Goldberg wrote:
Indeed, though I think Sunderland is mentioned a bit further south than 20 miles (on the A1(M), that is), it is absolutely the case that for a town of 200,000, we are terribly signed. We are better signed on the A19 northbound, however. I think there's an RCS at Thirsk that says 'Sunderland 50 (miles)'.
Even so, I'd have Sunderland signed on the A19 north from about York, on the A1 south from probably Alnwick and on the A1(M) north from Catterick.
The A19 south of Thirsk is not a trunk road so I am not surprised about that. In fact at York it doesn't show Teesside either, the only town on the outer ring road signage is Thirsk as I recall.
McNessA720 wrote:I mean, who really wants to go to Luton?
I do. So do 220,000 or so other inhabitants I daresay.
McNessA720 wrote:The signage Northbound on the M1 out of London is atrocious (and to a lesser extent, so is the M1 North in general). Luton is given WAY too much prominence on the RCSs and the gantries (being the only PD mentioned until you actually reach the place).......
I can explain the lack of signage to anywhere but Luton as a plot to stop people using the M1.
i) Luton is the first big place on the M1 north from the M25.
ii) Luton has a major airport, the 5th busiest in the UK.
It seems reasonable to me that it gets so much prominence.
I wasn't saying that Luton shouldn't be signed on the M1 North, I was saying that it shouldn't be the only Primary Destination signed on RCSs or gantries on that road. Sure, on signs Luton might be useful for people actually heading there or the airport. But for long-distance traffic, Luton is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. That's why it should be signed, but done so alongside other destinations.
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
There is an almost complete absence of signs in Peterborough for the A16 to Spalding, constructed at great expense a few years ago and used by hordes of UK and EU lorries. Only three or four signs were amended to show the A16, all on the eastern edge of the city and close to the island where the A16 now begins. Perhaps this is a "sign of the times" - the powers that be don't have any money to spare and think that the locals don't need telling, while outsiders will all have satnavs. This would be understandable if it were just a matter of short term expediency. However, even when signs on the primary network come to be replaced the new ones still don't mention the A16. So could this be a problem associated with the excessive use of consultants who have no real knowledge of or commitment to the communities they are supposed to serve?
KeithW wrote:
The A19 south of Thirsk is not a trunk road so I am not surprised about that. In fact at York it doesn't show Teesside either, the only town on the outer ring road signage is Thirsk as I recall.
Teesside and Hartlepool are shown on a RCS at Rawcliffe, south of the outer ring road:-
Rogndave wrote:There is an almost complete absence of signs in Peterborough for the A16 to Spalding, constructed at great expense a few years ago and used by hordes of UK and EU lorries. Only three or four signs were amended to show the A16, all on the eastern edge of the city and close to the island where the A16 now begins. Perhaps this is a "sign of the times" - the powers that be don't have any money to spare and think that the locals don't need telling, while outsiders will all have satnavs. This would be understandable if it were just a matter of short term expediency. However, even when signs on the primary network come to be replaced the new ones still don't mention the A16. So could this be a problem associated with the excessive use of consultants who have no real knowledge of or commitment to the communities they are supposed to serve?
It’s a border thing, Lincolnshire wanted an A1073 bypass, Lincolnshire also solved the Tallington level crossing problem by pinching the A16 number. Trouble was Peterborough wasn’t so interested in it all so it was all a bit minimum effort their end. Spalding or Boston or Skegness or the Wolds are all Lincolnshire so I can understand why Peterborough or Cambridgeshire wouldn’t want to spend anything on signage for them.
Fenlander wrote:
It’s a border thing, Lincolnshire wanted an A1073 bypass, Lincolnshire also solved the Tallington level crossing problem by pinching the A16 number. Trouble was Peterborough wasn’t so interested in it all so it was all a bit minimum effort their end. Spalding or Boston or Skegness or the Wolds are all Lincolnshire so I can understand why Peterborough or Cambridgeshire wouldn’t want to spend anything on signage for them.
Indeed, when Stamford was the southern terminus of the A16, the whole of the A16 was within the historic county of Lincolnshire.
