Few roads work

[Dextraneous]

What's it like round your neck of the woods?

Up here we have the ongoing upgrading of the M60 to a smart motorway. This seems to mostly involve putting up mile after mile of protective barriers (metal thingies, presumably because good old fashioned plastic bollards are needed to create problems elsewhere) which means that a car breaking down will have to stay in lane so as to maximise inconvenient impact. There are also these rather curious pictures of a child asking us to take care with how we drive as his dad apparently works on the motorway. All very nice, but it would be even nicer if we could actually observe someone working.

Meanwhile, having made commuting a living hell on the ring road, the powers that be have decided to convert the East Lancs into some kind of bus lane thingy. This means single lane traffic and much congestion. Once one gets towards the centre of Manchester, it is nigh on impossible to traverse the city centre due to random road stoppages due to further road works. One case is the filling in of the sink hole along the Mancunian Way. For some reason, this has taken a couple of months and now (my friendly cabbie told me) they will have to do it again as they have tested it and it isn't stable enough.

Why not go on public transport then? The trams are a fine fettle of fish. It apparently will take another year for them to complete a new 200m long stretch of track laying - mostly across a piece of land near the town hall which had had a huge amount of money and time spent on it making it a pleasant park type feature less that 2 years ago. At least the trains run OK? Well, not northwards they don't as they need to stop running in the evenings whilst they upgrade a 200m long tunnel near to Bolton. This has taken 6 months or so and should be completed by the end of October; this currently requires the closure of the A666 St Peter's way from 8pm overnight for inexplicable reasons. I need hardly tell you that the prescribed detour has roadworks along its stretch too.

The question one has to ask relates to joined-up thinking. Is it really beyond the wit of mankind to realize that when one major artery of transport has to be interrupted then it's a jolly good idea not to allow others to be dealt the same fate simultaneously?

 

[jockscott]

Driving into Edinburgh was near impossible a couple of years back, whilst they were installing the new tram lines. Traffic was alright if you wanted to go around the city, but not if you wanted to go into the centre. And don't get me started on the stupidity of planners. Why is it that the water board, dig a main road up to relay pipes, renew sewers etc, finish their work and reinstate the road, only for British Gas to then dig the same bloody road up a few months later? They do their bit then you can bet yer bottom dollar, within 6 months it's the damn electric board that want to dig up the same bit of road. Do these lot not speak to one another? If not why not?

 

[bernardgreen]

My grouse is poorly thought out and poorly signed diversion routes that have been and will be necessary during the re-building of railway bridges for the electrification of the Midland Main Line railway. The signs and their placement ( apparently ) conform to the rules and regulations. But I do wonder if the people who wrote the rules and regulations have ever followed their own signage. They seem to believe an HGV driver can read a sign about a road being closed, realise the diversion applies to them and then slow and turn right into the diversion 60 yards after the first sign.

 

[JBR]

I think I may have said it before, but when I was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia a gang of Korean workers could erect a motorway flyover almost overnight, yet similar construction projects in this country seem to require years and years of 'work' (with, as Dextrous says, little obvious work).

Could it be something to do with elf 'n' safety, I wonder?

Also, the presence of large blocks of concrete along the sides of working areas, rather than cones, has major drawbacks. Like the time last Tuesday when a car had broken down in the inside lane and could not be shifted on to the hard shoulder, causing miles of tailbacks on the M60.

 

[jockscott]

I think I may have said it before, but when I was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia a gang of Korean workers could erect a motorway flyover almost overnight, yet similar construction projects in this country seem to require years and years of 'work' .

And what's with the length of roadworks on the motorways? There's one at the moment on the M1 in Derbyshire/South Yorkshire, that's absolutely ridiculous. I had to drive down south a few weeks ago and it's just miles long, but the majority of the roadworks only have a few gangs working along small sections of it. Don't forget the ubiquitous "average speed " cameras too (a money raiser if ever there was)

 

[EFLImpudence]

I always wonder why, after an accident, a road is closed for hours, with total disregard for inconvenience and expense to everyone else, for examination and investigations to take place.
It may be good to determine who was at fault and exactly how but does it really matter compared with the cost of disruption?

The same is done on railway lines when someone jumps off a bridge. Why? What does the scene below reveal? Just scrape them up and get on with things.


Another gripe is when, because of said accident, you come to a 'Road Closed' sign but it doesn't say where.
Is it before or after my proposed destination?

 

[bernardgreen]

Nutwork Fail

To build a new bridge that carries trains over a road 9 days

http://www.scottishplant.co.uk/nine-day-deadline-for-rail-team/

To rebuild a bridge carrying a road over the railway Planned Monday 24 March to August 2014 Actual March 24th to November 11th

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...road-diversion-for-bedford-bridge-improvement

Nothing must stop the trains but roads can be closed for months with traffic diverted along unsuitable roads.

 

[Dextraneous]

I'm sure noseall will be along here soon to explain the utter futility and stupidity of my suggestion, but why can't planners get all contractors to work on one project at a time so that it's completed in the shortest human time possible, rather than having long protracted processes going on at the same time? The total number of man hours to complete each job would be the same, so it wouldn't be saving any contractual cash for taxpayers to pay etc, but each job would be done quickly without the need to disrupt so many transport routes simultaneously? Surely the number of man hours lost through added travel time, coupled with the usual environmental impact of combustion engines running without vehicles moving very quickly is something that seems to be overlooked.

 

[JBR]

I'm sure noseall will be along here soon to explain the utter futility and stupidity of my suggestion, but why can't planners get all contractors to work on one project at a time so that it's completed in the shortest human time possible, rather than having long protracted processes going on at the same time?

A good question that I have asked myself many times in the past.

