Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31249
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by Bryn666 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 14:05

KeithW wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 13:55
JammyDodge wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 13:24
I think the best solution for widening the Doncaster Bypass is to build a cut & cover tunnel under J36, through the residential area, to D3M spec. A tunnel should start North of Broomhouse Ln and just south of the Don Bridge. The Don Bridge would be replaced with a new "twin" D4M, with the A1(M) reducing to D3M north of the Don Bridge
Well given that a cut and cover tunnel would require demolishing properties and be highly disruptive during construction this seems to me to be somewhat unlikely.
Looking from the A630 overbridge I think there would be room to squeeze 3 lanes in especially using ALR.

As for the Don Bridge providing its structurally sound I would expect a new bridge for the southbound carriageway would be built east of of the existing bridge and the northbound traffic would use the existing structure.
When the French A1 was widened to D3M between Lille and Paris this canal bridge posed a problem - their fix was to just split the southbound carriageway: https://goo.gl/maps/WL18yyK7qFdNbuueA

It's probably likely unless they fully redeck and plug that gap in the Don Bridge central reservation that they'd need to do similar. Not a great hardship apart from it's not in the DMRB so they'll have a fit at the idea.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3207
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by A303Chris » Thu Jun 17, 2021 14:52

jackal wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:43
RIS2 named 32 schemes to be developed in 2020-25, for delivery post-2025. There is now a page on the HE site for these schemes, with around half of them listed so far. There is very little detail, but as for some of them we previously only had scheme names, often opaque (e.g., 'Severn resilience package'), there is still some new information (in bold):

A2 Dover access
Upgrading sections of the A2 to improve traffic flow and resilience between Lydden Hill and Dover in Kent.

[So this is maybe more substantial than expected, possibly even completing the dualling between the M2 and Dover. The Jubilee Way viaduct seems difficult to upgrade - though complex, maybe they could dig out an offslip to go directly into the port, bypassing the viaduct entirely?]

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... e-schemes/
I would say it would be dualling down to to the Whitfield Roundabout from the current end of the DC at Lydden and dualling the short gap from the A256 grade separated junction to the A258 at the Duke of York Roundabout. I can not see them doing much down the hill and the viaduct over the port, just to much to do, especially as it is S2+1 with two lanes all way up the hill.

I wonder if this is required as a result of the Lower Thames Crossing , which will affect distribution of trips across Kent. Highways England policy has been to direct Dover to M25/London Trips along the M20 / A20 instead of the A2/M2, with the former signed to Canterbury from the M25 and Dover Docks.

Could this lead to J4 to J7 of the M2 becoming an ALR D3.
The M25 - The road to nowhere

Herned
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by Herned » Thu Jun 17, 2021 15:46

Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 14:05
It's probably likely unless they fully redeck and plug that gap in the Don Bridge central reservation that they'd need to do similar. Not a great hardship apart from it's not in the DMRB so they'll have a fit at the idea.
The Canning Town flyover on the A13 works like that, so pragmatism can win sometimes (although I'm aware that wasn't anything to do with HE)

medgoode
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 21:56

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by medgoode » Thu Jun 17, 2021 16:54

KeithW wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 13:35
c2R wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 09:22

At risk of being a human embodiment of wikipedia, citation needed.... I've not seen any evidence to suggest this would be the case. And yes, I've not seen any evidence to the contrary either - but it's a fairly bold statement to say that it will "almost certainly" be D3M....
Well given that the A1(M) from Leeming to Darrington is D3M it not an unreasonable assumption especially as it associated with widening the Doncaster bypass. It could of course be built as a managed motorway with 3 running lanes and no hard shoulder. The D2 A1 Redhouse from Redhouse to Darrington is seriously overloaded and the chances of it being rebuilt as an All Purpose D3 seems slim to say the least.
The overview page for the scheme [1] says:
Our plan is to provide a minimum of three lanes in both directions along the A1 in Yorkshire.
So it is definitely three lanes. Whether it will have a hard shoulder is another question...

[1] https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... arrington/

JRN
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by JRN » Thu Jun 17, 2021 17:42

Chris5156 wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 23:40
JRN wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 22:55
A2 Brenley Corner
Hopefully this is a realignment making the M2 / A2 the through traffic here, maybe a semi-directional T? Would be disappointing if it just improved the current junction at its current location, even if added freeflow.
And of course in an ideal world the M2 would be extended...
You should probably adjust your expectations to something more like signalisation and small scale widening of the roundabout and approaches.

