Are road numbers still relevant?

[rileyrob]

Here's a contentious issue! In recent months I've had conversations with a number of people working for Local Authorities and Transport Scotland, who have all asserted that from the point of view of their job (mostly Highway maintenance / management) road numbers are irrelevant. They are used from convention, but it would make their lives easier if a different system were used as the unique identifiers they currently use are somewhat cumbersome, in their opinion. They would generally prefer a system based on the road quality / traffic volume / route importance today, rather than that of a century ago. Differentiating dual carriageways (which are at times treated as two separate roads, depending on circumstance) from single carriageways is therefore important, and a better way of identifying sliproads at junctions is wanted.

One of them suggested that in Scotland there are approximately two dozen major trunk route lines, and that they could be identified by A-Z codes with new chainage numbers, and have a few spurs. Unfortunately, I didn't get chance to go into detail on this idea.

They also questioned how relevant route numbers are for route finding these days when the majority of people (apparently) rely on Satnavs. When I mentioned anomalies like the B9993 and B77 to one of them, they just said that that proved their point. Most people don't really understand the system, so it is irrelevant. They said this would also account for the lazy renumbering of routes like the A8082 and A9119, and the creation of the A9294 number we expect to be assigned to the new Cross Tay road at Perth. The fact that traffic circulates around cities like Glasgow where classified routes are rather haphazardly signed in places was another one of their points - people rely more on destination signage, and perhaps the colour of the sign than route signage.

[wallmeerkat]

Over in N.Ireland - probably because it's such a small area - arguably road numbers aren't really used, rather the destination eg. A8 is the "Larne Line". Though the M1 and M2 might be used, things like the M12 is typically called "the Portadown turnoff". Even radio traffic reports you'll hear things like "Busy on the Sydenham Bypass approaching Dee Street and Westlink approaching York Street" and where they do use road numbers or junction numbers it's with a local name eg. "Landslip on the A2 coast road... Busy on the M1 approaching Junction 6 the turnoff for Lisburn"

Nobody has ever said "At Saintfield crossroads just take the C271" https://www.google.com/maps/@54.46014,- ... ?entry=ttu

[cb a1]

A lot to unpick and cogitate on in that.

I mind that when the M74 / A74(M) junction numbering was being discussed in the past, businesses complained because their printed materials would all need to be changed. Do businesses still print directions or does everyone look online?

I would speculate this topic will be similar to discussions on metrication. For very good technical reasons, restarting the system from scratch has many merits, but for the layperson - what would be the benefit of change for them? Sure they won't know a lot of the details (c.f. how many bushels in a furlong), but they're familiar enough with the big ticket items (M8, A9, etc.) that they won't want that to be changed.

[rileyrob]

For very good technical reasons, restarting the system from scratch has many merits, but for the layperson - what would be the benefit of change for them? Sure they won't know a lot of the details (c.f. how many bushels in a furlong), but they're familiar enough with the big ticket items (M8, A9, etc.) that they won't want that to be changed.

I should have said that one of the suggestions was to let the current numbering wither and die in public consciousness, while creating a new internal system for maintenance etc.

[jnty]

A lot to unpick and cogitate on in that.

I mind that when the M74 / A74(M) junction numbering was being discussed in the past, businesses complained because their printed materials would all need to be changed. Do businesses still print directions or does everyone look online?

I would speculate this topic will be similar to discussions on metrication. For very good technical reasons, restarting the system from scratch has many merits, but for the layperson - what would be the benefit of change for them? Sure they won't know a lot of the details (c.f. how many bushels in a furlong), but they're familiar enough with the big ticket items (M8, A9, etc.) that they won't want that to be changed.

It's unfortunate that it seems to be trunk routes that are causing the most consternation, as it is indeed trunk roads (or roads which have trunk sections) that are the most memorable. If Edinburgh council abolished the A700 tomorrow I expect it would barely make the news, whereas if the A90 became the 'W' or whatever everyone would be very upset.

The A9 is a perfect example of a road which highlights the problem. It starts as a local authority road in Falkirk for vague historical reasons and is therefore of no concern to the trunk road authorities. I'm not local to that section but I really doubt there'd be much fuss about getting rid of that bit. The first trunk section north of Dunblane is a very particularly identifiable standard of D2 - shared with the Perth-Aberdeen A90 - but surely a large subset of motorists couldn't tell you why it's not called the M9 at that point. It's even more motorway-like after Broxden, and then after Inveralmond you reach the section that many people talk about as just 'The A9' because it's so notorious in political and road safety terms, as well as being an iconic route north. Then, after the Black Isle, it quickly turns into a relatively quiet road. I can quite understand why, from a management point of view, it's a completely useless identifier when unqualified; and from the point of view of the uninitiated user, very hard to sensibly use beyond looking for it on signs when the satnav told you to.

