1997-style Bonfire of Road Projects with Labour victory?

[Chris Bertram]

I would put money on the design speed being at least 120 - 150 mph. It may even be higher (source: police officer friend who tells me he has driven at over 150 mph). The DfT may not want to widely advertise this bc it undermines some of the rationale for, and compliance with, the rather pathetic current limit.

I know of someone who drove at over 160mph along the A41 (dual carriageway section!) when he was younger, and that apparently the bends were gentle enough that it was possible to stay in the lane markings for the whole time. There are obvious other reasons why that speed wouldn't be safe though- stopping distance being the big one- but the fact the bends were gentle enough to be able to do that is impressive

Which dual carriageway section? I think there are several in its 200 plus miles.

I would assume that the M25 to Tring section is the one in question, rather than, say, the West Bromwich Expressway.

[jnty]

I would put money on the design speed being at least 120 - 150 mph. It may even be higher (source: police officer friend who tells me he has driven at over 150 mph). The DfT may not want to widely advertise this bc it undermines some of the rationale for, and compliance with, the rather pathetic current limit.

Design speed is an engineering concept, not a limit where anything exceeding it blows up. That a certain speed was once upon a time reached by a professional driver on a given section of a type of road says almost nothing about that road's design speed.

[AndyB]

To put it differently, a rural motorway is actively designed to be safe if driven at 75mph.

As constructed, it may be passively safe at 80mph or 90mph, but that’s incidental and is more related to the fact that as a modern rural motorway alternates straights and wide radius but clearly defined curves as it crosses the country, it would be a waste of money to reduce the radius of those curves to the minimum stated in DMRB.

On the other hand, as the A74(M) and other motorways pass through valleys and around mountainsides, geography will require that curves are constructed which are closer to the minimum stated in DMRB because there is no practical alternative.

[KeithW]

I know of someone who drove at over 160mph along the A41 (dual carriageway section!) when he was younger, and that apparently the bends were gentle enough that it was possible to stay in the lane markings for the whole time. There are obvious other reasons why that speed wouldn't be safe though- stopping distance being the big one- but the fact the bends were gentle enough to be able to do that is impressive

Not a great idea with standard tyres, heat build up is a big problem - at a minimum you would need a W rated tyre. A blowout at 160 could see you getting a closed casket funeral. I recall attending an accident on the A19 in the early 70's to recover a vehicle that had rear ended a truck. The official verdict was death by multiple injuries, the cops eventually found the drivers head in the middle of a field of wheat.

[6637]

I would assume that the M25 to Tring section is the one in question, rather than, say, the West Bromwich Expressway.

Indeed. I don't believe any of the other dual-carriageway sections are long enough to make 160mph even remotely possible.

Not a great idea with standard tyres, heat build up is a big problem - at a minimum you would need a W rated tyre. A blowout at 160 could see you getting a closed casket funeral. I recall attending an accident on the A19 in the early 70's to recover a vehicle that had rear ended a truck. The official verdict was death by multiple injuries, the cops eventually found the drivers head in the middle of a field of wheat.

Needless to say my friend did learn the lesson that just because you avoided crashing once does not mean that you will avoid it every time, and does not attempt such speeds nowadays!

[BelfastVanMan]

I know of someone who drove at over 160mph along the A41 (dual carriageway section!) when he was younger, and that apparently the bends were gentle enough that it was possible to stay in the lane markings for the whole time. There are obvious other reasons why that speed wouldn't be safe though- stopping distance being the big one- but the fact the bends were gentle enough to be able to do that is impressive

Not a great idea with standard tyres, heat build up is a big problem - at a minimum you would need a W rated tyre. A blowout at 160 could see you getting a closed casket funeral. I recall attending an accident on the A19 in the early 70's to recover a vehicle that had rear ended a truck. The official verdict was death by multiple injuries, the cops eventually found the drivers head in the middle of a field of wheat.

So, THAT'S where they found Teresa May.
Should've just left her there...

[Glenn A]

To put it differently, a rural motorway is actively designed to be safe if driven at 75mph.

As constructed, it may be passively safe at 80mph or 90mph, but that’s incidental and is more related to the fact that as a modern rural motorway alternates straights and wide radius but clearly defined curves as it crosses the country, it would be a waste of money to reduce the radius of those curves to the minimum stated in DMRB.

On the other hand, as the A74(M) and other motorways pass through valleys and around mountainsides, geography will require that curves are constructed which are closer to the minimum stated in DMRB because there is no practical alternative.

In France, the autoroute speed limit is 130 km/h( 81 mph), and I'd imagine there are long rural sections with small amounts of traffic where driving at this speed is perfectly safe. Over here, the only mostly rural motorways with relatively low traffic levels would be the M6 in Cumbria and the A74(M). Lucky I live near these motorways as driving on them in good weather is excellent and not the chore it would be on something like the M1.

