Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
It looks like progress is being made on the western link component of this scheme. There are now four route options listed for an A1067/A47 or A1270/A47 link (each of which would allow bypassing Norwich to the north if arriving from the west; the plan seems to be to dual the A1067 between the new link road and A1270).
It looks like Option A is a "do-minimum/cheap" option that involves upgrading the B1535, and is expected to only take about ⅓ as much traffic as the other options. The others are all more ambitious: Option B is a more direct link to the A1067; option C is the more or less direct route cutting straight across from the A47 (and aiming to serve the east); and option D follows the curvature of Norwich more closely and ends up further to the east.
There doesn't seem like much to choose between B/C/D; they all have similar costs and traffic projections. C seems like the neatest to me (it's the most direct connection for the most likely journeys, and avoids any need to bridge the River Tud), but I suspect the choice will be made based on local conditions.
There's apparently going to be a consultation running throughout December (and a little before and after). Presumably we'll see more detailed information then.
It looks like Option A is a "do-minimum/cheap" option that involves upgrading the B1535, and is expected to only take about ⅓ as much traffic as the other options. The others are all more ambitious: Option B is a more direct link to the A1067; option C is the more or less direct route cutting straight across from the A47 (and aiming to serve the east); and option D follows the curvature of Norwich more closely and ends up further to the east.
There doesn't seem like much to choose between B/C/D; they all have similar costs and traffic projections. C seems like the neatest to me (it's the most direct connection for the most likely journeys, and avoids any need to bridge the River Tud), but I suspect the choice will be made based on local conditions.
There's apparently going to be a consultation running throughout December (and a little before and after). Presumably we'll see more detailed information then.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Option B also has the benefit of separating the traffic into two branches depending on whether they are continuing onto the Broadland Northway or just accessing specific areas in North Norfolk via the A1067. The fork in option B means that in a way option B manages to achieve both what options A and C achieve at the same time. Option A is clearly too far out the way to act as a direct continuation of the A1270, but is good for local access along the A1067. While option C perfectly joins up to the Broadland Northway, it doesn't really serve the countryside north west of Norwich quite as well. Option B on the other hand, is a perfect balance between these other two options: good access along the Northway and also not neglecting local access along the A1067. Option D seems a bit expensive when taking into account the fact that it does not differ that much from B and C.
E-roads, M-roads, A-roads, N-roads, B-roads, R-roads, C-roads, L-roads, U-roads, footpaths
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
It's not a fork, it's two different options for the northern end of route B. Only one would be built.Euan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 15:57 Option B also has the benefit of separating the traffic into two branches depending on whether they are continuing onto the Broadland Northway or just accessing specific areas in North Norfolk via the A1067. The fork in option B means that in a way option B manages to achieve both what options A and C achieve at the same time.
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Quite right, I must have misread that bit. Thanks for pointing that out. I still think that it would probably be between options B, C and D. I suspect Option A would only be taken into consideration if it was publicly much more popular than the other options or if there was a very tight budget which would make its significantly lower cost estimate more appealing.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 17:10It's not a fork, it's two different options for the northern end of route B. Only one would be built.Euan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 15:57 Option B also has the benefit of separating the traffic into two branches depending on whether they are continuing onto the Broadland Northway or just accessing specific areas in North Norfolk via the A1067. The fork in option B means that in a way option B manages to achieve both what options A and C achieve at the same time.
E-roads, M-roads, A-roads, N-roads, B-roads, R-roads, C-roads, L-roads, U-roads, footpaths
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Yes option A is really just an upgrade of the B1535 so would have the least impact on the countryside, and would avoid the Wensum valley completely. It would work well as a link from the westbound A47 to the A1067 but it's a long way round for eastbound A47 traffic to get to the A1270 and I suspect some traffic will instead use the C road running north from Hockering to meet up with the new road (near the letter A on the map). Option B with the left side of the fork would also avoid crossing the Wensum but dualling the A1067 to here couldn't be achieved without property demolition (this is looking NW on the A1067 just past the existing Wensum bridge).