Another good question that I remember my dad asking years and years ago is why are not all services located under pavements rather than under roads?
Obviously, this would not be possible everywhere, but most roads have pavements on both sides, so if one side is closed for excavation, pedestrians could easily use the other side. Also, I realise that services usually need to serve properties on both sides of the road, but if cross-links were put in place every so often, and the services run to several houses on the side opposite to the main services side, there would be a much lower chance of having to dig up the road.

I realise that most services were put in place long before we had the heavy traffic we have today, but perhaps when services are being replaced, or when new roads are being laid, it would be sensible to run the services under the pavements.

I suspect that in asking these questions, and bearing in mind my lack of knowledge, I fully expect to be the subject of much derision!

 

[Dextraneous]

Am in total agreement JBR

 

[longdogs]

I always wonder why, after an accident, a road is closed for hours, with total disregard for inconvenience and expense to everyone else, for examination and investigations to take place.
It may be good to determine who was at fault and exactly how but does it really matter compared with the cost of disruption?

The same is done on railway lines when someone jumps off a bridge. Why? What does the scene below reveal? Just scrape them up and get on with things.


Another gripe is when, because of said accident, you come to a 'Road Closed' sign but it doesn't say where.
Is it before or after my proposed destination?

That gets me too. Quite often the sign is just before the incident resulting in a queue of traffic having to make a U turn. Why not place the sign at the point where drivers are able to change direction and have a plod standing there giving advice.

 

[Newboy]

Another good question that I remember my dad asking years and years ago is why are not all services located under pavements rather than under roads?
Obviously, this would not be possible everywhere, but most roads have pavements on both sides, so if one side is closed for excavation, pedestrians could easily use the other side. Also, I realise that services usually need to serve properties on both sides of the road, but if cross-links were put in place every so often, and the services run to several houses on the side opposite to the main services side, there would be a much lower chance of having to dig up the road.

I realise that most services were put in place long before we had the heavy traffic we have today, but perhaps when services are being replaced, or when new roads are being laid, it would be sensible to run the services under the pavements.

I suspect that in asking these questions, and bearing in mind my lack of knowledge, I fully expect to be the subject of much derision!

I suspect that you might be surprised at what is laid under your feet both in terms of size and depth. The road I live on has two 20" gas mains running down it - impracticable to place on a pavement 4' wide. This morning we have been dealing with a main sewer run at a depth of 23' - trust me you can't just dig a hole a couple of feet wide to get down to that level. The services that run under our feet surprises a lot of people both in variety and size.

Try excavating in certain areas and you'll find you get visited very quickly by organisations you never even knew existed - I had an interesting (and informative) visit from the organisation which manages the underground fuel pipeline network (CLH-PS) a few years back when working about 15 miles from Heathrow.

 

[Newboy]

This seems to mostly involve putting up mile after mile of protective barriers (metal thingies, presumably because good old fashioned plastic bollards are needed to create problems elsewhere) which means that a car breaking down will have to stay in lane so as to maximise inconvenient impact. There are also these rather curious pictures of a child asking us to take care with how we drive as his dad apparently works on the motorway.

The reason for the metal barriers is to provide some degree of protection from passing vehicles & debris and to prevent vehicles straying into work areas - you'd be amazed at what motorists will try when they believe that their needs are greater than anybody else. Cones are actually dangerous near work areas - watch what happens when a 44 tonne lorry clips a cone and turn it into a 50 mph projectile (a standard road cone that you see on a motorway weighs in at around 9 kilos)

The new signage you've seen is designed to try to change driver attitude (it's certainly managed to get some attention). As everybody gets frustrated by the seemingly endless delays and behaves more selfishly it puts other people at risk. Very few people have a workplace which has lumps of metal weighing up to 44 tonnes passing by at 50 mph within a few feet. If you would like to share the experience try changing an offside tyre on a wet motorway hard shoulder.

I share the frustration at the apparent lack of joined up thinking.

 

[JBR]

Another good question that I remember my dad asking years and years ago is why are not all services located under pavements rather than under roads?
Obviously, this would not be possible everywhere, but most roads have pavements on both sides, so if one side is closed for excavation, pedestrians could easily use the other side. Also, I realise that services usually need to serve properties on both sides of the road, but if cross-links were put in place every so often, and the services run to several houses on the side opposite to the main services side, there would be a much lower chance of having to dig up the road.

I realise that most services were put in place long before we had the heavy traffic we have today, but perhaps when services are being replaced, or when new roads are being laid, it would be sensible to run the services under the pavements.

I suspect that in asking these questions, and bearing in mind my lack of knowledge, I fully expect to be the subject of much derision!

I suspect that you might be surprised at what is laid under your feet both in terms of size and depth. The road I live on has two 20" gas mains running down it - impracticable to place on a pavement 4' wide. This morning we have been dealing with a main sewer run at a depth of 23' - trust me you can't just dig a hole a couple of feet wide to get down to that level. The services that run under our feet surprises a lot of people both in variety and size.

Try excavating in certain areas and you'll find you get visited very quickly by organisations you never even knew existed - I had an interesting (and informative) visit from the organisation which manages the underground fuel pipeline network (CLH-PS) a few years back when working about 15 miles from Heathrow.

Yes, I have a pretty good idea of what is there now, and the reasons for having to dig so deep and wide.
What I'm suggesting is that as and when new roads are built, a better arrangement could be made including, if necessary, wider pavements. Services could be made more easily accessible, perhaps by running them together in concrete trunking with sufficiently thick panels of concrete on top. They could be constructed to be strong enough to support pedestrian traffic, yet easily removable for maintenance.
The trouble with roads is that they have to support heavy traffic and the surface needs a lot of work to remove and replace, and whilst this work is being done there are serious disruptions to traffic which, in turn, results in more financial loss.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think the truth is that 'they' don't really care and 'we' don't really matter.