A46 Newark Northern Bypass

[jackal]

While I'm critical of aspects of the design (especially the latest iteration) I would certainly not place it in the pantheon of bad designs as others suggest.

Posts in this thread earnestly say nothing is being done for the existing junction, even though half of its current traffic will be removed. It's leagues ahead of the usual two-bridge roundabout dross.

People are also reacting to a perceived mismatch between the massive price tag and relatively modest A1 junction design. That's understandable but an error, as the cost is overwhelmingly coming from the Newark bypass itself. Long embankments and viaducts ensure the rest of the scheme is on a shoestring.

A few details aside the designers have done a good job with what they had to work with.

[ForestChav]

While I'm critical of aspects of the design (especially the latest iteration) I would certainly not place it in the pantheon of bad designs as others suggest.

There's a serious underestimation of how much difference separating the A46 from the A1 junction will make. Posts in this thread earnestly say nothing is being done for the existing junction, even though half of its current traffic will be removed. It's leagues ahead of the usual two-bridge roundabout dross.

People are also reacting to a perceived mismatch between the massive price tag and relatively modest A1 junction design. That's understandable but an error, as the cost is overwhelmingly coming from the Newark bypass itself. Long embankments and viaducts ensure the rest of the scheme is on a shoestring.

A few details aside the designers have done a good job with what they had to work with.

I'm inclined to agree that in general the junction and indeed the whole bypass is difficult to deal with due to embankments and presence of existing built up areas and roads. Also whatever is done will need to be done in such a way as to cause little disruption as possible on a very congested area.

Taking A46 traffic off will no doubt help but I would be surprised if it is (dominantly) the main flow. For that to be the case, you'd need to be having traffic going from the A46 past the Newark area (e.g. from the A617, A612 or A46 further south) to stay on the A46 towards Lincoln. I'm sure plenty do this but to a point A617 traffic would use the A57 instead for example, and traffic from the A612 is more likely to head for the A46 at Bingham than go through to the A617. It's likely most of the traffic using this junction is moving between the A46 and the A1 and then also the A17. There's very little which can be done about that without going full freeflow between the A46 and A1 and separating off local provision for the B6326 & then the A17 and A1133, which would make more of a mess and probably doesn't have the land take.

[jackal]

Taking A46 traffic off will no doubt help but I would be surprised if it is (dominantly) the main flow. For that to be the case, you'd need to be having traffic going from the A46 past the Newark area (e.g. from the A617, A612 or A46 further south) to stay on the A46 towards Lincoln. I'm sure plenty do this but to a point A617 traffic would use the A57 instead for example, and traffic from the A612 is more likely to head for the A46 at Bingham than go through to the A617. It's likely most of the traffic using this junction is moving between the A46 and the A1 and then also the A17.

The preferred route announcement said "Early traffic modelling indicates this approach will reduce traffic using the A1/A46 junction by around half, enabling the junction to operate within its capacity."

Bear in mind it's not only A46 to A46 traffic that is removed - A46 to/from A1133 or even A17 will be able to bypass the A1 junction, using Drove Lane in the latter case.

Also many of the movements between the A1, A46 and A17 must be pretty minor, with Drove Lane, Beckingham Road, the A57, and (soonTM) the SLR providing more direct alternatives.

A positive thought I had about the latest design with the half hamburger is that it's better future proofed for a GSJ. A full hamburger serving the A46 through movement would be completely wasted, and even somewhat get in the way, with future grade separation.

[danfw194]

I still think it's a bit mad/disappointing that Farndon will remain an at-grade roundabout.

[SteveA30]

Looking at the new Newark MSA, as the map labels it, I noticed a 'new' road, Staple Lane, heading towards the A46 but, stopping halfway. Is that the route of a Southern bypass? if completed, it would take most A46 traffic away from Winthorpe I would think, certainly A46N to A1N, A46 to A46 and A46N to A17E, that one via Coddington. That would be unofficial but, is what I would do. In the opposite direction would be a bit convoluted, as it would mean doubling back from the s/bnd off-slip. It would probably jam up from day 1, especially as the current T junction with the B6326 already has queues. Why does it miss the rbt?

[Alderpoint]

Looking at the new Newark MSA, as the map labels it, I noticed a 'new' road, Staple Lane, heading towards the A46 but, stopping halfway. Is that the route of a Southern bypass? if completed, it would take most A46 traffic away from Winthorpe I would think, certainly A46N to A1N, A46 to A46 and A46N to A17E, that one via Coddington. That would be unofficial but, is what I would do. In the opposite direction would be a bit convoluted, as it would mean doubling back from the s/bnd off-slip. It would probably jam up from day 1, especially as the current T junction with the B6326 already has queues. Why does it miss the rbt?

