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.
JohnnyMo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 09:03
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.
A "do nothing" option and leaving it as a lay-by will result a significant increase in usage and in turn an increase in the maintenance required. It would probably have more traffic on it in a year than in the previous fifty years.
On many older motorways the hard shoulder wasn't constructed to the same standard as the running lanes, so it could become unsafe a lot quicker than you expect.
They can't just leave the hard shoulder falling to pieces as there would be a risk to traffic using it as well as debris being spread into the carriageway.
Glen wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 00:44
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.
That is true of any road in the country BUT we are talking about 1 mile of road with an AADF similar to most urban roads and a darn site less than just about any motorway slip road which is what to all intents and purposes this is.
So the question arises are there other such spurs and of course there are. The most obvious example in my local area is the A66(M) which is just over 2 miles long and is also D2(M). While the A601(M) is to be downgraded nobody has said that maintenance will cease but the projection is that the cost of maintaining it as all purpose road is lower and would save Lancashire County Council £26.9m in maintenance costs over a 30-year period. It would also allow non motorised users such as cyclists to use it. At this point in time an NMU heading from Over Kellet to the A6 has to take a long diversion via Carnforth which makes little sense.
The most degraded section of the A601(M) has in fact had around £17 million spent on repairing the bridges along the length of it as otherwise it would at best have had speed and weight limits imposed and at worst have to be closed.
https://www.lep.co.uk/news/transport/lancashires-one-mile-long-mini-motorway-set-to-be-downgraded-3450126 wrote:
The reclassification of the remaining northern section was prompted when an assessment found that the five bridges along its length found that they were in need of significant work to ensure that they could remain in use. Back in 2019, the county council revealed that it could be forced to impose weight restrictions on the mini-motorway – sending heavy goods vehicles on a 21-mile diversion – or even close it altogether.
The authority has since received £15.9m from the government’s Transport Infrastructure Investment Fund – and last year allocated £9.2m from that pot to undertaking the bridge work on the A601(M). As part of the project, the Higher North Road Bridge will be removed altogether and replaced with a new junction.
We are not talking about a pristine high quality motorway here - this was built as a temporary terminus for the M6 Lancaster bypass in 1960. Here we see motorway maintenance in action on this road. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.13201 ... 8192?hl=en
KeithW wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 11:06
We are not talking about a pristine high quality motorway here - this was built as a temporary terminus for the M6 Lancaster bypass in 1960. Here we see motorway maintenance in action on this road. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.13201 ... 8192?hl=en
A perfect example that the grass verge would probably require very little extra maintenance as there is already an existing verge requiring (quite serious-looking) maintenance!
jackal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 13:05
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.
Yes, but what is 'some level of safety' for an essentially unused hard shoulder? Maybe fill in the biggest potholes every decade or so? I suspect this is a lot cheaper and less disruptive than cutting the grass a couple of times a year.
Waiting restrictions are not required on motorway hard shoulders.
KeithW wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 11:06So the question arises are there other such spurs and of course there are. The most obvious example in my local area is the A66(M) which is just over 2 miles long and is also D2(M). While the A601(M) is to be downgraded nobody has said that maintenance will cease but the projection is that the cost of maintaining it as all purpose road is lower and would save Lancashire County Council £26.9m in maintenance costs over a 30-year period.
The A66(M) is a trunk road, though, and one wonders whether it would be in such good condition if it had been a local authority road for the last 50 years.
When you look at local authority motorways, the picture is much more patchy. Trafford got rid of the A6144(M), downgrading it to plain A-road, to reduce their maintenance costs; among other things, at the time it was downgraded they cited the administrative overhead of getting suitable permits for contractors to work on the road, which wouldn't be necessary if it was all-purpose. If you're National Highways and your bread and butter is maintenance of motorways, that's neither here nor there, but if your work is maintaining local roads then that's a hassle you could understandably do without.
jackal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 14:23
Yes, but what is 'some level of safety' for an essentially unused hard shoulder? Maybe fill in the biggest potholes every decade or so? I suspect this is a lot cheaper and less disruptive than cutting the grass a couple of times a year.
Waiting restrictions are not required on motorway hard shoulders.
Even though a hard shoulder reserved for emergency use is only occasionally used, it still needs to allow for a vehicle entering it at the speed limit, leaving it to fall to bits would leave the authority open to claims for damage to vehicles.
