Should grade separated dual carriageways without hard shoulders be redesignated as motorways?

[Chris Bertram]

Not convinced by that bit. No LAR was constructed between J49 and J50 of A1(M), since no local access was required. Prohibited traffic is (rightly) expected to use alternative routes. These will be available near A34 as well.

There is a world of difference between J49 and J50 of A1(M) and the A34 Southern bypass.
If you want to get past Oxford from the North and West the only real alternative to the A34 is to head through the middle of Oxford and avoiding that is the reason the A34 Southern Bypass was built. In any case the road is simply overloaded, a fresh look is needed but I suspect that nothing much will happen before proposals are developed for the Oxford Cambridge Expressway which will need to address this anyway,

Agreed that the Southern Bypass is exceptional (and it is of course very much the oldest stretch). But from Boars Hill to Kings Worthy I would be astonished if huge lengths of LAR were required additional to the stretches of old A34 still retained for local purposes to this day.

[Peter350]

Not convinced by that bit. No LAR was constructed between J49 and J50 of A1(M), since no local access was required. Prohibited traffic is (rightly) expected to use alternative routes. These will be available near A34 as well.

There is a world of difference between J49 and J50 of A1(M) and the A34 Southern bypass.
If you want to get past Oxford from the North and West the only real alternative to the A34 is to head through the middle of Oxford and avoiding that is the reason the A34 Southern Bypass was built. In any case the road is simply overloaded, a fresh look is needed but I suspect that nothing much will happen before proposals are developed for the Oxford Cambridge Expressway which will need to address this anyway,

Agreed that the Southern Bypass is exceptional (and it is of course very much the oldest stretch). But from Boars Hill to Kings Worthy I would be astonished if huge lengths of LAR were required additional to the stretches of old A34 still retained for local purposes to this day.

Only the sections of A34 that were dualled online would need an LAR, since the old route has been retained for offline sections.

[c2R]

Only the sections of A34 that were dualled online would need an LAR, since the old route has been retained for offline sections.

That's not necessarily true, owing to the severance of the new route, and that even bypassed sections (particularly if they are earlier than the 1990s may be crossed by footpaths and have property (read field) accesses, even if they are not currently used. There would need to be stopping up orders to close these, as there were recently made on the A1 in NI; and for these to be acceptable, there would have to be reasonable alternative routes to access the property.

[Bryn666]

*cough* Happy Car Road.

[85CF380]

The only Grade Separated Dual Carriageways that I'd like to see re-designated as Motorways are those ( free of minor accesses etc) which can satisfy the criteria that they 'free-flow connect to an existing motorway at one or both ends'. There aren't many that satisfy that criteria though.

M180 to Immingham/A160 junction (needs a bit of work to reach Grimsby)
M62 to Humber Bridge or even to edge of Hull city centre past Hessle
A42 becomes M42. Can't see why this not happened ages ago
M54 to Shrewsbury
M56 to welsh border
M53 2 junctions
+ must be some others (but not A1 in Notts/Lincs or A34 - too many accesses)
Just thought, the A14 would qualify from Catthorpe to Brampton & in a few years to Copdock!

[jedikiah]

The Oxford Northern and Southern bypasses were originally constructed pre-Second World War as much as unemployment schemes as anything else, as they didn't really fully connect together anything useful. There was a 20+ year period before anything further was done, and in that time those existing parts had been 'ruined' in an expressway road sense by ribbon development hanging off them. This started off quite early, as this 1947 aerial photograph of the Southern bypass shows considerable housing surrounding it. Here there was the sense at least by then not to have direct frontages; this came I think during the 1950s.

[wallmeerkat]

That's not necessarily true, owing to the severance of the new route, and that even bypassed sections (particularly if they are earlier than the 1990s may be crossed by footpaths and have property (read field) accesses, even if they are not currently used. There would need to be stopping up orders to close these, as there were recently made on the A1 in NI; and for these to be acceptable, there would have to be reasonable alternative routes to access the property.

On HQDC sections of the A1 NI sections of the 'old road' were often kept, even if reduced to a single lane for access. Or a US-style 'service road' is built running parallel to the mainline for a short distance, again though only a single lane.

[Herned]

Just thought, the A14 would qualify from Catthorpe to Brampton & in a few years to Copdock!