Very disappointing. I suppose I should have known any extension of the M2, even by a few hundred metres to make it run straight though, was unlikely, but freeflow between the major movements (M2/A2) here seems necessary.

JRN
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by JRN » Thu Jun 17, 2021 17:52

jackal wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 13:38
JammyDodge wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 13:24
KeithW wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 09:29
As I understand it this is why the Redhouse to Darington and Doncaster bypass widening were pushed back into RIS3. The Doncaster bypass has some real problems when it comes too widening, the most obvious is the Don Bridge. Originally the talk was of converting it to an all lane running D3M managed motorway but with the new safety barriers in place its hard to see how you could make it D3 without a new bridge. In any event both need to be considered as part of the same development
I think the best solution for widening the Doncaster Bypass is to build a cut & cover tunnel under J36, through the residential area, to D3M spec. A tunnel should start North of Broomhouse Ln and just south of the Don Bridge. The Don Bridge would be replaced with a new "twin" D4M, with the A1(M) reducing to D3M north of the Don Bridge
Why bother though when they could ALR it for a fraction of the price? When have HE ever dug a tunnel to add a lane when they could just nick the HS?
Given that the D2M Doncaster bypass is quite narrow (narrower than modern standard hard shoulders), I think that parallel widening would be easier in many ways than symmetrical, and if you're going to parallel widen I guess you might as well go to D4M?

As for them converting it to a D3 ALR Smart Motorway, this is what I was worried about.
So far all ALR schemes have been D3M > D4ALR I think?
I always thought ALR wasn't supposed to be used to widen D2M motorways, as the total width available isn't enough for 3 decent width lanes and a little safety room.
I always figured that's why the A1(M) Jct 6-8 scheme keeps getting pushed back.
And that's with a full width hard shoulder, the Doncaster bypass is narrow.
Will be really disappointing if they just decide to squeeze 3 lanes through like they're doing around Newcastle.

User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: Lincoln / Haywards Heath

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by jervi » Thu Jun 17, 2021 18:26

JRN wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 17:52
Given that the D2M Doncaster bypass is quite narrow (narrower than modern standard hard shoulders), I think that parallel widening would be easier in many ways than symmetrical, and if you're going to parallel widen I guess you might as well go to D4M?

As for them converting it to a D3 ALR Smart Motorway, this is what I was worried about.
So far all ALR schemes have been D3M > D4ALR I think?
I always thought ALR wasn't supposed to be used to widen D2M motorways, as the total width available isn't enough for 3 decent width lanes and a little safety room.
I always figured that's why the A1(M) Jct 6-8 scheme keeps getting pushed back.
And that's with a full width hard shoulder, the Doncaster bypass is narrow.
Will be really disappointing if they just decide to squeeze 3 lanes through like they're doing around Newcastle.
M23 Gatwick Spur is a special ALR case.
From D2M to D3ALR/D2M. It also has a fixed speed limit, but I think that is mitigation for lack of HS/ERA & VMSs rather than for mitigation of potentially narrower than usual lanes.

It should be possible to replace a D2M with a D3ALR and keep within the edge of carriageway boundaries by removing the central reserve.

For a D3ALR, the surfaced area of each carriageway needs to be 12.5m if my maths is correct.
1 + 3.65 + 3.65 + 3.5 + 0.7 = 12.5m
Adding in a rigid concrete barrier makes it about 25.5m total cross section, presuming sight lines are okay.

A standard D2M (of which the A1(M) at Doncaster is not) has a carriageway width of 11.3m
3.3 + 3.65 + 3.65 + 0.7 = 11.3m
With a 3.1m central reserve with VRS, the total width of a D2M would be 25.7m

User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by the cheesecake man » Thu Jun 17, 2021 19:51

jackal wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 09:55
Well, what are the alternatives?

D2 - not an improvement on current.
A new D2 with limited junctions, proper slip roads, no right turns, no footpaths crossing and no property accesses would be a major improvement on the current A1. But it would still be so dangerously overcrowded it wouldn't be worth building.

HE now go for smart ALR over actual physical widening but has there been much new build ALR where the cost savings must be less? For example if you widen the road you'll need an expensive solicitor for miles of CPOs whereas ALR avoids that. But for new build the solicitor will charge the same whatever the width.