The local authority are intending to remove the motorway status from the whole route, which is why the future of the hard shoulder and the overbridge are being discussed.
jackal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 14:23
Yes, but what is 'some level of safety' for an essentially unused hard shoulder? Maybe fill in the biggest potholes every decade or so? I suspect this is a lot cheaper and less disruptive than cutting the grass a couple of times a year.
Waiting restrictions are not required on motorway hard shoulders.
Even though a hard shoulder reserved for emergency use is only occasionally used, it still needs to allow for a vehicle entering it at the speed limit, leaving it to fall to bits would leave the authority open to claims for damage to vehicles.
Many 60mph minor roads have significant potholes, and vastly higher AADT than a hard shoulder. The LA propose a 50 limit.
Really though we don't need a long back and forth about such a minor issue.
Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 16:26
The A66(M) is a trunk road, though, and one wonders whether it would be in such good condition if it had been a local authority road for the last 50 years.
When you look at local authority motorways, the picture is much more patchy. Trafford got rid of the A6144(M), downgrading it to plain A-road, to reduce their maintenance costs; among other things, at the time it was downgraded they cited the administrative overhead of getting suitable permits for contractors to work on the road, which wouldn't be necessary if it was all-purpose. If you're National Highways and your bread and butter is maintenance of motorways, that's neither here nor there, but if your work is maintaining local roads then that's a hassle you could understandably do without.
Indeed but the A66(M) now feeds onto the A66 which as a trunk road is maintained by National Highways. The A601(M) does not receive funding for maintenance from central government as it is not trunk. If the A601(M) is to be classed as a strategic road then funding for that should come from the DfT. Clearly it was not built or maintained to the same standard as the A66(M) which opened in 1965. It feeds directly on to the A1(M) at J57. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.50510 ... 8192?hl=en
Of course for many years the A66(M) simply ended here on the Blackwell Roundabout at which you were dumped back on the old A1 (now A167) and left to the tender mercies of the Darlington Ring Road. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.50986 ... 8192?hl=en
jackal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 14:23
Yes, but what is 'some level of safety' for an essentially unused hard shoulder? Maybe fill in the biggest potholes every decade or so? I suspect this is a lot cheaper and less disruptive than cutting the grass a couple of times a year.
Waiting restrictions are not required on motorway hard shoulders.
Even though a hard shoulder reserved for emergency use is only occasionally used, it still needs to allow for a vehicle entering it at the speed limit, leaving it to fall to bits would leave the authority open to claims for damage to vehicles.
The local authority are intending to remove the motorway status from the whole route, which is why the future of the hard shoulder and the overbridge are being discussed.
The mythical A36(M) has a hard shoulder. The status of the clearway regulations with respect to it are... unclear, to say the least.
The A36(M) has been claimed to be the number for the spur of the M27 from junction 2 (with the A36 and A31 - now A3090). It opened as part of the M27 in 1975, and was downgraded to an extension of the A36 when the Totton Western Bypass opened.
While it's lawful to stop on NI's A-road hard shoulders, it's unusual to see parking on them unless there's something local to park for (such as an inadequate Park and Ride, which caused a clearway to be imposed over a distance of a few hundred metres) - even on the A8 on the approach to Larne if a lorry is too early to check in. Granted, our network is a lot smaller and drivers' hours a consequently smaller problem, but even where hard shoulders exist, lorry drivers prefer to continue to proper laybys.
solocle wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 21:31
The mythical A36(M) has a hard shoulder. The status of the clearway regulations with respect to it are... unclear, to say the least.
7FB9CAB0-8110-4372-BBFF-FC8E3A9C845C.jpeg
So does the A1 - Blyth Bypass, built to the same standard as the A1(M) - Doncaster Bypass
jackal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 18:29
Really though we don't need a long back and forth about such a minor issue.
Nothing much happening on unleashed
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
c2R wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:53This notes that the A601(M) will become a Primary A Road. I'm hoping for A601, but any bets from anyone else?
I wonder why primary? It won't connect to a primary road, nor will it lead to a primary destination. Possibly this is one of those daft situations where "primary" means something else in terms of the council's own internal hierarchy of roads.
A601 would be favourite, since I doubt they'll think to check the status of the longstanding existing classification, but if they do decide to fix the numbering anomaly, it'll be something daft that sounds similar - A6601?
c2R wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:53This notes that the A601(M) will become a Primary A Road. I'm hoping for A601, but any bets from anyone else?
