A1 Western bypass widening

[jabbaboy]

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

More realistically, the roundabout could be reconstructed as a signalised crossroads, with loads of green time for the A1231. A big improvement on the current rbt, which is effectively three signalised junctions for the dominant movement in a ridiculously compressed space.

I honestly wouldn't have a clue, the junction is a complete mess and the complete lack of A1/A194(M) is needed as badly as much as anything else to effectively complete the Newcastle / Gateshead ring. It's a bit of a chore right now, to the stage it's quicker go through Gateshead at certain times of the day.

It doesn't help the A1(M) / A194(M) is really well built, but as a result takes up so much space. It'd be interesting what the busiest flows there are as I wouldn't be surprised if the A1 <> A1231 is up there with one of the highest.

An A1 to A194(M) freeflow left turn could be provided pretty simply.

A194(M) to A1 could take off and land inside the big mainline flares, with offside diverge and merge, and ~75m radius (the same as the A1231 loop).

While an offside diverge and merge is not ideal, I think it's excusable where you are effectively providing a continuous Newcastle/Gateshead orbital. Also the current rebuild has a double lane gain on the northbound A1 from the A1231, which really isn't needed, so it would be quite tidy to have one of the lanes coming from the A194(M) instead, even if from the right.

The weaving lengths on the A194(M) would be about 700m on both carriageways. While fancy arrangements would be possible, I'd simply suggest widening to three lanes up to the next junction, with lane gain and drop at each end. There's much worse weaving elsewhere on the 'orbital' and this bit of the A194(M) would not be hugely busy even with the new links (currently it's only 25k AADT). As noted, there's space for widening under the A1231 bridge.

Has it ever been proposed to provide direct A1<>A194(M) links? They seem a pretty glaring omission.

Not a bad shout, to be honest if we're going down a route of fixing it properly I'd scrap the A1231 loop and end up with something like this:



Fixes all the issues and gives a decent free flow for the main routes ie. A1(N) - A1231 and the A1 to A194(M) in both directions.

Not sure if it would be too tight with the A194/A1231 bridging though.

[jackal]

If you wanted to go the whole hog, something like this would be workable:
Screenshot 2024-03-16 120424.png

Although, to manage weaving you would need to diverge the A194(M) South -> A1 North before J1 south slip joins, but that movement is catered with the existing loop

Really nice. Though with the new freeflow elsewhere, Foxpond rbt could be left alone, and there's no need for the new loop south of there, which doesn't really fit given successive merge spacing requirements. Maybe A1 to A194M should merge in sooner to reduce weaving to J1.

[wrinkly]

In the days when trunk road names were used, there used to be a Carlisle-Sunderland trunk road, most of which was the A69. Presumably technically there still is.

For a while the Gateshead Western bypass was also part of the A69.

The links currently under discussion here would help to create a Carlisle-Sunderland route.

But at present if you're trying to do Carlisle-Sunderland, as far as I know, the signage does not mention Sunderland at East Denton interchange or anywhere on the western bypass.

[Peter Freeman]

Not a bad shout, to be honest if we're going down a route of fixing it properly I'd scrap the A1231 loop and end up with something like this:



Fixes all the issues and gives a decent free flow for the main routes ie. A1(N) - A1231 and the A1 to A194(M) in both directions.

Not sure if it would be too tight with the A194/A1231 bridging though.

That (with a couple of tweaks that Jackal pointed out) would solve the missing movements issue. However, it requires new bridges, flyovers, viaducts, ground-level connectors - $$$. A more extreme version could scrap everything that's there and build Toronto's offside cloverstack on a cleared greenfield. Both scenarios assume that NH might one day consider the issue worth addressing and that funding is not a problem, but we all know that's not the case. Such designs are therefore fantasy.

The more intesting exercise, IMV, is to hypothesise that there is a limited budget available, and try to devise an upgrade that is adequate and affordable.

[jabbaboy]

Not a bad shout, to be honest if we're going down a route of fixing it properly I'd scrap the A1231 loop and end up with something like this:



Fixes all the issues and gives a decent free flow for the main routes ie. A1(N) - A1231 and the A1 to A194(M) in both directions.

Not sure if it would be too tight with the A194/A1231 bridging though.

That (with a couple of tweaks that Jackal pointed out) would solve the missing movements issue. However, it requires new bridges, flyovers, viaducts, ground-level connectors - $$$. A more extreme version could scrap everything that's there and build Toronto's offside cloverstack on a cleared greenfield. Both scenarios assume that NH might one day consider the issue worth addressing and that funding is not a problem, but we all know that's not the case. Such designs are therefore fantasy.

