A64 YORK HOPGROVE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENT

[Rillington]

The proposals drawn up in 1992 to dual the A64 from Hop Grove to Malton were costed at £58 million (December 1991 prices) and this cost included eight "two level junctions with slip roads" - Hopgrove would have been one of those locations - and seven seven "ground level left turn only junctions." The North Lane junction with the A64 would have been closed although a local access road form North Lane to Hop Grove roundabout would have been built.

[jackal]

MP Kevin Hollinrake pushes for A64 upgrade

I'm a bit puzzled by the apparent costing for Hopgrove (£105m!). Perhaps it includes some other stuff along the A64 or A1237?

Hopgrove has already been announced for RIS2, so I assume that is the target for the further improvements Mr Hollinrake would like to see.

[jackal]

Kevin Hollinrake's proposal for dualling up to Malton has been gazumped by Baroness Anne McIntosh: “We really need a proper dual carriageway right the way up from York to Filey and Scarborough” (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/tra ... -1-8366417).

Looking at the AADTs, there's about 22k between York and Malton, about 15k around the Malton bypass, then about 12k until you get to Eastfield just outside Scarborough. Dualling up to Malton can certainly be justified, but east of there it's not really warranted by the volumes.

[NICK 647063]

To answer a few of your questions the hopgrove upgrade was first announced as up to £250 million, the figure you state £105 million is a grade separated junction and dualling east towards Malton, The latest update I had was the feasibility study will be completed by March 2017 so this month, then they can progress with the best scheme options, the local MP Kevin hollinrake really understands the A64 and the fact the roundabout isn't so much the issue but the fact the dual carriageway ends just east of hopgrove, he is pushing for the scheme to improve hopgrove and full dualling to the next dual carriageway section and in the very near future to malton.

As stated above York to Malton is a priority due to traffic volumes and Kevin understands that so that's why he is simply focusing on that section and rightly states that east of Malton can be assessed after the York to Malton section is completed.

Malton to York runs around 22-24k vpd but in peaks pushes 30k this also does not include the huge volumes that take back roads to avoid the congestion, I would expect once that section is done and the bottleneck is removed we will see the section east of Malton have a big rise in traffic volumes, so as stated that can be looked at after.

In the whole it finally looks like things are progressing on the A64.

[jackal]

The scheme in the RIS is 'Grade separation of the A64 Hopgrove junction, which serves as the eastern approach to York'. There is no mention of dualling east to Malton. Mr Hollinrake seems quite clear that dualling up to Barton Hill would be a change to the currently proposed scheme, which would require a significant increase in cost:

At a meeting with Highways England at the end of January, I strongly urged them to make the dual carriageway to Barton Hill a priority over the flyover, which has been proposed. This would mean that Highways England would have to go through a ‘change of spending process’ with the Department for Transport, but it would be a far better and more effective solution. I believe that a flyover would only move the traffic pinch point further up the A64.

I have been working with the A64 Growth Partnership (A64GP), which includes the Local Enterprise Partnership, NYCC and Ryedale DC and businesses, to make sure that we achieve the best possible outcome. They are in agreement that Highways England may need to change their current focus or increase the allocated spend (currently estimated at £105m) to include the dual carriageway to Barton Hill (currently estimated at £170m to £250m).

https://www.kevinhollinrake.org.uk/camp ... provements

Of course, this still doesn't explain the puzzling £105m cost for a GSJ at Hopgrove.

[jgharston]

An advantage with filling the Sand Hutton Gap* is that most of the required land take is already within the highway curtilage, or within a building restriction line, and a lot of the dualling can be done either as an additional carriageway alongside the existing road, or widen the existing road and put a reservation down the middle. Whenever I drive along I tend to think "add to the left here, add to the right here, expand both sides here...."

The road through the High Hutton Gap* is fiddlier, the highway curtilige is tighter, and there are several tight twists that would need bypassing instead of widening the existing alignment, eg the crest of the hill just east of Bar Farm is a bugger even though on the map it looks like a nice gentle curve.

*for want of a better name.

