de Infraestructuras, S.A.
Sir Robert McAlpine Capital Ventures Ltd
Caledonia Roads Group:
Macquarie Capital Group Limited
Vialia Sociedad Gestora de Concesiones de Infraestructuras S.L.
FCC Construcción S.A.
John Graham Holdings Limited
John Sisk & Son Ltd
No wonder Transport Scotland stuck with the Scottish sounding names!
I thought the Spanish were skint?
"A MAJOR roads upgrade which will take 18 minutes off the journey between Glasgow and Edinburgh has taken a vital step forward."
"Work is expected to begin later this year on the project, following an announcement by Transport Scotland that the number of firms bidding for the £415million contract has been whittled down to two.
The firms battling for the work have been named as Connect Roads and Scottish Roads Partnership.
This is the first roads infrastructure scheme to be procured as part of a £2.5billion Scottish Government plan."
I'm reading (a bit late I know) the Inspector's Report (or Reporter's Report as this is Scotland) on the public inquiry on M8 Baillieston-Newhouse. It includes this interesting paragraph:
4.11 The 1995 DBFO scheme was abandoned in 1998. Current scheme objectives and technical issues would prevent it now being implemented. It had up to 13 lanes of new construction towards its western end, including a series of interlinking connector roads; it would not separate local and strategic traffic to the same extent as the current scheme; its implementation would make little use of the recent investment in reconstruction of the A8; the proposed merge and diverge arrangement from the motorway and the APR included off-side merges and diverges at close intervals, that could not be promoted under current design standards and would be unsafe; and its construction would cause more disruption to users of the A8.
Sadly I've never seen a detailed plan of this earlier scheme, so I can't cast any light on these remarks.
wrinkly wrote:I'm reading (a bit late I know) the Inspector's Report (or Reporter's Report as this is Scotland) on the public inquiry on M8 Baillieston-Newhouse. It includes this interesting paragraph:
4.11 The 1995 DBFO scheme was abandoned in 1998. Current scheme objectives and technical issues would prevent it now being implemented. It had up to 13 lanes of new construction towards its western end, including a series of interlinking connector roads; it would not separate local and strategic traffic to the same extent as the current scheme; its implementation would make little use of the recent investment in reconstruction of the A8; the proposed merge and diverge arrangement from the motorway and the APR included off-side merges and diverges at close intervals, that could not be promoted under current design standards and would be unsafe; and its construction would cause more disruption to users of the A8.
Sadly I've never seen a detailed plan of this earlier scheme, so I can't cast any light on these remarks.
Sounds like it was somewhere between imaginative and unhinged.
For an upgrade to a D2 route, connecting D2M with D3M and a major interchange, 13 lanes and multiple offside merges seems a bit OTT. The current scheme seems to have the balance right and will work nicely with widening to three lanes away towards Edinburgh at some future date.
13 lanes sounds like there would have been C/D roads and multiple braiding. It may well be OTT here but not in other countries where huge complexed GSJ's like the one in my avatar are the norm
How would you like your grade separations, Sir? Big and complex.
Enceladus wrote:Has construction work actually begun on this scheme yet?
Due to start towards the end of this year IIRC. Combined in a package with the addition of a bottom level to M74 J5 and addition of extra lanes to bits of the M8, M73 and M74.
I meant the originals - Ive seen the new ones, quite disappointed by what they went with for the Raith - typical scottish do something but not quite hit the nail on the head....
How much traffic goes from A725 to M74 and what is proposed will this provide for these movements ?
You mean the 1980s-90s plans for Baillieston-Newhouse? No doubt they'd be in the National Archives of Scotland. Others have posted comments in this forum about using the archives.
It might also be possible to find details of the alternative routes that were considered in the 2000s, from which the present proposals emerged. the inquiry report doesn't describe the junction details.
Gav wrote:..quite disappointed by what they went with for the Raith - typical scottish do something but not quite hit the nail on the head....
How much traffic goes from A725 to M74 and what is proposed will this provide for these movements ?
I've not got the exact figures on the flows and movements of this junction but I have got some experience of using it at peak times. The main cause of problems at this junction is the smaller roundabout just to SW of the main interchange - I found myself getting snarled up a few times at this junction. The fact that the A725 is now a through route and J5 Raith is essentially now a stack-a-bout and that the smaller roundabout is eliminated meaning that through traffic will now pass uninterrupted taking half the load off this junction.
To expand on your point about movements from the A725 to the M74; by fixing this junction with this design they might just shift the problem on to the roundabout section. If you are going A725 E/B to M74 N/B there is a slip road before the main interchange that brings you to an at-grade crossing on the newly constructed Bellshill road, this is also (according to the plans) a pedestrian and cycle crossing - that's going to cause havok if too much traffic queues on the slip and the lights stay too long on red. Once on Bellshill road, there then will be a dedicated slip for traffic wanting to take the M74 N/B - avoiding the lights on the actual interchange.
What's all the white stuff in this image? It looks as though the A725 will be spanned by a series of very closely-spaced gantries within the roundabout.
It may be related to the fact that the A725 will be very low-lying here (it will require pumped drainage). Could the gantries be to weigh the road down and stop it floating on the water table? I'm aware of other locations where unusual measures are needed for that purpose.
wrinkly wrote:It may be related to the fact that the A725 will be very low-lying here (it will require pumped drainage). Could the gantries be to weigh the road down and stop it floating on the water table? I'm aware of other locations where unusual measures are needed for that purpose.
You always have to do some scrutiny of drainage solutions which can come in "over the top", particularly where the river/water authority get involved. An example is the railway tunnel through the Cotswolds at Chipping Sodbury, on the Bristol to Swindon line, which had suffered occasional waterlogging ever since it was built. An initiative about 20 years ago to deal with this once and for all had the water authority state that the railway would need to provide their own drainage all the way to the Severn Estuary, which is about 15 miles away. "None of your water in our rivers, mate". After much high-level pressure a far more reasonable approach obtained. Yes you need to have adequate drainage, but not by an excessive scheme.