The more intesting exercise, IMV, is to hypothesise that there is a limited budget available, and try to devise an upgrade that is adequate and affordable.

Yeah no arguments at all, I honestly can't see any real way of fixing it if I had to be honest without the major investment.

Either way, I can't see anything happening as it'll just move the problem to the A1231/A182 roundabout, 1 mile or so East and then if you fix that, it's just going to make the Wessington Way junction on the A19 the problem instead.

Not to mention having a free flow A1 to A194(M) will just just cause further problems at Whitemare Pool aswell. Just moving the problem elsewhere really.

[jackal]

Not to mention having a free flow A1 to A194(M) will just just cause further problems at Whitemare Pool aswell. Just moving the problem elsewhere really.

White Mare Pool would be straightforward if a hundred million or so were on the table. Getting A19 to A194 freeflow at Lindisfarne Roundabout is the more intractable problem, to the point that, if there were some ambitious orbital project, A19 to A184 to A194M should maybe be prioritised, with a freeflow right at Testos and left at WMP. The A19 is futureproofed for the widening this would require.

[Te2024]

AECOM are currently looking at options and have been for a while or so for the A19 North of Newcastle Junctions design wise for National Highways. About £6m pounds work of work. Schemes hoping to be worked up for the next pipeline.

be interesting to see what comes of it.

[Peter Freeman]

Summing up J65 -

Washington and Sunderland access from N and S: In addition to the current desire lines forming a cross rather than a fork, what is striking here is the abundance of high quality roads, such as A182 and A195, with many GSJ's, that lie just to the east in Washington. They have the typical extravagance of 60's new town planning, and show hardly any signs of stress on G.Maps traffic layer. That means reaching that area (or Sunderland) is no problem for anyone on A1M (use J64) or A194M (use J1). No new links required.

A1 to A194M both directions: Solved by Jackal (post on 13-03-2024).

A1231 westbound to A1: this already exists. Foxpond roundabout is bypassed by the separated left turn, and G.Maps traffic doesn't show the loop's merge as a major problem: it could definitely be fixed by 3-laning the A1 nb. (My recent G.Maps observations may have been influenced by current roadworks).

A1 eastbound to A1231: Bryn had an idea to simply remove the Foxpond rbt so that eastbound A1 could flow smoothly onto eastbound A1231. Perfect, except that it disrupts existing local connections. Instead, Jackal proposed -

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

That seems practical, and I think it harmonises with his A1-A194M connectors, on that grassy patch. They could share the new A1 off-ramp. Passing under A1231 using the current bridge is probably not a problem for a single-lane carriageway.

Conclusion: Design of the A1/A1M/A194M/A1231 free-flow motorway crossroads is complete! Cost: 4km of single lane carriageway, 3 bridges. Could be staged. Of course, none of this means it's actually worthwhile, and we see no evidence that NH has even thought about it.

[Chris5156]

AECOM are currently looking at options and have been for a while or so for the A19 North of Newcastle Junctions design wise for National Highways. About £6m pounds work of work. Schemes hoping to be worked up for the next pipeline.

Given that RIS3 schemes all moved to RIS4, and RIS4 is likely to be two general elections away, I wouldn't hold out great hopes that this will amount to much. By 2030 the priorities for transport funding could be very different.

[wrinkly]

AECOM are currently looking at options and have been for a while or so for the A19 North of Newcastle Junctions design wise for National Highways. About £6m pounds work of work. Schemes hoping to be worked up for the next pipeline.

be interesting to see what comes of it.

At today's prices £6M will buy you almost nothing. Is the figure a typo?

[Chris5156]

AECOM are currently looking at options and have been for a while or so for the A19 North of Newcastle Junctions design wise for National Highways. About £6m pounds work of work. Schemes hoping to be worked up for the next pipeline.

be interesting to see what comes of it.

At today's prices £6M will buy you almost nothing. Is the figure a typo?

I could easily believe it's £6m of design and development work, not £6m of building anything.

[Te2024]

AECOM are currently looking at options and have been for a while or so for the A19 North of Newcastle Junctions design wise for National Highways. About £6m pounds work of work. Schemes hoping to be worked up for the next pipeline.

be interesting to see what comes of it.

At today's prices £6M will buy you almost nothing. Is the figure a typo?

I could easily believe it's £6m of design and development work, not £6m of building anything.

You would be correct.

