daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 27th, 2008, 11:23 PM   #581
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hinckley, UK
Posts: 13,607
Likes (Received): 1570

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb View Post
On another note, I read somewhere that they're planning to widen certain sections of the M25 to 8x lanes each side. Is this true?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me. Even with 2x8, it still wouldn't be enough!
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 28th, 2008, 12:01 AM   #582
Exethalion
Remember Me
 
Exethalion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 845
Likes (Received): 646

I always thought that perhaps they should have built the London Orbital as two motorways side by side. One to serve most of the local junctions serving London and the New Towns and one to serve as a long distance bypass of London. The long distance one would only have access at other motorway or Primary A-road junctions. The main problem with the current M25 is that it is a mish-mash of local, medium and long-distance traffic.
Exethalion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 01:31 AM   #583
Robosteve
Registered User
 
Robosteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exethalion View Post
I always thought that perhaps they should have built the London Orbital as two motorways side by side. One to serve most of the local junctions serving London and the New Towns and one to serve as a long distance bypass of London. The long distance one would only have access at other motorway or Primary A-road junctions. The main problem with the current M25 is that it is a mish-mash of local, medium and long-distance traffic.
The original plans were to build four ringways, of which the M25 would (I think) have been just the outermost. Many of the radial motorways which only extend a short way into Greater London would also have been extended to Ringway 1, if it had ever been built. I don't know why the plans were scrapped; I can only guess that it was for financial reasons.
Robosteve no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 03:18 AM   #584
Exethalion
Remember Me
 
Exethalion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 845
Likes (Received): 646

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robosteve View Post
The original plans were to build four ringways, of which the M25 would (I think) have been just the outermost. Many of the radial motorways which only extend a short way into Greater London would also have been extended to Ringway 1, if it had ever been built. I don't know why the plans were scrapped; I can only guess that it was for financial reasons.
I thought the inner Ringways, particualrly R2, would have been quite destructive on the urban environment, involving mass displacement of residential dwellers and businesses. Though indeed, the Ringways, if completed now, would surely be adequate for handling Greater London's current traffic levels.
Exethalion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 10:49 AM   #585
H123Laci
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Budapest, HUN
Posts: 1,647
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exethalion View Post
I always thought that perhaps they should have built the London Orbital as two motorways side by side. One to serve most of the local junctions serving London and the New Towns and one to serve as a long distance bypass of London. The long distance one would only have access at other motorway or Primary A-road junctions. The main problem with the current M25 is that it is a mish-mash of local, medium and long-distance traffic.
the solution for this problem is quadruple carriageway:

2 carriageway in the middle for thru traffic and 1 another on both sides...

in case of M25 a 3+3+3+3 pattern would be perfect...

the middle carriageways should have ICs only with significant radial routes, so the thru traffic would be separated effectively from the local traffic...

but this conversion would be extremely expensive:
all of the ICs should be reconstructed...
H123Laci no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 10:51 AM   #586
H123Laci
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Budapest, HUN
Posts: 1,647
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robosteve View Post
The original plans were to build four ringways, of which the M25 would (I think) have been just the outermost. Many of the radial motorways which only extend a short way into Greater London would also have been extended to Ringway 1, if it had ever been built. I don't know why the plans were scrapped; I can only guess that it was for financial reasons.
nope.
it was scrapped b/c of nimbysts...
H123Laci no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2009, 03:09 AM   #587
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by H123Laci View Post
nope.
it was scrapped b/c of nimbysts...
You guys have those in Britain too?
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2009, 04:38 AM   #588
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Ringways were scrapped for money, insanity of the plans, DOT/GLA clashes over routings and NIMBYs.

The big problem was that it was pretty much all or nothing - a few bits could be scrapped, a few more watered down, however large parts of the plans relied on other parts being built, which in turn relied on other parts being built.

A relied on B and C happening. B relied on D and E happening, but D relied on A and E relied on the DOT and GLA agreeing a route. C relied on D and F - we've mentioned D and F has NIMBY problems.

As to build A you would need B, C, D, E and F built and you couldn't do D but not A, else chaos would reign, and you had to deal with the problems of E and F, A just wouldn't happen (nor would D and therefore B and C, and there's just no point in dealing with the E and F problems as the case has dropped for them, due to the lack of the other roads)...
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2009, 10:32 PM   #589
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,036
Likes (Received): 3

The A1 will be upgraded from 2x2 A road to 3x3 motorway between dishforth and barton between now and 2014 i think.

