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.
jackal wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 16:48I know people love to hate politicians, but I think the main problem is just that RIS1 and RIS2 were too optimistic in terms of cost and timescale. If the contents had been the same but with the average scheme shoved back 5 years it would look like things were going well, though nothing more would have been achieved.
I know from past conversations with someone at the DfT who was involved in the "new" setup (RIS + ringfenced VED + semi-privatised National Highways) that the whole thing started out with a considerable spirit of experimentation. That was because there was a lot of optimism for what might be possible, since it was the first time in decades that a government was putting serious money and political capital into roadbuilding and public opinion was more favourable than it had been for a long time; but also because they were dealing with a lot of unknowns because there was little institutional memory of running a major roadbuilding operation.
This was one of the reasons for the studies that were launched, looking into e.g. the Trans-Pennine Tunnel, M25 SW Quadrant and A1(M) Baldock-Alconbury. In broad terms they were trying to work out what might be possible in the brave new world and tested the water with a range of ideas of different sizes and levels of ambition.
In that context (and with hindsight) it's probably no great surprise that the first couple of RIS periods didn't get everything right, and maybe RIS3 as a sort of recalibration is a necessary evil. It highlights, for example, that the system probably wasn't as resilient as it should have been to cope with the rise in inflation we've seen - it assumed that you could set a budget in year 1 that would still make sense in year 5.
I was on the A1(M) from Scotch Corner to Hook Moor last month, the first time since 2000, and while busy, the whole road is a lot less stressful than the awful old D2 A1. The traffic could flow smoothly at the NSL, all the dangerous junctions and agricultural vehicles had gone, and overtaking was better with the option of two lanes. I didn't go as far as the D2 section, but after miles of stress free D3M, hitting this anachronism must be a real pain and it's like a missing link.
Glenn A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 15:00
I was on the A1(M) from Scotch Corner to Hook Moor last month, the first time since 2000, and while busy, the whole road is a lot less stressful than the awful old D2 A1. The traffic could flow smoothly at the NSL, all the dangerous junctions and agricultural vehicles had gone, and overtaking was better with the option of two lanes. I didn't go as far as the D2 section, but after miles of stress free D3M, hitting this anachronism must be a real pain and it's like a missing link.
It's a vast improvement for sure. And I drove the old D2 section enough times in the early 2000s.
It does show up Scotch Corner to Chester-Le-Street which imo should be upgraded to D3M, the terrain isn't that difficult.
Although I do get the impression that Hook Moor to Barton was done with the A1(M) as being an effective part of / extension of the M1 rather than being for the A1 itself. Hence less attention paid to the A1 route South of Hook Moor.
Mark Hewitt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 18:35
Although I do get the impression that Hook Moor to Barton was done with the A1(M) as being an effective part of / extension of the M1 rather than being for the A1 itself. Hence less attention paid to the A1 route South of Hook Moor.
The A1 between Hook Moor and Ferrybridge was rebuilt as D3M almost totally on a new alignment in about 2005 - IMO it is better than the section north of there due to the lower traffic volume.
Mark Hewitt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 18:35
Although I do get the impression that Hook Moor to Barton was done with the A1(M) as being an effective part of / extension of the M1 rather than being for the A1 itself. Hence less attention paid to the A1 route South of Hook Moor.
The A1 between Hook Moor and Ferrybridge was rebuilt as D3M almost totally on a new alignment in about 2005 - IMO it is better than the section north of there due to the lower traffic volume.
Just take a look at them on a summer holiday Monday/Friday! The whole bit from Wetherby to Hook Moor can often be incredibly backed up, yet I've only ever known issues on the Hook Moor to Ferrybridge section caused by tailbacks originating from beyond Ferrybridge in the D2.
jackal wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 16:48I know people love to hate politicians, but I think the main problem is just that RIS1 and RIS2 were too optimistic in terms of cost and timescale. If the contents had been the same but with the average scheme shoved back 5 years it would look like things were going well, though nothing more would have been achieved.
I know from past conversations with someone at the DfT who was involved in the "new" setup (RIS + ringfenced VED + semi-privatised National Highways) that the whole thing started out with a considerable spirit of experimentation. That was because there was a lot of optimism for what might be possible, since it was the first time in decades that a government was putting serious money and political capital into roadbuilding and public opinion was more favourable than it had been for a long time; but also because they were dealing with a lot of unknowns because there was little institutional memory of running a major roadbuilding operation.
This was one of the reasons for the studies that were launched, looking into e.g. the Trans-Pennine Tunnel, M25 SW Quadrant and A1(M) Baldock-Alconbury. In broad terms they were trying to work out what might be possible in the brave new world and tested the water with a range of ideas of different sizes and levels of ambition.
In that context (and with hindsight) it's probably no great surprise that the first couple of RIS periods didn't get everything right, and maybe RIS3 as a sort of recalibration is a necessary evil. It highlights, for example, that the system probably wasn't as resilient as it should have been to cope with the rise in inflation we've seen - it assumed that you could set a budget in year 1 that would still make sense in year 5.
Unfortunately, this quest within NH to get back the knowledge of how to run major road schemes has affected one of the fundamental reasons for RIS - to allow the supply chain to predict future workloads and do away with the peaks and troughs that previously bedeviled the industry. Currently, the industry seems to be where it was before I joined in the mid-90s, with the potential to lose a slew of experienced engineers and then the subsequent, expensive, requirement to recruit when government (this one or the next) realises that infrastructure actually has to be made anew as well as just maintained.
