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

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.

Moderator: Site Management Team

AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11057
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

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

Post by AndyB »

The prohibition on cyclists is unenforceable as you can't prove where they joined. The Broadway offslip has blue No Pedestrians signs, which because they are not on a motorway are probably unenforceable too.
Duple
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 21:58

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

Post by Duple »

The A500 easily fits within this category - however I don't know about utilities buried underneath it, from what I understand it was mainly built on old railway and colliery land so I can't imagine there would be a great deal beneath.

Can't imagine any cyclists are using it either !
User avatar
vlad
Member
Posts: 2586
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 16:20
Location: Near the northern end of the A34

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

Post by vlad »

Duple wrote: Sat Jun 23, 2018 08:05 The A500 easily fits within this category - however I don't know about utilities buried underneath it, from what I understand it was mainly built on old railway and colliery land so I can't imagine there would be a great deal beneath.
Disused mine workings. :)

Mind you, just about everything in North Staffordshire is built on top of old mineshafts - it's a wonder more of it hasn't fallen down one.
"If you expect nothing from somebody you are never disappointed." - Sylvia Plath
Duple
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 21:58

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

Post by Duple »

vlad wrote: Sat Jun 23, 2018 19:21
Duple wrote: Sat Jun 23, 2018 08:05 The A500 easily fits within this category - however I don't know about utilities buried underneath it, from what I understand it was mainly built on old railway and colliery land so I can't imagine there would be a great deal beneath.
Disused mine workings. :)

Mind you, just about everything in North Staffordshire is built on top of old mineshafts - it's a wonder more of it hasn't fallen down one.
Large parts of the M6 and Keele Services are over 'hollow ground' too. You can definitely tell something is moving about because a new dip has appeared near the Wolstanton exit of the A500 !
trigpoint
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 19:43

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

Post by trigpoint »

85CF380 wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 14:50
M54 to Shrewsbury
Bridges or tunnels would need to be provided for existing rights of way, there is one access road which lines up with an existing railway bridge that provides farm access. The road is often used by tractors, something to be considered as they will face inconvenience due to their loss of right of way.

As the speed limit will remain at 70mph blue signs will not make my journey to work any quicker.
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

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

Post by Chris Bertram »

trigpoint wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:33
85CF380 wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 14:50
M54 to Shrewsbury
Bridges or tunnels would need to be provided for existing rights of way, there is one access road which lines up with an existing railway bridge that provides farm access. The road is often used by tractors, something to be considered as they will face inconvenience due to their loss of right of way.

As the speed limit will remain at 70mph blue signs will not make my journey to work any quicker.
They will if tractors and other non-motorway traffic are banned. Though I must say I've never encountered a tractor on that stretch. And the one access I can remember seemed to be for access *to* the railway only, something that Network Rail would surely arrange a workround for.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26209
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

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

Post by Owain »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 13:49
trigpoint wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:33
85CF380 wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 14:50
M54 to Shrewsbury
Bridges or tunnels would need to be provided for existing rights of way, there is one access road which lines up with an existing railway bridge that provides farm access. The road is often used by tractors, something to be considered as they will face inconvenience due to their loss of right of way.

As the speed limit will remain at 70mph blue signs will not make my journey to work any quicker.
They will if tractors and other non-motorway traffic are banned. Though I must say I've never encountered a tractor on that stretch. And the one access I can remember seemed to be for access *to* the railway only, something that Network Rail would surely arrange a workround for.
Plus, enforcement of the 70 limit seems to be more relaxed (i.e. non-existent) on motorways than dualled A-roads (where it is occasional).
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

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

Post by solocle »

AndyB wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 13:11 The prohibition on cyclists is unenforceable as you can't prove where they joined. The Broadway offslip has blue No Pedestrians signs, which because they are not on a motorway are probably unenforceable too.
In the same vein, the A57(M) is unenforceable, as there's nothing to stop a pedestrian turning right here :o Garwood St
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11057
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

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

Post by AndyB »

To be fair, blue No pedestrians information signs on an offslip are a recent thing, but I agree that's one location that needs them.
User avatar
Alderpoint
Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 14:25
Location: Leamington Spa

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

Post by Alderpoint »

Mark Hewitt wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 13:22
orudge wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 13:20 I imagine that when they say "make the A34 a motorway", they do mean upgrade it to 3 lanes, etc (à la the A1 -> A1(M) upgrades).
A *lot* of people think motorway means 3 lanes each way.
They need to go and discover the M45 or M50 - both 2 lanes each way for their whole length.