Yes that's much of the new southern bypass. If you look on Openstreetmap then the route is shown.

The reason it doesn't meet the existing roundabout at the east end is precisely because it has taken over the line of the old Staple Lane to get it through the houses.

[Herned]

I still think it's a bit mad/disappointing that Farndon will remain an at-grade roundabout.

Not as mad as spending £500m grade-separating the bypass whilst building a new roundabout a mile to the west. That's total insanity

[ForestChav]

I still think it's a bit mad/disappointing that Farndon will remain an at-grade roundabout.

Not quite sure what is easy to do about Farndon though.

It was obviously originally the end of the bypass where it met the old road into Newark. When they built the dual carriageway it was clearly thought best to head "straight on" at the end of the bypass before turning round to bypass Farndon itself to the south away from the original alignment. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but the whole junction feels like it was cheaply tacked on.

Of course, the roads also sit relatively tightly to development on both the Newark and Farndon sides of the A46 which makes getting the land take to do a lot quite difficult.

The other issue would be that the A46 banks up to the bypass at not an insignificant gradient which makes any grade separation of the bypass trickier. It has to be, because it isn't too far before it crosses the river.

These things aren't insurmountable, but they do make things a bit more challenging. The best time to do something about it was when the A46 was dualled to the south, but that was probably considered expensive enough to do at the time, when funding was probably harder to get in general, and probably was (like the A453) pushed through a bit easier by largely being in Ken Clarke's Rushcliffe area who I think was a cabinet minister at the time. What I would probably have done with Farndon at the time is plugging a D2 flyover over the top of the island into the A46 to the North but with a lane drop at the flyover (so 1 lane heading NB goes onto the island and the other onto the flyover like where the A610 and A608 meet) which means all you'd need is to continue the D2 to the north when it was decided to continue.

Plugging the southern bypass into the same place is going to complicate matters especially the land take for any grade separation, the slip roads will need to be tight to the existing corridor, especially on the north side of the fosse and simply there isn't even the land take on the SE of the junction to just drop some parclo down to the old A46 and fly the new one over the island as it is without interfacing with it.

In a way, it'd make more sense for the new bypass to take a more southerly line heading more west from where it currently ends, cutting closer to Hawton and ending on a more conventional - probably a trumpet - on the existing Farndon bypass sufficiently south of the island for it to not cause any weaving issues.

[danfw194]

It's a fair point about the land take and the issue it would cause trying to build slips. I guess without the pylon there they would have hamburgered it. It's just going to feel really disappointing when the scheme is fully completed to come to a grinding halt at this roundabout.

[Hdeng16]

I thought at one point a long time ago the plan was to potentially move the junction, or replace it with a junction serving the southern bypass?

https://i.ibb.co/2hGs4yx/newmap.jpg

Apologies for the crap map. The A46 would pass to the west of the pylon, although it's not unmovable anyway. That way you close the existing junction completely and tie it into the new GSJ

[Chris5156]

I thought at one point a long time ago the plan was to potentially move the junction, or replace it with a junction serving the southern bypass?

https://i.ibb.co/2hGs4yx/newmap.jpg

I recall something similar, but I seem to remember it was dropped in favour of another new flat roundabout on the A46.

[Hdeng16]

I thought at one point a long time ago the plan was to potentially move the junction, or replace it with a junction serving the southern bypass?

https://i.ibb.co/2hGs4yx/newmap.jpg

I recall something similar, but I seem to remember it was dropped in favour of another new flat roundabout on the A46.

Yep that was the one I think. It may have just been a Truvelo map I saw, but I thought not. It makes you wonder what they will really achieve by GSJ'ing the middle roundabout. I'm being a bit silly - it is a busy junction - but will it remain as busy with the southern bypass open, especially as it will bypass the level crossing and the river bridge / roundabout in Newark for those heading to the south of the town.

[jackal]

It makes you wonder what they will really achieve by GSJ'ing the middle roundabout. I'm being a bit silly - it is a busy junction - but will it remain as busy with the southern bypass open, especially as it will bypass the level crossing and the river bridge / roundabout in Newark for those heading to the south of the town.

For this junction (Cattle Market) the hamburger would require the A617 to be realigned onto a new roundabout on the A616, which would then be dualled between there are the Cattle Market hamburger. None of this nonsense is required for the GSJ as it has the capacity for everything to plug in directly as at present (see the original consultation options above). So it's a site where there's little cost difference between a hamburger and GSJ, making the GSJ a no brainer.

