Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Motorroads / Expressroads / Expressways
To recap, for dual carriageways with motorroad / expressroad regulations, the following regulations would apply:- Minimum speed limit 60 km/h (no mopeds less than 50 cm3 engine capacity)
- No cyclists, pedestrians, tractors / agricultural vehicles, or horse riders.
- Default speed limit the same as that for dual carriageways without motorroad / expressroad regulations, unless overriden by posted speed limits.
- No U-turns or reversing.
In other words, motorroads / expressroads would be motorway-like. Unlike motorways, I think there could be a case for allowing learner drivers on motorroads / expressroads - after all they are allowed on dual carriageways. But that is only if this is practised where motorroads / expressroads are already in use elsewhere.
Dual carriageways which already prohibit cycles, pedestrians, horse riders, stopping and U-turns (or at least 3 from this list), should definitely be converted to motorroads / expressroads.
I also think that dual carriageways which already prohibit cycles or U-turns (as a possible minimum) should be considered candidates for conversion to motorroads / expressroads on a case by case basis.
Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations.
End of motorroad / expressroad regulations.
Motorroad / expressroad regulations 1500m ahead.
Below is an illustration of how "start of motorroad / expressroad regulations" can replace no less than at least 4 signs:
Single Motorroad / Expressroad sign replaces no less than 5 signs.
Single Motorroad / Expressroad sign replaces no less than 4 signs.
Single Motorroad / Expressroad sign replaces no less than 4 signs.
Note that the above examples were for standalone start of "motorroad / expressroad regulations" sign, which I would definitely recommend introducing.
Of course, normally, the start of motorroad / expressroad regulations would include the route number. Examples of "start of motorroad / expressroad regulations" with the route number, designed like motorway signs but with the motorroad colours as blue, are shown below:
Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations, on the A329 (non-primary route).
Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations, on the A33 (primary route).
Some alternative designs for start of motorroad / expressroad regulations non-primary and primary routes are shown below, with route number plate included:
Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations, on the A329 (non-primary route).
Alternative designs.
Alternative designs.
Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations, on the A33 (primary route).
Alternative designs.
Alternative designs.
Note that in the designs above, the colour blue has been used for the motorroad / expressroad symbol. In Europe, it the colour for the expressroads always matches motorway colours (so it's blue in much of Europe, but green in Italy and Switzerland for example), regardless of the colour of primary routes and local routes.
It is worth considering, as Alexander has suggested, having the expressroad symbol reflect the road classification. This would definitely make it neater on direction signs, as well as on the "start of expressroad regulations" signs. It also seems more logical to reflect the road classification colours too.
Standalone entry signs and exit signs:
Start of motorroad / expressroads regulations reflecting route classification:
Start of expressroad regulations on a primary route (left)
Start of expressroad regulations on a non-primary route (right)
Start of expressroad regulations on a primary route (left)
Start of expressroad regulations on a non-primary route (right)
End of motorroad / expressroads regulations reflecting route classification:
End of motorroad / expressroad regulations on a primary route (left)
End of motorroad / expressroad regulations on a non-primary route (right)
End of motorroad / expressroad regulations on a primary route (left)
End of motorroad / expressroad regulations on a non-primary route (right)
For the primary route, the expressroad regulation signs which also incorporate route numbers could look as shown below:
Start of expressroad regulations on a non-primary route.
The expressroad / motorroad colour reflects the route classification.
The expressroad / motorroad colour reflects the route classification.
Start of expressroad regulations on a primary route.
The expressroad / motorroad colour reflects the route classification.
The expressroad / motorroad colour reflects the route classification.
An alternative is including a border around the car symbols, this way one can distinguish "motorroad / expressroad" from "motor vehicles" (as used in no motor vehicles), especially for non-primary routes:
Start of motorroad / expressroad regulations on a
non-primary route (border included around pictogram).
The colour reflects the route classification.
non-primary route (border included around pictogram).
The colour reflects the route classification.
Start of expressroad regulations on a
primary route (border included around pictogram).
The colour reflects the route classification.
primary route (border included around pictogram).
The colour reflects the route classification.
Thank you Kevin Steinhardt and Alexander for your feedback in the "Improvements for UK speed related signs" article (especially the motorroad / expressroad part), and also for your suggestions for what this type of dual carriageway can be called (motorroad and expressroad respectively), I have not made a decision either way which one to go for, both are equally good for me. And also thank you Alexander for your suggestion that expressroad symbol colours should reflect the road classification colours.
Dual carriageways which are not motorroads / expressroads
For dual carriageways which are not motorroad / expressroads (specifically without the start of motorroad / expressroad regulation signs), cyclists should continue to be permitted, as should tractors and other agricultural vehicles, horse riders, and anyone or any vehicle allowed to use dual carriageways today.Replacement of "Dual carriageway ahead" signs with symbolic equivalents
Signs which say "Dual carriageway (distance) ahead" should definitely be metricated. But we can do better, because these signs, along with "Dual carriageway ahead" should be made symbolic as well. There is no reason to have language specific text here when language independent graphics and symbols are easier to read and don't require translation. Only primary routes and non-primary routes are affected.An example conversion for a primary route is shown below:
Replacement for "Dual carriageway ahead" with a symbolic equivalent, for a primary route.
Another example for a primary route is shown below, for a dual carriageway 3000m ahead:
Dual carriageway 3000m ahead (primary route), before and after conversion.