[jackal]

HE have released their Hopgrove feasibility study. It concludes that

Prioritisation of a dualling scheme over the
grade separation of the Hopgrove junction
should be considered as part of a phased
approach to delivery on this section of the A64.

There are also two junctions options (one of which seems to be grade separated) and four dualling options (three of which seem to reach the next section of dualling at Jinnah restaurant/Barton Hill):

A64 Hopgrove Junction Options

Junction option 1 A replacement of the existing Hopgrove and Malton Road
roundabouts with a single elongated, signalised roundabout. It utilises
existing north and south legs of the Hopgrove Roundabout and adds
an additional northbound through-movement. A new left-turn slip lane
from Hopgrove Roundabout is also included, heading north.

Junction option 2 An elongated Hopgrove Roundabout with a double overbridge, A64
through movement. The A64 through carriageway is also realigned.

A64 Hopgrove Dualling Options

Option A utilises the existing alignment of the A64 as far as possible to reduce
cost and environmental impact. This option includes on-line dualling of existing
single carriageway from a point 500m north of Hopgrove Roundabout to Jinnah
Restaurant.

Option B A combination of online widening designed as a partial route upgrade. It
consists of on-line dualling of the existing single carriageway from a point 500m
north of Hopgrove Roundabout to a new roundabout at Towthorpe Moor Lane.

Option C On-line dualling from a point 500m north of Hopgrove Roundabout for
approximately 1.8km, then offline dual carriageway improvement to the
northwest of the existing alignment, re-joining the existing A64 500m south
of the Jinnah Restaurant.

Option D On-line dualling from a point 500m north of Hopgrove Roundabout for
approximately 1.8km, then offline dual carriageway improvement to the
northwest of the existing alignment, then crossing to east of the existing
alignment to re-join the existing A64 500m south of the Jinnah Restaurant.

Mr Hollinrake will be pleased...

[Bryn666]

Unless you carry on the dualling there's no point GSJing Hopgrove.

A D2 to at least Malton would be welcomed - is the A64 less seasonal now then as previously there wasn't deemed a sufficient volume for it.

Arguably the A64 is more of a "safety dualling" candidate than a traffic one but we all know we don't rebuild roads like that unless you can overdevelop along it...

[jackal]

Actually I always found it strange the A64 didn't receive higher priority. AADT is north of 20k so it's well beyond capacity and indeed one of the very busiest single carriageway rural trunk roads in the country.

Dualling options A, C and D would plug one of the two gaps to Malton, but the other one is apparently trickier:

the study does not include the section of single carriageway
between Crambeck and Malton, which would need to be converted to dual
carriageway in order to complete a dual carriageway link to Malton. I
understand that this section has significant alignment challenges and crosses
a listed structure as well as runs through an Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. These factors would most likely impact on the costs and the
deliverability of any dual carriageway proposal

https://www.kevinhollinrake.org.uk/site ... /DfT_1.pdf

[Chris5156]

The other section that would need dualling to reach Malton is indeed very tricky - you'd have to go offline, to avoid the listed bridge (and the very steep dip it's in) and the twists and turns on the way down the hill. But it's also very short and the challenge is really just picking a suitable line for a big cutting.

Once it's done as far as Malton I would anticipate the summer traffic load to increase, as people take advantage of quicker journeys and fewer jams, and the case for the relatively easy build along the railway line on the flat valley floor past Sherburn to Seamer will be much stronger.

[jackal]

Half the traffic hops off at Malton so there's not really any more reason to dual the A64 beyond there than there is to dual the A169 or countless other fairly ordinary A roads.

[NICK 647063]

A D2 to at least Malton would be welcomed - is the A64 less seasonal now then as previously there wasn't deemed a sufficient volume for it.

Arguably the A64 is more of a "safety dualling" candidate than a traffic one but we all know we don't rebuild roads like that unless you can overdevelop along it...

