A13 in Dagenham reduced 40 to 30 mph

[WHBM]

The old Lodge Avenue S4 flyover on the A13 in Dagenham, a short 40mph in the otherwise 50mph HQDC A13, has been further reduced from 40 to 30mph - with of course the concomitant speed cameras.

This was the last part of the A13 rebuilding project from 20 years ago. It is part of the overall 30-year DBFO by builders/maintainers RMS (A13) ltd, which I think came from 1998 and runs to 2028. part of this was, at the end of the concession, the DBFO were to rebuild the flyover to full current standards.

Looking at the steel flyover structure from underneath, as I do from time to time, it has been allowed to get into an appalling state of rust, if not outright corrosion. They could at least have repainted it. I am guessing the reduction is due to the viaduct condition.

[DB617]

Hearing the things I do about the stuff Network Rail is now getting away with (think Railtrack) I do wonder if some DBFO operators or even local highway authorities could be getting away with Morandi-level neglect of structures. I hope there are checks and balances in place to prevent this, but in 2022, it's hard to be sure. A little scary, I must say.

It's also remarkable how many examples of severe chloride attack and corrosion have come up in recent years. It seems a lot of the problems on the A36 at Bath were down to it. Have we changed the amount we grit, the amount of grit used, the composition, anything at all, or is it just years of neglect only now getting noticed?

[WHBM]

It's also remarkable how many examples of severe chloride attack and corrosion have come up in recent years. It seems a lot of the problems on the A36 at Bath were down to it. Have we changed the amount we grit, the amount of grit used, the composition, anything at all, or is it just years of neglect only now getting noticed?

Well it ought to be the opposite. We constantly have rammed down our throats the global warming/climate change line, and those involved with winter maintenance are well aware of the reduction in salt spreading tonnage compared to a generation and more ago, so the corrosion, and treatment of it, should be less than before.

The apparent absence of routine maintenance and steelwork painting/corrosion protection on this flyover seems to tell its own story. Of course, the DBFO here has been progressively sold and resold since initial formation, now being in the hands of those whose only interest is increased revenue margins on spreadsheets.

[ajuk]

Many of the speed limit drops are to pander purely to the X over the speed limit brigade, I've seen councils openly admit this in consultation. That the concern was with people exceeding the old limit, not people driving within it, even though that's what you're prohibiting . Such a vacuous reason in my opinion.
Either that or they exist to shift responsibility.
When most people are exceeding the speed limit every accident is the fault of the driver and the council is no longer accountable for poor road design or maintenance.

[Runwell]

I drove along there last night and got completely caught out by the speed limit change, as I headed to Upney Lane. Hadn't seen any warning of it. First thing I knew was the 30mph with white camera sign just before I got to the flyover, heading in to town. I think it may have been the cause of congestion as well, as it was much busier than it normally was for that time - motorists also caught out by the sudden change and hitting the brakes?

I've noticed the really poor condition of the flyover for some time, just by using the roundabout. Lots of concrete breaking up along the parapets, exposing the rebar. If there are issues about its integrity, the proposal for the rerouting of that section (also removing the Renwick Road lights bottleneck) needs to be shuffled up the order. A situation where the flyover has to be shut would cause catastrophic congestion in that area, to the point where I don't know how it would be possible to get from A to B around there?

[c2R]

Many of the speed limit drops are to pander purely to the X over the speed limit brigade, I've seen councils openly admit this in consultation. That the concern was with people exceeding the old limit, not people driving within it, even though that's what you're prohibiting . Such a vacuous reason in my opinion.
Either that or they exist to shift responsibility.
When most people are exceeding the speed limit every accident is the fault of the driver and the council is no longer accountable for poor road design or maintenance.

This, however, doesn't seem like either - more likely is that the temporary flyover is end of life, and needs replacing.

[KeithW]

Hearing the things I do about the stuff Network Rail is now getting away with (think Railtrack) I do wonder if some DBFO operators or even local highway authorities could be getting away with Morandi-level neglect of structures. I hope there are checks and balances in place to prevent this, but in 2022, it's hard to be sure. A little scary, I must say.