Or the A46 hereabouts - which is 3 lanes (with parking laybys).
Let it snow.
User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

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

Post by solocle »

Alderpoint wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 21:39
Mark Hewitt wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 13:22
orudge wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 13:20 I imagine that when they say "make the A34 a motorway", they do mean upgrade it to 3 lanes, etc (à la the A1 -> A1(M) upgrades).
A *lot* of people think motorway means 3 lanes each way.
They need to go and discover the M45 or M50 - both 2 lanes each way for their whole length.

Or the A46 hereabouts - which is 3 lanes (with parking laybys).
Or indeed the A23 here - Welcome to Brighton
And that's a road I've cycled on (at 4:56:26). Really sadly the footage cuts out shortly after joining, before the real fun began.

It was actually fun! But only because the coned off lane for the veteran cars, which was my escape route, combined with weight of traffic meant traffic speed varying between 20 and 30 mph, so I was very quickly keeping up. Even better, as waves of slowness approached, there were conveniently positioned huge gaps in the outside lane that I used.

So anyone who thought that road was a motorway then had me overtaking them on a bicycle in the "fast lane". :D
Image
Image
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

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

Post by MotorwayGuy »

There are many roads that should be motorways but don't meet the standard in their current form. They might be grade separated but have small local access slip roads, footpaths running alongside and utilities running along them.

There are a few exceptions to this, such as the new A14 which was intended to be a motorway originally (and indeed restricts the same things a motorway does in a messy way) but due to political issues was never classified. The A2 between the M2 and the M25 is another example that is D4 with hard shoulders but the excuse given was there was no alternative route for non-motorway traffic, so this indeed has no restrictions.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

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

Post by jnty »

MotorwayGuy wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:13 There are many roads that should be motorways but don't meet the standard in their current form. They might be grade separated but have small local access slip roads, footpaths running alongside and utilities running along them.

There are a few exceptions to this, such as the new A14 which was intended to be a motorway originally (and indeed restricts the same things a motorway does in a messy way) but due to political issues was never classified. The A2 between the M2 and the M25 is another example that is D4 with hard shoulders but the excuse given was there was no alternative route for non-motorway traffic, so this indeed has no restrictions.
It makes you wonder whether it would be easier to explicitly permit certain classes of traffic on certain small stretches of motorway rather than the reverse, which is to de facto ban almost all cyclists on fast D2+ roads via excessive danger and then artificially restrict other classes with ever larger signs. A bit of legal innovation probably required too in order to make this easier to do. No point in putting millions into blue lines on the map but putting a few tens of thousands into it might be worth it for a consistent and understandable network.

Of course, you can say that it would be hard to interpret for the excepted classes, but honestly who is looking at a road atlas of the UK figuring out how to drive their tractor from John O'Groats to Lands End? Local knowledge will be enough in 99% of cases and the other 1% is probably unfamiliar users who "end up" on a given road and will be grateful for the exception but would probably have just ploughed on anyway.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

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

Post by Herned »

MotorwayGuy wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:13 There are many roads that should be motorways but don't meet the standard in their current form. They might be grade separated but have small local access slip roads, footpaths running alongside and utilities running along them.
It would be good if Highways Whatever they are called set aside a portion of their budget each year to deal specifically with the dodgy little bits left on major dual carriageways. Things like Pathfinder junction on the A30, which don't necessarily have a business case on their own, but make the roads more consistent
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

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

Post by jackal »

Herned wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:37
MotorwayGuy wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:13 There are many roads that should be motorways but don't meet the standard in their current form. They might be grade separated but have small local access slip roads, footpaths running alongside and utilities running along them.
It would be good if Highways Whatever they are called set aside a portion of their budget each year to deal specifically with the dodgy little bits left on major dual carriageways. Things like Pathfinder junction on the A30, which don't necessarily have a business case on their own, but make the roads more consistent
Well they do do that. Roads like the A1 and A19 have had large numbers of reserve gaps closed without much fanfare.

