AARoads Forum
Regional Boards => International Highways => Topic started by: bing101 on March 21, 2019, 09:02:03 PM
-
Here is one for Jen On the Move.
-
-
-
-
Now Jen on the Move does a tour of M62 in the snow!
-
Random, but I just noticed this: the bridges over the M4 approaching to the Prince of Wales Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5810374,-2.7785742,3a,59.5y,282.43h,97.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKjUDwCWz_UIF2BYZxjrFPA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) appear to be encased with... fiberglass panels? or some other nonstructural material. The ones carrying the M4 are simple concrete beams for the short spans and steel plate girders for the longer ones. If they're in fact encased, is there a reason other than aesthetics? Britain is fully capable of building similar-looking structures out of exposed concrete or steel. And what's under the encasements?
-
Tom Scott does a segment on the UK's most dangerous intersection.
https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/ipley-crossroads-campaign (https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/ipley-crossroads-campaign)
https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-road-junction-will-keep-killing-cyclists/
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU)
-
Tom Scott does a segment on one of the UK's oldest roads.
-
Random, but I just noticed this: the bridges over the M4 approaching to the Prince of Wales Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5810374,-2.7785742,3a,59.5y,282.43h,97.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKjUDwCWz_UIF2BYZxjrFPA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) appear to be encased with... fiberglass panels? or some other nonstructural material. The ones carrying the M4 are simple concrete beams for the short spans and steel plate girders for the longer ones. If they're in fact encased, is there a reason other than aesthetics? Britain is fully capable of building similar-looking structures out of exposed concrete or steel. And what's under the encasements?
I've tried to find an answer for you, not had much luck - but it is probably just an aesthetics thing. In the 1990s we had a sudden heel-turn about what motorways should look like and a few experiments were made with the few lengths that opened that decade. Locally to me on the M65 (the final section finished in 1997) all the bridges used steel I beams and concrete - the beams were all painted blue.
The M4 and M48 over the Severn are considered some of the highlights of the entire network, so no surprise some effort was spent on the bridges - normally cost cutting means we go for the most basic design going.
-
A14 goes through demolition.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EZHbYn24XU)
-
Here is a Tour on the A500.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOBNPZHihS8)
-
Jen on the Move does a tour on A6196
-
Jen On the Move does a tour on M66
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxRaeik1wWQ)
-
Tom Scott strikes again, this time driving from London to Margate to visualize the difference between a million and a billion:
-
Tom Scott strikes again, this time driving from London to Margate
That photo-enforced 50mph sure seems like a contender for the "Most Terrible Speed Limits" thread.
-
Jen on the move does a segment on the A465 in the UK
-
Jen on the Move does a tour on Houlton, Rugby
-
A Tour of the M25.
-
Here is a Tour of London area viaducts by Jen on the Move.
-
A1M Barton.
-
Here is a tour of the A34.
-
Here is a tour of the M26.
-
Here is a tour of the M4 bridge.
-
Here is a tour of the M57.
-
Here is a tour of the Erskine Bridge.
-
Here is a tour on M42.
-
Here is a tour of the M181.
-
-
Here is a cool street tour
-
Road Opening for Congleton Link Road
-
Here is the bike path by Jenonthemove.
-
This crew is cool because they include bike routes in their roadgeek videos.
-
-
Sooooo, lemme get this straight. They added a roundabout in the middle of a motorway, and to get around that not meeting motorway standards, ended the motorway at the roundabout and designated a second one after it? Like, say, addressing an at-grade intersection on I-10 by ending I-10 at it and saying I-110 begins after it?
If that's not on that Pathetic Motorways site, it needs to be.
-
Sooooo, lemme get this straight. They added a roundabout in the middle of a motorway, and to get around that not meeting motorway standards, ended the motorway at the roundabout and designated a second one after it? Like, say, addressing an at-grade intersection on I-10 by ending I-10 at it and saying I-110 begins after it?
If that's not on that Pathetic Motorways site, it needs to be.
It is on the Pathetic Motorways site (but for reasons predating this change!).
As this giant new housing estate is built out, two new roundabouts will be added, truncating the M181 each time, along with other changes like at-grade pedestrian crossings. I suspect that the A1077(M) signage is in error though, because the plan supposedly is for the road to become regular old A1077, as it will no longer be a motorway. Perhaps the A1077(M) designation is temporary? I can't imagine why though.