Rogndave wrote:There is an almost complete absence of signs in Peterborough for the A16 to Spalding, constructed at great expense a few years ago and used by hordes of UK and EU lorries. Only three or four signs were amended to show the A16, all on the eastern edge of the city and close to the island where the A16 now begins. Perhaps this is a "sign of the times" - the powers that be don't have any money to spare and think that the locals don't need telling, while outsiders will all have satnavs. This would be understandable if it were just a matter of short term expediency. However, even when signs on the primary network come to be replaced the new ones still don't mention the A16. So could this be a problem associated with the excessive use of consultants who have no real knowledge of or commitment to the communities they are supposed to serve?
It’s a border thing, Lincolnshire wanted an A1073 bypass, Lincolnshire also solved the Tallington level crossing problem by pinching the A16 number. Trouble was Peterborough wasn’t so interested in it all so it was all a bit minimum effort their end. Spalding or Boston or Skegness or the Wolds are all Lincolnshire so I can understand why Peterborough or Cambridgeshire wouldn’t want to spend anything on signage for them.
Surely, the provision of appropriate signs should be a matter of common sense and professional and civic pride. Lack of adequate signage can also have safety implications, causing confused drivers to weave between lanes or to stop in dangerous locations. Within Peterborough, the long established A15 to Sleaford has loads of signs, but the new A16 to Spalding has hardly any. My impression is that A16 carries as much if not more traffic than the A15, so I believe that the main cause of the lack of adequate signs is simply apathy on the part of Peterborough City Council and its consultants. Highways England should also share part of the blame, given its responsibilities for the A47.
Try and find a sign for West Bromwich from anywhere in Walsall. Two primary destinations, five miles apart. You'll find WB signed at the Fullbrook lights on the ring road as well as an outdated stack sign with long-defunct route numbers on the Wednesbury Road. Other than that, absolutely nothing throughout the borough. Plenty of signs for Walsall at the other end of the A4031 though.
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
Pontypridd could do with better signage on the A470 in the Cardiff area. I haven’t seen it mentioned on any signs (except IIRC the fork sign off the M4). Pontypridd is actually a good candidate for the Primary Destination list. It’s certainly lot better than some of the other PDs along the A470 route, see page 3 on this thread.
This is a bit of a stab at our flawed signage system in general. As with the M1 out of London, parts of the M6 North and the section of A1(M) in the North East (both directions) are both pretty cruddy for long-distance signage. If I’m a HGV driver from the continent headed for Scotland (in which case either of these roads are going to be of use), I’m going to want signs to either Glasgow or Edinburgh, to make sure I’m headed the right way. I’d have Glasgow on the M6 from probably Warrington upwards and Edinburgh in the A1 from about Durham. Southbound on the A1(M) around Darlington, only Scotch Corner is signed south. Surely Leeds would make sense here?
On the M8 westbound, a Primary Destination representing the Livingston-Bathgate-Whitburn conurbation would be helpful. As the largest town of the lot, I’d personally nominate Livingston for this.
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
McNessA720 wrote:I wasn't saying that Luton shouldn't be signed on the M1 North, I was saying that it shouldn't be the only Primary Destination signed on RCSs or gantries on that road.
Isn't that what "The NORTH" is for?
I do agree though that more destinations (or at least somewhere further away) should also be shown.
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."
- some extreme-right nutcase
McNessA720 wrote:I wasn't saying that Luton shouldn't be signed on the M1 North, I was saying that it shouldn't be the only Primary Destination signed on RCSs or gantries on that road.
Isn't that what "The NORTH" is for?
I do agree though that more destinations (or at least somewhere further away) should also be shown.
Regional Destinations such as ‘The NORTH’ are too vague.
The destinations listed on RCS should give the driver some idea of where that road goes.
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
McNessA720 wrote:I wasn't saying that Luton shouldn't be signed on the M1 North, I was saying that it shouldn't be the only Primary Destination signed on RCSs or gantries on that road.
Isn't that what "The NORTH" is for?
I do agree though that more destinations (or at least somewhere further away) should also be shown.
Regional Destinations such as ‘The NORTH’ are too vague.
The destinations listed on RCS should give the driver some idea of where that road goes.
Arguably they do... it goes "NORTH". In the USA you're lucky to even get a town on many signs; you'll just get "I-90 West".
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
KeithW wrote:
The A19 south of Thirsk is not a trunk road so I am not surprised about that. In fact at York it doesn't show Teesside either, the only town on the outer ring road signage is Thirsk as I recall.
