Talk:M42 motorway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Warwickshire (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject UK geography      (Rated Start-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. United Kingdom Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. WikiProject UK Roads      (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the UK Roads WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's road network. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Continues as A42 to/from The North, Nottingham East Midlands Airport & M1

[edit] Coordinates

I was surprised and disappointed to see the coordinates removed from this article with an edit summary of "remove travel guide info per WP:NOT", since coordinates are not a "travel guide" and consensus on WP:NOT is that coordinates are acceptable content. I trust that they will now be restored. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source requested

I know the general rules but a fine primary source (The Highways Agency) provided these emails which show that it is not specifically original research to put the quotations in, but a reliable (primary) source to which I had access:

Email 23/05/05

Mr Spencer,

Thank you for your email regarding the works on the M42 junctions 3A - 7...

You are correct that the markers have been removed along this section. The reason for this is that count down markers should only be used at diverge junctions and are not currently used on lane drops, which will be the case during 4 lane (hard shoulder) running.

Having said this we are aware that the removal of these markers is causing some confusion amongst travellers along this section. Due to this we are currently reviewing this part of the design of the scheme with our consultants.

If you have any further queries please contact the Highways Agency Information Line 08457 50 40 30, contact us by email at m42atmproject@highways.gsi.gov.uk or visit our web site at www.highways.gov/ATM.

Email 9/6/06

Mr Spencer,

Thank you for you email regarding the Active Traffic management project on the M42 junctions 3A - 7

Following your previous email of May last year we have looked into the countdown marker issue further and it was found to be more complicated that we first envisioned.

The original decision to remove the exit marker boards (countdown markers) from this section of the network was taken following discussions between the scheme designers, the Highways Agency's Signs Team and the Department for Transport. This decision was taken because of changes to the design of the junctions to operate the motorway as both a three lane and a four lane carriageway using the hardshoulder as a running lane.

Following the removal of the countdown markers as part of the construction works we have received feedback from a number of organisations that there have been instances of vehicles swooping to exit the motorway at these junctions and recommending that the countdown markers be reinstated. A Road Safety Audit has also recommended that the countdown markers should be reinstated to overcome this issue. Our designers have been reviewing the feedback with all those involved in the original decision to remove the countdown markers and have now obtained their agreement to reinstate them at the majority of locations.

Our designers have now undertaken detailed design of the countdown markers locations with respect to the revised diverge layouts that have been introduced as part of the scheme. This has identified a conflict between the countdown marker locations and the Emergency Refuge Areas (ERA) at three of the motorway exits. ERA's are provided at nominal 500m intervals to provide a safe haven for vehicle breakdowns under hardshoulder running.

The conflict occurs when at least one of the countdown markers should be provided prior to an ERA: as soon as a driver has passed a countdown marker they could think that the broken line across the ERA represented the start of the diverge to the exit slip road. For this reason it has been deemed less safe to put the countdown markers back than to leave it in its current state.

Further discussions were undertaken with the Highways Agency's Signs & Geometrics Teams and it was agreed that the countdown markers will not be reinstated at these locations on clear safety grounds.

New countdown markers have now been manufactured and installed at the four other motorway exits within the scheme. The table below contains a summary of the locations where the countdown markers have been provided.

 Approach to 
Countdown markers 
Comments

Junction 4 Northbound

No
300y & 200y markers would have been prior to ERA

Junction 5 Northbound

Yes
 

Junction 6 Northbound

Yes
 

Junction 7 Northbound

Yes
 

Junction 6 Southbound

Yes
 

Junction 5 Southbound

No
300y marker would have been prior to ERA

Junction 4 Southbound

No
300y marker would have been prior to ERA

Junction 3A Southbound

N/A
Lane drop during normal 3 lane operation

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to reinstate the countdown markers at all of the motorway exits within the scheme for the reasons detailed above.

Regarding the issue of hard shoulder running:

The HA Business Plan Target for the commencement of hard shoulder running is by March 2007 and the project is on schedule to deliver to this target. We are implementing the Active Traffic Management pilot scheme in phases and hard shoulder running is the final phase of ATM operation. The different regimes are being introduced in phases for two reasons:

Firstly, to give drivers time to become used to the signs and signals and safely use the scheme prior to introducing the use of the hard shoulder, which is a significant change for English drivers.

Secondly, to allow our Monitoring consultants time to gather enough data and assess the impact of the various different aspects of the Active Traffic Management pilot. The aim of the pilot is to assess the effectiveness of a number of new technologies and different traffic management measures on tackling congestion. There is a period of monitoring and evaluation separating the introduction of each of the phases. Conclusions regarding the effectiveness of all of the various measures are not expected until 2008. Prior to the introduction of hard shoulder running we have a national publicity campaign planned which is aimed at educating the general public in our intended use of the hard shoulder and how they should use it in a safe manner. I hope that this is helpful and addresses your concerns. If you have any further queries or comments please do not hesitate to contact us by email at m42atmproject@highways.gsi.gov.uk.

Obviously, I am not making up the entry, but someone might wish to tweak the wording if they find that it is too controversial for their tastes. The lack of countdowns is plain fact, the reasoning is essentially a paraphrase of provided primary source, not an OR analysis. This is not something that the HA have publicised on their web site which was mainly set up before the pilot commenced. I could quote [1] as a ropey source, but as I wrote it, I don't think that really meets the Wiki criteria, if you are minded to be pedantic. Spenny 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)