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.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 01:13
I don't think you are suggesting the M27 should have an at-grade pedestrian crossing, but your wording makes it sound like you are.
Now that would be something to see! Seriously though, I'm of the view that a 'Tardis approach' * to crossing the carriageway in safety will always be the best solution. Cheaper for the highway authority as well, with no expensive structure to maintain.
* sharing in space and time, i.e. the section of carriageway which forms the controlled crossing area has two 'space' functions (motorised, non-motorised) at different points in 'time'. If you don't watch Doctor Who, you'll have no idea what I'm on about.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 01:13
I don't think you are suggesting the M27 should have an at-grade pedestrian crossing, but your wording makes it sound like you are.
Now that would be something to see! Seriously though, I'm of the view that a 'Tardis approach' * to crossing the carriageway in safety will always be the best solution. Cheaper for the highway authority as well, with no expensive structure to maintain.
* sharing in space and time, i.e. the section of carriageway which forms the controlled crossing area has two 'space' functions (motorised, non-motorised) at different points in 'time'. If you don't watch Doctor Who, you'll have no idea what I'm on about.
It's definitely horses for courses. There are plenty of awful bridges and subways, but at what point does a 'car prioritising' pedestrian bridge become a 'people prioritising' road underpass? At-grade crossings have their place, but intrinsically prioritise cars for at least some portion of their cycle. Heavily trafficked crossings near major junctions have a way of traffic modelling themselves into oblivion, with multiple stages for NMUs involving huge waits.
And yes, any proposed NMU crossings of the M27 must involve a bridge or underpass - the proposed plan relies on the A32 underpass, the new teardrop underpass and the Funtley Hill underpass. It also leaves a totally unsignalised, pavementless high-speed diverge. I simply don't buy the argument that active travel provision is the driving force here.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 01:13
I don't think you are suggesting the M27 should have an at-grade pedestrian crossing, but your wording makes it sound like you are.
Now that would be something to see! Seriously though, I'm of the view that a 'Tardis approach' * to crossing the carriageway in safety will always be the best solution. Cheaper for the highway authority as well, with no expensive structure to maintain.
* sharing in space and time, i.e. the section of carriageway which forms the controlled crossing area has two 'space' functions (motorised, non-motorised) at different points in 'time'. If you don't watch Doctor Who, you'll have no idea what I'm on about.
Cyclists will disagree - being stopped for signals and corralled through at-grade crossings saps momentum, and is one of the reasons cyclists will run red lights. Cyclops type junctions etc all work if the signal staging benefits cycling and walking but this is not guaranteed.
Bad design of subways and bridges does not make them a bad idea, pedestrians and cyclists should never be mixed with higher speed traffic flows because you are placing a lot of heavy lifting on a driver actually stopping for a red signal.
At present it seems a very lightly used junction. Instead of inducing demand isn’t there a case for closing J12 completely? It’s not as if the A32 is a major route and fareham is already well served for roads
zapalniczka wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:53
At present it seems a very lightly used junction. Instead of inducing demand isn’t there a case for closing J12 completely? It’s not as if the A32 is a major route and fareham is already well served for roads
Good point - is there something particularly special about the land to the west of Wickham Road versus the land to the east? A genuinely ambitious plan for development would be to close J10 and shut Wickham Road there to motor traffic, re-directing it towards J11 and plugging it into the A27 spur, with the development happening between the new road and the M27. You'd end up benefiting the motorway network (fewer junctions), significantly relieve residential Fareham of north-south slow traffic, create a direct quiet route under the M27 for NMU while achieving direct connectivity between the new development and the trunk road network. The new road could then be continued west to Whiteley Way as a distributor for a wholesale northern expansion to Fareham, offering convenient motor access while maintaining shorter and more direct NMU routes under the M27 into central Fareham.
Last edited by jnty on Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:44, edited 1 time in total.
zapalniczka wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:53
At present it seems a very lightly used junction. Instead of inducing demand isn’t there a case for closing J12 completely? It’s not as if the A32 is a major route and fareham is already well served for roads
Good point - is there something particularly special about the land to the west of Wickham Road versus the land to the east? A genuinely ambitious plan for development would be to close J12 and shut Wickham Road there to motor traffic, re-directing it towards J11 and plugging it into the A27 spur, with the development happening between the new road and the M27. You'd end up benefiting the motorway network (fewer junctions), significantly relieve residential Fareham of north-south slow traffic, create a direct quiet route under the M27 for NMU while achieving direct connectivity between the new development and the trunk road network. The new road could then be continued west to Whiteley Way as a distributor for a wholesale northern expansion to Fareham, offering convenient motor access while maintaining shorter and more direct NMU routes under the M27 into central Fareham.
This is also a good idea - but we're referring to J10 for avoidance of confusion - the residents of Paulsgrove might be miffed if they lose their trumpet!
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
zapalniczka wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:53
At present it seems a very lightly used junction. Instead of inducing demand isn’t there a case for closing J12 completely? It’s not as if the A32 is a major route and fareham is already well served for roads
Good point - is there something particularly special about the land to the west of Wickham Road versus the land to the east? A genuinely ambitious plan for development would be to close J12 and shut Wickham Road there to motor traffic, re-directing it towards J11 and plugging it into the A27 spur, with the development happening between the new road and the M27. You'd end up benefiting the motorway network (fewer junctions), significantly relieve residential Fareham of north-south slow traffic, create a direct quiet route under the M27 for NMU while achieving direct connectivity between the new development and the trunk road network. The new road could then be continued west to Whiteley Way as a distributor for a wholesale northern expansion to Fareham, offering convenient motor access while maintaining shorter and more direct NMU routes under the M27 into central Fareham.
This is also a good idea - but we're referring to J10 for avoidance of confusion - the residents of Paulsgrove might be miffed if they lose their trumpet!
One early iteration was indeed to bring everything to J11 and close J10, with the site of J10 being 'reserved for local traffic and BRT'. I believe the issue with that approach was that J11 wouldn't cope under any configuration (and this is one justification for the 'all ways' J10, to reduce traffic which is currently u-turning at J11).
This earlier idea would have involved a much larger section of the Welborne development being to the east of the A32 with the A32 being diverted through it from the Knowle roundabout to pick up the existing northern connection at J11. I also think there might have been land ownership issues with that eastern element of the development which is now reduced to a strip only about 200-300m wide down the east side of the A32.
Now that would be something to see! Seriously though, I'm of the view that a 'Tardis approach' * to crossing the carriageway in safety will always be the best solution. Cheaper for the highway authority as well, with no expensive structure to maintain.
