The UK's Most Pointless Highways

[ben_1986 0]

Originally posted by: asteconn

I should have said "usually" lol. Yeah I'm aware of the existance of those things. They're only on the M6, M25 and M42 ifaia

ben_1986: Those sorts of junctions are very common in the UK. most motorway junctions are of that type or similar.

quote>

 

now i know why the english motorways are always congested when i'm visiting englad: those nasty roundabouts junctions are giant congestioncreators

[DavidBrown 0]

Ben - the roundabout junctions themselves normally work fine and cause little congestion. The reason why we have so much congestion is the lack of investment in out major motorways, meaning that often they are vastly over-capacity and inadequate for their purpose.

I don't think we'll ever see the day when a UK government even mentions the possibility of a project a tenth of the size of Boston's Big Dig...

[asteconn 9]

you know - going off that point - IIRC the M1 hit its annual design capacity on the first day it opened didn't it?

[ledge69 0]

Well in the UK we don't do transport. If a party mentions at all it takes a back seat. The roads wouldn't be so congested if there were alternatives. How can it be justified if a train that can carry 100's is more expensive then a plane that can carry just over a 100 and can go anywhere in Europe. In 1988 it was £5 to go from Bristol to London I know we have inflation but thats a joke. Also we've the new buy before you bored and booking in advance in order to get a semi decent price the trains our like airplanes. An improvement here is if its new and flashy it can justify price rises, replace and 8 carriage train with one that is barely 5 like Virgin did now thats progress. When I was in Malta people joked about the buses, they were crome lined relics from the 50's but they ran to ever place on the island no joke, were usally every 10-15 mins and cost 20p a journey no matter what the distance.

The main joke they go about charging in peak times...those people aren't in traffic jams at 8.30 in the morning for the fun of it unlike politicians thats when most people have to do some work. I envy Europe because of this and now Wales and Scotland who are now investing in transport. In 10 years what will we get, Crossrail which dosen't go anyway usful and Thameslink 2???. It seems any large town has a transport service or some kind. Here most places don't have a bus, if your village or small town has a railway station that didn't get axed your lucky to ahve a train every two hours. Transport systems arn't there to make money I don't know any do, the generate far more revenue from their knock on effects.

[p4p3rc1ip 2]

Scotland's motorways used to be a mess. They're sorting them out now.

Problem is, England is stuck in a world of "roads = cars, cars = bad". So many things are being done on the cheap. So many major road schemes have been cancelled over the years. Monorails are seen as children's rides. AFAIK we don't have any outside private land such as Alton Towers and Chester Zoo. Widening is seen as the answer to anything. We're not future-proofing. And we're taking too long to do things to. For example, near me, they want to widen a stretch of the M27. It does need doing, but by the time the work is predicted to finish (and that's assuming there are no objections and environmentalists, which there probably will be), it will need to be widened again!

And don't get me started on speed limits and lane closures. Isn't 30mph or less only supposed to be used in urban or dangerous areas? I've been forced to do 30 before in the middle of no-where or get a speeding fine.

The M1 didn't reach it's capacity on it's first day. It was very clear during it's first few years. However, it's only Service Area, Watford Gap, was designed to hold 10,000 VPD and reached this on it's first day.

[wallasey 8]

The M58 isn't the only "Incomplete" motorway; theres quite a few! The M67 is perhaps the most famous as it was meant to go from Manchester City Centre, right the way over to Sheffield. Had this been built, we wouldnt have the problems that we currently do on the M62!

[ILL Tonkso 1,238]

How about the M27 between Portsmouth and Brighton? Doesn't Exist! though parts of it do.

[wallasey 8]

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso How about the M27 between Portsmouth and Brighton? Doesn't Exist! though parts of it do.quote>

Theres good reason for that; it wasnt meant to! According to Pathetic Motorways, the M27 was only planned to go to Chichester; the prospect of it being extended to Brighton and Dover is a fallacy.

[giert 16]

Another ridicoulus one is in Norway:

You're driving at aprox. 100kmph, then out of nowhere comes a SMALL ROUNDABUOUT(!!!!!!!!!!), forcing you to slow down to 40 in ten meters, before speeding up again!

