A601(M) Carnforth Link Road Downgrading

[Norfolktolancashire]

https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/new ... ts-3982683

Update on the proposal to downgrade the motorway.

[jackal]

If it is ultimately approved, the top speed on the route is proposed to be reduced from the 70 miles-per-hour (mph) permitted on motorways to 50mph. The road’s hard shoulders would also be replaced with grass verges.

Although the existing scheme does not include specific new facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, “the project is designed [so] that these can be accommodated should a suitable proposal be brought forwards in the future”, cabinet members were told.

This seems absolutely pointless, as was the idea of replacing the bridge with an at-grade junction at great expense.

[roadtester]

If it is ultimately approved, the top speed on the route is proposed to be reduced from the 70 miles-per-hour (mph) permitted on motorways to 50mph. The road’s hard shoulders would also be replaced with grass verges.

Although the existing scheme does not include specific new facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, “the project is designed [so] that these can be accommodated should a suitable proposal be brought forwards in the future”, cabinet members were told.

This seems absolutely pointless, as was the idea of replacing the bridge with an at-grade junction at great expense.

Reclassifying is one thing but spending money to make it worse is quite another.

I wonder whether getting rid of the hard shoulders is something to do with deterring overnight truck parking after downgrading.

[Glen]

This seems absolutely pointless, as was the idea of replacing the bridge with an at-grade junction at great expense.

Both the hard shoulder and the bridge are things that need maintaining, at the local authority's expense, in perpetuity.
Removing either of them, when not justified by the road's classification or traffic flows, removes the maintenance liability in the long term.

Obviously they to weigh up the costs of maintenance versus the costs of replacing to work out how long that pay off would be, and it seems in the case of the bridge, it's now too long to do now, but it might be the better value option when the bridge is at a point of needing a major refurbishment.

[jnty]

This seems absolutely pointless, as was the idea of replacing the bridge with an at-grade junction at great expense.

Both the hard shoulder and the bridge are things that need maintaining, at the local authority's expense, in perpetuity.
Removing either of them, when not justified by the road's classification or traffic flows, removes the maintenance liability in the long term.

Obviously they to weigh up the costs of maintenance versus the costs of replacing to work out how long that pay off would be, and it seems in the case of the bridge, it's now too long to do now, but it might be the better value option when the bridge is at a point of needing a major refurbishment.

Can't help but feel like roads authorities are likely to take this approach more and more often, especially as assets like bridges start to require major work. Situations like this where roads are overspecced for historical reasons are a classic example, but there are lots of rural areas where there's multiple quiet country roads that largely duplicate each other. If they suddenly all need resurfacing or asset renewal - especially if usage increases arbitrarily though use of satnavs - rationalisation surely becomes quite attractive.

[Helvellyn]

Can't help but feel like roads authorities are likely to take this approach more and more often, especially as assets like bridges start to require major work. Situations like this where roads are overspecced for historical reasons are a classic example, but there are lots of rural areas where there's multiple quiet country roads that largely duplicate each other. If they suddenly all need resurfacing or asset renewal - especially if usage increases arbitrarily though use of satnavs - rationalisation surely becomes quite attractive.

For getting around in general there's that duplication but there are generally individual houses or farms on most of those roads.

[jnty]

Can't help but feel like roads authorities are likely to take this approach more and more often, especially as assets like bridges start to require major work. Situations like this where roads are overspecced for historical reasons are a classic example, but there are lots of rural areas where there's multiple quiet country roads that largely duplicate each other. If they suddenly all need resurfacing or asset renewal - especially if usage increases arbitrarily though use of satnavs - rationalisation surely becomes quite attractive.

For getting around in general there's that duplication but there are generally individual houses or farms on most of those roads.

Yes - but that isn't necessarily grounds for maintaining them as a through route, especially if doing so involves bridge repairs or resurfacing it to higher standards. On top of that, the pattern of agriculture has also changed significantly since these roads were surfaced in the first place, with fewer farms covering larger areas and requiring fewer staff, so it might even be that the access requirement has diminished. Some may be a bit upset about having to go a slightly longer way around, but I suspect plenty of farmers/locals would be equally happy to have the road to themselves again!