-
Cool Roadgeek video on bike.
-
Sooooo, lemme get this straight. They added a roundabout in the middle of a motorway, and to get around that not meeting motorway standards, ended the motorway at the roundabout and designated a second one after it? Like, say, addressing an at-grade intersection on I-10 by ending I-10 at it and saying I-110 begins after it?
If that's not on that Pathetic Motorways site, it needs to be.
As you know about Pathetic Motorways, you know that there's no problem with roundabouts on motorways (which is a legal concept, not a set of standards).
What happened was that, the roundabout completed, Highways England handed over the northern bit to North Lincolnshire Council as planned (though North Lincolnshire didn't seem to realise). As the side roads off the roundabout weren't open, the removal of motorway status that was meant to accompany the detrunking has been delayed as it leads unescapably to a motorway (good practise, rarely seen these days).
The renumbering, however, is weird. There was no reason why it couldn't have stayed M181 until the side roads opened. I presume it's as it will be A1077 soon, and the change in number helps make clear there's a change in ownership (even though that's not done anywhere else in the UK).I suspect that the A1077(M) signage is in error though, because the plan supposedly is for the road to become regular old A1077, as it will no longer be a motorway. Perhaps the A1077(M) designation is temporary? I can't imagine why though.
It's not an error (though the signs are mostly awful...), but a surprising rare piece of good practise.
The designation is temporary - when you can turn down the A1077(M) from the A18/A1077 and be able to avoid ending up on the M181, then the motorway status will go.
-
Thanks for the explanation. Although I've done a fair bit of reading about UK roads, they do have a tendency to hurt my head at times. :spin: It makes sense that the road would retain the motorway restrictions since there's no place to go but to a road with motorway restrictions, but to roadgeeks on this side of the pond, it can be a little hard to grasp that what makes a road a "motorway" isn't the design standards of the road itself, but things like minimum speed limits and the banning of non-motorised vehicles.
Theoretically, could you have a road that was to western-US "expressway" standards (divided road with at-grade intersections but no other direct access, i.e. from private driveways) carry an M number if whichever agency is responsible for enacting motorway restrictions chose to do so? (Are motorway restrictions enacted by Parliament or through the actions of Highways England and/or local councils?)
-
Here is a tour of the M5.
-
Here is a tour of the A465.
-
Here is a Tour of the A465
-
Thanks for the explanation. Although I've done a fair bit of reading about UK roads, they do have a tendency to hurt my head at times. :spin: It makes sense that the road would retain the motorway restrictions since there's no place to go but to a road with motorway restrictions, but to roadgeeks on this side of the pond, it can be a little hard to grasp that what makes a road a "motorway" isn't the design standards of the road itself, but things like minimum speed limits and the banning of non-motorised vehicles.
Even UK roadgeeks struggle!
There isn't a minimum speed limit on a motorway, beyond a 'no stopping' rule (obviously with exemptions). Pretty sure it's only a handful of tunnels that have minimum speed limits in the UK.
Theoretically, could you have a road that was to western-US "expressway" standards (divided road with at-grade intersections but no other direct access, i.e. from private driveways) carry an M number if whichever agency is responsible for enacting motorway restrictions chose to do so?
Yes. But the motorway restrictions would have to end at the cross-streets and restart again to allow prohibited vehicles to still use the cross-streets.
You'd probably keep it all 'Special Road', but have little bits where other classes of traffic can use it at junctions, but only Classes I and II between junctions (and thus make it a motorway). Even if not making it a motorway, it quite a good idea for any major new-build road to have it as a Special Road as it bans frontages and digging up for utilities, and makes it easier to ban pedestrians, etc (who'd otherwise have a legal right to use the new road, rather than being specifically allowed to use it per the Special Roads Order, meaning more hoops to jump through to restrict them).
Transport Scotland gets the idea and does tend to use it when building greenfield trunk roads. Highways England struggles with the idea that it might be wise to explicitly ban non-motorised traffic from a new-build 6-lane 70mph very busy expressway (they finally realised on the A14 scheme after about a decade of being seemingly unaware that it was an issue - and had to rush through legal orders as the road was due to open in a few months!), so even if they grasped the concept of Special Roads (they don't seem to have) they would be unlikely to use them.
(Are motorway restrictions enacted by Parliament or through the actions of Highways England and/or local councils?)