I wonder why primary? It won't connect to a primary road, nor will it lead to a primary destination. Possibly this is one of those daft situations where "primary" means something else in terms of the council's own internal hierarchy of roads.
A601 would be favourite, since I doubt they'll think to check the status of the longstanding existing classification, but if they do decide to fix the numbering anomaly, it'll be something daft that sounds similar - A6601?
c2R wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:53This notes that the A601(M) will become a Primary A Road. I'm hoping for A601, but any bets from anyone else?
I wonder why primary? It won't connect to a primary road, nor will it lead to a primary destination. Possibly this is one of those daft situations where "primary" means something else in terms of the council's own internal hierarchy of roads.
A601 would be favourite, since I doubt they'll think to check the status of the longstanding existing classification, but if they do decide to fix the numbering anomaly, it'll be something daft that sounds similar - A6601?
There are two A-road links of almost exactly the same length between Lancaster and Kendal. One, presumably the more important, is the A6; the A6070 is part of the alternative.
Nowadays the A6070 starts rather grandly as a dual carriageway at junction 35 of the M6, having in February 2023 taken over the route of the northern sector of the A601(M). This road was on opening
Chris5156 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:03
I wonder why primary? It won't connect to a primary road, nor will it lead to a primary destination. Possibly this is one of those daft situations where "primary" means something else in terms of the council's own internal hierarchy of roads.
A601 would be favourite, since I doubt they'll think to check the status of the longstanding existing classification, but if they do decide to fix the numbering anomaly, it'll be something daft that sounds similar - A6601?
So, an extension to the existing A6070, including a short multiplex with the A6. Could be worse!
Yep, quite a sensible number. I'm not sure when the legislation will be published per HA 1980 Schedule 2, and thus the despecialisation take legal effect.
Highways Act 1980 wrote:
Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, as soon as may be after a scheme or order to which this Schedule applies has been made or confirmed by the Minister, he shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the scheme or order has been made or confirmed, and naming a place where a copy of it may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours.
Whether there will be a period where the order has been confirmed and ceases to be a motorway, but the road still has motorway signs, remains to be seen.
There are two A-road links of almost exactly the same length between Lancaster and Kendal. One, presumably the more important, is the A6; the A6070 is part of the alternative.
Nowadays the A6070 starts rather grandly as a dual carriageway at junction 35 of the M6, having in February 2023 taken over the route of the northern sector of the A601(M). This road was on opening
solocle wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 13:05Whether there will be a period where the order has been confirmed and ceases to be a motorway, but the road still has motorway signs, remains to be seen.
Probably so - though there is precedent for it all to happen in one hit. When the A6144(M) was despecialised in 2006, Trafford MBC organised an overnight closure spanning midnight on the day the order took effect, and used it to replace all the signs. (The next day someone managed to get hold of some of them.)
solocle wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 13:05Whether there will be a period where the order has been confirmed and ceases to be a motorway, but the road still has motorway signs, remains to be seen.
Probably so - though there is precedent for it all to happen in one hit. When the A6144(M) was despecialised in 2006, Trafford MBC organised an overnight closure spanning midnight on the day the order took effect, and used it to replace all the signs. (The next day someone managed to get hold of some of them.)
Another rescue mission is probably in order.
If the order takes effect before the works are carried out, I'm guessing it would be legal to cycle up it straight past the chopsticks, although the B6601 might still have its TROs in effect, raising interesting legal questions at the roundabout.
Which is probably why Trafford MBC wanted to get it done on the day. The prohibition signs needed to go up, whereas the new A6070 won't have any NMU prohibitions.
For a case with some parallels, consider M32 J2, which has this signage bodge. I cycled past the flag sign chopsticks, once I established that it was in fact bodged.
But the official chopsticks that used to be there vanished sometime between 2019 and 2020 - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4757617 ... 384!8i8192
The flag sign is clearly wrong, and there's no further signage, but imo it would be brave to try and test that in court.
My guess is that the blue signs will come down at the start of the roadworks to remove the hard shoulder and repair the bridges, and the chopsticks might not necessarily be placed on frames temporarily, on the basis that a TTRO will provide a speed limit through the works, and the motorway regulations, while they would theoretically still apply, are unenforceable in the absence of the relevant regulatory signs.
There would presumably be a certain logic in renumbering the B6601 as A6070 too then (though I can likewise understand the logic in terminating the A-road at the motorway, rather than continuing it to a B-road).
