The York-Scarbados rail line really requires major improvements. A tourist route that important would be electrified and run frequent services anywhere else in western Europe. Ideally, it should also be realigned to allow for trains to travel up to 125 mph on it for the most part, but considering this country I doubt that will happen anytime soon.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 16:44Well, where do they park now? There's no shortage of cars heading for Scarbados already despite the substandard nature of A64. I'm not sure that an increase in accommodation availability is being proposed, just that the people heading there can get there more quickly and safely, and trouble the intervening villages rather less (I did this trip a couple of weeks ago for the first time, and was not impressed, especially past Malton). Mind you, an improved rail service might take some cars off the road. An hourly service each way doesn't really hack it - but signalling improvements would be required, and possibly reinstating a second platform at Malton. But that would be in addition to dualling the road - not everyone can use the train.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 15:51FTFYChris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 17:23
If the expressway went all the way to Staxton you'd need some way to distribute the traffic, I think. The problem wouldn't just be the A64 getting into Scarborough, though; the new road would also inevitably attract lots of journeys that presently take other routes to reach Bridlington. The A1039 through Flixton and Muston would need substantial improvements because it would end up taking a fair slice of the traffic.
Yes, so in reality you're looking at a new D2 that splits into two S2s - the A64 is already sort of there at Seamer, but the A1039 is definitely not. But then you have the same question - where do you park all these cars?
Blackpool having the M55 is mitigated by the fact its got the giant car parks where Central Station used to be. You can't do that to Scarborough, and if you did, there'd be no point going there as its charm would have been lost.
A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
The problem is that between York and Malton, it runs through hilly terrain and takes a twisty route following the course of the river – there are several curves with a radius down to about 500m, which really isn't suitable for high speed – but realigning it would be incredibly expensive, and the cost of boring new tunnels would be far in excess of any benefit gained by the reduced journey time. Last year, Northern introduced an hourly service from York to complement the hourly TransPennine, and with the new 5-car TransPennine trains that means that capacity has now more than doubled on what it was a couple of years ago, and the route is likely to be electrified under the recently released decarbonisation strategy.Roavin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 18:14 The York-Scarbados rail line really requires major improvements. A tourist route that important would be electrified and run frequent services anywhere else in western Europe. Ideally, it should also be realigned to allow for trains to travel up to 125 mph on it for the most part, but considering this country I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Because of significantly reduced demand due to Covid, the P&R service from the A64 has been suspended, and all users directed to the A165 site.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 17:18Hmm, the P&R seemed to be shut when we drove past (this was on a Thursday lunchtime), but we weren't stopping in Scarborough anyway, we were heading for Ravenscar en route to Seaham (yes, I know it's the long way round). There was a long queue into town, but we concluded that this was being made much worse by electricity board roadworks involving TTLs, once we passed those things moved ok.
A few years ago, the P&R services were cut back from all-year-round to just running from the start of March to the end of October (in line with the service at Whitby) because there just wasn't enough demand to justify them during the winter.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
I did indeed acknowledge that realignment was next to impossible.Stevie D wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 21:17The problem is that between York and Malton, it runs through hilly terrain and takes a twisty route following the course of the river – there are several curves with a radius down to about 500m, which really isn't suitable for high speed – but realigning it would be incredibly expensive, and the cost of boring new tunnels would be far in excess of any benefit gained by the reduced journey time. Last year, Northern introduced an hourly service from York to complement the hourly TransPennine, and with the new 5-car TransPennine trains that means that capacity has now more than doubled on what it was a couple of years ago, and the route is likely to be electrified under the recently released decarbonisation strategy.Roavin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 18:14 The York-Scarbados rail line really requires major improvements. A tourist route that important would be electrified and run frequent services anywhere else in western Europe. Ideally, it should also be realigned to allow for trains to travel up to 125 mph on it for the most part, but considering this country I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
As a Whitby resident I'd love to use the Whitby P&R for long-term and overnight parking. Dump my car there and walk/bus into town. Even visitors would like to use it for multiple-day parking, park up on Friday, pick up the car on Sunday evening. But you have to evacuate the car park each evening, which means that if you're not a day visitor you still have to fight into town and find somewhere to park.Stevie D wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 21:19 Because of significantly reduced demand due to Covid, the P&R service from the A64 has been suspended, and all users directed to the A165 site.