[KeithW]

As I recall what is now the A601(M) was in fact originally the temporary terminus of the M6 Lancaster bypass on the A6. So when the M6 continued beyond J35 it made sense to use it as a link to the A6 and allow heavy traffic from the quarry on the B6601 to get onto the major road network without going through Carnforth.

The resulting link was massively over specified for a road that has an AADF of 10k and is only a mile long so opening it up to non motorway traffic is in my opinion eminently sensible especially given the leisure facilities and other developments that have appeared on local roads.

[jackal]

This seems absolutely pointless, as was the idea of replacing the bridge with an at-grade junction at great expense.

Both the hard shoulder and the bridge are things that need maintaining, at the local authority's expense, in perpetuity.
Removing either of them, when not justified by the road's classification or traffic flows, removes the maintenance liability in the long term.

Obviously they to weigh up the costs of maintenance versus the costs of replacing to work out how long that pay off would be, and it seems in the case of the bridge, it's now too long to do now, but it might be the better value option when the bridge is at a point of needing a major refurbishment.

A grass verge needs maintaining - and a lot more often than a HS. In fact I wouldn't have an issue on a road like this with basically abandoning the HS, i.e., resurfacing it very rarely if at all. Every local authority has awful potholed roads - I don't see that something that no one actually drives on needs to be a higher standard. The maintenance cost would be lower than a grass verge, not to mention the capital saving of not digging it up with all associated traffic management, etc.

What's curious to me about the bridge replacement attempt is that many functionally similar roads (10k AADT rural bypass) are today built with occasional bridges for minor roads and access. The implication of this project seems to be that that is a horrific waste of money - for if it's cost effective to demolish a bridge, level the earthworks and put in an at-grade junction, it is obviously much more cost effective to not build the bridge and earthworks in the first place and just have an at-grade junction. Have LCCC found an insight or false economy?

[jnty]

This seems absolutely pointless, as was the idea of replacing the bridge with an at-grade junction at great expense.

Both the hard shoulder and the bridge are things that need maintaining, at the local authority's expense, in perpetuity.
Removing either of them, when not justified by the road's classification or traffic flows, removes the maintenance liability in the long term.

Obviously they to weigh up the costs of maintenance versus the costs of replacing to work out how long that pay off would be, and it seems in the case of the bridge, it's now too long to do now, but it might be the better value option when the bridge is at a point of needing a major refurbishment.

A grass verge needs maintaining - and a lot more often than a HS. In fact I wouldn't have an issue on a road like this with basically abandoning the HS, i.e., resurfacing it very rarely if at all. Every local authority has awful potholed roads - I don't see that something that no one actually drives on needs to be a higher standard. The maintenance cost would be lower than a grass verge, not to mention the capital saving of not digging it up with all associated traffic management, etc.

What's curious to me about the bridge replacement attempt is that many functionally similar roads (10k AADT rural bypass) are today built with occasional bridges for minor roads and access. The implication of this project seems to be that that is a horrific waste of money - for if it's cost effective to demolish a bridge, level the earthworks and put in an at-grade junction, it is obviously much more cost effective to not build the bridge and earthworks in the first place and just have an at-grade junction. Have LCCC found an insight or false economy?

It did occur to me that abandoning the hard shoulder, perhaps putting up bollards if the surface becomes unsafe, would be a reasonable compromise, especially if the speed limit is to be lowered.

Re the bridges I agree it sounds a bit odd, but presumably the projected maintenance costs of newbuild bridges are lower than existing ones, and there may be something particular about this one which is problematic. And of course the whole reason we're talking about it again is that it now isn't considered cheaper to get rid of the bridge.

[Chris5156]

What's curious to me about the bridge replacement attempt is that many functionally similar roads (10k AADT rural bypass) are today built with occasional bridges for minor roads and access. The implication of this project seems to be that that is a horrific waste of money - for if it's cost effective to demolish a bridge, level the earthworks and put in an at-grade junction, it is obviously much more cost effective to not build the bridge and earthworks in the first place and just have an at-grade junction. Have LCCC found an insight or false economy?

Seems a very odd economy to make.

