A46 Newark Northern Bypass

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

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

A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by jackal »

This seems to come up quite often so I thought it was worth its own thread. The following scheme is in the programme for a 2020-25 start:
A46 Newark Northern Bypass
Improve A46/A1 junction to remove pinch point and upgrade to dual carriageway to continue the A46 Newark to Widmerpool improvement so that it reaches the A1
Developed for next road period
Autumn Statement 2014
£100-250m
The local press recently reported on 'the Roads Minister promising an agreed route for the new Newark Northern Bypass and scheme for the Brownhills and Winthorpe roundabouts would be ready within two years'. If 'agreed route' means a preferred route announcement, this would suggest that construction would start around 2021.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ssumptions

http://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2017/ ... tch-of-a1/
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8989
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by wrinkly »

One of the difficulties of this scheme is that it is on a floodplain. The original bypass had to be re-tendered because the bids came in well over the expected price because of the poor ground.

Also it is adjacent to the flat crossing of the Nottingham-Lincoln railway and the East Coast Main Line, for which a flyover has often been mooted. In a rational world the two schemes would be coordinated in design and construction.
User avatar
ravenbluemoon
Committee Member
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:32
Location: Between Mansfield and Göteborg

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by ravenbluemoon »

I wouldn't really see the single carriageway itself as the pinch point. The problem lies with the diabolical junction with the A1. I've noticed even the A1 itself gets queues at certain times now, so this would be the priority for sorting - although it'll be very difficult to do much with all the constraints.
The roundabout with the A617 doesn't have a big queue problem, unless the level crossing towards town is down, or it is cattle market day.
Tony Alice (they,them)
~~~~~
Owner of a classic rust heap/money pit, and other unremarkable older vehicles.
Usually found with a head in an old map or road atlas.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Ask me if you want to get involved!

User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by jervi »

2020 Consultation

And just before I logged off for the night, it turns out that the A46 Newark Bypass was just opened for Consultation!
Two options are being proposed, both are online dual carriageways that terminate in at-grade roundabouts (unfortunately) and neither have freeflow links between the A1.
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... s-options/

The options vary at the junctions, with some including a hamburger (or through-about) as well as a very strange arrangement at Winthorpe to avoid one flyover.

Reading the discounted options, having flyovers at all junctions was considered, however apparently wasn't justified (however give it 15 years for all those new houses to be built and I think it would be another story). Other offline alignments were also considered, however the C2B wasn't good enough due to the longer length and greater land take.

On the current timeline construction is due to start Early 2025
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

jervi wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 00:49 2020 Consultation

And just before I logged off for the night, it turns out that the A46 Newark Bypass was just opened for Consultation!
Two options are being proposed, both are online dual carriageways that terminate in at-grade roundabouts (unfortunately) and neither have freeflow links between the A1.
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... s-options/

The options vary at the junctions, with some including a hamburger (or through-about) as well as a very strange arrangement at Winthorpe to avoid one flyover.

Reading the discounted options, having flyovers at all junctions was considered, however apparently wasn't justified (however give it 15 years for all those new houses to be built and I think it would be another story). Other offline alignments were also considered, however the C2B wasn't good enough due to the longer length and greater land take.

On the current timeline construction is due to start Early 2025
Completely pointless, creating new bottlenecks (the roundabout being retained at the SW of the scheme, why?) and not solving the outdated and dangerous A1 junction which queues back onto the A1 mainline all the time, and is not going to be resolved by putting the A46 on a flyover because the same movement conflicts exist.

Sticking plaster fix, won't reduce queues, will play right into the 'new roads = new jams' argument.
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
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by A303Chris »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 09:38
Completely pointless, creating new bottlenecks (the roundabout being retained at the SW of the scheme, why?) and not solving the outdated and dangerous A1 junction which queues back onto the A1 mainline all the time, and is not going to be resolved by putting the A46 on a flyover because the same movement conflicts exist.

Sticking plaster fix, won't reduce queues, will play right into the 'new roads = new jams' argument.
I would need to see the modelling to comment on the A1 junction as obviously through traffic over the dumbell on the A46 is removed.

However the reason for the Farndon Roundabout staying, if you look carefully on the detailed option one and option two plans you will see in faint approximately 300 metres south of the Farndon Roundabout a new roundabout on the existing A46 marked as Newark Southern Link Road.

All I can see this doing is linking into Staple Lane connecting to the existing A1 Balderton junction. No purpose grade separating Farndon if you are going to stick an at grade roundabout just to the south to serve development.
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
ChrisH
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by ChrisH »

How does the retention of at-grade junctions link up with the Midlands Connect strategy of an A46 expressway? The report suggests that the extra grade separation would cost
~£200m in addition, but would make the road a lot more future-proof.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

A303Chris wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:43