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by Conekicker » Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:46

The northbound from Wadworth certainly needs an extra lane, the queues back onto the M18 northbound can get very bad. There may be some junctions where a lane drop/lane gain might work.

Unfortunately the highway boundary is very close to the back of the existing narrow hard shoulder in many places, so by the time it's been widened to standard and technology put in, absent land take there's no room for an extra lane. Perhaps a D3 Expressway is what is intended. God knows what you'd do at Don Viaduct though, some pretty substantial bridge works required there to get an extra running lane squeezed through.

Surely the section from Redhouse to Darrington will require a fair bit of offline construction, some of the bends and gradients are awful.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14697
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by Chris5156 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 01:27

JammyDodge wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 13:26
jackal wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:43
Severn resilience package
Developing a package of possible improvements to sections of the M4, M5 and M32 motorways on the eastern side of the Severn Crossings near Bristol to tackle current and future congestion levels following the 2018 removal of the tolls to cross the Severn bridges.

["M4 junctions 19 to 20 and M5 junctions 16 to 17 upgrade dynamic hard shoulder running to all lane running" is separately committed for delivery by 2023-24, so this is presumably a more substantial improvement - most likely further ALR sections.]
Please say collector/express lanes. It is what the M4 and M5 need
My preference would be sliproad braiding between M5 J15 and 16. But again, that's not the sort of thing HE do!

User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by JammyDodge » Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:27

Chris5156 wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 01:27
JammyDodge wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 13:26
jackal wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:43
Severn resilience package
Developing a package of possible improvements to sections of the M4, M5 and M32 motorways on the eastern side of the Severn Crossings near Bristol to tackle current and future congestion levels following the 2018 removal of the tolls to cross the Severn bridges.

["M4 junctions 19 to 20 and M5 junctions 16 to 17 upgrade dynamic hard shoulder running to all lane running" is separately committed for delivery by 2023-24, so this is presumably a more substantial improvement - most likely further ALR sections.]
Please say collector/express lanes. It is what the M4 and M5 need
My preference would be sliproad braiding between M5 J15 and 16. But again, that's not the sort of thing HE do!
My hope is for D2M "Express" Lanes for the M5 and M4, allowing Long-distance traffic to separate from local, with D3M/D4M-ALR for local traffic

But then that is a hope, so it ain't happening
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past

NICK 647063
Member
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 17:48
Location: Leeds

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by NICK 647063 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:01

jgharston wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 03:05
jackal wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:43
A64 Hopgrove
Upgrading the A64 Hopgrove junction near York.
[Interesting that it's phrased like that as the feasibility study said the problem was the single carriageway more than the junction.]
There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. The. Junction. It's the capacity drop from six lanes down to one lane going east that is the problem. Any "improvements" to the junction will just make the problem worse as it will just make it more efficient to dump too much traffic onto too small a road.
It was in the local news recently although it’s classed as the Hopgrove Junction improvement all options include a new D2 between Hopgrove and Barton le willows, 1 option is online and 2 are offline, the only worrying part was the fact they are wanting to create an elongated roundabout using the little and large hopgrove roundabouts, the fact is just get the D2 built and the Hopgrove will function much better…

User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by the cheesecake man » Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:10

Conekicker wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:46
God knows what you'd do at Don Viaduct though, some pretty substantial bridge works required there to get an extra running lane squeezed through.
Radical idea time: :idea: if there isn't room for an adjacent second viaduct how about making it double deck?
Surely the section from Redhouse to Darrington will require a fair bit of offline construction, some of the bends and gradients are awful.
Yep. Plus plenty of dangerous/absent slip roads, minor junctions and properties, so keeping the existing A1 as a LAR and building offline seems much easier. And don't call me Shirley.:coat:

User avatar
thatapanydude
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by thatapanydude » Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:37

I wonder if it is worth emailing HE now - to ensure that they seriously consider the proper job of fixing the A1 which is D3(M) to Redhouse and D4(M) to the M62 with HS.

I would offline a D2(M) section from the A630 to just before J1 of the M18 to avoid having to widen the bridge at Doncaster and complete urban widening.