[Exethalion 4]

Has no one yet mentioned the Glasgow M8 Inner Ring Road?!!

http://pathetic.org.uk/photos/glasgow-irr/pages/DSC04020_jpg.shtml

Less than half-complete, it's absolutely wild, with ramps diving up and down everywhere, and of course, the famous ski-jump. It's a 60s monstrosity, and to think they were going to demolish large parts of the city centre to finish the ring'.

Also, if it can be called a highway, the A4174 Bristol ring Road is a disgrace...just like everything else Bristol city council maintains. It's not even a ring, it's more of an 'L'. And due to treehuggers, it'll likelt never be completed, putting more pressure on radials like the M32, A38, Wells Road and Bath Road (which I happen to live on).

[saltandsauce 0]

the Glasgow M78 completion

dumping more traffic onto kingston bridge will not make traffic ease up

the USA and the UK are opposites on transport terms

the USA are for raising spped limits,increasing curve radii,wider lanes

the UK is for lowering them and making driving a real pain

the USA likes motorways and invests money into keeping them smooth and comfortableto drive in

the UK barely keeps the roads level and never fills in potholes

the USA like investing in reopening railway lines to ease congestion

the UK likes raising fares and privatisation (which also gets huge subsidies) to ease congestion

[GAT-X105 3]

You're pretty close there. The USA tries to reopen a lot of old rail lines, but many of them were abandoned or torn up when they fell out of use. The rail system here actually sucks because the country is so big, there are a lot of places that have no trains at all, or one a day. Or less than that.

In the Northeast, between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, the rail service is actually really good, but it's congested and not that fast. It would be nice to have TGV-style high speed, but there is nowhere to build a new rail line in the most-populated areas.

And for the roads, a lot of the ones that are constantly repaved have tolls. You pay the toll to use the road, the toll pays for road maintenance. I believe the tolls actually turn a profit for the states.

[saltandsauce 0]

actually a lot of railways in the US of A were just paved over or even left alone entireley or the tracks were ripped up you can still re lay track but i can see why nobody is keen on it

[GAT-X105 3]

It would be very, very expensive to re-lay a railroad that has been overgrown or replaced with a road. A lot of people would probably object to a road being torn up for a railroad, too.

Some people in the US seem convinced that trains are nothing but engines of destruction that ruin neighborhoods with noise and running over kids. This isn't true, duh, but a lot of people are idiots.

[krbe 193]

WEll, it's certainly true for those old, large machines that are used for goods transport, but if you try laying some high-speed lines along the coasts? Upgrading the Northwest corridor to international standards so that the Acela Express won't hit any more people and further reduce its speed for example. And isn't there a high-speed line under planning/construction in California?

[photomonkey 0]

Britain's road numbering system is actually very well developed and not random at all, to all those who couldn't figure a pattern. Some of you have almost got it: but here's how it works:

The numbers of the areas relate to the number of the roads. So for example, the M4 follows the area of zone 4. The M25 is so called because it goes from zone 2 to 5.

For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_road_numbering_scheme

[Shingure 56]

Im from philly and ACELA stands for

Amtrak Customers Extremely Late Again

[belfastuniguy 18]

And isn't there a high-speed line under planning/construction in California?quote>

Yes there is and impressive it looks as well. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

Britain's road numbering system is actually very well developed and not random at all, to all those who couldn't figure a pattern. Some of you have almost got it: but here's how it works: quote>

Agreed..of course to those less informed it appears very random indeed. But that map is a good way of detailing the logic behind it. Though in Northern Ireland we don't use the zonal system of Great Britain, in fact our tends to be a little more random than Great Britain...

[memedoug85 36]

Oh my god what was with that 'Magic Roundabout' on the page before? How does that do anything??

[Exethalion 4]

Britain's road numbering system is actually very well developed and not random at all, to all those who couldn't figure a pattern. Some of you have almost got it: but here's how it works: (Map)quote>

Why wasn't the M74 named the M7? I want an M7!!

Oh my god what was with that 'Magic Roundabout' on the page before? How does that do anything??quote>

That's for locals to know and tourists to find out! There is a decent way to get through it, and it actually works very well, much better than a standard roundabout with 5 exits. Basically see it as 5 separate mini-roundabouts and take them one at a time.

[xmike1991 2]

Exethalion - Scottish motorways are named after the A road they took over. so A74 went to M74. thats why its not called the M6

edited: its the m6, not m1.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Slacker has it right (almost), about the road numbers on English and Welsh roads. Scotland has A7, A8 and A9 from Edinburgh. Mile marker posts on Motorways are small and by the Hardshoulder.