Where a GSJ is required there generally needs to be more of a well publicised scheme with substantial funding, and unfortunately Pathfinder falls into that category. Even if they could (as I believe) reuse an existing bridge, slip roads would be required, so it's somewhat beyond a barrier and LILO in both cost and land take.
User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 19168
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

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

Post by Steven »

MotorwayGuy wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:13 There are many roads that should be motorways but don't meet the standard in their current form.
As a reminder, there is no such thing as "motorway standards". A motorway is simply a Special Road which allows Class I and II traffic, and no others. There's absolutely nothing wrong legally with a single carriageway motorway with at-grade junctions.
jnty wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:32 It makes you wonder whether it would be easier to explicitly permit certain classes of traffic on certain small stretches of motorway rather than the reverse
You can't legally do such a thing.

What you can do is allow additional classes onto a Special Road, but then as above it's then not a motorway.

However, there's no reason why there couldn't be more Special Roads that only allow pedestrians and cyclists, much like the footpath alongside the M48 Severn and Wye Bridges. That would permit the "mainline" to be classified as a motorway, but also allow relevant traffic to use the parallel appropriate route.
Steven
Motorway Historian

Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

User avatar
jgharston
Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

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

Post by jgharston »

Herned wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:37
MotorwayGuy wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:13 There are many roads that should be motorways but don't meet the standard in their current form. They might be grade separated but have small local access slip roads, footpaths running alongside and utilities running along them.
It would be good if Highways Whatever they are called set aside a portion of their budget each year to deal specifically with the dodgy little bits left on major dual carriageways. Things like Pathfinder junction on the A30, which don't necessarily have a business case on their own, but make the roads more consistent
With that example would it be so inconvenient for west-bound traffic trying to get to Pathfinder to continue to Cherton Bishop and use the overpass there and go back?
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

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

Post by jnty »

Steven wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 13:45
jnty wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:32 It makes you wonder whether it would be easier to explicitly permit certain classes of traffic on certain small stretches of motorway rather than the reverse
You can't legally do such a thing.
Well yes that's obviously currently impossible, but what I suppose I'm essentially arguing for is for 'motorway' to really become a brand that can be applied to any motorway-like special road, used for roads of some good standard and sometimes used in accordance with a plate like 'slow vehicles permitted until J8'.

I think I've seen others talk about 'happy car' roads where bikes etc. are not permitted, but that doesn't get across the high quality of the road on the signage or mapping.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

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

Post by Herned »

jackal wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 13:02 Where a GSJ is required there generally needs to be more of a well publicised scheme with substantial funding, and unfortunately Pathfinder falls into that category. Even if they could (as I believe) reuse an existing bridge, slip roads would be required, so it's somewhat beyond a barrier and LILO in both cost and land take.
It would only really need an offslip from the westbound carriageway, anyone heading west can use the existing road. How much is a single slip road these days? <£5m?
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

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

Post by MotorwayGuy »

Steven wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 13:45
MotorwayGuy wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:13 There are many roads that should be motorways but don't meet the standard in their current form.
As a reminder, there is no such thing as "motorway standards". A motorway is simply a Special Road which allows Class I and II traffic, and no others. There's absolutely nothing wrong legally with a single carriageway motorway with at-grade junctions.
The Cambridge dictionary defines the word Motorway as "a wide road for fast-moving traffic, especially in the UK, Ireland, and some other countries, with a limited number of places at which drivers can enter and leave it". I know legally that isn't the definition, but it's what the vast majority of the public think a motorway is, and it's safe to say that the chances of a new non-grade seperated Motorway being even considered is highly improbable.
Post Reply