Essex County Council release proposals for A 120 expansion

[trickstat]

I must admit this is the first time I've taken a proper look at this. Is it just me or is this proposed scheme now not so much of an improvement of the A120 rather than an improvement of the links between M11/Stansted and Braintree with south Essex? It's just that for me, the A120 is the road to Colchester (admittedly not a journey I've undertaken recently but have done quite a few times over the years*). I wonder if travelling by the newer, faster route will actually take less time than taking the old route to Marks Tey.

*Also used to go this way to Ipswich until I realised the A14 was a better option.

[gromitA303]

Echoing the thoughts of many already, another road project looks to be spoiled by messy junctions at either end. Aspects of the Galley's Corner junction aren't great at all, but the A12 junction is ridiculous. Planners should never try and plug a new expressway into a junction where there is local access to be maintained. Having A12 westbound to A120 northbound going through two dumbbell roundabouts is an embarrassment. I realise budgets and available land aren't endless, but come on....

The A12-A120 junction is crying out for a trumpet. And for the B1024-old A12 to be rerouted a little further north in a separate junction on the A120.

Agree, the A12 end is a dog's breakfast. Depends perhaps on who builds the junction and interaction with the A12 J19-25 scheme? As A120 isn't in RIS they can't allow for A120? Stupid way to work of course, but joined up thinking often is missing. So their J23 would just be for local access. So the A120 has to plug into that and make best of a bad job.

With the southerly A120 option chosen I'd guess a fair amount of traffic would use that to get to Witham from Braintree so a connection from the A120 to the old A12 probably is worthwhile, maybe that's why that extra sliproad is shown?

Here's what I'd do - may not be enough room between the junction and the railway though

[85CF380]

I thought they had made a fairly decent effort with the main end junctions.
The Braintree end free-flows to the existing A120, plus the numerous off line roundabouts will deter vehicles wanting to use the 'old ' road as a short corner cut.
At the eastern end, east bound to north traffic is free-flow. As Gromit says the railway & 'new' A12 limit the land use & prohibit a large radius curve for south to west traffic.

[danfw194]

Here's what I'd do - may not be enough room between the junction and the railway though

That's what I had in mind, except just flip the trumpet around, so that A12 London-bound to A120 flows around the outside of the trumpet. The tighter, inside turning of the trumpet being for A120 to A12 London-bound traffic. I'd have it exactly like Junction 2 of the A50 Derby bypass. The outside curve of that trumpet is a lovely, swooping 2 lanes which would be ideal here.

As Gromit says the railway & 'new' A12 limit the land use & prohibit a large radius curve for south to west traffic.

For sure there are difficulties here, but A12 London-bound to A120 traffic going through two dumbbell roundabouts is crazy. I personally think it would actually be quite dangerous.

[SouthWest Philip]

It should be noted that the quickest route from Ipswich/Colchester to most of London will be via the A120/M11when this opens. Arguably the A12 should TOTSO and A120 take the mainline?

[jackal]

Here's what I'd do - may not be enough room between the junction and the railway though

Untitled-1.jpg

Weaving is the issue there.

[gromitA303]

Weaving is the issue there.

Yes, you're right. Because of the local access it's hard to see how the western dumbell roundabout could be replaced easily. The eastern side could be a trumpet, that would at least mean the local traffic heading south wouldn't pass in front of the main flow from the A12 to A120? Not great, though.

[Jim606]

I must admit I am rather surprised by this route choice. I travel between Colchester and Braintree about once a week and the simple fact that the new connection with the A12 is planned so far down than the existing Marks Tey junction makes me wonder if lot of people will still use the 'old route' via Coggeshall? This would be especially true if there is a big difference in the millage? There has been some talk in the local press about re routing the A12/ to the east of Marks Tey and of course the road is due for an upgrade to three lanes, so perhaps this would make a difference?

Marks Tey A12 realignment plan

[owen b]

I must admit I am rather surprised by this route choice. I travel between Colchester and Braintree about once a week and the simple fact that the new connection with the A12 is planned so far down than the existing Marks Tey junction makes me wonder if lot of people will still use the 'old route' via Coggeshall? This would be especially true if there is a big difference in the millage? There has been some talk in the local press about re routing the A12/ to the east of Marks Tey and of course the road is due for an upgrade to three lanes, so perhaps this would make a difference? imgID151861522_jpg_gallery.jpg

I don't think there is a big difference in mileage, about two miles I reckon. The existing A120 isn't very direct either, as it goes due north around Braintree for a mile from where the new route would start, then goes about a mile out of its way to bypass Coggeshall.

[SouthWest Philip]

As already noted, the A12 & A120 improvements should be being planned as a single project rather than in isolation from each other. I told Highways England as much in thier A12 consultation.