To be honest the A64 is always busy both in season and out of season, its well over 20k as an average throughout the year, its Just got worse and worse and is suffering now from a major lack of investment! also nearby local roads are taking a massive amount of traffic avoiding the A64, as mentioned its one of the busiest single carriageway rural trunk roads in the country, I would hardly refer to its as a safety dualling thats roads like the A1 north of Newcastle! the A64's main reason for dualling is traffic congestion first then safety, think it scores high in both.

As for the scheme itself while I would love to see a GSJ Hopgrove this is pointless without the dualling, all you will do is move the queue onto a bridge and people will then complain that its done zero to sort the issue, at least dualling would help, it needs it to Malton but this is a good start.

[NICK 647063]

Having read through the study it backs up what most people know that the Hopgrove Junction while not ideal would be okay for 15 years or so if dualling was done, I think the focus must be to get this section dualled, then its clear this will push the queues up to Crambeck where pressure then can be put on to get that section dualled to Malton.

After the whole York to Malton section is completed then it would likely be time to look at the Hopgrove Junction again and the section east of Malton which would have seen big traffic increases.

The big bonus in that area at the moment is the local MP Kevin Hollinrake he really seems to understand the A64 and the need for dualling, really the A64 both in traffic terms and safety on the single carriageway section should be far more a priority than the A1 dualling north of Newcastle but it would seem the A1 scheme is a vanity project, the A64 has had very little investment for years and years, hopefully this is the start of progress.

[AndrewH]

I'm guessing I'm theory dualling the A64 from Hopgrove to Malton would be cheaper than a GSJ at Hopgrove, as it would all be at grade and quite a straight forward task engineering wise?

[jackal]

It's quite a substantial stretch of dualling (5 miles+), with presumably several structures, so it's going to cost much more than a single GSJ. The number quoted above is £170m-£250m. The number for Hopgrove was £105m, abnormally high for a GSJ, so I assume that included a shorter stretch of dualling (possibly to Towthorpe Moor Lane as per option B).

The big bonus in that area at the moment is the local MP Kevin Hollinrake he really seems to understand the A64 and the need for dualling, really the A64 both in traffic terms and safety on the single carriageway section should be far more a priority than the A1 dualling north of Newcastle but it would seem the A1 scheme is a vanity project, the A64 has had very little investment for years and years, hopefully this is the start of progress.

I very much agree, the likes of the A1 in Northumberland and A66 have far less traffic but seem to be considered as much higher priorities. The implicit idea seems to be that they're strategic, while the A64 is more of a local connection (notwithstanding its trunk status).

While I can understand that in theory, in practice the A1 and A66 are still a long way from providing truly strategic (ie dualled and preferably GSJed) routes, so each upgrade is actually only a local improvement. Given this I think it would have made more sense to prioritise completion of the A64 to Malton.

[NICK 647063]

Hopefully dualling to Malton will be completed at some point with safe crossing facilities for pedestrians, sadly last night 2 pedestrians were killed crossing the A64 at Welburn around 10:55pm this is only a 100 metres from a nearly identical accident 5 weeks ago when another 2 pedestrians were killed crossing the A64 at just after midnight, clearly this will now prompt action for at least street lighting around Welburn and Crambeck to help drivers clearly see pedestrians who are trying to cross the A64 here which is at the end of a dual carriageway where crossing especially at night can be very difficult due to the speed of the traffic and no lighting, I know no road can ever be fully safe but sadly the A64 has lacked any investment and now the people who live closest to it are suffering, either way 4 fatalities in just over a month all pedestrians is totally unacceptable.

[punyXpress]

Over the years that Crambeck/Welburn junction has been the site of extreme reflections from road furniture to the point where visibility is massively impaired!
From Chris5156 on Friday: " The other section that would need dualling to reach Malton is indeed very tricky - you'd have to go offline, to avoid the listed bridge (and the very steep dip it's in) and the twists and turns on the way down the hill. But it's also very short and the challenge is really just picking a suitable line for a big cutting." To show my ignorance pertaining to all things roadbuilding, how about another bridge? From the 55m contour line going towards Malton over Crambeck Bridge and 'landing' at a similar height just before Spring Wood. That line would be the westbound carriageway and would align, as near as possible ( but somewhat higher ) with the existing A64. The eastbound carriageway would, obviously, run to the north of it and continue to the start of the Malton bypass.
Whatever is done, there must be an end to the carnage on that short stretch of A64

[Stevie D]

HE have released their Hopgrove feasibility study. It concludes that

Prioritisation of a dualling scheme over the
grade separation of the Hopgrove junction
should be considered as part of a phased
approach to delivery on this section of the A64.