You need to remember that Britain is an old country and our road network began with the Romans 44BC - 450 AD approx. Many A and B roads still follow the Roman pattern.  I live close to the A2 which was part of the roman Watling Street from Dover via London to Holyhead roads A2 and A5. 

Britain also has a large population in a small area. That's why places are close together.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Photomonkey is not completely right.

The M25  goes from 2 to 1 via 3,4 and 5. It was called M25 because the southern section parallels the A25 from Sevenoaks to Guildford junctions 5 to 10.

It must be the only motorway where you have to take a slip road to stay on the motorway (ie. junction 5) not taking the slip road will put you on the A21 southbound or the M26 Eastbound.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: photomonkey Britain's road numbering system is actually very well developed and not random at all, to all those who couldn't figure a pattern. Some of you have almost got it: but here's how it works:

The numbers of the areas relate to the number of the roads. So for example, the M4 follows the area of zone 4. The M25 is so called because it goes from zone 2 to 5.quote>

Well, that's not particularly intuitive.

And I'm still looking for answer as to why all the exits are numbered sequentially...

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Duke 87

Why Not!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Why Notquote>

Because distance based numbering is superior. Yet, it isn't widely used in Europe. I get the distinct impression that to a lot of people from the UK, it's quite a foreign concept.

But anyway, the concept is this:

The simplest method of numbering exits (which the UK uses) is to number exits in order starting at 1 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.). It's probably also the most intuitive way but it has a couple of serious drawbacks. The first is what happens when a new interchange is added, let's say between exits 3 and 4. Well, now you either have to number it 3A (in which case the sequence breaks down), or change the number of every exit along the highway after it (a lot of effort and expense, and confusion). The second is that it makes no indication of how far apart the exits actually are. If a highway starts in a more urban area but then goes out into the countryside, its interchanges will likely spread out. What this means is that the first few exits may be close together, but later exits, not so much. One would think that the distance from the beginning of the highway to exit 5 would be approximately the same as the distance from exit 5 to exit 10... but that's not necessarily the case, and when it's not, the numbers become misleading. Exit 10 may actually be three or four times as far away as exit 5, not just twice as far.

The solution to this is to number the exits based on how far they are from the start of the highway (using miles in most cases, since the US is home to most of this type of numbering, but it can also be done with kilometers). Let's try a simple example. This (imaginary) highway has ten exits, an is 24 miles long. The exits could be numbered from 1 to 10, or, given the mileposts of the exits, they could be numbered as follows:

Sequential #	Milepost	Distance-based #
1	0.7	1A
2	1.3	1B
3	2.3	2
4	4.2	4
5	5.9	6
6	8.6	9
7	10.1	10
8	13.4	13
9	16.9	17
10	20.2	20

See how that works? This is how most exits in the US (and Canada) are numbered. The procedure is simple: take the milepost of the junction, round it off, and that's your exit number. If two or more junctions end up with the same number, use letter suffixes (A, B, etc.). This eliminates both key disadvantages of sequential numbering. Let's say you want to add a new exit at milepost 14.9. With sequential numbering, you'd have to make it exit 8A, or make it exit 9 and renumber exits 9 and 10 to 10 and 11. With distance based numbering, no problem, it's exit 15 - and the sequence is not in any way broken. Also, the numbers are representative of how far apart the exits are. Distance based, exits 13 and 17 are about twice as far apart (3.5 miles) as exits 4 and 6 (1.7 miles). Sequentially, the illusion would exist that exits 4 and 5 are about as far apart as exits 8 and 9, when in fact they are not. In addition, let's say you know that you need to get off at exit 17 (distance based). Well, you then know by simple subtraction that if you're passing exit 9, it's about 8 miles ahead. Sequential numbering (where you need exit 9 and are passing exit 6) offers no such benefit.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Duke 87

British roadsigns (and maps) tell you how many miles away the town is that you want, and British cars have Odometers and Trip meters, so you can work out how far you have already come and have to go. SIMPLE

Numbering of junctions according to miles isn't necessary!

[ev 3]

I'm Canadian and I have been to Toronto, Toronto has the ugliest highway running right through the waterfront district

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

For a pointless Motorway how about the M23. Starts 30 miles away from Brighton on the south coast and short of Purley about 20 miles short of London where much of the traffic is heading.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Last post should say:- and ends short of Purley etc.