It's also remarkable how many examples of severe chloride attack and corrosion have come up in recent years. It seems a lot of the problems on the A36 at Bath were down to it. Have we changed the amount we grit, the amount of grit used, the composition, anything at all, or is it just years of neglect only now getting noticed?

In both cases you are largely dealing with structures that are anything from 100 to 200 years old and we have been using road salt for at least 70 years, in more recent times the milder winters have if anything seen the amount used reduce.

UK legislation requires that a bridge has to undergo a general (visual) inspection every two years and a principal (close visual) inspection every six. Any concerns are followed up with special inspections. This is how they discovered the problems with the Huntingdon Viaduct and the Tees Transporter Bridge. In many cases the weak points are expansion joints and steel reinforcement in the form of tendons in pre stressed structures or rebar in conventional structures.

One of the better know examples where this was an issue was the Thelwall Viaduct which cause me grief for years.

[Bryn666]

Many of the speed limit drops are to pander purely to the X over the speed limit brigade, I've seen councils openly admit this in consultation. That the concern was with people exceeding the old limit, not people driving within it, even though that's what you're prohibiting . Such a vacuous reason in my opinion.
Either that or they exist to shift responsibility.
When most people are exceeding the speed limit every accident is the fault of the driver and the council is no longer accountable for poor road design or maintenance.

This, however, doesn't seem like either - more likely is that the temporary flyover is end of life, and needs replacing.

No council is going to shirk liability by reducing a speed limit, this is pure tin foil hat nonsense. The highway authority has a failing asset and no money to replace it, higher speeds mean more vibrations across joints and more damage.

This is why the Brent Cross flyover now has a 7.5t limit too.

Perhaps people with a gripe against the state of the road network could find and join a campaign for properly funded maintenance regimes instead of looking for victimised motorist conspiracies at every opportunity but I've stopped expecting such things from here long ago.

[WHBM]

Perhaps people with a gripe against the state of the road network could find and join a campaign for properly funded maintenance regimes instead of looking for victimised motorist conspiracies at every opportunity but I've stopped expecting such things from here long ago.

But this IS one of the cases where a "properly funded" maintenance regime has been provided; the 1997 DBFO allowed RMS (A13) Ltd to receive payments against building up a reserve to replace the flyover with a full modern structure by the end of the DBFO period, 2027. The monies for this have already been paid over and accounted for.

I don't think it's even had the steelwork repainted since 1997.

[John McAdam]

But this IS one of the cases where a "properly funded" maintenance regime has been provided; the 1997 DBFO allowed RMS (A13) Ltd to receive payments against building up a reserve to replace the flyover with a full modern structure by the end of the DBFO period, 2027. The monies for this have already been paid over and accounted for.

Perhaps it's just a case of having to wait out the next four/five years then, until the replacement is provided?

[ajuk]

Many of the speed limit drops are to pander purely to the X over the speed limit brigade, I've seen councils openly admit this in consultation. That the concern was with people exceeding the old limit, not people driving within it, even though that's what you're prohibiting . Such a vacuous reason in my opinion.
Either that or they exist to shift responsibility.
When most people are exceeding the speed limit every accident is the fault of the driver and the council is no longer accountable for poor road design or maintenance.

This, however, doesn't seem like either - more likely is that the temporary flyover is end of life, and needs replacing.

No council is going to shirk liability by reducing a speed limit, this is pure tin foil hat nonsense. The highway authority has a failing asset and no money to replace it, higher speeds mean more vibrations across joints and more damage.

This is why the Brent Cross flyover now has a 7.5t limit too.

Perhaps people with a gripe against the state of the road network could find and join a campaign for properly funded maintenance regimes instead of looking for victimised motorist conspiracies at every opportunity but I've stopped expecting such things from here long ago.

That's an appeal to the stone followed by an immediate contradiction. They don't have money to fix it, so just chuck some signs up...