I was struck by this line in the linked news article:

County council leader Phillippa Williamson, who represents the Lancaster Rural North division through which the the A601(M) runs, said at last month’s cabinet meeting that she welcomed the road being “upgraded”, as it formed an important “gateway” to the Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

"Upgraded"

[ABB125]

Does reducing the speed limit save money? For example, does it mean that certain maintenance standards can be reduced? Otherwise, what's the point?

Having said that, it's less than a mile. A lot of people wouldn't get above about 50mph along there anyway, before having to slow down.

[Helvellyn]

Does reducing the speed limit save money? For example, does it mean that certain maintenance standards can be reduced? Otherwise, what's the point?

Having said that, it's less than a mile. A lot of people wouldn't get above about 50mph along there anyway, before having to slow down.

Traffic on it usually gets up to 70 at present (in my rather limited experience, I've been along it a handful of times over the years).

A 50 mph limit feels hard to justify, particularly if it's remaining D2 (is it?)

[JammyDodge]

The other option for "economising" is to downgrade it to S2 when it next needs resurfacing, done by abandoning the SB carriageway, and making some minor tie ins at the roundabouts at either end

[KeithW]

The other option for "economising" is to downgrade it to S2 when it next needs resurfacing, done by abandoning the SB carriageway, and making some minor tie ins at the roundabouts at either end

I cant see any substantial savings coming from that, if nothing else having all in two lanes instead of four will accelerate wear on the side remaining open, how much does it really cost to resurface 1 mile of D2 road ? compared to 1 mile of S2 ?

[Glen]

A grass verge needs maintaining - and a lot more often than a HS. In fact I wouldn't have an issue on a road like this with basically abandoning the HS, i.e., resurfacing it very rarely if at all. Every local authority has awful potholed roads - I don't see that something that no one actually drives on needs to be a higher standard. The maintenance cost would be lower than a grass verge, not to mention the capital saving of not digging it up with all associated traffic management, etc.

If the hard shoulder remained accessible it would need to be maintained to some level of safety. If it was accessible it would also need a waiting restriction along it's entire length if it isn't to be used as a large layby.
There is a cost whether it is retained, blocked off or removed, there is no cost-free option.

[JohnnyMo]

A grass verge needs maintaining - and a lot more often than a HS. In fact I wouldn't have an issue on a road like this with basically abandoning the HS, i.e., resurfacing it very rarely if at all. Every local authority has awful potholed roads - I don't see that something that no one actually drives on needs to be a higher standard. The maintenance cost would be lower than a grass verge, not to mention the capital saving of not digging it up with all associated traffic management, etc.

If the hard shoulder remained accessible it would need to be maintained to some level of safety. If it was accessible it would also need a waiting restriction along it's entire length if it isn't to be used as a large layby.
There is a cost whether it is retained, blocked off or removed, there is no cost-free option.

On a almost do nothing basis, I expect the HS will last for decades. A few pot hole with develop but as nothing is driving along there at speed so they should not be a major problem. Maybe eventually moss will take over.
While not an ideal location what would be wrong will lorries overnighting, it is quiet and they would be out of the way. Truck Haven may not like the free competition but may get some extra customers.

[JohnnyMo]

The other option for "economising" is to downgrade it to S2 when it next needs resurfacing, done by abandoning the SB carriageway, and making some minor tie ins at the roundabouts at either end

I cant see any substantial savings coming from that, if nothing else having all in two lanes instead of four will accelerate wear on the side remaining open, how much does it really cost to resurface 1 mile of D2 road ? compared to 1 mile of S2 ?

Providing you can tweak the roundabouts and have effectively an S2 road for the duration. Then do the work with minimum time pressure I suspect it could even be cheaper as little of no traffic management would be needed.

[JohnnyMo]

I suspect little maintenance was done on this bridge in the last 50 years

[jnty]

On a almost do nothing basis, I expect the HS will last for decades. A few pot hole with develop but as nothing is driving along there at speed so they should not be a major problem. Maybe eventually moss will take over.
While not an ideal location what would be wrong will lorries overnighting, it is quiet and they would be out of the way. Truck Haven may not like the free competition but may get some extra customers.

I think lorries parking in laybys overnight like that is generally thought to be a problem due to the waste that ends up left behind. One has to wonder what the state of UK facilities is if that would be a preferable option though.

It can't be great for visibility on a 70mph D2 either.