A57(M) speed limit to be reduced to 30 mph

[Bryn666]

Manchester City Council doing their best to make up a story to disguise their own negligence/incompetence here:

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/news/a ... oad_safety

What they really mean is in 2018 someone wiped out a length of barrier in the Chester Road Underpass and they've finally decided to repair it next month which requires a roadworks speed limit for the TM as there will be un-tensioned barrier on a high speed road (there has been since 2018, but obviously someone has finally noticed). Anyone who used the A63 towards Hull last year will remember there was an incredibly painful length of 40 from the end of the M62 towards Melton for barrier repairs as well so this is not unusual.

The press release is, however, making it sound like this is some kind of attempt to improve road safety - which is BS. The design speed of Mancunian Way was 40 mph, it was later raised to 50 when it became a motorway in 1973 and this has always been a bit iffy given the state of the junctions and alignment. A sensible road safety evidence led limit would be to return to 40 - no one is going to adhere to 30 and there is nowhere to enforce a 30 from either. There is also the question of does high mast lighting qualify as a system under the repeater sign regulations so a massive Nick Freeman court case waiting to happen I think.

Given MCC's cavalier approach to road safety in general it doesn't surprise me they'd push out a press release pretending they give a toss. As it stands this is an 18 month order at longest because it relates to roadworks and supposedly the signs will be in place by 9pm tonight - none were in place at 9am this morning so they must be out there now frantically installing legally compliant signage. I won't hold my breath.

[Truvelo]

So the speed limit will be temporary with a view to making it permanent?

The article makes no mention of the speed of the vehicles involved in the collisions. Would Specs enforcement of the existing speed limit achieve greater success? The typical knee jerk reaction is to reduce the speed limit regardless of the speeds of the collisions. It wouldn't surprise me if the cause of some of these incidents was similar to that on the Birmingham Middleway a few years ago when a high performance car was being driving at 90+mph in the early hours of the morning. That also took place in a similar style underpass.

[Bryn666]

So the speed limit will be temporary with a view to making it permanent?

The article makes no mention of the speed of the vehicles involved in the collisions. Would Specs enforcement of the existing speed limit achieve greater success? The typical knee jerk reaction is to reduce the speed limit regardless of the speeds of the collisions. It wouldn't surprise me if the cause of some of these incidents was similar to that on the Birmingham Middleway a few years ago when a high performance car was being driving at 90+mph in the early hours of the morning. That also took place in a similar style underpass.

For at least 15 hours of the day there will be a queue in the underpass so 30 or 50 is irrelevant, the real problem is the complete mishandling of the truth to just say "we need to put a temporary speed limit in for a bit".

[Bomag]

Manchester City Council doing their best to make up a story to disguise their own negligence/incompetence here:

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/news/a ... oad_safety

What they really mean is in 2018 someone wiped out a length of barrier in the Chester Road Underpass and they've finally decided to repair it next month which requires a roadworks speed limit for the TM as there will be un-tensioned barrier on a high speed road (there has been since 2018, but obviously someone has finally noticed). Anyone who used the A63 towards Hull last year will remember there was an incredibly painful length of 40 from the end of the M62 towards Melton for barrier repairs as well so this is not unusual.

The press release is, however, making it sound like this is some kind of attempt to improve road safety - which is BS. The design speed of Mancunian Way was 40 mph, it was later raised to 50 when it became a motorway in 1973 and this has always been a bit iffy given the state of the junctions and alignment. A sensible road safety evidence led limit would be to return to 40 - no one is going to adhere to 30 and there is nowhere to enforce a 30 from either. There is also the question of does high mast lighting qualify as a system under the repeater sign regulations so a massive Nick Freeman court case waiting to happen I think.

Given MCC's cavalier approach to road safety in general it doesn't surprise me they'd push out a press release pretending they give a toss. As it stands this is an 18 month order at longest because it relates to roadworks and supposedly the signs will be in place by 9pm tonight - none were in place at 9am this morning so they must be out there now frantically installing legally compliant signage. I won't hold my breath.

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

[Bryn666]

Manchester City Council doing their best to make up a story to disguise their own negligence/incompetence here:

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/news/a ... oad_safety

What they really mean is in 2018 someone wiped out a length of barrier in the Chester Road Underpass and they've finally decided to repair it next month which requires a roadworks speed limit for the TM as there will be un-tensioned barrier on a high speed road (there has been since 2018, but obviously someone has finally noticed). Anyone who used the A63 towards Hull last year will remember there was an incredibly painful length of 40 from the end of the M62 towards Melton for barrier repairs as well so this is not unusual.

