Kingskerswell bypass (Exeter-Torquay)

[Bryn666]

What Jeni said. The signs will rest on the front.

[wrinkly]

Sometimes signage hangs down from a gantry:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.19574 ... 312!8i6656

[Keiji]

I'd hypothesise that the signage on that gantry will extend from the bottom of the gantry upwards, rather than sitting on top, if that makes sense? Seems to be the done thing on modern gantries that don't have matrix signals.

What they're going for here just seemed entirely normal to me when I looked at it. I'd forgotten that concrete gantries were even a thing until I saw wrinkly's post. But that may just be because most of the gantries I've actually studied in the last few years are this modern type owing to recent junction improvements - M5 J29, M4/M5 Almondsbury, M4 J11, A380 Splatford Split completed very recently, and now this one...

(and yes, for those who don't know, I do genuinely consider M5 J29 an improvement)

[DavidBrown]

Must admit I never understood why the M6 gantries were only used for hard signs - can't say I've ever seen a concrete gantry from that 90's era without matrix anywhere else.

You are right though, Keiji - the gantry is at the only point along there with any form of grass verge! I think some of the signage along that stretch might be quite, er, interesting!

[SteveA30]

Views from Thursday Aug 20 of the work and a sample of the 52 'before' pics in Kingkerswell.

[SteveA30]

3 more of 4

[SteveA30]

Last one, of 66 taken.

Heading north at Penn Inn. The Sainsbury store that prevented a full D2 flyover, can be seen.

Also note pretty green and white cone.

[CrazyInWeston]

im new here so im guessing that the term D1 means 2 way and D2 means dual carraigeway with 2 lanes on either side.
if so i didnt know that the fly over will be only as D1 (due to as some have said because of Sainsburys)

wont that cause a little bit of bottlenecking in the summer season?

(forgive me if question has been asked, or if the plans have allowed a D2 over the newton abbot flyover i read page 1 and 2 then skipped to page 6)

my mum lives in paignton and i hate the slow dreary traffic through kingskerswell

now build a bloody banwell bypass nr Weston s Mare (they've only proposed it as early as 1936 and its never been built!!)

[DavidBrown]

D means dual (carriageway) and the following number indicates the number of lanes in each direction, so D1 is a dual carriageway with one lane in each direction. Hope that helps!

As for congestion, it's entirely possible, but a lot of traffic does turn off for Newton Abbot, so I don't personally think it'll be too bad. You'll never have fitted a D2 over the flyover with Sainsbury's there - the retaining walls are right up against the slip road carriageways anyway and there's no room further out.

[Daveoc64]

wont that cause a little bit of bottlenecking in the summer season?

The official reason for this is given in the FAQ page on the Project's website:

http://southdevonlinkroad.co.uk/about-us/faqs#anchor-3

In short, about half of the traffic on the road leaves the road at the Newton Abbot roundabout, so won't need to use the flyover. It will also allow traffic joining the A380 from the Newton Abbot roundabout to join straight onto a dedicated lane, rather than a slip road - which should improve traffic flows.

[CrazyInWeston]

thanks dave and david.

my name is david too!

[Richardf]

Coming on well then.

Re: the official line about the Newton Abbot flyover and traffic flows. All nonsense to cover over the fact that someone c**ked up when the allowed the supermarket to be built where it was and prevent a D2 flyover. I didn't believe there wasn't room looking at the before images on Google Earth.

Now I have seen recent street view images of the slip road next to the supermarket I can see how tight it is! If only the supermarket could have been a bit smaller or in a slightly different position then it might have worked. Not even sure if a narrower slip road (WS1 rather than S2) would have helped - maybe sufficient though?

[SteveA30]

Diagrams of the junctions on the new A380. A 50 limit throughout and complicated signals at the Torquay end. Even the Paignton to NA slip isn't a freeflow merge. The rbt at the old A380 could have been retained.

http://www.southdevonlinkroad.co.uk/diagrams

[M5Lenzar]

Looks like they messed up in Diagram 3. They've forgotten that a directional-T is grade separated.

[Bendo]

Urgh what a mess. If the lights are anything like all the other new sets added around paignton recently i will look forward to sitting at every single set on red whilst nothing goes the other way.

Seriously, how long for that substandard rubbish?

[DavidBrown]

I don't see why this set of lights will be a problem given that the next several junctions on the A3022 are all traffic lights already, and the A380 has numerous roundabouts before hitting the single carriageway section which, IMO is what causes the jams around there rather than the lights at Tweenaway Cross. If you grade separated it, traffic would only jam up at the next junction along anyway.

