A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

[Berk]

This has literally just gone into planning - the application has been sent to the Planning Inspectorate this week. They now have 4 weeks to privately consider the proposal before the examination process begins.

[jackal]

The amended route for the DCO application:



The main changes from the route consulted on in January:

„ replaced the T-junction proposed as part of Hazlegrove junction with a roundabout to improve safety for road users
„ amended the layout of Hazlegrove junction
to make it more compact
„ replaced the access to Hazlegrove House,
from the eastbound entry slip road for
Hazlegrove junction, with a separate
private access
„ changed the prioritisation at Camel Cross
junction. Our plans now show that priority
will be given to vehicles entering or leaving
the B3151
„ straightened a diagonal bridge proposed
as part of Downhead Junction. This has
made the layout of this junction simpler
overall and cheaper to build and maintain
„ removed a layby opposite the eastbound
side of the Sparkford bypass
„ changed prioritisation at Downhead
junction to give priority to the slip road off
the A303 where Downhead Lane meets
Steart Hill
„ changed the route of the temporary road
for construction traffic, in response to
feedback from people living next to
the route.

You can see the latest newsletter and consultation report below:

http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roa ... er+(1).pdf
https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... ction=docs

[Richardf]

Both junctions look a total mess to me. Over complicated and substandard IMO.

[jackal]

The side roads have low traffic volumes (even the 'main' one, the A359, is little more than a village lane) and it would be a waste of money to build a larger, more symmetrical layout.

[Richardf]

The side roads have low traffic volumes (even the 'main' one, the A359, is little more than a village lane) and it would be a waste of money to build a larger, more symmetrical layout.

I'm more thinking of a simpler layout that doesnt give every lane in the area a direct connection to the A303, which is what these junctions seem to have to do, which in my view is unnessesary, they could just as well be served with a bridge connection under or over the A303 to the local road network the other side which would then connect to the A303 elsewhere. The 2 GSJs could then be simpler as they would only serve the more important roads like the A359 and B3151.

I can imagine these junctions have been designed to appease the locals who probably threatened to object to the new road unless they had good enough connections to it. appreciate severance is an issue, but maybe this is taking things too far to avoid it.

[Herned]

Surely the layouts have been designed to minimise the number of bridges, especially around the Downhead junction? Building a few extra links must be cheaper than new bridges, and the actual GSJ is about as simple as it comes

[JonB2028]

As an "expressway ready" scheme, whilst I note the parallel NMU facility, what about route for other banned classes of users should motorway regulations be implimented? Is the route via Queen Camel suitable and reasonably convenient?

[SteveA30]

The plan doesn't allow for accident or works diversions. Linking the 2 green roads on the north side at Camel Hill would solve that. Otherwise, traffic would have to go via A359 to Yeovil, then A37 back to A303, which is ridiculous. Contraflows could be used but never are for some reason. As Britain's only diversioneer, I think my needs should be taken into account.

[jackal]

Surely the layouts have been designed to minimise the number of bridges, especially around the Downhead junction? Building a few extra links must be cheaper than new bridges, and the actual GSJ is about as simple as it comes

My thoughts exactly, plus a lot of those link roads are actually just the existing A303 so basically come for free.

[Berk]

Bit like Steve says, with an extra link you could use the old road as a diversionary route.

Would be much better than sending people all round the houses.

[sotonsteve]

That's the biggest downside to online upgrade - if the road needs to close due to an incident or planned roadworks, there is often no sensible alternative route other than to go miles out of your way. I know some might say "well, it's no worse than at present", but it is, because traffic volumes on the upgraded road will typically be significantly higher than the throttled existing road. Take a look at traffic statistics on the A3 around Hindhead, and you'll see clearly that if there is an incident requiring a closure then there is a huge amount more traffic to make go elsewhere.

[Berk]

I found this on the A1, last week. A man had crashed his own car, no-one else involved. But police still decided to close the Biggleswade Bypass (from north to south, where the B659 turn off is).

I’d been planning to use that, but when everyone else had the same idea, I turned round and took the unclassified road down to Broom and Langford.

Hardly any better because with A1 volumes of traffic on it, it just ground to a halt. Especially with that bridge over the river...

[jackal]

Examination of this scheme continues. Local councils are unhappy about the lack of a LAR. It will also make future upgrade to expressway/motorway more difficult.

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/som ... ls-2883425

[Berk]

I appreciate HE’s position. Their budget is fixed, they can’t make significant changes to the scheme, otherwise they’ll have to withdraw the whole lot.

But surely this is where the county council should be stepping in, and offering to build an LAR to be completed after/alongside the main works as a separate scheme??

Essentially you’d be wanting to extend the B3151 back to Hazelgrove. How much would less than a mile of S2 road cost to build??

And yes, of course they’ll say they have no money, but this scheme should be so simple to build.

[jackal]

I think the parish councillors' proposal is to remove the GSJ at the B3151, with access instead via the Sparkford GSJ and link road. They claim this will save £13m, I assume largely from not having to build one of two GSJs, though HE claim it would actually be more expensive. At any rate, building the two GSJ version and adding on an LAR as well would be much more expensive than either the HE proposal or the councillors' one. Somerset CC would have to assess the link road as a standalone scheme and it's hard to see it rating highly as such.

It's a bit of a messy situation, and really HE should have gone for something like the councillors' proposal in the first place. But we are where we are, if the scheme goes through the current inspection process it will start construction next year, whereas if it gets pushed back for a redesign you're looking at another year or two, potentially taking it beyond a general election with the accompanying high risk of cancellation. So I hope to see it go through as is.

There will be relevant materials at the PINS page: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... -dualling/

[JonB2028]

I made a comment about the lack of an LAR in the public consultation, about the proposals lack of compatibility with the expressway standard. Different schemes/consultants/HE teams seem to take a different view. The schemes I have been involved in, we have taken this stuff on board. Partially explains why they've been so expensive!

[Debaser]

Ultimately, the decision to design as expressway, or future-proof to allow such a design to be implemented in the future rests/rested with HE - it was their call.

[Berk]

Presumably HE made traffic models and assumptions based on a very low number of vehicles accessing local roads??

You wouldn’t have gotten away with that on the A1 conversion in Yorkshire, for instance. Although even there the LAR has gaps between junctions.

[Chris Bertram]

Presumably HE made traffic models and assumptions based on a very low number of vehicles accessing local roads??

You wouldn’t have gotten away with that on the A1 conversion in Yorkshire, for instance. Although even there the LAR has gaps between junctions.

There is one gap, between A168 and A61. It was deemed unnecessary to provide one as access to settlements just off the motorway was adequately provided for by other routes.

[Berk]

Presumably HE made traffic models and assumptions based on a very low number of vehicles accessing local roads??

You wouldn’t have gotten away with that on the A1 conversion in Yorkshire, for instance. Although even there the LAR has gaps between junctions.

There is one gap, between A168 and A61. It was deemed unnecessary to provide one as access to settlements just off the motorway was adequately provided for by other routes.

That decision completely undermines the point of providing an
LAR. Just because those villages are fine, what about if they want to drive up to another village, or further up the B-roads towards Ripon.

Pointless.