I would not support any D2(M) widening to D3 ALR with narrow lanes - just completely unsuitable. A reason as to why the A1(M) was not ALR'ed was that some of it lies in Shapps constituency and I am sure he would not want the flack of an ALR scheme in a relatively open consultancy seat.
A1/A1(M) >>> M1

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31249
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:52

Last year I sketched up on Google Maps a possible alignment:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit? ... sp=sharing
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3207
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by A303Chris » Fri Jun 18, 2021 14:00

Anything at Brenley corner is only to facilitate the huge development proposed in South East Faversham which fills in all the land north of the M2, south of the A2 and east of A251.

The Swale Borough Council Transport Strategy 2022-2037 includes Brenley Corner and when you read paragraphs 8.2.2 to 8.2.4, it does open your eyes to who does the modelling.

It says the A2 on the Boughton Bypass just east of J7 has an AADT of 38,000 and the A299 on the Swale border has an AADT of 47,500, however the M2 between Faversham and Sittingbourne has an AADT of 14,000. Where do 71,500 vehicles disappear to.

Page 144 says the junction 7 improvement for capacity enhancements will come from RIS3 and S106 contributions, so I am expecting widening lanes on the approaches and more signals.

This is even more likely when you read the Model Summary which indicates major works will not be needed as the development will have 50% of trips by non car modes. While I am all for modal shift, to me targets need to be realistic and this already seems an approach to ensure S106 contributions to J7 are kept low.

Interesting in Section 9 there is no mention of mitigation at J7, which could be because earlier in the report and I can not find it now, it says a big improvement at J7 will result in a redistribution of traffic from the M20 to the M2 and then with all the development proposed in Swale the M2 between J5 and J7 becomes screwed. However it does not consider that a redistribution will occur anyway with out J7 being improved when the Lower Thames Crossing opens and this becomes the more direct route to Dover from north of the Thames.
The M25 - The road to nowhere

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by Conekicker » Fri Jun 18, 2021 16:25

Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:52
Last year I sketched up on Google Maps a possible alignment:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit? ... sp=sharing
You'd need a new overbridge at Barnsdale Bar, the bridge piers won't allow any more than 2 lanes plus possibly a HS on the northbound and only 2 lanes, no HS on the southbound.

Darrington Golf Club wouldn't be best pleased either.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31249
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 17:44

Conekicker wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 16:25
Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:52
Last year I sketched up on Google Maps a possible alignment:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit? ... sp=sharing
You'd need a new overbridge at Barnsdale Bar, the bridge piers won't allow any more than 2 lanes plus possibly a HS on the northbound and only 2 lanes, no HS on the southbound.

Darrington Golf Club wouldn't be best pleased either.
Doable, and I don't play golf so screw 'em. :twisted:

The real killer is needing a new viaduct at Wentbridge on this idea!
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8391
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by wrinkly » Fri Jun 18, 2021 18:16

Conekicker wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 16:25

You'd need a new overbridge at Barnsdale Bar, the bridge piers won't allow any more than 2 lanes plus possibly a HS on the northbound and only 2 lanes, no HS on the southbound.

Darrington Golf Club wouldn't be best pleased either.
I thought the previous (1990s?) official proposal included going under the existing bridge at Barnsdale Bar with D3 and interrupted hard shoulders, as later happened under the A61 at Baldersby.

This proposal's alignment was also similar to Bryn's at the golf club.

Since then we've had a decline in HE's view of the importance of hard shoulders, and astonishingly narrow lanes on the A1 at Gateshead (admittedly AP with a 50 limit).

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Highways England pipeline of possible future schemes

Post by Conekicker » Fri Jun 18, 2021 19:15

wrinkly wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 18:16
Conekicker wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 16:25

You'd need a new overbridge at Barnsdale Bar, the bridge piers won't allow any more than 2 lanes plus possibly a HS on the northbound and only 2 lanes, no HS on the southbound.

Darrington Golf Club wouldn't be best pleased either.
I thought the previous (1990s?) official proposal included going under the existing bridge at Barnsdale Bar with D3 and interrupted hard shoulders, as later happened under the A61 at Baldersby.

This proposal's alignment was also similar to Bryn's at the golf club.

Since then we've had a decline in HE's view of the importance of hard shoulders, and astonishingly narrow lanes on the A1 at Gateshead (admittedly AP with a 50 limit).
They'd have to be very narrow lanes to fit between these two piers
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.61844 ... 6656?hl=en
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

Post Reply