The section between Thrapston and the A1 is terrible in places with quite a few farm accesses and minor right turns across the carriageway

The A2 from Dartford to the M2 can be added to your list though

[Chris Bertram]

Just thought, the A14 would qualify from Catthorpe to Brampton & in a few years to Copdock!

The section between Thrapston and the A1 is terrible in places with quite a few farm accesses and minor right turns across the carriageway.

As ever, the oldest section is the weakest link. That bit dates from the earlier upgrade of A604 when it was the strategic route from the Midlands to Harwich.

[Fluid Dynamics]

The A21 from Chevening down to Pembury is another example. It continues the mainline of the M25, is predominately offline, has a limited number of junctions and both the A25 and A26 junctions have a degree of free flow.

[someone]

But why? What's the benefit?

My thoughts too.

Only once have I been caught behind a tractor, being behind if on a slip road onto the two-lane southern end of the A23. And it was only a problem for me because I was on a 125cc bike. With all traffic moving into lane 2 to overtake it at I did not have the acceleration to safely change lanes until some kind person flashed me in.

No one else was being held up, though. And traffic was flowing freely, going past it faster than I have been able to go whilst in lane 3 of some equally busy sections of motorway which did not have a tractor for an excuse.

Restricting traffic should only be done when it provides an overall benefit, not simply to make the network look more extensive on a map.

[KeithW]

That's not necessarily true, owing to the severance of the new route, and that even bypassed sections (particularly if they are earlier than the 1990s may be crossed by footpaths and have property (read field) accesses, even if they are not currently used. There would need to be stopping up orders to close these, as there were recently made on the A1 in NI; and for these to be acceptable, there would have to be reasonable alternative routes to access the property.

On HQDC sections of the A1 NI sections of the 'old road' were often kept, even if reduced to a single lane for access. Or a US-style 'service road' is built running parallel to the mainline for a short distance, again though only a single lane.

The same thing was done on large sections of the A1 in England. At the southern end they typically carry the number A1001
from Hatfield to Baldock its the B197 and A507
north of Wetherbridge to Dishforth its the A168 - this really is a US Style Service road and is a useful diversion if the A1(M) is blocked.
From Leeming to Catterick its the A6055

In Kent for the M2 and M20 the old roade remained the A2 and A20 although they are rather more separated from the new Motorway

[wallmeerkat]

A lot of these roads on the A1 (NI) don't seem to have numbers and are glorified lanes

Example on streetview

Example where a bypassed stretch has been kept for access

[85CF380]

But why? What's the benefit?

1. No cyclists on routes such as A180. Last time I was on the A180 I saw 2 cyclists.
The trucks in lane 1 come upon them very quickly & are sometimes unable to move into lane2 immediately. It looked so dangerous.
Cyclist can use the 'old road' routes.

2. Avoids confusion. The recently publised attempt at banning cyclist on the A63 (the section after M62 finishes), i'm sure some of the complainants thought the police meant the Gilberdyke section.

[A9NWIL]

Britain is a country which has significant gaps in its motorway network. Direct routes between many major population centres involve driving along all-purpose roads, which cars and HGVs have to share with slow moving traffic, increasing journey times and reducing the level of productivity as a nation. The thing is, quite a lot of these all-purpose routes are actually built to motorway standard, but the lack of hard shoulder prevents them from becoming proper motorways. The A42 in Leicestershire is a prime example of this, as it was meant to be a motorway, but opened as an all-purpose dual carriageway just because it lacked hard shoulders as a result of budget cuts.

Hard shoulders have been a basic requirement for motorways since they were first conceived, but with them disappearing thanks to smart motorway schemes, is it time to rethink what the minimum standards for motorways should be? I think any stretch of all-purpose dual carriageway should be designated as a motorway as long as it meets the following criteria:

• It forms part of a trunk route
• It is at least 5 miles long or forms a direct continuation of an existing motorway
• All junctions are fully grade-separated. No at-grade right turns or LILOs are permitted anywhere along the route
• There are no roundabouts or traffic lights on the mainline, although they can be used at the terminus of the motorway
• Junctions are spaced at least 1 mile apart
• There are no properties directly adjoining the route
• There is a suitable alternative route available for prohibited traffic and utilities
• There is provision for emergency refuge areas to be constructed at regular intervals if the route does not already have a hard shoulder
• An average speed of 60mph or above can be achieved along the entire route in normal driving conditions

Redesignating these high quality routes as motorway would eliminate pointless gaps in the network and make routes more attractive to long distance traffic. For example, the A42 would become an extension of the M42, while the under construction A14 expressway between Cambridge and Huntingdon could open as the M14 or become an extension of the M11. Some fully dualled roads however, such as the A34 between the M3 and M40, would not be able to become motorways straight away as they lack LARs along the entire length, although this could be addressed later.