There are also two junctions options (one of which seems to be grade separated) and four dualling options (three of which seem to reach the next section of dualling at Jinnah restaurant/Barton Hill)

(Disappointing that the detailed plans don't seem to be available online)

My thoughts:

Combining the two roundabouts into one large roundabout without grade separation is likely to make traffic worse. It creates more conflicts and forces some traffic to take a longer route through the junction for no evident benefit. As the study says, the congestion that occurs is not primarily because of the roundabout but because of the drop to S2 on the A64E beyond. The existing roundabout works well enough, although it may start to struggle if the A64E is dualled and traffic levels rise, but I can't see how a single flat roundabout would improve things. If you're going to do anything to the roundabout then it has to be GSJ'd.

The first priority is to dual the road between Hopgrove and Barton Hill. The second priority is to dual the road between Whitwell and Malton. Both of these projects are essential. Grade-separating Hopgrove can be the third priority after both of these. However, there is an argument that putting in the GSJ at Hopgrove should be done before the road is dualled so that it happens before any suppressed demand is unleashed – if the road is definitely going to be dualled all the way to Malton and the traffic projections are that the GSJ will be needed in the foreseeable future then doing the GSJ first rather than 5 years down the line might mean less overall disruption.

Between Hopgrove and Barton Hill, I would have thought that online dualling with a couple of CGSJs (Hazelbush and a new junction for Claxton & Flaxton) would be fine. There would need to be a few compulsory purchases of commercial properties and potential new access and parking arrangements at others, but no big deal.

It looks like the best bet between Whitwell and Malton would be a short offline section passing between Holmes Crescent and Greets Farm, with suitable green shielding for the houses, and crossing Cram Beck on a new viaduct just north of the old bridge, rejoining the old road on the other side of the valley, and then largely following the existing road all the way to Malton, with a new full-access GSJ giving access to B1248 and Low Hutton.

[Stevie D]

Once it's done as far as Malton I would anticipate the summer traffic load to increase, as people take advantage of quicker journeys and fewer jams, and the case for the relatively easy build along the railway line on the flat valley floor past Sherburn to Seamer will be much stronger.

I'm not convinced that will be needed. About half the traffic on the A64 turns off either into Malton or north on the A169. I have very rarely seen any congestion on the A64 between Malton and Seamer – occasionally you get a queue behind slow-moving traffic but that isn't the same thing. Single carriageway by-passes of Rillington and Sherburn designed to facilitate overtaking opportunities should be perfectly sufficient. Unless capacity on the approach to Scarborough is addressed – the road between Seamer and Scab really struggles at busy times – then dualling the road will have little impact on journey times, it will just speed people towards the back of the queue quicker.

[jgharston]

It looks like the best bet between Whitwell and Malton would be a short offline section passing between Holmes Crescent and Greets Farm, with suitable green shielding for the houses, and crossing Cram Beck on a new viaduct just north of the old bridge, rejoining the old road on the other side of the valley, and then largely following the existing road all the way to Malton, with a new full-access GSJ giving access to B1248 and Low Hutton.

A detour for a new bridge looks do-able, but east of there the road alignment definitely needs departing from in the region north-east of High Hutton by Sawkill Farm. Going westbound it's a horrible sharp blind right turn followed by a horrible sharp blind left turn over a blind summit. Going eastbound there's plenty of evidence of people misjuding the curve by Botterills Plantation.

I think for that section a straight line from Rudds Plantation to the A64/Stegg Flatts junction might be best, leaving the old road as an oxbow.

Edit: Probably something like this: A64east.gif.
Along with Rillington.gif and the best I could make out from online descriptions: Sherburn.gif.