Prep work has started, and full construction will begin in late March/April apparently.

This means that at last there will be motorway all the way to Newcastle. It effectively means that the M1 will run all the way to newcastle, but I doubt they will rename it. They will probs just keep the motorway north of the A1/M1 merge named the A1(M).
__________________
Rant
Republica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2009, 11:15 PM   #590
DanielFigFoz
Registered User
 
DanielFigFoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 4,434
Likes (Received): 897

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb View Post
Many of the dual carriageway "almost motorways" in the UK are amazing, quality-wise. For example, the A55 in North Wales, the A14, much of the A1, A45 and improved A34. Pretty much all you'd need to do is add a hard shoulder to these stretches of highway and guess what? They're motorways.
Some do have a hard shoulder.
DanielFigFoz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2009, 11:43 PM   #591
Mateusz
Registered User
 
Mateusz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,536
Likes (Received): 235

Very good news ! I hope that A1 up to Newcastle will be all the way upgraded to motorway A1(M)
Mateusz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2009, 01:42 AM   #592
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,036
Likes (Received): 3

Yes, when this is finished, there will be motorway up to about 2 miles from newcastle!
__________________
Rant
Republica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2009, 03:37 PM   #593
Robosteve
Registered User
 
Robosteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Republica View Post
This means that at last there will be motorway all the way to Newcastle. It effectively means that the M1 will run all the way to newcastle, but I doubt they will rename it. They will probs just keep the motorway north of the A1/M1 merge named the A1(M).
I never much liked British road numbering. There are too many inconsistencies. First of all, I don't like the way that you have situations where the M1 and the A1 are running parallel to each other. Here the states that use alphanumeric numbering will only assign a number to one road, but its letter designation can change between M, A and B along its route (though the Princes Highway through Geelong is numbered M1, the logic behind which has always eluded me as it is not even close to being a motorway).

Second, I don't like the use of the suffix (M) for A roads that are motorway standard. It makes the number look kind of ugly; why not just change the A to an M for that part of the road? I also think it could get quite confusing when you have the M1 running parallel to another road that keeps changing between A1 and A1(M). I understand that the A roads were numbered many years before M roads came about, but surely the A1 could be renumbered to something else?

Also, the designation of motorways and non-motorways seems very inconsistent. Why are the M271 and the A601(M) considered motorways, but not the A34? The A34 is an important through route that is now free-flowing 2x2 from the M40 to the M3, while the M271 is simply a spur connecting the M27 to Southampton and with only one grade separated junction (the other three junctions being roundabouts) and the A601(M) is partly a single carriageway, with its eastern terminus on the B6254 and no grade separated junctions at all.

Finally, the M6/A74(M)/M74 nonsense is just ridiculous. Someone should have planned ahead and called the entire thing M6 to begin with.
Robosteve no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2009, 09:51 PM   #594
ea1969
R21
 
ea1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Athens
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 184

British road numbering

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robosteve View Post
I never much liked British road numbering. There are too many inconsistencies. First of all, I don't like the way that you have situations where the M1 and the A1 are running parallel to each other. Here the states that use alphanumeric numbering will only assign a number to one road, but its letter designation can change between M, A and B along its route (though the Princes Highway through Geelong is numbered M1, the logic behind which has always eluded me as it is not even close to being a motorway).

Second, I don't like the use of the suffix (M) for A roads that are motorway standard. It makes the number look kind of ugly; why not just change the A to an M for that part of the road? I also think it could get quite confusing when you have the M1 running parallel to another road that keeps changing between A1 and A1(M). I understand that the A roads were numbered many years before M roads came about, but surely the A1 could be renumbered to something else?

Also, the designation of motorways and non-motorways seems very inconsistent. Why are the M271 and the A601(M) considered motorways, but not the A34? The A34 is an important through route that is now free-flowing 2x2 from the M40 to the M3, while the M271 is simply a spur connecting the M27 to Southampton and with only one grade separated junction (the other three junctions being roundabouts) and the A601(M) is partly a single carriageway, with its eastern terminus on the B6254 and no grade separated junctions at all.

