Future expansion of the UK Motorway Network

[Mikey C]

The biggest problem with British motorways (and most roads in general) is junctions. Almost uniquely amongst developed nations, we insist on using terrible junction designs which simply don't work. Often, they are incredibly complicated and convoluted, and very obviously a case of the existing junction being distorted out of all proportion over time as development has occurred nearby. This one near Reading, or this one near Sheffield, are examples. Or, a concept which works well in certain places is butchered into place where it is completely unsuitable, such as here. Or, the classic British "must build a roundabout at any cost"/"that roundabout isn't working, let's build a bigger one" mindset - like this, or this, or this (there are so many other examples of this. Note the similarity with the "one more lane will fix it" image in post 25...).
Even worse is that the British approach to "fixing" this problem is to spend vast sums of money tinkering/making the roundabout bigger etc, which doesn't solve the problem at all, just wastes money and causes economic issues during the roadworks. Then do the same a few years later. Ad infinitum. Rather than do the job properly. Yet on the occasions where a genuine low-cost improvement could be made (such as changing the road markings and lane merge layout) this cannot be done "because".

If your junctions are flowing freely, you don't have queues. This in turn reduces congestion on the "mainline" (ie: the traffic not joining/leaving at the junction). Which in turn reduces the need to increase capacity.

There is so much evidence from abroad of how to do things better. But Britain is seemingly forever stuck in its "we know best" attitude.

Completely agree.

If I was given a fat pot of money, I'd use it to rebuild junctions, making them free flowing, or at least introducing extra sliproads to make the key journeys free flowing, as so often the congestion isn't caused because the roads are over capacity, it's because the junctions connecting them are hopeless. The M40 at Handy Cross for example is a massive dog's dinner, causing congestion on the otherwise freeflowing M40 (especially as it narrows under it). The M2 having no freeflow at its eastern end onto the A2.

The M25/A282 is bizarrely inconsistent in this aspect, giving a massively different experience depending on the interchange

Completely freeflowing for all connections - M23, M3, M4, M40, M11
Freeflowing for the important connections - A2, M20
Freeflowing for half the important connections - M1, A21 (the A12 will be like this soon)
Horrible stacked roundabouts - A3, A1(M), A12, A127, A13
Dual carriageway meeting the M25 at a roundabout - A41 towards Aylesbury

 

[renegademaster]

Image shows a congested multi-lane highway in Los Angeles, with a caption repeatedly saying, 'One more lane will fix it', culminating in, 'This might be the wrong approach '.

Plenty of times one more lane actually does fix things though, like the A21.
Not everywhere is suburban Los Angeles

 

[Harpo]

Educating drivers would make better use of existing capacity.

Many seem to believe lane position is determined by speed, not overtaking needs, forcing good drivers to outer lanes needlessly, and bad drivers to overtake on the empty lanes inside.

Secondly the single lane motorway caused by a 56.0 mph truck in L2 tediously overtaking a 55.9 mph truck in L1 needs a sensible solution.

 

[edwin_m]

There is so much evidence from abroad of how to do things better.

For example?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If a motorway needs to have a 50mph speed limit and has junctions snarling it up less than a mile apart it should not be a motorway.

Making a road a motorway is the easiest way to prevent pedestrians, cyclists, etc, from using the road. It's why I'd not like to see the Central Motorway in Newcastle and the Inner Ring Road in Leeds lose their motorway status any time soon.

Or, the classic British "must build a roundabout at any cost"/"that roundabout isn't working, let's build a bigger one" mindset

The M60/M62/M66 (J18) roundabout flows a lot better than the M60/M65/A580 free-flow junction (J15) or the M60/M62/M602 (J12) free-flow junctions just down the road.

Examples from abroad where things are better?

 

[Topological]

Making a road a motorway is the easiest way to prevent pedestrians, cyclists, etc, from using the road. It's why I'd not like to see the Central Motorway in Newcastle and the Inner Ring Road in Leeds lose their motorway status any time soon.

The M60/M62/M66 (J18) roundabout flows a lot better than the M60/M65/A580 free-flow junction (J15) or the M60/M62/M602 (J12) free-flow junctions just down the road.

Examples from abroad where things are better?

It is the same with the Mancunian Way in Manchester, but there has to be a better way to have roads where pedestrians are banned (and bans on cars stopping for that matter). The fact that such roads are called motorways is very confusing against the roads we mostly think of as motorways.

I was more referring to the imposition of low speed limits and regular junctions on the long-distance motorway network, such as the M4 in Port Talbot and Newport.