I would say yes classify them as motorways and as the expressway proposals suggest use the Ax(M) to show they arent up to the same standard as motorways used to be.

The biggest advantages would be no buried utilities, no NMUs and no slow motorised users, so the road would have less roadworks and be faster when its open.
Who knows some of these routes may then be seen as important enough to get more investment and so get improvements to bring them up to D3 or D3M.

[Chris5156]

Britain is a country which has significant gaps in its motorway network. Direct routes between many major population centres involve driving along all-purpose roads, which cars and HGVs have to share with slow moving traffic, increasing journey times and reducing the level of productivity as a nation. The thing is, quite a lot of these all-purpose routes are actually built to motorway standard, but the lack of hard shoulder prevents them from becoming proper motorways.

In most cases I think the reason these roads are not motorways is that they were conceived, designed and built specifically as all-purpose roads. Most of them have all sorts of features that would prevent reclassification as a motorway.

Redesignating these high quality routes as motorway would eliminate pointless gaps in the network and make routes more attractive to long distance traffic. For example, the A42 would become an extension of the M42, while the under construction A14 expressway between Cambridge and Huntingdon could open as the M14 or become an extension of the M11. Some fully dualled roads however, such as the A34 between the M3 and M40, would not be able to become motorways straight away as they lack LARs along the entire length, although this could be addressed later.

Highways England have active proposals to redesignate routes like these as "expressways", by which they mean giving them motorway regulations, blue signs and Ax(M) numbers. I think your proposal is effectively the same - in which case the answer to your question, in the thread title, is that it's already Government policy to do this in England.

None have yet been designated and we're several years away from it happening, by all accounts, because money and engineering works will be required to make physical changes to the road before they are suitable for reclassification. HE don't seem to think they already have any routes they can reclassify without first rebuilding or upgrading in some way.

[jackal]

As Chris says, the government have a proposal much along the lines of the OP. Here's a thread about that: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38400

[Johnathan404]

But why? What's the benefit?

1. No cyclists on routes such as A180. Last time I was on the A180 I saw 2 cyclists.
The trucks in lane 1 come upon them very quickly & are sometimes unable to move into lane2 immediately. It looked so dangerous.
Cyclist can use the 'old road' routes.

You've never seen a cyclist on a motorway?

There are only two types of people who would cycle on a road like the A180:

- those who are doing it because there is no suitable alternative, in which case the solution is to create and signpost a suitable alternative
- those who can't see the problem, in which case changing the colour of the signs won't change their opinion

Only once have I been caught behind a tractor, being behind if on a slip road onto the two-lane southern end of the A23. And it was only a problem for me because I was on a 125cc bike. With all traffic moving into lane 2 to overtake it at I did not have the acceleration to safely change lanes until some kind person flashed me in.

I frequently encounter them on the A34. Worse are the military convoys, which will cause significant delays. The problem isn't the speed, it's the fact that everybody wants to get past them and there is only one lane to do that with. Widening would address that.

[Gareth Thomas]

- those who can't see the problem, in which case changing the colour of the signs won't change their opinion

Although, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on a motorway but not illegal to ride one on a dual carriageway A-road.

Back on topic, the A20 between Folkestone and Dover should become the M20.

[wallmeerkat]

- those who can't see the problem, in which case changing the colour of the signs won't change their opinion

Although, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on a motorway but not illegal to ride one on a dual carriageway A-road.

Back on topic, the A20 between Folkestone and Dover should become the M20.

Assuming such A road is not a "special road" eg. Edinburgh Bypass / A12(NI) Westlink

(Though the signage is inconsistent - Divis Street shows no pedestrians or cyclists, whereas Clifton Street just prohibits pedestrians )
Is this legal?