The wiggly non-trunk bit of the A9 at the start is a perfect example of how the existing network doesn't do itself any favours, of course; long distance drivers going north on the M9 must learn to ignore the 'decoy' A9 they might see signed at turnoffs and stay on the mainline to reach the 'real' A9 later on. Better to just focus on the placenames. The A74(M) is another. A diligent new driver from Edinburgh who often has to drive to the Midlands and is told to use the M74 will quickly learn to ignore the alphabet soup they find on signs through the Borders. If they recall taking the A702 on their outbound journey and aim for that on their return, they'll come off the motorway a junction early.

Conversely, the convention suddenly introduced with the B77 is actually quite intuitive; just a shame that it conflicts with every other bypassed road anywhere in the country.

There already seems to exist internal numbering system for councils; I don't really see the harm in creating one for trunk roads too, and trying to get councils on board with it, if useful. They serve different purposes: maintenance identifiers presumably often need to succinctly express specific locations, whereas motorists want routes which express much vaguer corridors through the country. Provided they can find one of these corridors and stick to it in the right direction - for as long as possible - they don't really care about exact locations.

[Herned]

No, beyond motorways and the major trunk roads I don't think so. I would be surprised if a majority of people could even correctly identify their nearest A road, let alone B road. Place names are far easier to remember as navigation tools, although of course numbers help as a confirmation.

I would say that going somewhere unknown that the signs that you are indeed on an A road are probably more useful than the number itself

[jgharston]

They would generally prefer a system based on the road quality / traffic volume / route importance today,

So the label would change very few months? That wouldn't help.

[Bryn666]

If highways authorities and the DfT had retained the basic competence to properly manage the system and review it when appropriate instead of doing the classic British Fudge approach we wouldn't have an issue today.

Every other nation on earth has has significant road numbering reviews on the regular. We did one in 1935 and went "ehhhhhh". 89 years is an excruciatingly long time in transport terms to not review a system.

Given the techbro side of English trunk road management is obsessed with autonomous vehicles they're going to have to review the entire signage system anyway so that would be a perfect opportunity to fix numbering too. The problem is the techbro side of said management is just as arrogant and incompetent as they come so it won't happen.

[Owain]

The A9 is a perfect example of a road which highlights the problem. It starts as a local authority road in Falkirk for vague historical reasons and is therefore of no concern to the trunk road authorities. I'm not local to that section but I really doubt there'd be much fuss about getting rid of that bit. The first trunk section north of Dunblane is a very particularly identifiable standard of D2 - shared with the Perth-Aberdeen A90 - but surely a large subset of motorists couldn't tell you why it's not called the M9 at that point. It's even more motorway-like after Broxden, and then after Inveralmond you reach the section that many people talk about as just 'The A9' because it's so notorious in political and road safety terms, as well as being an iconic route north. Then, after the Black Isle, it quickly turns into a relatively quiet road. I can quite understand why, from a management point of view, it's a completely useless identifier when unqualified; and from the point of view of the uninitiated user, very hard to sensibly use beyond looking for it on signs when the satnav told you to.

The wiggly non-trunk bit of the A9 at the start is a perfect example of how the existing network doesn't do itself any favours, of course; long distance drivers going north on the M9 must learn to ignore the 'decoy' A9 they might see signed at turnoffs and stay on the mainline to reach the 'real' A9 later on. Better to just focus on the placenames. The A74(M) is another. A diligent new driver from Edinburgh who often has to drive to the Midlands and is told to use the M74 will quickly learn to ignore the alphabet soup they find on signs through the Borders. If they recall taking the A702 on their outbound journey and aim for that on their return, they'll come off the motorway a junction early.

Conversely, the convention suddenly introduced with the B77 is actually quite intuitive; just a shame that it conflicts with every other bypassed road anywhere in the country...

It is intuitive, and not unlike the system I proposed here for the all-purpose network:

- each all-purpose route gets one unique number

- prefix is 'A' for primary and 'B' for secondary

- motorways retain their own separate system

This would result in 'Route 702' being numbered A702 from Edinburgh to the M74, and B702 from there to St John's Town of Dalry. Drivers would know they're looking for A702 as confirmed by green signs once they're off the motorway, and they're unlikely to accidentally take the B702 exit.