It's done by secondary legislation. If the road is trunk in England then its a UK Statutory Instrument and done by a senior civil servant at Highways England or the Department of Transport on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport (eg this recent one for new slip roads off the M58 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/596/made)). Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland have devolved Statutory Instruments, local councils can publish local legislation (annoyingly the local stuff doesn't appear on the legislation.gov.uk website). All such legislation is laid before the relevant legislature for a period, with them allowed to debate and veto it if they so wish (very rare that they do).
-
Here is a tour of the A30 and A303 near Stonehenge.
-
Here is a new tour.
-
Here is a tour of the M25 beltway.
-
Thanks for the explanation. Although I've done a fair bit of reading about UK roads, they do have a tendency to hurt my head at times. :spin: It makes sense that the road would retain the motorway restrictions since there's no place to go but to a road with motorway restrictions, but to roadgeeks on this side of the pond, it can be a little hard to grasp that what makes a road a "motorway" isn't the design standards of the road itself, but things like minimum speed limits and the banning of non-motorised vehicles.
Theoretically, could you have a road that was to western-US "expressway" standards (divided road with at-grade intersections but no other direct access, i.e. from private driveways) carry an M number if whichever agency is responsible for enacting motorway restrictions chose to do so? (Are motorway restrictions enacted by Parliament or through the actions of Highways England and/or local councils?)
Yes, the first thing anyone wanting to understand UK motorways is whilst there are design standards, these do not need to be followed to qualify for a motorway designation as it's the legal paperwork that determines what is and isn't a motorway. There simply isn't someone sat at a desk going "hang on buddy, you've not provided x, y, and z, so you can't have funding" in the same way the FHWA and AASHTO have.
The other thing is those in charge of sorting out the paperwork for such things are now generally consultants from all over the world and don't know (or don't care about) the ins and outs of the Special Roads legislation governing motorways, hence why we only ever seem to build new routes as A-roads - someone tried to get the new A14 converted to A14(M) (when M14 would have been far better, mind) but this fell flat so we now have the stupid situation of a road that is a motorway being signed as an A road with the exact same prohibitions as a motorway.
It would be entirely legally possible to have an at-grade motorway, provided classes of traffic banned from motorways can cross it - this is why the A1077(M) has appeared. I suppose the nearest analogy is Wyoming's I-180, but you'd have to pretend cyclists and pedestrians were banned from each individual block between signals.
One of my roles as a traffic engineer over here is helping out clients with legal orders - they usually get basics like parking restrictions wrong so this stuff involving moving traffic just causes meltdowns in my experience.
-
The oft proposed fixed link between Northern Ireland and Scotland was supported by British PM Boris Johnson. A month ago the project was canceled. Still, I feel like this is one of those projects that’ll eventually get done.
https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/09/14/news/plans-for-bridge-between-scotland-and-northern-ireland-scrapped-reports-2447921/ (https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/09/14/news/plans-for-bridge-between-scotland-and-northern-ireland-scrapped-reports-2447921/)
-
Turns out that the UK's signage for diversions (detours) happens to resemble the symbols from Squid Game:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-58896921
A police force has joked that a sign on a motorway will not direct drivers to the Netflix sensation Squid Game.
The sign, at Junction 5 of the M4 near Slough, has an uncanny resemblance to symbols that appear in the show.
But Thames Valley Road Policing posted on Twitter: "It's just directions for diversion routes during the road works. Phew!"
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/3BDE/production/_121062351_squid.jpg)
-
A colleague referred me to the Pathetic Motorways site (new to me, but not to many of you), and the editorial tone seems to be just right.
Example for A61(M) in Sheffield (https://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/a61m/):
Where is it?
Sheffield.
No, it's not. There's no A61(M) there.
OK, OK. It was meant to be in Sheffield...
Ah, right - another unbuilt motorway.
Yes, that's right.
What's the story then?
The scheme was developed by Sheffield City Engineers Department, and was then inherited by South Yorkshire County Council in 1974, where some of the less ambitious elements continued through...
-
That would've been quite the bridge to see, but alas, there will be no bridge linking Scotland with Northern Ireland. My guess is that the bridge and/or tunnel would have been at least 30 miles across.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59368707 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59368707)
-
“Reconstruction of 201 years old Union Chain Bridge gets underway”
https://constructionreviewonline.com/news/reconstruction-of-201-years-old-union-chain-bridge-gets-underway/
-
Sir Rod Stewart fills some potholes on the road.