[Bryn666]

This, however, doesn't seem like either - more likely is that the temporary flyover is end of life, and needs replacing.

No council is going to shirk liability by reducing a speed limit, this is pure tin foil hat nonsense. The highway authority has a failing asset and no money to replace it, higher speeds mean more vibrations across joints and more damage.

This is why the Brent Cross flyover now has a 7.5t limit too.

Perhaps people with a gripe against the state of the road network could find and join a campaign for properly funded maintenance regimes instead of looking for victimised motorist conspiracies at every opportunity but I've stopped expecting such things from here long ago.

That's an appeal to the stone followed by an immediate contradiction. They don't have money to fix it, so just chuck some signs up...

TRO cost: £2,000
Repair flyover cost: £50,000,000

Perhaps you'd rather the flyover collapses and kills everyone crossing it. It works for the Americans as a policy.

[Scratchwood]

Perhaps people with a gripe against the state of the road network could find and join a campaign for properly funded maintenance regimes instead of looking for victimised motorist conspiracies at every opportunity but I've stopped expecting such things from here long ago.

But this IS one of the cases where a "properly funded" maintenance regime has been provided; the 1997 DBFO allowed RMS (A13) Ltd to receive payments against building up a reserve to replace the flyover with a full modern structure by the end of the DBFO period, 2027. The monies for this have already been paid over and accounted for.

I don't think it's even had the steelwork repainted since 1997.

Shouldn't they be actively generating plans to replace if now, if there's only 5 years left on the contract?

[Simps]

The replacement of Lodge Avenue Flyover would have stated by now with a 2+2 configuration however LB Barking & Dagenham have for several years been trying to stop this from happening because they want a tunnel build instead. The flyover replacement works will now be proceeding however.

[Helvellyn]

Many of the speed limit drops are to pander purely to the X over the speed limit brigade, I've seen councils openly admit this in consultation. That the concern was with people exceeding the old limit, not people driving within it, even though that's what you're prohibiting . Such a vacuous reason in my opinion.
Either that or they exist to shift responsibility.
When most people are exceeding the speed limit every accident is the fault of the driver and the council is no longer accountable for poor road design or maintenance.

This, however, doesn't seem like either - more likely is that the temporary flyover is end of life, and needs replacing.

Sounds like it, but it does point out a problem with all the more political reductions - when one's in place for a good but not obvious on the surface reason the political reductions mean the reasonable ones are more likely to be ignored.

[WHBM]

With close development on all sides it's difficult to see how the flyover can be replaced other than inplace, which is going to bring its own difficulties during the dismantling and rebuilding works.

[Helvellyn]

With close development on all sides it's difficult to see how the flyover can be replaced other than inplace, which is going to bring its own difficulties during the dismantling and rebuilding works.

I don't know the area, are diversions for most of the traffic feasible without causing complete and utter chaos?

[M4Simon]

With close development on all sides it's difficult to see how the flyover can be replaced other than inplace, which is going to bring its own difficulties during the dismantling and rebuilding works.

I don't know the area, are diversions for most of the traffic feasible without causing complete and utter chaos?

Not any useful diversions that could deal with the volume of traffic the A13 takes. If you look at the A13 on the typical traffic tab on Google Maps you'll see that inbound is red most mornings along much of the A13 length in London, and outbound the same applies in the evening peak. It's the main EW high volume route in this part of London. When there is a problem on the A13, everything else turns bright red.

The next major arterial route to the north would be the A12 which has its own issues.

Simon

[Helvellyn]

Ah, found it on Google. I think I've even been over it now I see it, years ago, thought it looked rather, erm, unusual at the time, which is why I remember. I guess replacement would have to involve sending traffic around it on the flat, with some complete overnight closures to do the demolition (sure the people living nearby will love that).

[Runwell]

The replacement of Lodge Avenue Flyover would have stated by now with a 2+2 configuration however LB Barking & Dagenham have for several years been trying to stop this from happening because they want a tunnel build instead. The flyover replacement works will now be proceeding however.

Where have you heard it is going to be replaced with a new flyover?