My system wouldn't actually allow the current B77 to exist, because it is parallel to the A77, and numbers would be unique to one route. What would happen though, is that the non-primary sections of 'Route 77' (into Glasgow at one end, and Stranraer to Port Patrick at the other) would be B77.

Regarding your A9 example, the road would be A9 where green-signed north of Stirling; it would be B9 where white-signed to the south of Stirling.

[KeithW]

No, beyond motorways and the major trunk roads I don't think so. I would be surprised if a majority of people could even correctly identify their nearest A road, let alone B road. Place names are far easier to remember as navigation tools, although of course numbers help as a confirmation.

I would say that going somewhere unknown that the signs that you are indeed on an A road are probably more useful than the number itself

Numbers are very relevant when to comes to describing a route.

Consider the example of my old gaff in Edgware. The directions from Marton-in-Cleveland to Edgware were this.

A172 South to Stokesley and the A19
A19 to Thirsk
Stay on the Thirsk bypass and follow the A168 to the A1
A1/A1(M) South to the M18.
M18 to M1 at J35
M18 South to M1
M1 South to J5
A41 towards Apex Corner
Turn right onto A5109 to Edgware

The signs are easy to follow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6215357 ... &entry=ttu

In the days before Sat Nav all I needed was a sheet of paper and a map if I had to divert.

[jnty]

No, beyond motorways and the major trunk roads I don't think so. I would be surprised if a majority of people could even correctly identify their nearest A road, let alone B road. Place names are far easier to remember as navigation tools, although of course numbers help as a confirmation.

I would say that going somewhere unknown that the signs that you are indeed on an A road are probably more useful than the number itself

Numbers are very relevant when to comes to describing a route.

Consider the example of my old gaff in Edgware. The directions from Marton-in-Cleveland to Edgware were this.

A172 South to Stokesley and the A19
A19 to Thirsk
Stay on the Thirsk bypass and follow the A168 to the A1
A1/A1(M) South to the M18.
M18 to M1 at J35
M18 South to M1
M1 South to J5
A41 towards Apex Corner
Turn right onto A5109 to Edgware

The signs are easy to follow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6215357 ... &entry=ttu

In the days before Sat Nav all I needed was a sheet of paper and a map if I had to divert.

I can't find any evidence that the A5109 isn't signed beyond the A41 junction, which sort of proves the point for local roads.

Numbers on the motorway and main trunk road network are indeed vital as there's a paucity of distinctive landmarks and junctions to allow drivers to orient themselves in any other way.

[Scratchwood]

Slightly off topic, but my numbering grouse is motorway signs warning about congestion or closures, only quoting junction numbers.

"30 minute delay between Junctions 26 and 27 on the M25"

Which is great is you know what those junctions are, but not very helpful if for example you're heading around the M25 for say the A10 and don't know its junction number, and thus don't know whether the congestion is before or after you turn off.

[Herned]

Numbers are very relevant when to comes to describing a route.

Consider the example of my old gaff in Edgware. The directions from Marton-in-Cleveland to Edgware were this.

A172 South to Stokesley and the A19
A19 to Thirsk
Stay on the Thirsk bypass and follow the A168 to the A1
A1/A1(M) South to the M18.
M18 to M1 at J35
M18 South to M1
M1 South to J5
A41 towards Apex Corner
Turn right onto A5109 to Edgware

The signs are easy to follow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6215357 ... &entry=ttu

In the days before Sat Nav all I needed was a sheet of paper and a map if I had to divert.

Your streetview image shows that all you need to do at the junction is follow the signs to Edgware, which fits just as easily on a sheet of paper. And as I said, they are only really relevant to most people for major roads and motorways, they aren't that useful for local directions unless there is a choice of routes. Signage may be missing of course, but if you need to ask directions I bet 9 times out of 10 no one will mention the road number if it is a local destination

[the cheesecake man]

Destinations can't cover everywhere.

For example if I want to go to Lincoln, I could follow signs to Worksop then when I reach Worksop follow signs to Lincoln without paying any attention to road numbers.

But if I wish to go Heckington I can't be certain which destinations will be signed , whereas I know I need A57 > A1 > A17.

For a better example, to go to Louth it's briefly M1 and M18 then A631 all the way. The logical destinations might be Bawtry > Gainsborough > Market Rasen > Louth, but the signs don't always match this. There are no signs in central Sheffield for Bawtry, and if you were at Meadowhall here you'd want to follow M1 and ignore the Bawtry sign.

[Ruperts Trooper]

Slightly off topic, but my numbering grouse is motorway signs warning about congestion or closures, only quoting junction numbers.

