A417 Missing Link campaign!

[A9NWIL]

Could be something that the local councils could look at themselves in the future? Or if done the land rights could be sold or rented for the above bridge section.

Sheep don't generate much income. Ask any hill farmer.

It could be made into some kind of parkland, seeing as its not much good for crops, with intermediate access for farmers to cross it. It could become a feature, something for people to visit perhaps have picnics at ect, or go walking on.

[jackal]

What local authority has hundreds of millions lying around to make a new park in the middle of nowhere?

[Herned]

Option 30 looks great on paper, but having watched the fly-through video, it looks like a large Tywford-esque cutting is proposed just south of Birdlip. I wonder if this could be converted to a land-bridge?

A land bridge is essentially just a bridge with soil and plants on it. So no, you cannot practicably cover an entire major cutting with one.

That's what the tunnel on the Baldock bypass is though...

Option 30 does look the obvious choice but I can see a lot of protests about the cutting and suggestions to do something to negate it's effect, but as Wrinkly says, the BCR is already miniscule

[SJobson]

While it's fairly apparent that Option 30 is better than Option 12, I don't think Option 30 is brilliant. I wonder if there's still an opportunity for Option 3, below, to be reconsidered.



It seems the obvious route; the extra cost (£875m compared to £465m for Opt12 and £485m for Opt30) is down to it being a tunnel but it has a better BCR than Opt12.

[Piatkow]

While it's fairly apparent that Option 30 is better than Option 12, I don't think Option 30 is brilliant. I wonder if there's still an opportunity for Option 3, below, to be reconsidered.



It seems the obvious route; the extra cost (£875m compared to £465m for Opt12 and £485m for Opt30) is down to it being a tunnel but it has a better BCR than Opt12.

I must say that I prefer that one, if only for sentimental reasons as the Air Balloon pub was one of the landmarks on my childhood trips to Wales.

[SJobson]

I'm sentimental about it too - the whole junction will need a new name if the pub goes. While it hopefully won't be read out on the morning traffic reports every day, the regular 'queues at the Air Balloon' story is quite nostalgic.

[jackal]

Option 3 is fine but still I think I'd sooner have that extra £300m for other schemes. And how long would the pub really last with the main route on a long diversion?

Option 30 looks great on paper, but having watched the fly-through video, it looks like a large Tywford-esque cutting is proposed just south of Birdlip. I wonder if this could be converted to a land-bridge?

A land bridge is essentially just a bridge with soil and plants on it. So no, you cannot practicably cover an entire major cutting with one.

That's what the tunnel on the Baldock bypass is though...

That's hardly a Twyford-esque cutting, is it.

[wrinkly]

If for any reason route 30 were to be ruled out, or have extra features added which increased its cost, then the whole scheme would probably be canned again, because the value for money of option 30 is tenuous and that of the other options is crap.

However I wish there could be a better junction for traffic to/from the A436.

[Big L]

There's plenty of junctions named after long-gone pubs.

[jackal]

I don't really see why option 12 needs both GSJs. A full dumbbell at Barrow Wake instead of those north-facing slips would remove the need for the dumbbell further south. B road traffic heading south would have a slightly longer route but that's par for the course. They'd save a few tens of millions, which should improve the BCR and could perhaps be spent on improving the alignment.

Likewise, I wonder if the dumbbell and link road for option 30 are so far south, lengthening the A436 route, because undue weight has been placed on provision of a direct route for the B road.

[Herned]

That's hardly a Twyford-esque cutting, is it.

Agreed, but the principle is the same here, a cut and cover tunnel was built in order to preserve the ridgeline, and it is possible something similar could be done here. Although not good cost-wise obviously

From a quick scan of the technical report, the value for 'Wider economic benefits' seems rather trivial. I would have thought the 'network effect' of having a much more reliable route here was a really significant part of the justification for closing gaps such as this

[Bryn666]

This is where HE's focus entirely on BCRs falls down.

There is a huge strategic benefit to closing this gap that cannot be factored in by BCR analysis alone; in the old days it was called predict and provide.

Being able to travel almost seamlessly from the M4 to the M5 opens up vast swathes of Gloucestershire to the M4 corridor and could help the 'silicon ribbon' expand away as travel times would be reduced. This stuff doesn't come up in first year rate of returns.

[Richardf]

I'm sentimental about it too - the whole junction will need a new name if the pub goes. While it hopefully won't be read out on the morning traffic reports every day, the regular 'queues at the Air Balloon' story is quite nostalgic.

Could the pub be rebuilt somewhere nearby?

If its such a landmark, would it not be worthwhile? Can't think of specific cases but it has happened elsewhere to 'move' significant buildings to save them.

[vlad]

It could be made into some kind of parkland, seeing as its not much good for crops, with intermediate access for farmers to cross it. It could become a feature, something for people to visit perhaps have picnics at ect, or go walking on.

You've already got Crickley Hill Country Park immediately to the north - even if this was marketed as an extension it'd still be inferior.

[skiddaw05]

Whilst Option 12 does look rather bizarre with that massive loop it does appear to have the advantage that a lot of it could involve on-line dualling of the existing route. With Option 30 the current Birdlip bypass will become pretty much redundant.

Having said that though I might still be inclined to go that way in order to enjoy the fabulous views you get over Gloucester between Birdlip and the Air Balloon.

[SteveA30]

They could reopen the direct old A417 into Birdlip, if the bypass was bypassed.

[A320Driver]

Whilst Option 12 does look rather bizarre with that massive loop it does appear to have the advantage that a lot of it could involve on-line dualling of the existing route. With Option 30 the current Birdlip bypass will become pretty much redundant.

Having said that though I might still be inclined to go that way in order to enjoy the fabulous views you get over Gloucester between Birdlip and the Air Balloon.

I imagine the existing route would be retained in case of tunnel closure?

[jackal]

There's no tunnel proposed, and they're actually talking about removing some of the existing road, which seems silly given its utility as a diversion route.

[roadtester]

Whilst Option 12 does look rather bizarre with that massive loop it does appear to have the advantage that a lot of it could involve on-line dualling of the existing route. With Option 30 the current Birdlip bypass will become pretty much redundant.

Having said that though I might still be inclined to go that way in order to enjoy the fabulous views you get over Gloucester between Birdlip and the Air Balloon.

That's always puzzled me about the Birdlip bypass as well - it's of comparatively recent construction to quite a high standard but seems to take no account whatever of the likely route of any eventual solution to the Air Balloon problem.

It's important to protect the line and appearance of the Cotswold escarpment but I'm a bit worried about tunnels or cuttings that would deprive motorists of a decent view from that escarpment, which really is one of the glories of the UK road network.

I'm a bit surprised that the obliteration of the Air Ballon itself is a part of both of the two final options - that seems likely to produce plenty of objections in its own right. I'm assuming that the geography didn't permit a different approach, which is a pity.

I think option 30 looks by far the best plan - I've always thought the best approach was opening up the radius to make it as gentle as possible.

That said, on the fly-through, option 12 doesn't look as weird and pinched in layout as I'd expected but then the fly-through may be a bit misleading on that score.

I agree with the point Bryn was making about the marginal BCA. If the methodology says this is marginal, I suspect it's the methodology that's at fault, not the scheme itself!

[A320Driver]

There's no tunnel proposed, and they're actually talking about removing some of the existing road, which seems silly given its utility as a diversion route.

Yeah, I know that, I mistakenly thought we were still discussing tunnels....

Regarding removal of bits of the existing road, a reasonable length needs to be retained for access so it does seem a bit daft to remove small sections just for the sake of it.