 

[Julia]

There is an argument that a great deal of travel demand is a product of a lack of appropriate housing near employment...if we had more housing near employment sites then there would be far less demand for commuting and hence less demand for these sorts of projects

Quite, and also a lot of industry concentrated in fewer and more remote sites, large volumes of cheap goods dragged across from China to huge warehouses only to remain unsold and dumped, ... there's a lot bigger questions around whether "economic growth" simply measured by the amount of stuff that gets done actually benefits most people, whether there are more effective ways of improving quality of life, and how sustainable outsourcing so much industry will be in future, which should be answered before getting the crayons out on such a scale. But you can bet our politicians will duck those questions as always!

 

[lachlan]

It is the same with the Mancunian Way in Manchester, but there has to be a better way to have roads where pedestrians are banned (and bans on cars stopping for that matter). The fact that such roads are called motorways is very confusing against the roads we mostly think of as motorways.

I was more referring to the imposition of low speed limits and regular junctions on the long-distance motorway network, such as the M4 in Port Talbot and Newport.

There are new A roads such as the Aberdeen bypass where pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists are prohibited.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2025 ==

Making a road a motorway is the easiest way to prevent pedestrians, cyclists, etc, from using the road. It's why I'd not like to see the Central Motorway in Newcastle and the Inner Ring Road in Leeds lose their motorway status any time soon.

The M60/M62/M66 (J18) roundabout flows a lot better than the M60/M65/A580 free-flow junction (J15) or the M60/M62/M602 (J12) free-flow junctions just down the road.

Examples from abroad where things are better?

There's an argument for removing motorways and grade-separated junctions altogether in urban areas as they make for a miserable walking and cycling experience (at least in the way they are built in the UK). Looking at Newcastle there's already a grade-separated dual-carriageway skirting the edge of the city so perhaps the A167M should be reworked into a public transport/active transport corridor.

 

[typefish]

so perhaps the A167M should be reworked into a public transport/active transport corridor

There's no point.

If you're cycling around the toon, you're likely going in a direction that goes across the CME, and not along it.

 

[edwin_m]

There's no point.

If you're cycling around the toon, you're likely going in a direction that goes across the CME, and not along it.

When the Central Motorway was built it was the A1(M) and the main north-south route through Tyneside. The A1 was later diverted through the Tyne Tunnel and later still via the Western Bypass. So there is a good argument that neither the Central Motorway nor the collapsing flyover in Gateshead is needed any longer. Agreed they are not the best routes for cycling, but in time they should be downgraded to low-speed urban roads with good facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to cross them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So there is a good argument that neither the Central Motorway nor the collapsing flyover in Gateshead is needed any longer.

The collapsing flyover hasn't been needed for a very long time but removing it won't require a huge re-working of the road network. You just move everything back to the roads that already exist underneath it at ground level.

The Central Motorway in Newcastle and the Inner Ring Road in Leeds are both very different. The Central Motorway is still a very important and very busy road, especially now most of Newcastle city centre is closed to cars, and I can't think of an easy way of moving the traffic away from it. Especially as for most of it the two carriageways are stacked on top of each other. It's similar in Leeds, with most roads in the city centre there also closed to cars.

good facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to cross them

That's the real issue with the Central Motorway, although it's better since Northumbria University moved to the site of the old Warner Cinema on New Bridge Street and added pedestrian infrastructure to support it. The footbridges are OK but I'm not a fan of the underpasses at Jesmond.

I was more referring to the imposition of low speed limits and regular junctions on the long-distance motorway network, such as the M4 in Port Talbot and Newport.

The low speed limit around Newport is mostly because of the narrow tunnels. The limit is partly safety and partly a way of managing traffic through the bottleneck; counter-intuitively you can get more vehicles through if those vehicles are travelling more slowly. It's why free-flow junctions quite often don't actually improve traffic flow all that much.

 

[Llanigraham]

The low speed limit around Newport is mostly because of the narrow tunnels. The limit is partly safety and partly a way of managing traffic through the bottleneck; counter-intuitively you can get more vehicles through if those vehicles are travelling more slowly. It's why free-flow junctions quite often don't actually improve traffic flow all that much.

And a very similar reason why the elevated section through Port Talbot is 50mph.
I seem to remember that was first introduced after an accident when some parts of a lorry ended up going through the roof of a house below. It has also been shown to have reduced the air pollution there.

 

[Cloud Strife]

There are new A roads such as the Aberdeen bypass where pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists are prohibited.

The AWPR should have been built as a motorway, and it's an absurdity that it wasn't. Having said that, the junctions are appallingly sub-standard.