Examples for non-primary routes are shown below, for two different types of dual carriageway:
Dual carriageway ahead (non-primary route), before and after conversion.
And an example conversion of dual carriageway for 800m, symbolic and language independent of course, is shown below:
Dual carriageway for 800m (non-primary route), before and after conversion.
As we can see, the dual carriageway ahead signs can be replaced by symbolic equivalents. Although the wholly symbolic versions would be bigger (which I believe could be inevitable), they would be clearer, easier to see at a glance and at a distance, not need to be read, and not require translation.
Of course, if we are on a single carriageway where there is a dual carriageway a certain distance ahead, and the dual carriageway starts immediately after a roundabout (in a rural area). I think in this case, if the dual carriageway immediately after the roundabout is also a motorroad / expressroad, then one can use a "Motorroad / Expressroad 1500m" (as shown earlier) in stead of "Dual carriageway 1 mile ahead", and then have a "Motorroad / Expressroad / Expressway" sign at the start itself. If the dual carriageway after the roundabout does not have motorroad/expressroad regulations as well, either the sign could be removed if possible, or a graphical equivalent can be used (I think it is better to use the graphical equivalent).
I think the term 'motorroad' is too close to 'motorway' and would lead to confusion between the two types. The term 'expressway' is definitely better in this respect.
ReplyDelete@Mark - Thank you for your comment. That is a very good point, and I think you could be right - and expressway is a very good suggestion too.
ReplyDeleteEven though I personally don't mind if it's called a motorroad, expressroad or expressway. Maybe it's better to stick to expressroad or expressway, and it's definitely better to stick to one term.
You forgot having a minimum speed limit (60 km/h) and a prohibition on motorcycles not at least 50 cc in engine/motor size. I also would suggest asking why cyclists, pedestrians and mopeds are not prohibited from future dual carriageways. They should, but they should also be given their own path to use. Not the wimpy 2 metre ones, but I mean the 3.5 metre ones the Dutch give their vulnerable road users.
ReplyDeleteStumbled upon your blog a few weeks ago, Glob, and couldn't keep myself from commenting. Being a road geek myself as well as from Germany, there are a number of points I'd like to add on a couple of posts, but first things first.
ReplyDeleteThe motor road sign is not the same colour as road signage in Germany. It's always blue, although motor roads are signed in yellow or white. The same applies to a number of other countries, so I wouldn't make the sign the same colour as the road it refers to.
Then, adding motor roads to the British road network is a great opportunity to provide expressroads in difficult terrain where dual carriageways and motorways would prove too wide and curve radii to large. The Austrians designed their Schnellstrassen network for this purpose specifically. I would ditch the current design of dual carriageways as cross-country highways wherever possible and apply it on intra-regional roads only. For cross-country traffic, I'd replace them with motor roads of varying dimensions. Some sections could be near-motorway grade, while others 2+1 with or without solid median à la Arlberg Schnellstrasse or German B54 between Muenster and the Dutch border (think Scotland and Wales). 1+1 without overtaking prohibition is thinkable where traffic volumes don't justify a wider road. Of course, existing dual carriageways that serve important cross-country routes should be upgraded to motor road status. Demolishing and replacing every existing roads would be silly.
Here's a link to Germany's recently revised standard of country road design.
The types are federal highway (upper left), inter-regional (upper right), intra-regional (lower left) and local road (lower right). They are based on the highly successful Dutch design called 'Duurzaam veilig' (sustainably safe).
Have you googled Sustainable Safety from the Netherlands? They also have roads like what you mentioned as motor roads, they call them autowegen (motorways being autosnelwegen), and they have similar design principles. They are expressways with a default limit of 100 km/h (motorways being 130, although many segments still have 100 and 120 limits) that, at least newly built, usually have a crash barrier in the middle and some control of access and something of a hard shoulder with solid outer lines and solid central axis lines, but are not full motorways. They don't have to be fully grade separated, they don't have to have no drawbridges and they usually have one lane per direction.
DeleteI'm a frequent visitor to the Netherlands (or was... haven't been there in a couple years) and as far as my experience goes, motorwegen are rare compared to autosnelwegen. This may well be due to the fact that the Netherlands are very densely populated and dense traffic make motorways a necessity. Motor roads are often only of regional importance as far as I know.
DeleteWhat I advocate though is not a network of motorways that reaches even into the farthest corners of the country, often at the expense of nature and rural communities. When we look at countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, who have many kilometres of motorised-traffic-only roads, these often serve areas where a fast road is needed but traffic and/or terrain do not warrant the construction of a full-blown motorway. Partially grade separated 2+1s are a very feasible alternative to motorways, as long as they have a solid median like in Sweden where they've proved highly successful.
1+1 sections should not be divided by a solid median. Instead, speed limits should be lower (90 or 100 if the standard limit on motor roads is 110-120 km/h), so safe overtaking is possible. The central dividing stripe could look like on this Dutch road:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/3293442378_9c261bf385_o.jpg
It's wider than normal and the turqoise colour marks the fastest roads sans the motorways. If memory serves me right, overtaking is allowed thanks to dashed lines.
Forgot the link to the new German roads:
ReplyDeletehttp://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Landstrassen-RAL-fotoshowBig-c22b429-707101.jpg
Yes they do indeed look very much like the Dutch designs.
Delete