A few years ago, the P&R services were cut back from all-year-round to just running from the start of March to the end of October (in line with the service at Whitby) because there just wasn't enough demand to justify them during the winter.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
There is apparently to be a consultation process on the improvement. Details via local press:
What concerns me though is the 'single elongated signalised roundabout'. This sounds a lot like they want to send A64 northbound traffic down to the A1036 roundabout, where it would have to U-turn?!
The cheap and sensible change for Hopgrove would be providing freeflow filters - a lot of space is provided for the current filters but they're all basically useless as they are signalised. Freeflow for the southbound A64 in particular is a no brainer that should have been done decades ago.
Of course, it should actually be grade separated, but at the very least they mustn't make the junction worse as they seem to propose.
https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/ne ... ts-3259833
The dualling between Hopgrove and the existing DC at Barton is of course very welcome.The various options for improvement include an upgrade at Hopgrove to include a single elongated signalised roundabout in conjunction with one of three options for dual carriageway schemes.
The three options are:
- either from a point 500m north of Hopgrove roundabout to the Jinnah Restaurant
- or one of two offline schemes which would take the dual carriageway away from the current road via either the FERA estate or close to Scotchman’s junction and back onto the A64 at the Jinnah restaurant.
What concerns me though is the 'single elongated signalised roundabout'. This sounds a lot like they want to send A64 northbound traffic down to the A1036 roundabout, where it would have to U-turn?!
The cheap and sensible change for Hopgrove would be providing freeflow filters - a lot of space is provided for the current filters but they're all basically useless as they are signalised. Freeflow for the southbound A64 in particular is a no brainer that should have been done decades ago.
Of course, it should actually be grade separated, but at the very least they mustn't make the junction worse as they seem to propose.
https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/ne ... ts-3259833
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Yes well I can see why they dont allow it with the large Marina long stay car park at £9 per day.jgharston wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 23:30
As a Whitby resident I'd love to use the Whitby P&R for long-term and overnight parking. Dump my car there and walk/bus into town. Even visitors would like to use it for multiple-day parking, park up on Friday, pick up the car on Sunday evening. But you have to evacuate the car park each evening, which means that if you're not a day visitor you still have to fight into town and find somewhere to park.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
A group of us have just spent a few days staying outside Scarborough and travelled in on 3 separate days for different things. 4 families, 15 of us in total 4 cars each time at about £20 parking each time. I did look at using Seamer for the train but that was going to be north of £50 in train tickets just to get to Scarborough plus whatever parking costs at Seamer plus whatever the bus would cost to get us to our final destinations there and of course we'd have to carry everything around with us all day too. We tended to cut across to the A170 and head in that way to North Bay except the time we headed to South Bay.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
- Location: Gone
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Agreed... the dualling between Hopgrove and the existing DC at Barton is of course very welcome.jackal wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:57 There is apparently to be a consultation process on the improvement. Details via local press:
The dualling between Hopgrove and the existing DC at Barton is of course very welcome.The various options for improvement include an upgrade at Hopgrove to include a single elongated signalised roundabout in conjunction with one of three options for dual carriageway schemes.
What concerns me though is the 'single elongated signalised roundabout'. This sounds a lot like they want to send A64 northbound traffic down to the A1036 roundabout, where it would have to U-turn?!
But do the numpties at HE not realise that it is the *existence* of a roundabout, in an otherwise HQDC that is the problem? Dualling it, but retaining the roundabout is an utterly stupid idea.
The same applies with the Black Cat on the A1 and Ham Barn roundabout on the A3 (with B3006) to name just two.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 17:48
- Location: Leeds
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
The dualling is absolutely needed this is proved by the last week of endless congestion, my concerns are we seem to be ignoring the 3 mile section between Welburn and Malton, surely we need to get the dual carriageway to Malton where a good few leave to the A169...
The Hopgrove this elongated roundabout is to make a huge roundabout via the little Hopgrove, this seems bonkers, I would sooner see the dualling and the current Hopgrove left for now rather than this!
The Hopgrove this elongated roundabout is to make a huge roundabout via the little Hopgrove, this seems bonkers, I would sooner see the dualling and the current Hopgrove left for now rather than this!
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
I would say that the traffic jams at Hopgrove are at least 90% because of the drop to single-carriageway, and at most 10% because of the roundabout.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 13:21But do the numpties at HE not realise that it is the *existence* of a roundabout, in an otherwise HQDC that is the problem? Dualling it, but retaining the roundabout is an utterly stupid idea.