Mark Hewitt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 18:35
Although I do get the impression that Hook Moor to Barton was done with the A1(M) as being an effective part of / extension of the M1 rather than being for the A1 itself. Hence less attention paid to the A1 route South of Hook Moor.
The A1 between Hook Moor and Ferrybridge was rebuilt as D3M almost totally on a new alignment in about 2005 - IMO it is better than the section north of there due to the lower traffic volume.
Just take a look at them on a summer holiday Monday/Friday! The whole bit from Wetherby to Hook Moor can often be incredibly backed up, yet I've only ever known issues on the Hook Moor to Ferrybridge section caused by tailbacks originating from beyond Ferrybridge in the D2.
To be honest most Fridays now the A1(M) is a complete crawl in the afternoon Dishforth J49 down to J44 A64, or like the last few Fridays closed completely by accidents, seems busier than ever.
There’s a reasonable argument to say Dishforth to Hook Moor should be D4M - it’s the only section of the eastern side of the N/S axis of the country between London and Newcastle with less than 4 lanes.
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 16:33
There’s a reasonable argument to say Dishforth to Hook Moor should be D4M - it’s the only section of the eastern side of the N/S axis of the country between London and Newcastle with less than 4 lanes.
And it does get absolutely chocca.
Hook Moor to Bramham Crossroads is D4M, and a lot of traffic diverges to York there. This would presumably have to be widened to D5M if Bramham to Dishforth were D4M. Though that would be useful it has to be a long way down national priorities.
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 16:33
There’s a reasonable argument to say Dishforth to Hook Moor should be D4M - it’s the only section of the eastern side of the N/S axis of the country between London and Newcastle with less than 4 lanes.
And it does get absolutely chocca.
If you're looking at major work like that, you'd probably be best just extending the M18 from its current terminus to the A19 at Thirsk, via York. Simultaneously solves that problem, helps take traffic off the Darrington-Redhouse section of the A1, and provides a faster alternative to the A1079, A19 York-Thirsk, and Sutton Bank.
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 16:33
There’s a reasonable argument to say Dishforth to Hook Moor should be D4M - it’s the only section of the eastern side of the N/S axis of the country between London and Newcastle with less than 4 lanes.
And it does get absolutely chocca.
If you're looking at major work like that, you'd probably be best just extending the M18 from its current terminus to the A19 at Thirsk, via York. Simultaneously solves that problem, helps take traffic off the Darrington-Redhouse section of the A1, and provides a faster alternative to the A1079, A19 York-Thirsk, and Sutton Bank.
Although sensible in that it provides far more network resilience than yet more online widening it also requires costly public enquiries and no doubt long running expensive legal battles with environmentalists etc.
As such its far more likely that if traffic congestion became that much of a problem online widening of the A1(M) would be preferred because as long as it doesn't require the quantitation of any extra land outside the highway boundary then you can avoid whole swathes of the planning process. Obviously in recent years even more money would have been saved by doing it as a Smart motorway and converting the hard shoulder but even if you did it as a traditional widening (with the Hard shoulder disappearing over / under bridges) its still going to be easier to do than building a brand new motorway via York.
A major cause of the delays on that road is the Doncaster Bypass and Redhouse to Darrington. The simple reality is that at Ferrybridge a nice free flowing D3(M) road turns into the old 1960's D2 just here. The drop in quality and the loss of lane 3 has entirely predictable results. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6977908 ... &entry=ttu
The Doncaster bypass itself is now woefully inadequate, the plan was that all the traffic would head towards Leeds along the M1 but what happened of course was the M1/A1 link was simply swamped by traffic and more vehicles than ever are using the A1.
In 2000 the AADF at Redhouse was 50k, in 2018 it was more like 80k.
I have been regularly driving the length of A1 from Dishforth to Huntingdon and points south since 1980 and by now I know where to expect delays, those points move with every improvement. I will predict right now that once Darrington to Blyth has been fixed the next hotspot will likely be Newark where traffic already backs up along the A1 at busy periods.
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 16:33
There’s a reasonable argument to say Dishforth to Hook Moor should be D4M - it’s the only section of the eastern side of the N/S axis of the country between London and Newcastle with less than 4 lanes.
And it does get absolutely chocca.
If you're looking at major work like that, you'd probably be best just extending the M18 from its current terminus to the A19 at Thirsk, via York. Simultaneously solves that problem, helps take traffic off the Darrington-Redhouse section of the A1, and provides a faster alternative to the A1079, A19 York-Thirsk, and Sutton Bank.
Although sensible in that it provides far more network resilience than yet more online widening it also requires costly public enquiries and no doubt long running expensive legal battles with environmentalists etc.
As such its far more likely that if traffic congestion became that much of a problem online widening of the A1(M) would be preferred because as long as it doesn't require the quantitation of any extra land outside the highway boundary then you can avoid whole swathes of the planning process. Obviously in recent years even more money would have been saved by doing it as a Smart motorway and converting the hard shoulder but even if you did it as a traditional widening (with the Hard shoulder disappearing over / under bridges) its still going to be easier to do than building a brand new motorway via York.
Which really goes to show how much there's a lack of joined up thinking regarding planning in this country. Overall, a new motorway would absolutely be cheaper than having to do piecemeal improvements to several different roads in the area, but people wouldn't see it that way.