Personally I think the A12 should be improved off line, and as a motorway, from Hatfield Peverel to Marks Tey by bypassing Witham and Kelvedon to the north with the A120 joining at a fork junction midway. And, as I've mentioned up thread, the obvious route for central, north and west London would then be via the A120/M11. If they coupled this with improvements and free flow connections from the A12 to the A130/A13 route you might get away without needing to improve the A12 west of Chelmsford?

[roadtester]

After the choice of Route D, the campaign for the A120 improvements has now held a Westminster reception to push for funding:

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/1636 ... reception/

Apparently there was a Westminster Hall debate in June as well.

Also, some recent local grumbling about the preferred option:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/property/new-rout ... -1-5603533

[Runwell]

James Abbott, the Green Party councillor, no less.

I remember, whilst he wanted the Bradwell and Marks Tey sections of the existing road bypassed, he wanted the road to be upgraded on the other sections between the villages instead, not a completely new route.

I haven't totally done my research about the West Tey development, but I have seen a lot of posters objecting to it in Coggeshall and surrounding areas over the last couple of years. This started up before these latest A120 plans took off.

[jackal]

As already noted, the A12 & A120 improvements should be being planned as a single project rather than in isolation from each other. I told Highways England as much in thier A12 consultation.

Personally I think the A12 should be improved off line, and as a motorway, from Hatfield Peverel to Marks Tey by bypassing Witham and Kelvedon to the north with the A120 joining at a fork junction midway.

I think this is a great idea. Though as the A120 split would logically be closer to Kelvedon than Witham, the offline route is only really needed north of Kelvedon. At Witham they could continue offline or return online if that's cheaper/environmentally preferable.

[jackal]

A120 Braintree to A12 is in the "RIS3 pipeline" section of the RIS2 document, with this note:

The A120 Braintree to A12 proposal is currently
affected by outstanding funding contributions
related to the development of the Colchester/
Braintree Border Garden Community and
contributions from local authorities. Subject to
decisions in these areas, the scheme may
become committed for delivery.

[jackal]

Now the scheme has been handed over to NH they're understandably surveying route options before they blow £500m-£1bn of taxpayer's money. Essex have thrown a hissy fit and insist that their preferred option D must be built, and even that it was "the most widely supported route" at consultation. This is clearly untrue. From their own consultation report:

Option C received the most responses as first preference when compared across options with 29%, closely followed by option E with 27% and then option A (17%), option D (14%) and option B (13%).

When first and second preferences were added together, option C was still the most preferred with 25%, followed even more closely by option E with 24%, options D and B with 20% and option A least preferred with 11%.

I guess "most widely supported" means "most supported by Essex and Braintree councils". Never mind what the plebs think.

As a reminder, option C is a direct east-west route from Braintree to the A12, whereas option D would run south east from Braintree to the A12 south of Kelvedon, making strategic journeys circuitous and reliant on a long multiplex with the A12.

[c2R]

I guess "most widely supported" means "most supported by Essex and Braintree councils". Never mind what the plebs think.

I've asked them to define what they mean by most widely supported...

[BF2142]

I wouldn’t call ECC’s response a “hissy fit” at all. They just want to get the road built ASAP, having carried out surveys and consultation. Why would anyone want or need to duplicate that? I would hope that NH would take a pragmatic view and skip as far along the process as possible.

The most direct route runs through an active quarry. I’m not geologist but maybe it looks great on paper but dramatically increases build time and cost?

Here’s the news release if anyone is interested:

https://www.essexhighways.org/news/1/co ... s-possible

[jackal]

I wouldn’t call ECC’s response a “hissy fit” at all. They just want to get the road built ASAP, having carried out surveys and consultation. Why would anyone want or need to duplicate that? I would hope that NH would take a pragmatic view and skip as far along the process as possible.

The most direct route runs through an active quarry. I’m not geologist but maybe it looks great on paper but dramatically increases build time and cost?

Here’s the news release if anyone is interested:

https://www.essexhighways.org/news/1/co ... s-possible

Because what Essex CC want (a road linking different bits of Essex together, with strategic journeys sent 'round the houses') isn't necessarily the best option from a national perspective?

Surely we can agree that councils shouldn't lie about the results of consultations - that's what takes this into hissy fit territory. It's not something that an organisation behaving responsibly would do.

(I already linked that btw. And here's the consultation report that I quoted: http://a120essex.co.uk/wp-content/uploa ... Report.pdf)

[JonB2028]

I would hope that NH would take a pragmatic view and skip as far along the process as possible.

What planet are you on, do you think it works like that

[Chris5156]

I would hope that NH would take a pragmatic view and skip as far along the process as possible.

I take the opposite view - the route selected by Essex, and the junction design at the A12, were dreadful. If this is a chance to come up with a better route and a better design then I’m all for it. However, I do acknowledge that I have the luxury of not being a regular user of the road, so a delay in starting work doesn’t affect me.