Dualling but leaving the roundabout in place will significantly improve traffic flow over what we have at the moment.
Of course, the likelihood is then that with the major bottleneck removed, traffic that currently finds alternative routes would start to use the A64 again – which would be great for the towns and villages on the alternative routes and would be a sign that the upgrade had been successful, but would mean more traffic using the Hopgrove roundabout, so there would be some additional congestion as a result ... but it would still be a lot less than the current situation.
I could understand if they were planning on leaving the roundabout as it is – it doesn't need to be modified to allow the A64 to be dualled, there is already 500m of dual-carriageway leading away from it – in order to see how much suppressed demand was released first, before committing money to a junction upgrade that might turn out not to be such a high priority after all. But to be looking to modify the roundabouts and replace them with new roundabouts – and particularly, by the sounds of it, a setup that would be noticeably worse for eastbound traffic, seems like a crazy idea. If traffic flows increase to the point where the roundabout isn't functioning adequately then it needs to be grade-separated.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
I would expect that dualling the first section alone would give some improvement – at the moment, the problem is that you have 1½ lanes of traffic from the A64 and not insignificant flows from York and from A1237 all merging into 1 lane at the same point. It's near enough 4-into-1. Whereas if you had 4-into-2 at Hopgrove and then 2-into-1 at Welburn (after some traffic has turned off onto various other routes) then the compression and congestion won't be as bad because it isn't all happening at the same place.NICK 647063 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 21:06The dualling is absolutely needed this is proved by the last week of endless congestion, my concerns are we seem to be ignoring the 3 mile section between Welburn and Malton, surely we need to get the dual carriageway to Malton where a good few leave to the A169...
But yes, dualling through to Malton is essential, and needs to be seen as an integral part of the project, even if work isn't necessarily started until after the section to Barton Hill is completed.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
- Location: Gone
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Life would be boring, if we always agreed... but the A1 and A3 examples do not have a lane drop - and are free-flowing once you are clear of the roundabout - but regularly queue for some considerable distance. And in the case of the A64, there are (whenever I use it) not insignificant queues south-bound, without the excuse of a lane-drop.Stevie D wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 22:22I would say that the traffic jams at Hopgrove are at least 90% because of the drop to single-carriageway, and at most 10% because of the roundabout.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 13:21But do the numpties at HE not realise that it is the *existence* of a roundabout, in an otherwise HQDC that is the problem? Dualling it, but retaining the roundabout is an utterly stupid idea.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Exactly.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 06:15Life would be boring, if we always agreed... but the A1 and A3 examples do not have a lane drop - and are free-flowing once you are clear of the roundabout - but regularly queue for some considerable distance. And in the case of the A64, there are (whenever I use it) not insignificant queues south-bound, without the excuse of a lane-drop.Stevie D wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 22:22I would say that the traffic jams at Hopgrove are at least 90% because of the drop to single-carriageway, and at most 10% because of the roundabout.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 13:21But do the numpties at HE not realise that it is the *existence* of a roundabout, in an otherwise HQDC that is the problem? Dualling it, but retaining the roundabout is an utterly stupid idea.
It should also be remembered that the current layout is only about ten years old (you can still see the project slides: https://slideplayer.com/slide/10532452/). Prior to that it was a simple unsignalised 2 lane roundabout with 2 lane approaches from all directions. Sounds like they are basically admitting that that scheme didn't work, but repeating the same mistake - more signals, more stacking space, more complexity. There's zero reason to believe the results will be any better.
They either need to add freeflow or leave Hopgrove alone. No more deckchair moving exercises, thanks.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 19:10
- Location: Manchester
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
My view is that a GSJ should be built at Hop Grove as part of the extension of the dual carriageway which should run all the way to Malton.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
The upgrade to Hopgrove did work, it achieved its objectives, which were primarily to reduce queues on the A1036 and A1237, where traffic turning right onto the A64 towards Leeds were blocked by queueing traffic on the A64 towards Scarborough, and only secondarily to improve traffic flow on the A64. With the single-carriageway being the biggest bottleneck, the roundabout upgrade was never capable of, and never intended to, solve the problem of traffic queueing on the eastbound A64.jackal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:29It should also be remembered that the current layout is only about ten years old (you can still see the project slides: https://slideplayer.com/slide/10532452/). Prior to that it was a simple unsignalised 2 lane roundabout with 2 lane approaches from all directions. Sounds like they are basically admitting that that scheme didn't work, but repeating the same mistake - more signals, more stacking space, more complexity. There's zero reason to believe the results will be any better.
