Norwich Northern Bypass Update

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

ais523
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 19:52
Location: Birmingham

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by ais523 »

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.
User avatar
Euan
Member
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 07:59
Location: North Ayrshire

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Euan »

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
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Chris5156 »

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.
It's not a fork, it's two different options for the northern end of route B. Only one would be built.
User avatar
Euan
Member
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 07:59
Location: North Ayrshire

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Euan »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 17:10
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.
It's not a fork, it's two different options for the northern end of route B. Only one would be built.
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.
E-roads, M-roads, A-roads, N-roads, B-roads, R-roads, C-roads, L-roads, U-roads, footpaths
User avatar
skiddaw05
Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 21:33
Location: Norwich

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by skiddaw05 »

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.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by jackal »

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.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Chris5156 »

jackal wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:04 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.
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.
User avatar
stu531
Member
Posts: 2332
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 23:10
Location: Harrogate

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by stu531 »

Chris5156 wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14 This road proposal is from the people who recently brought you the mystifyingly dreadful Postwick Junction on the other side of Norwich.
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.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by jackal »

Chris5156 wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14
jackal wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:04 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.
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.
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.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 20:43
Chris5156 wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14
jackal wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:04 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.
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.
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.
The reason that stupidity exists is the DMRB has an allergy to 'multiple' exits because they're confusing...

... 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
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Chris5156 »

stu531 wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 19:08
Chris5156 wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:14 This road proposal is from the people who recently brought you the mystifyingly dreadful Postwick Junction on the other side of Norwich.
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.
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.
User avatar
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31475
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by roadtester »

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.
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
User avatar
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31475
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by roadtester »

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
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Berk »

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.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by jackal »

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
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Berk »

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.
User avatar
nick_dunn
Member
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 13:06
Location: Wordsley, West Midlands

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by nick_dunn »

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.
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.
Fenlander
Member
Posts: 7801
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 21:54
Location: south Lincolnshire

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Fenlander »

nick_dunn wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:26Perhaps street-lighting at the junctions would help.
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.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9861
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by owen b »

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."
Owen
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

Re: Norwich Northern Bypass Update

Post by Berk »

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.
Post Reply