[jackal]

A1 eastbound to A1231: Bryn had an idea to simply remove the Foxpond rbt so that eastbound A1 could flow smoothly onto eastbound A1231. Perfect, except that it disrupts existing local connections. Instead, Jackal proposed -

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

That seems practical, and I think it harmonises with his A1-A194M connectors, on that grassy patch. They could share the new A1 off-ramp. Passing under A1231 using the current bridge is probably not a problem for a single-lane carriageway.

I don't think you can have A1>A194M and A1>A1231 on the same one lane slip. So if both movements are provided we probably need a two lane diverge from the A1, with A1>A194M then diverging and merging into the A194M prior to the A1231 bridge. So the knock on effect is that the northbound A194M weaving space can only be two lanes. Not the end of the world - as I mentioned, the A194M is only 25k.

Also you didn't mention arguably the biggest issue at J65, which is the offside diverge for the A194M. If we were adding new A1<>A194M links, that should be fixed as well. We shouldn't lose sight of the dominance of A1<>A1M flows. Hence I also accept JammyDodge's revision to my proposed A194M to A1 link, moving the A194M>A1 merge to the nearside, allowing the A1/A1M an uninterrupted mainline.

Btw, the revisions I suggested (the A194M merge described above, no new middle loop, Foxpond unaltered) were to JammyDodge's design, which otherwise fits the bill IMO, but seems to have been overlooked somewhat, perhaps because it was at the bottom of the previous page. I repost it below.

[Bryn666]

AECOM are currently looking at options and have been for a while or so for the A19 North of Newcastle Junctions design wise for National Highways. About £6m pounds work of work. Schemes hoping to be worked up for the next pipeline.

be interesting to see what comes of it.

At today's prices £6M will buy you almost nothing. Is the figure a typo?

I could easily believe it's £6m of design and development work, not £6m of building anything.

£6m of Aecom fees will get you about 4 PDFs I think

[Peter Freeman]

Also you didn't mention arguably the biggest issue at J65, which is the offside diverge for the A194M. If we were adding new A1<>A194M links, that should be fixed as well. We shouldn't lose site of the dominance of A1<>A1M flows.

Is that really a big issue at J65, currently? Is there anecdotal evidence that drivers here find it disconcerting? Is it causing drivers to take the wrong branch by mistake? Is it causing weaving difficulties between the Service Area on-ramp and the J65 fork? I'd leave it as-is. I do favour nearside for diverges, and more so for merges, and especially for volumes far below the mainline, but offsides aren't forbidden in my design book. The caveats are signage clarity and adequate weaving length.

Hence I also accept JammyDodge's revision to my proposed A194M to A1 link, moving the A194M>A1 merge to the offside, allowing the A1/A1M an uninterrupted mainline.

Your original suggestion was for an offside merge into A1nb, within the wide carriageway separation (as for A194Msb diverge). Did you mean to write 'nearside' ? Anyway, similarly here: nearside preferred, but offside is OK to me: lower cost / easier to fit. It also avoids having two consecutive merges on the nearside. I think an offside merge and a nearside merge at the same point would work quite well. Exiting at J66 should perhaps be banned/prevented for traffic coming from A194Msb.

Btw, the revisions I suggested (the A194M merge described above, no new middle loop, Foxpond unaltered) were to JammyDodge's design, which otherwise fits the bill IMO, but seems to have been overlooked somewhat, perhaps because it was at the bottom of the previous page. I repost it below.

Yes, you're right - I apologise. My comments were related to Jabbaboy's design. JammyDodge's drawing is, essentially, your two concepts amalgamated, which is what I favour too.

[Mark Hewitt]

Is that really a big issue at J65, currently?

Not really given you've got between J63 Chester le Street with 3 lanes before you get to J65 and can take the fork to the A194(M). The only issue I find is that if you get into Lane 3 sufficiently early as the signs suggest you sometimes get the 90mph BMW drivers up your backside perplexed at you doing 70mph in Lane 3.

[jackal]

Also you didn't mention arguably the biggest issue at J65, which is the offside diverge for the A194M. If we were adding new A1<>A194M links, that should be fixed as well. We shouldn't lose site of the dominance of A1<>A1M flows.

Is that really a big issue at J65, currently? Is there anecdotal evidence that drivers here find it disconcerting? Is it causing drivers to take the wrong branch by mistake? Is it causing weaving difficulties between the Service Area on-ramp and the J65 fork? I'd leave it as-is. I do favour nearside for diverges, and more so for merges, and especially for volumes far below the mainline, but offsides aren't forbidden in my design book. The caveats are signage clarity and adequate weaving length.