I also think you are overstating any impact of the southern bypass. Traffic heading along the A46 or going to the A1 north will continue to use the junction, as will A616 and A617 traffic, and traffic from the western side of Newark at least. Combined that's the vast majority of the traffic using the junction.

And if people are aggrieved about the lack of GSJ at Farndon, why on earth would we want to withdraw the proposal for a GSJ at the much busier Cattle Market junction?

[Hdeng16]

It makes you wonder what they will really achieve by GSJ'ing the middle roundabout. I'm being a bit silly - it is a busy junction - but will it remain as busy with the southern bypass open, especially as it will bypass the level crossing and the river bridge / roundabout in Newark for those heading to the south of the town.

For this junction (Cattle Market) the hamburger would require the A617 to be realigned onto a new roundabout on the A616, which would then be dualled between there are the Cattle Market hamburger. None of this nonsense is required for the GSJ as it has the capacity for everything to plug in directly as at present (see the original consultation options above). So it's a site where there's little cost difference between a hamburger and GSJ, making the GSJ a no brainer.

I also think you are overstating any impact of the southern bypass. Traffic heading along the A46 or going to the A1 north will continue to use the junction, as will A616 and A617 traffic, and traffic from the western side of Newark at least. Combined that's the vast majority of the traffic using the junction.

And if people are aggrieved about the lack of GSJ at Farndon, why on earth would we want to withdraw the proposal for a GSJ at the much busier Cattle Market junction?

Lets break this down.

Firstly, I did say I was being silly regarding the GSJ - in this country, even if they were refusing to upgrade either side to dual, I would say build it. Build it now before someone changes their mind or builds warehouses on each corner. I just think it's daft though to then leave the Farndon and the potential new roundabout for the southern bypass.

On the southern bypass - access to the south of the town will be via the southern bypass - either signed, sat nav'd or both. Newark's congestion issue (if it is one, it's not actually that bad) is caused by the level crossing and the fact almost all traffic seems to funnel into the main roundabout in town. The southern bypass either deliberately or accidentally will open up a number of additional routes into the town especially from the west and south.

Finally, if it wasn't clear already, I am not in favour of withdrawing the proposal for the GSJ.

I am however starting to believe the larger project should be cancelled - it's been messed about with and watered down to a ridiculous degree now. Massive building work over the A1, huge eyewatering costs, and for what? A flat roundabout at one end, and a monstrosity at the other.

The southern bypass should be completed, Farndon should be fixed properly with a single GSJ to the south, and the bypass dualled - cattle market as is, and the A1 junction redrawn as an upgrade for road users, rather than development opportunities.

[Mapper89062]

It makes you wonder what they will really achieve by GSJ'ing the middle roundabout. I'm being a bit silly - it is a busy junction - but will it remain as busy with the southern bypass open, especially as it will bypass the level crossing and the river bridge / roundabout in Newark for those heading to the south of the town.

For this junction (Cattle Market) the hamburger would require the A617 to be realigned onto a new roundabout on the A616, which would then be dualled between there are the Cattle Market hamburger. None of this nonsense is required for the GSJ as it has the capacity for everything to plug in directly as at present (see the original consultation options above). So it's a site where there's little cost difference between a hamburger and GSJ, making the GSJ a no brainer.

Yes, so it's strange that the fully GSJed option includes that realignment as well as the flyover, isn't it? That, combined with the pointless two GSJs at Farndon, makes me wonder if there's some reason that option has been over-designed so much (perhaps there's something controversial with Farndon grade separation, and so they made that option cost more so it would get discarded earlier?):

[Hdeng16]

It makes you wonder what they will really achieve by GSJ'ing the middle roundabout. I'm being a bit silly - it is a busy junction - but will it remain as busy with the southern bypass open, especially as it will bypass the level crossing and the river bridge / roundabout in Newark for those heading to the south of the town.

For this junction (Cattle Market) the hamburger would require the A617 to be realigned onto a new roundabout on the A616, which would then be dualled between there are the Cattle Market hamburger. None of this nonsense is required for the GSJ as it has the capacity for everything to plug in directly as at present (see the original consultation options above). So it's a site where there's little cost difference between a hamburger and GSJ, making the GSJ a no brainer.

Yes, so it's strange that the fully GSJed option includes that realignment as well as the flyover, isn't it? That, combined with the pointless two GSJs at Farndon, makes me wonder if there's some reason that option has been over-designed so much (perhaps there's something controversial with Farndon grade separation, and so they made that option cost more so it would get discarded earlier?):

I forgot about that option - didn’t that have something stupid at the northern end - there’s been so many mods I can’t really remember the order but I thought this option had the missing GSJ at the northern end (hard to tell but I think that’s a hamburger?), so they GSJd that, lost the southern bits, and now removed the GSJ from the northern limit too

Argh.. I’ve confused myself. Good spot regardless. There’s something odd about this scheme in my opinion.