[Owain]

To put it differently, a rural motorway is actively designed to be safe if driven at 75mph.

As constructed, it may be passively safe at 80mph or 90mph, but that’s incidental and is more related to the fact that as a modern rural motorway alternates straights and wide radius but clearly defined curves as it crosses the country, it would be a waste of money to reduce the radius of those curves to the minimum stated in DMRB.

On the other hand, as the A74(M) and other motorways pass through valleys and around mountainsides, geography will require that curves are constructed which are closer to the minimum stated in DMRB because there is no practical alternative.

In France, the autoroute speed limit is 130 km/h( 81 mph), and I'd imagine there are long rural sections with small amounts of traffic where driving at this speed is perfectly safe. Over here, the only mostly rural motorways with relatively low traffic levels would be the M6 in Cumbria and the A74(M). Lucky I live near these motorways as driving on them in good weather is excellent and not the chore it would be on something like the M1.

Actually, I find the M1 to be generally very good!

[jnty]

To put it differently, a rural motorway is actively designed to be safe if driven at 75mph.

As constructed, it may be passively safe at 80mph or 90mph, but that’s incidental and is more related to the fact that as a modern rural motorway alternates straights and wide radius but clearly defined curves as it crosses the country, it would be a waste of money to reduce the radius of those curves to the minimum stated in DMRB.

On the other hand, as the A74(M) and other motorways pass through valleys and around mountainsides, geography will require that curves are constructed which are closer to the minimum stated in DMRB because there is no practical alternative.

Indeed. I suppose another way of looking at this is that I might know a stretch of motorway quite well from monthly trips and come to exploit the fact that it appears passively safe to drive it at a solid 90mph or more. I might come to convince myself that this is the 'design speed' of that section and I am doing something that, compared to the average risk level of motorway driving, is reasonably safe. And - for those instances - I might well be more or less right.

However, in between my monthly trips a new structure like a bridge parapet might be put in the central reservation, reducing visibility on a right-hand bend; a works compound might be placed near the side of the road, obstructing a left-hand bend; further on, a change in the local road network might make the following junction significantly busier, increasing traffic levels and sudden lane changes and increasing the incidence of HGVs; a section of unusually wide hard shoulder might be narrowed and partially removed to accommodate some adjacent construction; and a change in seasons might be starting to cause some serious crosswinds further on, which have been recently worsened by some nearby tree felling and earthworks.

All of these things might give cause to have other aspects of the road reviewed - particularly the speed limit, signage and line marking. However, this won't be done at the 90mph 'pretend' design speed, it'll be done at the actual design speed for the road. And it might be quite reasonable that no further action will be taken for any of the interventions, because while they might compromise the coincidental 'passively safe(ish) speed' that I was relying on before, none of them compromise the original design speed and therefore the previous limit, signage etc is judged perfectly safe. However, I'll get a nasty fright later on when a get into loads of near misses driving at a speed that seemed perfectly OK before.

[AndyB]

That is an excellent way to explain it!

[Vierwielen]

This motorway in Johannesburg has a speed limit of 80 km/h. I did a "back of an envelope" calculation, estimating the camber and the road radius and I found that at about 80 km/h cetripedal force and gravitational force would cancel each other out.

BTW, in 1973-4 and 1976-8, I used to drive this section of road every day.

[Scratchwood]

Labour in 1997 inherited healthy government finances so their road decisions were mainly a political choice, rather than something forced on them.

The coalition in 2010 inherited a struggling economy and large government debts after the financial crisis. You can argue whether they made the right choices, but whoever was in power would have found it tough.

Whoever wins in 2024 will inherit a struggling economy, with inflation, low growth and massive government debt. I can see many road programmes being a convenient way of saving money. Indeed a side of me is surprised the Tories took the flak for cutting back HS2, rather than leaving the tough decisions for the next government...

[jnty]

Whoever wins in 2024 will inherit a struggling economy, with inflation, low growth and massive government debt. I can see many road programmes being a convenient way of saving money. Indeed a side of me is surprised the Tories took the flak for cutting back HS2, rather than leaving the tough decisions for the next government...

I think they saw cancellation of the 'main' infrastructure project of the decade as being a vote-winner. Which is faintly concerning in and of itself.

[Rillington]

A good example was the 'shelving' aka binning of a new dual carriage way on the A64 all the way to Seamer.

Welsh Labour has, as we know, cancelled all new road projects, including the much needed third Menai Straits crossing, although I believe that there may be talk of this cancellation being reversed?

[AnOrdinarySABREUser]

I think they saw cancellation of the 'main' infrastructure project of the decade as being a vote-winner. Which is faintly concerning in and of itself.