As for the Central Motorway East in Newcastle, the key issue with it is that it's simply not complete. Had the original plan been completed, Newcastle would have had a pedestrianised city centre with large car parks accessed directly from the central motorways, making it easy to get in and out.

 

[brad465]

"Just one more lane will fix it." Said motorway construction workers many times in history.

 

[edwin_m]

...and there wouldn't have been very much of Newcastle city centre left for people to visit.

Nottingham is a similar size and not on a major through route, relatively unscathed by the road building boom except for Maid Marian Way and Broadmarsh gyratory, both now downgraded. Birmingham is larger but also downgraded much of Queensway some years back. So if long distance traffic can be diverted elsewhere, somewhere like Newcastle should be able to get by with a fairly modest city centre distributor road, say 2 lanes per direction at 30mph with signalled junctions.

 

[Topological]

And a very similar reason why the elevated section through Port Talbot is 50mph.
I seem to remember that was first introduced after an accident when some parts of a lorry ended up going through the roof of a house below. It has also been shown to have reduced the air pollution there.

Air pollution is what the very helpful signs say. Meanwhile the old A48 in parallel has a section with a 70mph speed limit. Admittedly, that section is on ground level, but it is telling that you can go faster on a road with houses than the M4 between Port Talbot and Britton Ferry.

I think there needs to be some though about what exactly motorways should be. If the aim is to reduce air pollution then maybe the whole concept of a motorway is wrong? Maybe motorways are not supposed to be the fastest roads?

As to lorries going through houses off the elevated section in Port Talbot, the same exists with elevated sections everywhere. Aside from some experimentation with a 60 in West Bromwich and some smart motorways in London, the other elevated sections seem to manage fine at 70. If they had only limited the elevated section then it might make sense. Likewise, the tunnels in Newport rather than the whole section from the A48 in the West to the A449/A48 in the East.

All this reminds me that it would be easy to bypass Port Talbot on the sea side now that the steel works is downsizing.

 

[Llanigraham]

As to lorries going through houses off the elevated section in Port Talbot, the same exists with elevated sections everywhere. Aside from some experimentation with a 60 in West Bromwich and some smart motorways in London, the other elevated sections seem to manage fine at 70. If they had only limited the elevated section then it might make sense. Likewise, the tunnels in Newport rather than the whole section from the A48 in the West to the A449/A48 in the East.

How many of those other elevated sections actually have houses underneath them? None of them that I know of. Hence the speed limit that has been there for many years.

 

[Noddy]

Regarding air pollution, in 20 years time the vast majority of cars, vans and lorries on the road will be electric so they won’t be directly producing any air pollution. Those signs will have to go.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Or said legislation can be bypassed with the ‘expressway’ moniker as per A14.

Legally, what makes a motorway is a Special Roads Order permitting the use of the road by only Class I and Class II traffic.

What makes a Special Road, well, special is that it's not a right of way. Only traffic that has been specifically authorised in the Special Roads Order is permitted to use it. There are certain roads which have Special Roads Orders applying other restrictions - most usually the addition of Class IV motor vehicles (in practice, agricultural vehicles) to those permitted to use the road.

The A90 AWPR has these restrictions, and is only not a motorway because Holyrood specifically inserted language into the legislation saying that it isn't one. Meanwhile the Skye Bridge is a Special Road upon which all classes of traffic are permitted!

That's not true, any road can be a motorway (including a single carriageway!). It just needs certain legislation to be approved in Parliament

There was, for a time, a single carriageway motorway near Manchester. And in Scotland, there are appreciable lengths of motorway that have only two lanes in each direction and no hard shoulders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sections of the North Wales Coast A55 are special roads so cyclists, pedestrians and other slow traffic can be banned from them. That gives rise to the 70 signs, as without those there would be no speed limit for cars as car NSL doesn't apply automatically on a special road, a derestriction sign would mean no limit at all. (Scottish law is different and so, unlike England, you get 70 signs when joining every motorway).

 

[Indigo Soup]

Sections of the North Wales Coast A55 are special roads so cyclists, pedestrians and other slow traffic can be banned from them.

There was also apparently a railway angle - in the days before the Transport and Works Act, a Special Roads Order was the only tool the highway authority had to compel British Rail to realign the railway to accommodate the road.

As it happened, British Rail agreed to authorise the necessary works on their side through other legislation, but it was a concern when the SRO was drawn up.

 

[702]

Image shows a congested multi-lane highway in Los Angeles, with a caption repeatedly saying, 'One more lane will fix it', culminating in, 'This might be the wrong approach '.

Or to put it in Simpsons terms...

To the topic at hand, and this recommendation

New M7 motorway parallel to A702 linking the M6 to Edinburgh (new motorway).