[jackal]

For this junction (Cattle Market) the hamburger would require the A617 to be realigned onto a new roundabout on the A616, which would then be dualled between there are the Cattle Market hamburger. None of this nonsense is required for the GSJ as it has the capacity for everything to plug in directly as at present (see the original consultation options above). So it's a site where there's little cost difference between a hamburger and GSJ, making the GSJ a no brainer.

Yes, so it's strange that the fully GSJed option includes that realignment as well as the flyover, isn't it? That, combined with the pointless two GSJs at Farndon, makes me wonder if there's some reason that option has been over-designed so much (perhaps there's something controversial with Farndon grade separation, and so they made that option cost more so it would get discarded earlier?):

I forgot about that option - didn’t that have something stupid at the northern end - there’s been so many mods I can’t really remember the order but I thought this option had the missing GSJ at the northern end (hard to tell but I think that’s a hamburger?), so they GSJd that, lost the southern bits, and now removed the GSJ from the northern limit too

Argh.. I’ve confused myself. Good spot regardless. There’s something odd about this scheme in my opinion.

It's a GSJ at the northern end. It's all grade separated in fact. The slightly strange thing (aside from Mapper's nice spot) is that the southern bypass GSJ is limited access, presumably due to weaving up to Farndon. You can see detail a bit better here: download/file.php?id=17760&mode=view

As mentioned above, the unusual thing about the scheme is the very high cost per mile, due to the bypass being on embankments and viaducts, so they've trimmed everything else back, with grade separation only at the 'must have' Cattle Market and A1 GSJs. There's no conspiracy, just an effort to keep the costs for this short and seemingly routine widening scheme closer to £500m than £1bn.

[Hdeng16]

Yes, so it's strange that the fully GSJed option includes that realignment as well as the flyover, isn't it? That, combined with the pointless two GSJs at Farndon, makes me wonder if there's some reason that option has been over-designed so much (perhaps there's something controversial with Farndon grade separation, and so they made that option cost more so it would get discarded earlier?):

I forgot about that option - didn’t that have something stupid at the northern end - there’s been so many mods I can’t really remember the order but I thought this option had the missing GSJ at the northern end (hard to tell but I think that’s a hamburger?), so they GSJd that, lost the southern bits, and now removed the GSJ from the northern limit too

Argh.. I’ve confused myself. Good spot regardless. There’s something odd about this scheme in my opinion.

It's a GSJ at the northern end. It's all grade separated in fact. The slightly strange thing (aside from Mapper's nice spot) is that the southern bypass GSJ is limited access, presumably due to weaving up to Farndon. You can see detail a bit better here: download/file.php?id=17760&mode=view

As mentioned above, the unusual thing about the scheme is the very high cost per mile, due to the bypass being on embankments and viaducts, so they've trimmed everything else back, with grade separation only at the 'must have' Cattle Market and A1 GSJs. There's no conspiracy, just an effort to keep the costs for this short and seemingly routine widening scheme closer to £500m than £1bn.

Cheers, yes I see the GSJ now. The southern end - would it not be cheaper to forgot the Farndon roundabout GSJ and just run a LAR style route from the southern bypass/limited access junction up to where the original roundabout was.

Heres a random curve ball to discuss (or immediately laugh about)... if it's the routine widening that is so expensive, how about GSJ's everywhere but keep a single carriageway along the length of the embankment/bridges. It's a case of what is worse - traffic light junctions, roundabout and both other, vs a merge point and a single carriageway stretch. I'm not saying it's an option, just arguing the toss really against your (fair enough) expensive routine widening comment.

[jackal]

The southern end - would it not be cheaper to forgot the Farndon roundabout GSJ and just run a LAR style route from the southern bypass/limited access junction up to where the original roundabout was.

I made a similar sketch a while back:

The problem is it's a long way round for traffic between Farndon village and Newark. Jervi's proposal for a GSJ just south of the Farndon roundabout is better:

Heres a random curve ball to discuss (or immediately laugh about)... if it's the routine widening that is so expensive, how about GSJ's everywhere but keep a single carriageway along the length of the embankment/bridges. It's a case of what is worse - traffic light junctions, roundabout and both other, vs a merge point and a single carriageway stretch. I'm not saying it's an option, just arguing the toss really against your (fair enough) expensive routine widening comment.

^ They're projecting 45k AADT in 2028, over double the capacity of S2.

[Bryn666]

Way back in 2017 I came up with this as an option - ignore the northern bypass entirely and use a new southern alignment. Impossible now, of course.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mi ... sp=sharing