[UTCPaul]

I'm only guessing, but I suspect some of the apparently unnecessary signals will be for Toucan crossing points with the paths not shown on the driver maps.

[DavidBrown]

I'm only guessing, but I suspect some of the apparently unnecessary signals will be for Toucan crossing points with the paths not shown on the driver maps.

Nope - no pedestrian crossing facilities at this junction (Indeed I can't remember if this section of A380 has a no pedestrians restriction? I know further north over the Teign Viaduct does, unsure about Hamelin Way).

[Keiji]

A 50 limit throughout and complicated signals at the Torquay end.

The 50 makes sense for the narrow bit between Penn Inn and Aller. I have always disagreed with it being 50 between Aller and Edginswell, especially as south of Edginswell it is NSL; however, due to the use of lights of Edginswell and the huge buffer zones designers love these days, an NSL between the two would have turned out to be pointless.

The signals at the Torquay end are not at all "complicated". There are two T-junctions in a row, that's all it is. I originally argued there should have been either a roundabout, or preferably a dumbbell between the Exeter and Paignton arms at the Edginswell junction, however I can see why a dumbbell was not used as there are no further GSJs on the route, and a roundabout would have been difficult due to the steep hill.

Even the Paignton to NA slip isn't a freeflow merge.

I agree with you on this one. There is no reason for there to be lights there. Each set of two lanes (the set from Paignton and the set from Torquay) could merge down to one lane, with the two single lanes joining each other shortly afterwards to form a new two lane carriageway.

The rbt at the old A380 could have been retained.

No, this would have made no sense. Once the bypass is complete, there will be very little traffic to/from the Kingskerswell arm, and if the original roundabout was kept, it would have been horrendously unbalanced. In addition, the use of signals here now means that three consistent lanes get to run all the way from the Edginswell junction through to Scotts Bridge. If there was a roundabout, there would be more unnecessary lane changing, worse balancing of traffic between lanes, and potentially more sideswipes at the roundabout similar to the A46 Farndon roundabout that everyone complained about.

Urgh what a mess. If the lights are anything like all the other new sets added around paignton recently i will look forward to sitting at every single set on red whilst nothing goes the other way.

On the contrary, I have never had a problem with Paignton's traffic lights. Tweenaways is the only one where I regularly have to sit at red, but usually not for more than one cycle. For all the others, I usually go straight through on green, and when they are red they are not red for long. The designers also know how to do multiple lanes and merges properly, which really cut down the congestion in this area; the queues used to be far worse than they are now.

I don't see why this set of lights will be a problem given that the next several junctions on the A3022 are all traffic lights already

Exactly; people heading into Torquay are already going to be hitting a 40 limit and several more signalised junctions anyway.

and the A380 has numerous roundabouts before hitting the single carriageway section which, IMO is what causes the jams around there rather than the lights at Tweenaway Cross. If you grade separated it, traffic would only jam up at the next junction along anyway.

I can't see how these roundabouts cause congestion; there are hardly ever more than two or three cars queueing at them. The congested area is usually limited to between the roundabout at the very end of the dual carriageway, and Tweenaways itself, due to only having one lane each way, the much lower standard of junctions in this section, and numerous properties fronting directly onto the road.

I'm only guessing, but I suspect some of the apparently unnecessary signals will be for Toucan crossing points with the paths not shown on the driver maps.

Nope - no pedestrian crossing facilities at this junction (Indeed I can't remember if this section of A380 has a no pedestrians restriction? I know further north over the Teign Viaduct does, unsure about Hamelin Way).

As far as I know there are no restrictions at all south of Penn Inn; Hamelin Way definitely doesn't have any "no peds" signs like the Teign Viaduct does.

[DavidBrown]

and the A380 has numerous roundabouts before hitting the single carriageway section which, IMO is what causes the jams around there rather than the lights at Tweenaway Cross. If you grade separated it, traffic would only jam up at the next junction along anyway.

I can't see how these roundabouts cause congestion; there are hardly ever more than two or three cars queueing at them. The congested area is usually limited to between the roundabout at the very end of the dual carriageway, and Tweenaways itself, due to only having one lane each way, the much lower standard of junctions in this section, and numerous properties fronting directly onto the road.

Sorry - just re-read my post and can understand the misinterpretation. I meant that it was the single carriageway (and associated steep hill, residential areas and junctions) that causes the congestion. I mentioned the roundabouts as a reason why a GSJ at Edginswell would be pointless - the first roundabout is half a mile up the hill. I agree that they're never congested.