It worries me how much progress being made in this country is being halted for the sake of winning an extra vote or two in some constituencies. What worries me even more though is that there's myths being presented as fact as a fearmongering tactic by some politicians in particular. Why have high speed rail when we can perpetuate traffic jams by building increasingly wide roads? Personally, I'd know which one I'd pick, but old habits die hard, don't they?

[Glenn A]

This stop/start approach to road building does no one any favours and also creates worry among people who live in an area where their home may be compulsorily purchased and then it's postponed, only for another government to change its mind. It means for places that are crying out for a by pass that they have to put up with years more of congestion and pollution.
Roads For Prosperity might have been hated by the critics and attacked by the anti car lobby, but at least it recognised hundreds of miles of roads needed to be replaced and more motorways and D2s needed to built in areas that had serious congestion issues. Had it been canned in 1990 when Major replaced Thatcher, we might not have seen the A74 replaced by a D3M until the noughties when Scotland's roads were devolved or places like Egremont, Cumbria, being by passed.

[Fluid Dynamics]

That's of interest to me. A27 Lewes to Polgate was one or our schemes when I worked for Bullen Consultants in the Early 90s. There was a link west of the Polgate roundabout, I think called the Folkington link that our scheme made unnecessary, because our scheme connected straight to the roundabout. Then our scheme was cancelled, but the Polgate bypass went ahead, but without the Folkington link.

Many many years later, they were planning instead to dual the bit of the A22 from the Polgate roundabout, to the A27. I lost track of whether this A22 dulling is still going to happen.

That dualling got done as part of the A27 Lewes - Polegate improvement package a couple of years ago. Unfortunately the scheme seems to be half wasted as northbound still only has one lane over the railway bridge. It looks like if they had removed the centre-hatching and reduced the width of the barrier on the west side you could probably squeeze S4 along that part: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.82137 ... ?entry=ttu

Please remember that bridges have a thing called load limits - and it could be that the bridge is not capable of taking the extra loading a 4th lane could bring. Yes you can replace / strengthen a bridge but that won't come cheap and the budget for those improvements wasn't that large in the first place.

Dualling/S4ing the bridge was a component of the most recent scheme and was shown on the plans, but quietly dropped I’m sure as a result of inflation/value engineering. To be honest it’s all a bit of a sticking plaster in advance of Polegate Lewes proper. The most recent scheme has made a big difference to the NMU provision.

[Truvelo]

That dualling got done as part of the A27 Lewes - Polegate improvement package a couple of years ago. Unfortunately the scheme seems to be half wasted as northbound still only has one lane over the railway bridge. It looks like if they had removed the centre-hatching and reduced the width of the barrier on the west side you could probably squeeze S4 along that part: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.82137 ... ?entry=ttu

Please remember that bridges have a thing called load limits - and it could be that the bridge is not capable of taking the extra loading a 4th lane could bring. Yes you can replace / strengthen a bridge but that won't come cheap and the budget for those improvements wasn't that large in the first place.

Dualling/S4ing the bridge was a component of the most recent scheme and was shown on the plans, but quietly dropped I’m sure as a result of inflation/value engineering. To be honest it’s all a bit of a sticking plaster in advance of Polegate Lewes proper. The most recent scheme has made a big difference to the NMU provision.

The early 90's Lewes-Polegate scheme is shown here on Sabre Maps. The large roundabout with space for an underpass is now rather wasted. I don't see this ever being built now, especially with the lights at the A27/A2270 junction being widened to accommodate the traffic the underpass would have taken.

[rhyds]

Welsh Labour has, as we know, cancelled all new road projects, including the much needed third Menai Straits crossing, although I believe that there may be talk of this cancellation being reversed?

That project won't happen unless there's a concrete proposal for a new Nuclear Power Station at Wylfa, however given that Ynys Mon is basically a 3-way marginal in both the Senedd and Westminster elections expect the idea to rise about 9 months before an election and sink 3 months after

[Fluid Dynamics]

Please remember that bridges have a thing called load limits - and it could be that the bridge is not capable of taking the extra loading a 4th lane could bring. Yes you can replace / strengthen a bridge but that won't come cheap and the budget for those improvements wasn't that large in the first place.

Dualling/S4ing the bridge was a component of the most recent scheme and was shown on the plans, but quietly dropped I’m sure as a result of inflation/value engineering. To be honest it’s all a bit of a sticking plaster in advance of Polegate Lewes proper. The most recent scheme has made a big difference to the NMU provision.

The early 90's Lewes-Polegate scheme is shown here on Sabre Maps. The large roundabout with space for an underpass is now rather wasted. I don't see this ever being built now, especially with the lights at the A27/A2270 junction being widened to accommodate the traffic the underpass would have taken.

But that's just the issue, the improvements to the A27/A2270 junction weren't delivered as planned with northbound/eastbound A27 traffic funnelled down to a single lane exiting the traffic light controlled junction and railway bridge remaining S3 as it always was. The dualling only starts north of the railway bridge.