There's not much to choose between B with the RH side of the fork and C, both would significantly affect the river valley (which is more of a flood plain really) and would be a less direct route for A47 W/B to A1067 NW/B as the B1535. Same with D which would, I think, be even more environmentally intrusive.
So I would probably go for Option B with the LH of the fork, but would be interested if the projected traffic flows would justify having the new road as a dual carriageway. It may even be possible to keep the A1067 as a single carriageway as well.
There's not much to choose between B with the RH side of the fork and C, both would significantly affect the river valley (which is more of a flood plain really) and would be a less direct route for A47 W/B to A1067 NW/B as the B1535. Same with D which would, I think, be even more environmentally intrusive.
So I would probably go for Option B with the LH of the fork, but would be interested if the projected traffic flows would justify having the new road as a dual carriageway. It may even be possible to keep the A1067 as a single carriageway as well.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
The projected flows are 30-32k for options B-D, so certainly require DC and preferably GSJs.
A is a non-starter, and B not great either given how indirect it is.
C is better for flows off the A47W whereas D is better for orbital flows off the A47E. I'm not keen on the multiplex with the A1067 and they'll probably make a pig's ear of the junctions, but the basic routes of C and D are okay.
A is a non-starter, and B not great either given how indirect it is.
C is better for flows off the A47W whereas D is better for orbital flows off the A47E. I'm not keen on the multiplex with the A1067 and they'll probably make a pig's ear of the junctions, but the basic routes of C and D are okay.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Let’s not forget that this road proposal is from the people who recently brought you the mystifyingly dreadful Postwick Junction on the other side of Norwich.
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Talking of Postwick, is there a missing link between the two roundabouts that they decided not to build?
https://goo.gl/maps/3ErRh3HA8ps
The lower roundabout appears to have a stub on the north side that faces in the direction of the northern roundabout. This would have made the east-to-north action easier.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
I particularly like the extra roundabout and signalized crossroads on the previously freeflowing A47 eastbound to A1042 movement.
Frankly though a Postwick-style mess would be at the upper end of expectations for the new scheme. They probably want to plonk a flat roundabout on the A47 and call it a day.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
The reason that stupidity exists is the DMRB has an allergy to 'multiple' exits because they're confusing...jackal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 20:43I particularly like the extra roundabout and signalized crossroads on the previously freeflowing A47 eastbound to A1042 movement.
Frankly though a Postwick-style mess would be at the upper end of expectations for the new scheme. They probably want to plonk a flat roundabout on the A47 and call it a day.
... because turning right twice to turn left is much more intuitive isn't it.
I hate the DMRB.
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
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
I think it’s more likely the stub is there to allow access to the parcel of land between it and the A47, either so it can still be used as a field or so it can be sold off and developed at some future point.stu531 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 19:08Talking of Postwick, is there a missing link between the two roundabouts that they decided not to build?
https://goo.gl/maps/3ErRh3HA8ps
The lower roundabout appears to have a stub on the north side that faces in the direction of the northern roundabout. This would have made the east-to-north action easier.
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
- roadtester
- Member
- Posts: 31475
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
- Location: Cambridgeshire
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Interesting article from a local news source on how the road has worked out since it opened, concentrating in particular on accident black-spots.
https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/motorin ... -1-6454143
Criticism of some of the layouts/roundabouts seems to have been a bit of a theme from the beginning.
https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/motorin ... -1-6454143
Criticism of some of the layouts/roundabouts seems to have been a bit of a theme from the beginning.
Electrophorus Electricus
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
- roadtester
- Member
- Posts: 31475
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
- Location: Cambridgeshire
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
And a separate local report about progress on the Western Link that is basically needed to finish the thing off.
https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/po ... -1-6454375
https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/po ... -1-6454375
Electrophorus Electricus
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Funnily enough, I was looking at the map the other day and came to the same conclusion (about the choice of route).