Finally, the M6/A74(M)/M74 nonsense is just ridiculous. Someone should have planned ahead and called the entire thing M6 to begin with.
Back in 1959 the British highway authorities decided that the prefix Mx would apply to long-distance or integrated motorways. Where, however, a motorway was to be built as a by-pass along an existing route Ax, it would not be given a separate Mx number, but in order to make it clear that it is a motorway and that motorway regulations apply to it, the letter M would be added in brackets to the existing route-number as Ax(M). At the time they thought that this would preserve the continuity of the route-number of long-distance all-purpose roads. And that's how it stayed, considering the British bad attitude towards change.

Motorways have entry restrictions for certain types of vehicles and all pedestrians. In the cases of A601(M) - an odd number, as it is nowhere close to the A601 - or M271 etc. there is a parallel route for non-motorway traffic, while in cases such as the A34 or the A55 there is not.

As far as the funny M6/A74(M)/M74 thing is concerned, according to the Scottish highway authorities, motorway number Mx should correspond to the parallel or replaced Ax, while in England and Wales this is not the case (for example, there is no relation of the M5 with the A5). The A74(M)/M74 runs parallel to the old A74 (now mostly B7076 and B7078). Of course there is still the oddity of two different numbers in Scotland. However there are signs, in which the A74(M) is signed in an additional plate that probably hides under it the future designation of M6. It might be probably another English - Scottish "love affair" that delays it.
ea1969 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2009, 10:02 PM   #595
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robosteve View Post
Also, the designation of motorways and non-motorways seems very inconsistent. Why are the M271 and the A601(M) considered motorways, but not the A34? The A34 is an important through route that is now free-flowing 2x2 from the M40 to the M3, while the M271 is simply a spur connecting the M27 to Southampton and with only one grade separated junction (the other three junctions being roundabouts) and the A601(M) is partly a single carriageway, with its eastern terminus on the B6254 and no grade separated junctions at all.
The M271 and the A601(M) were motorways right from the start whereas the A34 is an all purpose road. To turn the A34 into a motorway an alternative road along the main route needs to be provided for non-motorway traffic. It seems to be rather disproportionate to do that.
__________________
Rippachtal.de

Last edited by flierfy; February 12th, 2009 at 10:05 PM. Reason: qeragtzuj
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2009, 10:09 PM   #596
Mateusz
Registered User
 
Mateusz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,536
Likes (Received): 235

Maybe Scots want to keep M74 instead of M6 ?
Mateusz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2009, 01:12 AM   #597
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

The Scots also want to keep it A74(M) as well, simply as it's cheaper and less hassle and only a handful of geeks care enough to want it changed. They don't want to spent a single penny placating a handful of geeks.

Large scale renumbering died with the M60 (there are still signs to the M63), and the English authorities basically vowed never to do anything like it again.

Newcastle/Gateshead is the only place that has really gone for massive renumberings - it's changed all it's road numbers twice (the second time containing many revertions). Outside of there, the M60 was the biggest change.

The A74(M) is fairly simple to change, as many of the signs are on patches, though as the rest of the A74 is up in Glasgow, and the junction numbering is concurrent, 50% of people won't notice, and a further 49% of people will think A74(M) the same thing as M74. As the M6 will end further north, but still end on with another motorway, there'd still be the same voices going "why does the M6 end end on with the M74? Why not M6 all the way?", so large amounts of money would have to be spent anyway. The border is a sensible place to change over.

As for the A601(M), the Derby A601 is later, and completely out of zone. There's no reason why it couldn't have been an empty A road number, fully under motorway regs (though that is weird, and I think the A601 was still kicking around in Herts/Beds at that point). To be honest, the A6070(M) would have been a better number, ditto M6xx or just M6 (like M4's two way spur at Heathrow). Then again, it's legit, though strange and there's nothing wrong with quirks like that.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2009, 05:21 PM   #598
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749





Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2009, 06:03 PM   #599
Timon91
Error
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: just outside Germany
Posts: 5,783
Likes (Received): 46

Dangerous, but very funny
__________________
My Flickr account.
Some of my photoseries: Northern Ireland, Prague, Boston, Alaska part 1, 2, 3, Smoggy Moscow, Warsaw, Wrocław, Kiev, Donetsk, Odessa and Chişinău.
Timon91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2009, 06:29 PM   #600
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

also off-topic, as not on a motorway...

that guy hadn't broken the law, AFAIK.

he should have kept to the hard strip though.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
highways, motorway, united kingdom

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium