£2bn New Roads!

[James]

I live near Nottingham and the M1 upgrade through the region and A453 dualing are far overdue.
The A453 is one of the most pathethic roads I have ever seen, here you have an 8 lane stretch of the M1, with 1 dedicated lane coming off for Nottingham, just to throw you onto a single carriageway country road into a major city in the region. The road should have been dualed 30 years ago.

[Paul]

The A453 (Clifton Boulvard?) is quite impressive as you get towards Nottingham (West Bridgford area) but you're right it needs GSJing and dualling from the M1 onwards.
Now I've heard of the Thelwall viaduct, I keep hearing it on Radio 2's traffic updates in the morning. What's the deal with this bit of road (other than a bottleneck)? Does it drop to 2 lanes or something?
Paul

[pjkh]

I've not been around recently so I've missed most of this discussion. I'll have a rant anyway though.

One thing which doesn't seem to have been mentioned much (at least not by Darling et al) is improvements to exisiting bottlenecks, usually caused by crappy junctions.
An example. The M3 should be upgraded to 4 lanes each way between 2 and 3. Loads of traffic joins and leaves at these 2 junctions. Also the M27 between 5 & 7 for exactly the same reason.
And hook jnction on the A3 is just a joke. Heading northbound there's a lane drop, and another dual carriageway joins.
Improving the A1 from London to Yorkshire is the answer to the M1 problem I reckon.

Add/improve some east/west routes in the north. A66, A50 and something between Sheffield and Manchester.

And the biggest thing which would help, personally speaking at least, is to get rid of motorway speed limits.
On a recent trip to Germany I was quite surprised how safe I felt tanking it along at 150 on an empty road. Fair enough, near the big cities during the day you couldn't do that sort of speed, and they generally have fixed or variable limits (usually 120 km/h) to stop you.
If I knew I could get home from work in half the time if I left it until after the rush hour, I would.
Having said that, I can't remember seeing the M25 empty enough to be able to go fast.
My other observation in Germany is that between major destinations there will be 2 4-lane motorways rather than 1 6-lane one as we do here. They do the same in Holland an Belgium. If there's an accident, traffic is diverted with relatively little disruption

[James]

Yeah its a real nice piece of road around there, grade sperated, mainly free-flow junction with underpasses and overpasses just to end a few hundred meters later in a single carriageway road
http://www.multimap.co.uk/map/browse.cg ... &down.y=22

[mnb20]

PeterE: <<(b) every transshipment operation greatly adds to costs. Rail is only really effective where goods can be transported from source to destination in one journey. It may be effective for some journeys where goods are transported a long distance and then locally distributed by road, but it will never be economic if neither source nor destination are rail connected.>>

Something like the Central Railway proposal, with lorries on trains (channel tunnel style) could easily make a lot of sense for long distance journeys with neither end rail connected. I'd like to see a whole network that works like that.

Of course, it still won't take the role of delivering fruit and veg to your local Tesco's, but it might well be used to deliver it to your regional Tesco's depot.

[Chris5156]

Having just been to the DfT's website and read their press release on the subject, I think I can clear up two points (posibly, who knows):
1. The new figure DOES include schemes announced last time - improved junctions and farting about with road markings.
2. This isn't, perhaps, a u-turn so much as an admission that their plan until now was running blind. It seems that it's off the back of a stack of Multi-Modal Studies which have just reported their findings - and most (particularly ones with no-brainer topics like A453 M1-Nottingham) have said to improve the roads. And so, now their beloved MMS's have said roads need attention too, the government is actually paying attention to roads. The admission is that until now they seemed to believe (or maybe hope) that roads would not eb the answer the studies gave.
If this really is the result of the Multi-Modal Studies - and it seemed to be - can we expect more sensible (as in, not going 100% for PT and not 100% for roads) transport policy now?
Chris

[M999]

<the biggest thing which would help, personally speaking at least, is to get rid of motorway speed limits>
I definitely agree with this guy 100%. It's ludicrous to have one set national speed limit for all motorways and dual carriageways when they vary in qualityso much. I think there should be variable speed limits set in certain areasat certain times. For example, no motorway needs a speed limit at night nor at midday but at peak times, have a temporary speed limit on particular routes where traffic is heavy, say the M25 but not obviously on motorways like theM54. I also feel that the NATIONAL dual carriageway speed limit should be abolished because most of them meet motorway standards and are definitelyabove some of the standards of theGerman Autobahns which operate perfectly and much more efficientlywithout speed limits.

[bealach na ba]

James: <<The A453 is one of the most pathethic roads I have ever seen, here you have an 8 lane stretch of the M1, with 1 dedicated lane coming off for Nottingham, just to throw you onto a single carriageway country road into a major city in the region. The road should have been dualed 30 years ago.>>

Done.

But you might have to wait a while to use it...


I didn't get eough room on the pictures site to write this final paragraph:

Further ideas: is the GSJ southeast of Kegworth overkill, or would a roundabout suffice? Should we provide an additional entry to the service area from the C/D road? Could we deal better with the minor road between Lockington and Warren Farm, instead of just closing it?

[PeterA5145]

<<And the biggest thing which would help, personally speaking at least, is to get rid of motorway speed limits.>>
This may surprise some people, but I don't agree.
The UK should certainly adopt the usual Continental 130 kph speed limit, which in our terms would be 80 mph. And the police should enforce that with the current level of discretion which would mean that drivers travelling up to at least 95 mph would be left alone unless they were driving dangerously. Maybe if that worked OK a speed limit of 90 mph could be considered.
But, for every 10 mph increment in a speed limit, the benefit gained decreases. Derestricted UK motorways would only benefit a small number of drivers at limited times of day. And, although they are much safer than speed-limited motorways in many parts of the world, German autobahns are, per vehicle-km, significantly more dangerous than UK motorways.
Also, in my experience, above around 85 mph, the amount of concentration needed to drive safely increases almost by a step-change. The limiting factor is not vehicle characteristics, but human vision and reactions.
We're never going to get derestricted motorways again in the UK, but the 80 mph limit is a real political possibility.
Over the past year I've been commuting 25 miles each way along a busy but free-flowing M56. The limiting factor is not the speed limit but the volume of traffic. I have never seen any speed enforcement activity whatsoever. Generally I settle for a comfortable cruise at 60-75 mph, depending on traffic, varying lanes as appropriate. I could possibly cut a couple of minutes off the journey by spending much more time in Lane 3 and driving up to the back of everything in that lane (as many drivers, with vehicles ranging from 1.0 Corsas to 7-series BMWs, seem to do), but what's the point, if you're going to arrive on time anyway?
Regards,
Peter

[c2R]

I disagree, Peter.
I saw some statistics once that put German and English motorways on almost a par for safety - which, considering the larger distances in Germany, and the harsher winters is something of an achievement.
I think a system of variable speed limits, and police stopping dangerous drivers and middle-lane hoggers would do well. Obviously, in the situation you describe with a motorway near capacity, it probably isn't safe to do more than about 80mph. However, on the long distance routes in the middle of the night, there's no real reason why you shouldn't travel at over 100mph - the roads are designed to carry traffic at that sort of speed anyway. And it is worth the extra speed- you can save an entire hour on a journey from the north back down to home.
Chris.

[PeterA5145]

If the police exercise proper discretion they won't be stopping drivers travelling at 100 mph in the middle of the night anyway.
Police discretion is essential to speed enforcement. In some circumstances,100 on a motorway may be grossly irresponsible, in other circumstances it may not be.
But, although we may not like it, posted speed limits are inevitably taken as a target speed. Derestricted motorways would inevitably have various knobheads seeing just how quick their chipped Nova will do, and drivers of high performance cars will think they can get away with anything.
UK motorways have been designed for 130 kph speeds and we should reflect that in posted limits.
But the advantage gained from 100+ speeds vs. the additional danger caused does not stack up.
I'll try to look up some stats on relative safety figures between UK and German motorways.
Make no mistake - my desired position is a 90 mph limit on UK motorways with a large degree of latitude in police enforcement. But allowing speeds above that would produce little benefit and encourage some irresponsible drivers.
Speed doesn't kill. But, in some circumstances, it can.
Regards,
Peter

[Bryn666]

Someone mentioned the Thelwall Viaduct being abottleneck. It is, even with eight lanes (four each way)BUT at the moment the original one is being repaired after asbestos was found on it or something simarlar, so it's 2 each way on the new deck, presumably with a 40 and a ton of GATSOs...
The whole N West is at a a halt at Rush Hour, as people are using the M61/M60/M56 combo to get to past the works, and that snarls up at M6 J20 and M60 J15.

[IJP1]

Re. GERMAN SPEEDS
With respect, I think a number of you are missing a few points here on this debate, notable the superior driving standards in Germany, the higher accident rate *near* (if not on) motorways there, and the uncomfortable reality of what no speed limit *really* menas.
Driving Standards:
Firstly, Germans must spend thousands of euro going through Driving Schools before they may drive, and learn far better than we do how to deal with *really* high speeds (not a problem here because we don't have to). Derestricting our motorways would mean we'd *all* have to do the same thing to manage it safely. (And before anyone says we used to have derestricted motorways, I say remember we brought in speed limits precisely because they were unsafe!)
Safety:
*Provided* you do the above (ie train drivers properly), it is true that having no speed limit is just as safe as having one. However, the road fatality rate *near* German motorways is horrific. Believe me from experience, once you've been flying along at 200kmh+ (c. 120-130mph), 70kmh (c. 40mph) or even 100kmh (60mph) seems *unbelievably* slow. In practice, you drive far too quickly because by comparison you *seem* to have slowed down. Therefore speeds on normal roads near motorways are high, and so is the fatality/casualty rate.
Speed limit:
In practice, most of the time there *is* a speed limit, with more and more being introduced all the time. This means a number of other things:
- You can't just stick the cruise control on and ease along the motorway, because the speed limit keeps changing and so does the average speed of the traffic around you. Put the cruise on at 120kmh-130kmh in France, Belgium and the Netherlands and driving is a dream, but in Germany you remain constantly under pressure;
- You *need* a fast car.When I first went in a 1.2l Corsa it was a nightmare!On derestricted 2-lane routes you take your life in your hands in the passing lane, but the only other option is to crawl behind lorries. It's OK now I can hit 230kmh easily, but it was truly awful then! So to get about a derestricted UK network, people would *need*(rather than merely want)faster (and less green) cars, I can't see anyone being too keen on forcing that!
- The roads *need* to be very well maintained, increasing costs and meaning an unbelievable number of roadwork zones. Even a minor chip in the surface has to be sorted. And that brings the limit down to 60kmh, which sort of defeats the object!
In short, it's quite good fun being able legally to go double our legal limit when *visiting* Germany. But in practice driving on German motorways means constant pressure, having to keen changing to suit new limits or roadwork zones, and *needing* a fast car. All in all it shouldn't even be under consideration here.
80mph makes some sense, but even then I wouldn't be joining any campaigns, the police are usually sensible enough to know what's dangerous and what's not. Remember, unlike in regimented Germany where the law is the law, in this country we still have some semblance of common sense!!
Of course, we *should* be going for 130*km*h - now there's a campaign I would join...!
Ian P.

[IJP1]

In Germany they typically have 2 *2-lane* motorwaysrather than 1 3-laner, I think this means (or for the American-minded among you, 2 4-laners rather than 1 6-laner!)
I sympathize with the point - yes it does make sense because if one is blocked you have the other. However, many Germans make the reverse point - 2 lanes are more likely to be blocked badly than 3, and if you're the poor guy caught up in it before the diversion can be noted...!
In the UK we simply don't have the culture of road-building. Our network was started later, we don't really have much room (but we don't want to be a tarmac jungle like northern Holland), and of course 'Newbury' springs to mind.
Oh, and I've missed the *real* problem - where does the money come from? Would we all willingly pay still higher taxes for the dubious pleasure of having 2 motorways in place of 1? The motorway-building programme in the Irish Republic, referred to in earlier threads, has already stalled almost before it started because of mounting costs and popular opposition.
So a good idea in theory, but it'll not happen in practice (at least not in England).
ATB,
Ian P.

[PeterA5145]

<<80mph makes some sense, but even then I wouldn't be joining any campaigns, the police are usually sensible enough to know what's dangerous and what's not. Remember, unlike in regimented Germany where the law is the law, in this country we still have some semblance of common sense!!>>
In practice, knowing that the police tolerate safe driving at 80-85 mph, I'm not unduly bothered by the UK motorway speed limit.
I'm far more annoyed and restricted by all the motorway-standard A-roads that have been cut to 50 mph, and all the wide outer-suburban roads that have been cut from 40 to 30, in both cases usually festooned with Gatsos.
Of course, the police can and do exercise common sense. Gatsos can't.
Regards,
Peter

[IJP1]

Peter,
Well yes, this is a good point. GATSOs take no account of road conditions. I'm a member of Road Safety Councils etc etc etc, but the simple fact is you *can* go faster on certain stretches and at certain times.
It is an old point that the use of GATSOs just to catch people out is not the purpose.
Ian P.

[David D Miller]

Bryn666: <<Someone mentioned the Thelwall Viaduct being abottleneck. It is, even with eight lanes (four each way)BUT at the moment the original one is being repaired after asbestos was found on it or something simarlar, so it's 2 each way on the new deck, presumably with a 40 and a ton of GATSOs...>>
The original viaduct carried six lanes, i.e., three each way, with no hard shoulders. The new one is very slightly narrower, but can still carry six narrow lanes. Each viaduct normally carries four lanes withextra-wide hard shoulders.
The current roadworks are to replace failing supports on the old viaduct. The new viaduct is carrying three lanes each way, and the old viaduct is still carrying a singlenorthbound lane - i.e., three lanes southbound and four northbound.
Southbound, the worst delays occur at the mergefrom J21a, where the M62 traffic joins. Traffic from the eastbound M62 normally has a long tiger-tail merge; it's now reduced to one lane with an abrupt 'Give Way'.From the westbound M62, the merge would normally be tiger-tail and a lane gain; now, it's down to a single lane and an abrupt 'Give Way'. The merge at J21 doesn't seem so bad, since the mainline traffic is already slowed right down and spread out some. On the viaduct there are 3 narrow lanes, with wide loads straddling lanes 1 and 2 - normal HGV traffic can use both lanes 1 and 2, but it's too narrow for overtaking.
Northbound, with four lanes still open, there seems to be less cause for delays, but the single lane on the west viaduct is much less well used than it should be, and the crossover to the east viaduct slows things down somewhat.
The speed limit through the works is 40 mph, with a recommended 30 on the crossovers. Given the extremely narrow lanes, which don't really allow overtaking of large vehicles, I don't thinkthis limit isat all unreasonable. I'd much rather have alow limit that most people stick to, than have the motorway closed for several hours because someone loses it trying to take the crossovers too quickly.
There are unrelated roadworks on the M6 just a few miles north of the Thelwall Viaduct, some of which are also causing delays.