It’s also depressing to see so much advance opposition to the route. Even with the climate emergency, this will take hundreds of thousands of vehicles out of central Norwich every single day. And the associated pollution.
Whether funding public transport can encourage modal shift is one thing, but making it harder to travel from west to north simply forces traffic into central Norwich.
It also shows some foresight from the county council, that they detached this from the NDR and made it a separate project.
It’s also likely to boost tourism to North Norfolk, as it will make it much easier to visit coastal towns.
It’s also depressing to see so much advance opposition to the route. Even with the climate emergency, this will take hundreds of thousands of vehicles out of central Norwich every single day. And the associated pollution.
Whether funding public transport can encourage modal shift is one thing, but making it harder to travel from west to north simply forces traffic into central Norwich.
It also shows some foresight from the county council, that they detached this from the NDR and made it a separate project.
It’s also likely to boost tourism to North Norfolk, as it will make it much easier to visit coastal towns.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
You can see some info about the preferred route (C) for the western link here:
https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/roads-and-tr ... stern-link
This includes the following: 'It links to the A47 via a new junction at Wood Lane (B1535), which forms part of Highways England’s plan to dual the A47 between North Tuddenham and Easton'. This seems a little different from the A47 preferred route from 2017 (link below), which had junctions either side of but not at Wood Lane, so I suppose the design has changed for the forthcoming A47 statutory consultation.
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ham--b.pdf
https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/roads-and-tr ... stern-link
This includes the following: 'It links to the A47 via a new junction at Wood Lane (B1535), which forms part of Highways England’s plan to dual the A47 between North Tuddenham and Easton'. This seems a little different from the A47 preferred route from 2017 (link below), which had junctions either side of but not at Wood Lane, so I suppose the design has changed for the forthcoming A47 statutory consultation.
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ham--b.pdf
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
Norfolk County Council are taking a proactive approach, buying property along the line of the road, to ease the design and planning process.
I think that’s actually very sensible, these properties would be affected by blight anyway, and it means everyone has greater certainty moving forward.
I think that’s actually very sensible, these properties would be affected by blight anyway, and it means everyone has greater certainty moving forward.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
I appreciate the road is used more by locals but when I visited recently and drove it at night several times I found the lighting of advance direction signs extremely poor. None of the signs I noticed were retroreflective and I often needed main beam in order to read them - not helpful to oncoming vehicles. Perhaps street-lighting at the junctions would help. I could see see how distraction due to this could cause an accident.roadtester wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 13:14 Interesting article from a local news source on how the road has worked out since it opened, concentrating in particular on accident black-spots.
https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/motorin ... -1-6454143
Criticism of some of the layouts/roundabouts seems to have been a bit of a theme from the beginning.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
I see that out here in the sticks, it feels quite odd driving along unlit roads to suddenly round a corner a find a sea of lighting in front of you but it does reinforce the fact quite well that there's a junction there, be it a roundabout or at grade. This sign for example in no way tells you anything of the importance or shape or layout of the junction around the corner. As you round it you see a whole host of bollards and poles and lighting that then allows you to see where you're going. Similarly this roundabout is fully lit despite none of the roads up to it having lighting.
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-51193389
"Controversial bat bridges over a new £205m A-road do not work, putting the animals at risk of being hit by traffic, a BBC investigation has found."
"Controversial bat bridges over a new £205m A-road do not work, putting the animals at risk of being hit by traffic, a BBC investigation has found."
Owen
Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update
So all these Environmental Impact and Habitat Assessments that make recommendations such as “install bat bridges” and generally bump the cost up... are they poor value for money, and a general waste of time??
Or is this a unique problem, or an indication that whilst we can try and be accommodating to wildlife, and mitigate as much as we like, artificial, man-made solutions are not always welcomed by species.
And can as easily be ignored by them.
Or is this a unique problem, or an indication that whilst we can try and be accommodating to wildlife, and mitigate as much as we like, artificial, man-made solutions are not always welcomed by species.
And can as easily be ignored by them.