"30 minute delay between Junctions 26 and 27 on the M25"

Which is great is you know what those junctions are, but not very helpful if for example you're heading around the M25 for say the A10 and don't know its junction number, and thus don't know whether the congestion is before or after you turn off.

Although memorising or listing the road numbers used to work well in the olden days, with the advent of junction numbers I find it necessary to list both road numbers and the junction number - I can no longer memorise routes but can do regular routes on autopilot, eg Midlands to NE Scotland is "fork right at Glasgow, turn right at Perth"

[Vierwielen]

Although I have mentioned this in the past, I believe that there is a case for two parallel numbering systems - one for maaintenance purposes where every section of tarmac has a unique identifier and one aimed at motorists where routes are idientified even if they do multiplex at certain points. Either or both systems could be regional in nature, national in nature or, like France, partially regional and partly national. Thus, the C23 (C= County) might link my town with the neighbouring town, but another C23 would exist in another county. but the N3 (N=National) woudl be unique.

[Owain]

I can't find any evidence that the A5109 isn't signed beyond the A41 junction, which sort of proves the point for local roads.

Numbers on the motorway and main trunk road network are indeed vital as there's a paucity of distinctive landmarks and junctions to allow drivers to orient themselves in any other way.

I agree that there's quite a difference in their usefulness depending on the context.

As a child in Gloucestershire, I knew the numbers of all the B-roads within a considerable distance of my home, even though I didn't drive. These days, living in a massive city, I know that the closest classified road to my house is a B-road, but beyond knowing that it's in the 6-zone, I couldn't tell you what number it is without looking it up. And if I were giving somebody directions to drive to my house, I wouldn't send them that way anyway!

I have no problem driving around the city, even though I have little idea what the numbers are on any of the roads beyond the main arteries. And I don't have any trouble finding my house, because I live there and know where it is from familiarity with the surroundings (i.e. like a cat!).

[KeithW]

Numbers are very relevant when to comes to describing a route.

Consider the example of my old gaff in Edgware. The directions from Marton-in-Cleveland to Edgware were this.

A172 South to Stokesley and the A19
A19 to Thirsk
Stay on the Thirsk bypass and follow the A168 to the A1
A1/A1(M) South to the M18.
M18 to M1 at J35
M18 South to M1
M1 South to J5
A41 towards Apex Corner
Turn right onto A5109 to Edgware

The signs are easy to follow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6215357 ... &entry=ttu

In the days before Sat Nav all I needed was a sheet of paper and a map if I had to divert.

Numbers on the motorway and main trunk road network are indeed vital as there's a paucity of distinctive landmarks and junctions to allow drivers to orient themselves in any other way.

At no point have I said that road numbers are not useful but a goodly part of North Yorkshire manages without them perhaps its because its we dont want to attract too many tourists
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.4610088 ... &entry=ttu

[AndyB]

Although I have mentioned this in the past, I believe that there is a case for two parallel numbering systems - one for maaintenance purposes where every section of tarmac has a unique identifier and one aimed at motorists where routes are idientified even if they do multiplex at certain points. Either or both systems could be regional in nature, national in nature or, like France, partially regional and partly national. Thus, the C23 (C= County) might link my town with the neighbouring town, but another C23 would exist in another county. but the N3 (N=National) woudl be unique.

NI gives every section of tarmac a unique identifier for maintenance purposes. In most cases it's a county identifier (read: divisional id), classification, road number, and finally a unique number within that. The A2 is split into multiple chunks for those purposes (A1002, A2002 etc), other roads are not, and city streets are grouped into U roads.

NI does have history of reinventing the wheel, but I rather think it's based on a GB system.

[Vierwielen]

Although I have mentioned this in the past, I believe that there is a case for two parallel numbering systems - one for maaintenance purposes where every section of tarmac has a unique identifier and one aimed at motorists where routes are idientified even if they do multiplex at certain points. Either or both systems could be regional in nature, national in nature or, like France, partially regional and partly national. Thus, the C23 (C= County) might link my town with the neighbouring town, but another C23 would exist in another county. but the N3 (N=National) woudl be unique.

NI gives every section of tarmac a unique identifier for maintenance purposes. In most cases it's a county identifier (read: divisional id), classification, road number, and finally a unique number within that. The A2 is split into multiple chunks for those purposes (A1002, A2002 etc), other roads are not, and city streets are grouped into U roads.

NI does have history of reinventing the wheel, but I rather think it's based on a GB system.

WHen I was in NI a few years ago, I notuiced that their location marker posts were in miles and chains rather than in kilometres. GB switched over to kilometres for location markers in the 1970's.