Hence I also accept JammyDodge's revision to my proposed A194M to A1 link, moving the A194M>A1 merge to the offside, allowing the A1/A1M an uninterrupted mainline.

Your original suggestion was for an offside merge into A1nb, within the wide carriageway separation (as for A194Msb diverge). Did you mean to write 'nearside' ? Anyway, similarly here: nearside preferred, but offside is OK to me: lower cost / easier to fit. It also avoids having two consecutive merges on the nearside. I think an offside merge and a nearside merge at the same point would work quite well. Exiting at J66 should perhaps be banned/prevented for traffic coming from A194Msb.

Apologies - yes, I meant nearside.

The benefit of adding a direct A194M>A1 link would surely be significantly offset by the new disruption of HGVs in lane 4 of a 100k AADT road. On reflection the relatively minor cost saving of the offside merge doesn't seem worthwhile.

I don't see how successive nearside merges are objectionable, especially where one or both are lane gains. That's just good design. The turn radius can also be larger with a nearside merge.

Regarding the A194M diverge, I may have been overstating the problem. It's a little hard to know how much disruption is from that and how much is from squeezing into the two lane A1M section.

[Peter Freeman]

The benefit of adding a direct A194M>A1 link would surely be significantly offset by the new disruption of HGVs in lane 4 of a 100k AADT road. On reflection the relatively minor cost saving of the offside merge doesn't seem worthwhile.

On a theme I suppose I cite ad nauseam, it is more acceptable in Australia. Our heavy traffic experiences are urban, are on wider roads, with lower speed limits (100 or 80 k/hr), and with larger HGVs that can nevertheless easily sustain the speed limit. You will have noticed from driving in AU or USA (or videos of same) that all vehicle types are spread uniformly acoss all lanes. Lorries routinely use the outside lane (we don't have the UK prohibition). Having said that, offsides are actually rare in AU. Melbourne had a project to remove its only one (M1 West J20) more than ten years ago. It was not a lane gain though, but a merge from the right, which really is undesirable!

That difference in culture probably clouds my judgement, so I'll acknowledge the problem at this location and agree to nearside! A bonus is that J66 and subsequent J's would be safely accessible to A194M-sourced vehicles. After all, the Western Bypass does have crazy interchange spacing (2-3 km), similar to Melbourne's M1, Brisbane's M1 and Manchester's M60!

I don't see how successive nearside merges are objectionable, especially where one or both are lane gains. That's just good design. The turn radius can also be larger with a nearside merge.

Yes - I agree, dependent on the detailed design. But still on the subject of that merge point, I affirm that A1 should grow to 4 lanes after the Service Area, diverge left to 3 at the fork, grow to 4 again at that double merge, and drop to 3 at J66. Although growing from 2 to 4 at the double merge sounds smoother, that makes it harder for A1M traffic to move left in time for J66.

Regarding the A194M diverge, I may have been overstating the problem. It's a little hard to know how much disruption is from that and how much is from squeezing into the two lane A1M section.

That is quite a squeeze.

[jabbaboy]

Been following this and like some of the ideas but if we're going down the cheap route instead of the full gung-ho, and this very much depends on how much traffic is predicted to go from the A1 to the A194(M) as it wouldn't really work if there's lots.

Couldn't you just do something like this instead?



If you connected Birtley to the A194(M) directly, then Foxpond roundabout isn't really needed at all bar the few people heading to Washington which easily could be connected over a new bridge to the local network. Most people from there would be going via Springwell anyway though and Birtley to Wrekenton traffic can travel via Long Road from the next junction up. Eighton Banks is considered a rat run as it is so would benefit there.

Less bridges, and all the connections are there and you wouldn't touch the A1 / A194 interchange at all.

PS. Slightly edited the A194(M) -> A1(N), as the height level would be a problem getting under the other carriageway, it's one less bridge though.

[JammyDodge]

I have done a MyMaps, which is a little insane to be honest.
I plotted an upgrade of J63-66, which includes the A194(M) becoming "Local" lanes alongside the A1(M) down to just south of J63, reworked Washington MSA to make the weaving and slips less problematic (I would image an extra lane between the A195 and MSA slips

I also included a A194(M) extension to the A19 at Boldon, to bypass the existing A194 Leam Lane. This would close the Boldon junction on the A19, so that the A19 can be widened to D3 between the A194(M) slips and Lindisfarne Roundabout slips