Teesside and Hartlepool are shown on a RCS at Rawcliffe, south of the outer ring road:-
To be fair, the sign listing Hartlepool and Teesside is quite old. Probably a leftover from when that part of the A19 was trunk (which I believe it was).
Speaking of the A19, it seems a bit strange that they don’t mention York on the fork signs for the A19/M62 junction.
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
McNessA720 wrote:
Speaking of the A19, it seems a bit strange that they don’t mention York on the fork signs for the A19/M62 junction.
I would think that this is a legacy of the road network before the Selby Bypass was built. Selby was a notorious bottleneck, particularly at the Barlby swing bridge, which was also tolled. Now that Selby (and the swing bridge) have been bypassed, it would make sense to add York to the fork signs at Junction 34 as it is a much quicker route to York than continuing on the M62 as far as Junction 37, then using the A63 through Howden to meet the A19 only a couple of miles north of Barlby. It is probably necessary to keep York on the eastbound exit signs at Junction 37 for traffic travelling via the A1 and M18, although the majority of York bound traffic from the south would use the A1/A1(M) or M1, then the A64.
McNessA720 wrote:
Speaking of the A19, it seems a bit strange that they don’t mention York on the fork signs for the A19/M62 junction.
I would think that this is a legacy of the road network before the Selby Bypass was built. Selby was a notorious bottleneck, particularly at the Barlby swing bridge, which was also tolled. Now that Selby (and the swing bridge) have been bypassed, it would make sense to add York to the fork signs at Junction 34 as it is a much quicker route to York than continuing on the M62 as far as Junction 37, then using the A63 through Howden to meet the A19 only a couple of miles north of Barlby. It is probably necessary to keep York on the eastbound exit signs at Junction 37 for traffic travelling via the A1 and M18, although the majority of York bound traffic from the south would use the A1/A1(M) or M1, then the A64.
Its actually not shorter and certainly not quicker.
From J34 to York via the M62/A1(M)/A64 is usually around 45 minutes for the 31 miles
Via the A19 its 50 minutes and about the same distance. Worse the road is mostly S2 where overtaking is difficult, get stuck behind an HGV or two or heaven forbid a farm tractor and it will be more like an hour.
In the bad old days before they finally sorted out Wetherby, Ferrybidge and the A1/A64 junction there were times when I did indeed head for Teesside via the A19 to York. You knew it was time to think about this when the traffic at Selby Fork was already stop/start and the radio was reporting that it was like this all the way to Wetherby.
I never went through Selby itself of course instead taking the back roads west of Selby to pick up the B1223 to Cawood and then cut across the B1222 and Cawood Road to the A19 near Escrick. This was mostly the Xmas and New Year period when the A1 was jammed and York city centre was relatively quiet. It was usually quicker to go through the middle of York than round the ring road as that is where the late Xmax shoppers/early sale crowd were heading. It all went horribly wrong one year when I got to Cawood and found the swing bridge impassable as it was stuck. It really is quite surprising how few road bridges cross the Ouse and Wharfe
McNessA720 wrote:In fact, I don’t think Sheffield appears on ANY signs southbound until you’re well within 30 miles of the place, being overshadowed by the smaller and less important Wakefield. This is especially bizarre when you consider that Sheffield is signed northbound from some 80 miles away.
I'm regularly coming down that way and it's weird, the highest signed distance is 26 miles as you're passing Wakefield. I use the Manchester distance markers as a proxy for how far I am from Sheffield.
KeithW wrote:It all went horribly wrong one year when I got to Cawood and found the swing bridge impassable as it was stuck. It really is quite surprising how few road bridges cross the Ouse and Wharfe
It is now almost two years since the severe flooding which washed away a large part of the 18th century road bridge over the River Wharfe in Tadcaster town centre and it would effectively leave one part of Tadcaster disconnected from the other for many months. I can remember reading how road traffic and buses had to take very convoluted routes which took them along the A64 as far as Bilbrough before they could reach the other part of Tadcaster.
rileyrob wrote:As far as I am aware, Kingussie is only signed from the B9152 at Aviemore and at the A9 / A86 junction at Kingussie itself. Even its near neighbour, and primary destination, Newtonmore is difficult to find on signs, but that's perhaps because it is now bypassed by the A9 and only the A86 and B9150 go to it!
Going northbound isn't much better, when I head up that way I have to wait until I see Aviemore and then subtract around 20 miles... not an exact science but it works!