The press release is, however, making it sound like this is some kind of attempt to improve road safety - which is BS. The design speed of Mancunian Way was 40 mph, it was later raised to 50 when it became a motorway in 1973 and this has always been a bit iffy given the state of the junctions and alignment. A sensible road safety evidence led limit would be to return to 40 - no one is going to adhere to 30 and there is nowhere to enforce a 30 from either. There is also the question of does high mast lighting qualify as a system under the repeater sign regulations so a massive Nick Freeman court case waiting to happen I think.

Given MCC's cavalier approach to road safety in general it doesn't surprise me they'd push out a press release pretending they give a toss. As it stands this is an 18 month order at longest because it relates to roadworks and supposedly the signs will be in place by 9pm tonight - none were in place at 9am this morning so they must be out there now frantically installing legally compliant signage. I won't hold my breath.

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

Given the sheer crud-show they inflicted on Great Ancoats Street, which included removing cycle infrastructure in full ignorance of TSM 6, LTN 1/20, and their own Bee Network, it does not surprise me whatsoever. Shall you tell them or shall I? I mean they already hate me so...

[A303Chris]

Same as TfL reducing the A40 from just to the west of Target Roundabout to the Hoover Building from 50mph to 40mph saying the crash barrier is iffy.

Road was SPECS enforced for 50mph, so now its 40 mph. No sign of any repair to the barrier three years later and 40 mph on a HQDC which was originally 70 mph is a crawl.

[ravenbluemoon]

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

Don't tell them that... they'll "do a London" and apply to remove the motorway status!

[brummie_rob]

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

How did the M5 Oldbury Viaduct works have a temporary speed limit of 30mph then? Was that not within the guidelines?

[JammyDodge]

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

How did the M5 Oldbury Viaduct works have a temporary speed limit of 30mph then? Was that not within the guidelines?

Did that operate as a contra-flow at some point? I can't remember
If so, maybe there is a different guidelines for that?

[Chris5156]

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

How did the M5 Oldbury Viaduct works have a temporary speed limit of 30mph then? Was that not within the guidelines?

I don’t claim to know the answer, but I’d offer the observation that much of the traffic management for that scheme was some way adrift of the regulations.

[DB617]

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

How did the M5 Oldbury Viaduct works have a temporary speed limit of 30mph then? Was that not within the guidelines?

I don’t claim to know the answer, but I’d offer the observation that much of the traffic management for that scheme was some way adrift of the regulations.

Is there even any accommodation in the regulations for literally closing an entire carriageway, especially in a width restricted area? I wonder if there was any wiggle room in the project to actually avoid closing the entire carriageway at once, but they took the liberty anyway for the purpose of speed or excess safety margin.

[FosseWay]

What is the logic behind reducing the speed limit so far because of inoperative/absent crash barriers? I can understand why you might reduce from 70 to 50, for example, since one of the general features of most roads where 70 is permitted is that they have advanced crash prevention/mitigation measures. But the vast majority of the road network is NSL or 50, with no such measures to speak of at all, but with alignments, visibility issues, presence of pedestrians/cyclists/horses etc. that make them inherently less safe than a motorway, whether or not it has a central barrier.

I feel that when sub-50 limits are imposed on dual carriageways with limited access, the authorities should make an effort to communicate the logic to users, especially in cases where protecting the workforce isn't relevant. Otherwise it just brings speed limits in general into disrepute.

NB - this is a generic question, not specifically related to the A57(M).

[Chris5156]

How did the M5 Oldbury Viaduct works have a temporary speed limit of 30mph then? Was that not within the guidelines?

I don’t claim to know the answer, but I’d offer the observation that much of the traffic management for that scheme was some way adrift of the regulations.

Is there even any accommodation in the regulations for literally closing an entire carriageway, especially in a width restricted area? I wonder if there was any wiggle room in the project to actually avoid closing the entire carriageway at once, but they took the liberty anyway for the purpose of speed or excess safety margin.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't. Closure of an entire carriageway, and operation in contraflow, has been a standard way of setting up roadworks on motorways for about 50 years.

[Bryn666]

I don’t claim to know the answer, but I’d offer the observation that much of the traffic management for that scheme was some way adrift of the regulations.

Is there even any accommodation in the regulations for literally closing an entire carriageway, especially in a width restricted area? I wonder if there was any wiggle room in the project to actually avoid closing the entire carriageway at once, but they took the liberty anyway for the purpose of speed or excess safety margin.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't. Closure of an entire carriageway, and operation in contraflow, has been a standard way of setting up roadworks on motorways for about 50 years.

Are you sure? I thought contraflows were a late 2010s Highways England invention to speed up smart motorway construction, because that's what they were telling everyone when they shoved them on the M62 and M6 a few years ago

[mikehindsonevans]

Is there even any accommodation in the regulations for literally closing an entire carriageway, especially in a width restricted area? I wonder if there was any wiggle room in the project to actually avoid closing the entire carriageway at once, but they took the liberty anyway for the purpose of speed or excess safety margin.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't. Closure of an entire carriageway, and operation in contraflow, has been a standard way of setting up roadworks on motorways for about 50 years.

Are you sure? I thought contraflows were a late 2010s Highways England invention to speed up smart motorway construction, because that's what they were telling everyone when they shoved them on the M62 and M6 a few years ago

Oh definitely not. I remember early contraflow with just cones separating the flows on motorways back in the 1980s.

Can anyone help give more accuracy on when contraflow first appeared, using just cones on motorways?

[Bryn666]

I'd be astonished if there wasn't. Closure of an entire carriageway, and operation in contraflow, has been a standard way of setting up roadworks on motorways for about 50 years.

Are you sure? I thought contraflows were a late 2010s Highways England invention to speed up smart motorway construction, because that's what they were telling everyone when they shoved them on the M62 and M6 a few years ago

Oh definitely not. I remember early contraflow with just cones separating the flows on motorways back in the 1980s.

Can anyone help give more accuracy on when contraflow first appeared, using just cones on motorways?

Can't confirm but I think the very first was on the M5 in Worcestershire in the early 70s - they used the police crossovers and they were very scary indeed. The result was a few rollovers and later on purpose built crossovers were built for roadworks contraflows. It wasn't until the mid 80s that roadworks even got mandatory speed limits, so these early contraflows had a tiny row of cones and nothing but two way traffic signs.

Some countries still do that, as an aside.

[Bomag]

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

How did the M5 Oldbury Viaduct works have a temporary speed limit of 30mph then? Was that not within the guidelines?

No it wasn't within the TSM until from Feb 2020, but the legal issue behind it applied from 2016. The 2016 version of Part 3 didn't mention it as the authors did not think anybody would consider it acceptable - the lowest acceptable speed limit for all NSL dual carriageway has been 40 mph since at least 2009 (D3.7.28).

[solocle]

Since TSRGD 2016 the lowest enforcible temporary speed limit on a motorway is 40 mph; as stated in TSM Chapter 8, which defines what is enforceable signing for Section 85 RTRA 1984. U2.9.1 and U2.10.9. If a 30 mph limit is 'needed' for safety then the authority/contractor is not meeting the requirements of Section 174 HA 1980.

How did the M5 Oldbury Viaduct works have a temporary speed limit of 30mph then? Was that not within the guidelines?

No it wasn't within the TSM until from Feb 2020, but the legal issue behind it applied from 2016. The 2016 version of Part 3 didn't mention it as the authors did not think anybody would consider it acceptable - the lowest acceptable speed limit for all NSL dual carriageway has been 40 mph since at least 2009 (D3.7.28).

Yeah, my experience was when there were bridge works on the A35, NSL DC, there were 30 signs placed right from the Holes Bay Roundabout. The end result was an average traffic speed of nearer 60 mph. In comparison the current works along there have an advisory 40 mph speed limit that sees more compliance! The police even enforced the 30... https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/ ... roadworks/

[KeithW]

I'd be astonished if there wasn't. Closure of an entire carriageway, and operation in contraflow, has been a standard way of setting up roadworks on motorways for about 50 years.

Are you sure? I thought contraflows were a late 2010s Highways England invention to speed up smart motorway construction, because that's what they were telling everyone when they shoved them on the M62 and M6 a few years ago

Oh definitely not. I remember early contraflow with just cones separating the flows on motorways back in the 1980s.

Can anyone help give more accuracy on when contraflow first appeared, using just cones on motorways?

ISTR seeing them on the M1 in the early to mid 1980's. As I recall they were rebuilding carriageways and would close one side of the motorway and separate the N/S carriageways on the other side with cones. It was one of the factors why I switched to the A1/A1(M)

[jervi]

I'd be astonished if there wasn't. Closure of an entire carriageway, and operation in contraflow, has been a standard way of setting up roadworks on motorways for about 50 years.

Are you sure? I thought contraflows were a late 2010s Highways England invention to speed up smart motorway construction, because that's what they were telling everyone when they shoved them on the M62 and M6 a few years ago

Oh definitely not. I remember early contraflow with just cones separating the flows on motorways back in the 1980s.

Can anyone help give more accuracy on when contraflow first appeared, using just cones on motorways?

I thought contraflows were more of an old fashioned TM method, which is rarely found used nowadays. There was even a warning signs to show use of contraflow (end of, and maybe start of) which is no longer prescribed, as well as motorways in the 70s and maybe into the 80s that were built with crossover points before they were all closed due to illegal u-turning resulting in many fatalities - according to "Trunk Roads, England. Into the 1990s"