They either need to add freeflow or leave Hopgrove alone. No more deckchair moving exercises, thanks.
I don't understand the point of the proposals that they are putting forwards for a new flat junction there – I completely agree that it is a waste of time and money, and unlikely to do anything except make the traffic worse.
Looking at Google Maps right now ... early evening on a sunny Saturday at the end of half-term, and the westbound traffic is slow between Barton Hill and Hazelbush, but there is pretty much no queue at the roundabout itself, which suggests that it isn't the roundabout that is causing the problems.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 17:48
- Location: Leeds
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Yep westbound always queues to the Hazelbush then gets going, obviously with an upgrade more traffic will hit the Hopgrove quicker but even so it doesn’t need changing for the mess that’s proposed! The only change that can now be justified is a GSJ if not then I would rather deal with it as it is, it seems what’s making this section so expensive is the fact all studies have shown much traffic will come back to the A64 from the likes of the A166 so all Junctions need to be a higher standard rather than the cheaper dualling on the A66 with the at grade Junctions with side roads.Stevie D wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 19:08The upgrade to Hopgrove did work, it achieved its objectives, which were primarily to reduce queues on the A1036 and A1237, where traffic turning right onto the A64 towards Leeds were blocked by queueing traffic on the A64 towards Scarborough, and only secondarily to improve traffic flow on the A64. With the single-carriageway being the biggest bottleneck, the roundabout upgrade was never capable of, and never intended to, solve the problem of traffic queueing on the eastbound A64.jackal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:29It should also be remembered that the current layout is only about ten years old (you can still see the project slides: https://slideplayer.com/slide/10532452/). Prior to that it was a simple unsignalised 2 lane roundabout with 2 lane approaches from all directions. Sounds like they are basically admitting that that scheme didn't work, but repeating the same mistake - more signals, more stacking space, more complexity. There's zero reason to believe the results will be any better.
They either need to add freeflow or leave Hopgrove alone. No more deckchair moving exercises, thanks.
I don't understand the point of the proposals that they are putting forwards for a new flat junction there – I completely agree that it is a waste of time and money, and unlikely to do anything except make the traffic worse.
Looking at Google Maps right now ... early evening on a sunny Saturday at the end of half-term, and the westbound traffic is slow between Barton Hill and Hazelbush, but there is pretty much no queue at the roundabout itself, which suggests that it isn't the roundabout that is causing the problems.
As for Hopgrove upgrade 10 years ago you are completely right, on an evening the queue on the A1237 was back to earswick every night to get onto the Hopgrove, the lights sorted that and it was said at the time while it wouldn’t improve the A64 it wouldn’t be any worse, obviously some only look at the lights from the A64 point of view and completely miss the point that the A1237 can actually get on the roundabout these days...... to be fair I would even say the lights helped the A64 a bit as the eastbound approach to Hopgrove was widened to 4 lanes this allows A1237 traffic to exit sooner rather than getting stuck in the A64 queue right up to the actual roundabout, I remember previously it would queue back beyond the A19 Fulford but with the widening and lights it now usually gets to the A1079 and that’s with the A64 having more traffic too....... but people forget this!
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
I'm sure it made some difference but that's not the mark of a successful scheme. There's absolutely no reason for the westbound A64 to be stopping at Hopgrove when it could have a simple freeflow bypass. It could even be done with a lick of paint to what they actually built, but no, everyone has to sample their delightful traffic lights. This would also help the A1036 and A1237 turning westbound onto the A64, which currently conflicts with the westbound A64 unnecessarily and has a long wait at the lights.
Last edited by jackal on Tue Jun 08, 2021 13:54, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
The lay of the land screams "trumpet interchange" to me.jackal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:55 I'm sure it made some difference but that's not the mark of a successful scheme. There's absolutely no reason for the westbound A64 to be stopping at Hopgrove when it could have a simple freeflow bypass. It could even be done with a lick of point to what they actually built, but no, everyone has to sample their delightful traffic lights. This would also help the A1036 and A1237 turning westbound onto the A64, which currently conflicts with the westbound A64 unnecessarily and has a long wait at the lights.
But we know HE don't like those, having actively removed one at Immingham in favour of their beloved all movements roundabout.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
-
- Member
- Posts: 1419
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
- Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia
Re: A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT
Of course, but isn't the issue future provision for east side access?