I am a little surprised at how poor Edinburgh's road connection is to "the WCML" of Motorways, the M6/M74, a one lane each way road in need of several bypasses.

 

[JamesT]

I am a little surprised at how poor Edinburgh's road connection is to "the WCML" of Motorways, the M6/M74, a one lane each way road in need of several bypasses.

Is that really Edinburgh’s main connection to the M74? Admittedly I’m using going to and from Fife, but I always keep going up the M74 and then take the A725 to join the M8. Slightly longer, but dual carriageway all the way.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I am a little surprised at how poor Edinburgh's road connection is to "the WCML" of Motorways, the M6/M74, a one lane each way road in need of several bypasses.

The motorway route is M8 to Baillieston, then M73 and M74, only slightly longer than the A702.

A direct connection from M8 Junction 4 to M74 Junction 12 was proposed as Fastlink, potentially a toll road; it seems to have disappeared at some point during Scottish devolution, along with the upgrade of the A74 between Carlisle and Gretna to motorway standard. The latter did finally happen between 2006 and 2008, but without the planned renumbering of the A74(M) to M6.

 

[typefish]

Scottish law is different and so, unlike England, you get 70 signs when joining every motorway

Incorrect. Scottish legislation does not differ from E+W legislation on this specific matter, it's just that the practice of having 70 signs upon entrances to motorways has still continued in Scotland for unknown reasons, long after England stopped doing so. They are basically litter. It's a case of "not broke, don't fix it" perhaps.

If this were truly the case, then after approximately 2 miles, Scottish motorways would revert to being derestricted (and therefore have no speed limit) - an absurd idea in terms of signage yet one that I would truly support.

 

[Cowley]

There’s a thread below for discussing the upkeep of the infrastructure that people might find interesting:

Maintaining ageing road infrastructure

It’s a simple question with no doubt a very complicated answer... We have many thousands of miles worth of motorways/dual carriageways etc in this country, with many of the concrete bridges/viaducts etc having been built in the past six or so decades, and we were probably in a heyday of road...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Cloud Strife]

A direct connection from M8 Junction 4 to M74 Junction 12 was proposed as Fastlink, potentially a toll road

It vanished largely because toll roads were a no-go after the Skye Bridge fiasco. They were associated with the loathed Tory government and no Scottish government since then will go near the topic.

 

[William3000]

It is the same with the Mancunian Way in Manchester, but there has to be a better way to have roads where pedestrians are banned (and bans on cars stopping for that matter). The fact that such roads are called motorways is very confusing against the roads we mostly think of as motorways.

I was more referring to the imposition of low speed limits and regular junctions on the long-distance motorway network, such as the M4 in Port Talbot and Newport.

Roads can be downgraded from motorways, they just require signage. The Dartford Tunnel isn’t a motorway and cyclists and pedestrians can’t use it. Similarly there are A roads like the relatively recently dualled section through Weston Tunnels where cyclists and pedestrians can’t use.

 

[WibbleWobble]

The M60/M62/M66 (J18) roundabout flows a lot better than the M60/M65/A580 free-flow junction (J15) or the M60/M62/M602 (J12) free-flow junctions just down the road.

Junction 15 involves the M61, not M65. Junction 18 causes a lot of the congestion involving northern clockwise part of the M60 in the morning peak. Junction 12 is hampered by the proximity of Junction 13, which results in a lot of weaving - there's also a considerable amount of traffic leaving J13 in the evening peak because it is the main exit for a considerable part of western Greater Manchester. What doesn't help is that J12 was shoehorned into position years after the rest of the motorway was built.

J15 has two problems - one is the backed up traffic because of J12, the other is the abysmal layout of the southbound M61 whereby there are three lanes coming off the Kearsley Spur, and two lanes merging into one on the mainline then having to weave over a short section of road.

Roads can be downgraded from motorways, they just require signage. The Dartford Tunnel isn’t a motorway and cyclists and pedestrians can’t use it. Similarly there are A roads like the relatively recently dualled section through Weston Tunnels where cyclists and pedestrians can’t use.

All motorways are special roads but not all special roads are motorways, so as you say, a motorway could be downgraded but keep its special road status. Mancunian Way opened as a non-motorway, so there's nothing stopping it reverting back to plain old A57.

 

[route101]

Is that really Edinburgh’s main connection to the M74? Admittedly I’m using going to and from Fife, but I always keep going up the M74 and then take the A725 to join the M8. Slightly longer, but dual carriageway all the way.

I have been on rail replacement buses Edinburgh to Carlisle that go via the M8, A725 and M74. A702 will still be quicker if there is traffic on the former route.