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 09:38
Completely pointless, creating new bottlenecks (the roundabout being retained at the SW of the scheme, why?) and not solving the outdated and dangerous A1 junction which queues back onto the A1 mainline all the time, and is not going to be resolved by putting the A46 on a flyover because the same movement conflicts exist.

Sticking plaster fix, won't reduce queues, will play right into the 'new roads = new jams' argument.
I would need to see the modelling to comment on the A1 junction as obviously through traffic over the dumbell on the A46 is removed.

However the reason for the Farndon Roundabout staying, if you look carefully on the detailed option one and option two plans you will see in faint approximately 300 metres south of the Farndon Roundabout a new roundabout on the existing A46 marked as Newark Southern Link Road.

All I can see this doing is linking into Staple Lane connecting to the existing A1 Balderton junction. No purpose grade separating Farndon if you are going to stick an at grade roundabout just to the south to serve development.
That infuriating minor detail is omitted from the 'basic' consultation maps that most people will look at. HE doing a half-ass job again, who knew.
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
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by Truvelo »

The A1 junction, particularly option one, looks very similar to my 2004 proposal but without the A1 or A17 links.

As for Farndon the best option for dealing with the at-grade roundabouts is to combine the existing roundabout and the planned southern link road roundabout into one GSJ. I was going to use the Google overlay but the link isn't working at the moment but here's a screenshot showing a possibility.
Attachments
newark.jpg
Farndon.jpg
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by Chris5156 »

Option 1 all the way. But it suffers from a terminal case of grade separating the road that's being built and making no effort to connect it to anything else. It hits a free-flowing dual carriageway at both ends, and interchanges with one halfway along, and makes all three connections via flat roundabouts. Gaaaaaaah.

At least there is a new free-flow connection over the A1; option 1 could be improved by just spacing it out a bit to allow for future free-flow into the A46 towards Newark.
winthorpe.png
The double flat roundabouts at the western end are unforgiveable, though. For all the talk about expressways, HE demonstrate little interest in actually making continuously free-flowing roads.
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

Chris5156 wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:36 Option 1 all the way. But it suffers from a terminal case of grade separating the road that's being built and making no effort to connect it to anything else. It hits a free-flowing dual carriageway at both ends, and interchanges with one halfway along, and makes all three connections via flat roundabouts. Gaaaaaaah.

At least there is a new free-flow connection over the A1; option 1 could be improved by just spacing it out a bit to allow for future free-flow into the A46 towards Newark.
winthorpe.png
The double flat roundabouts at the western end are unforgiveable, though. For all the talk about expressways, HE demonstrate little interest in actually making continuously free-flowing roads.
Surely what is needed is a hybrid of the 2? The hybrid could include the option 1 proposal for Windthorpe but option 2 for Cattlemarket. The Cattlemarket junction in Option 1 is just awful. Its similar to the preferred option that they've moved away from following consultation as part of the M2 J5 improvements. That option would leave the Newark bypass a bit like the Coventry Eastern bypass, and lead to years of later works as the junctions are improved/grade separated on a piecemeal basis. Overall separating the A46/A1 is provided which was the main issue, so overall not bad, but it appears more an exercise of sticking to a set (inadequate) budget rather than getting it all right first time around.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by Chris5156 »

Fluid Dynamics wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:25Surely what is needed is a hybrid of the 2? The hybrid could include the option 1 proposal for Windthorpe but option 2 for Cattlemarket. The Cattlemarket junction in Option 1 is just awful. Its similar to the preferred option that they've moved away from following consultation as part of the M2 J5 improvements. That option would leave the Newark bypass a bit like the Coventry Eastern bypass, and lead to years of later works as the junctions are improved/grade separated on a piecemeal basis. Overall separating the A46/A1 is provided which was the main issue, so overall not bad, but it appears more an exercise of sticking to a set (inadequate) budget rather than getting it all right first time around.
I missed that detail - yes, the Cattlemarket junction in option 2 is much better, and I don't know why you'd bother designing option 1. It's vaguely possible that the option 1 design is cheaper, which means the extra flyover at Winthorpe can be provided. But I can't really see that, because both options involve a two-bridge roundabout but option 1 includes an additional roundabout and a length of new road that has to be elevated above the floodplain. So yes, option 1, but with the Cattlemarket junction from option 2.

(And extra flaring at Winthorpe and a GSJ at the western end that ties in the southern relief road in a sensible way.)
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

Chris5156 wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:30
Fluid Dynamics wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:25Surely what is needed is a hybrid of the 2? The hybrid could include the option 1 proposal for Windthorpe but option 2 for Cattlemarket. The Cattlemarket junction in Option 1 is just awful. Its similar to the preferred option that they've moved away from following consultation as part of the M2 J5 improvements. That option would leave the Newark bypass a bit like the Coventry Eastern bypass, and lead to years of later works as the junctions are improved/grade separated on a piecemeal basis. Overall separating the A46/A1 is provided which was the main issue, so overall not bad, but it appears more an exercise of sticking to a set (inadequate) budget rather than getting it all right first time around.
I missed that detail - yes, the Cattlemarket junction in option 2 is much better, and I don't know why you'd bother designing option 1. It's vaguely possible that the option 1 design is cheaper, which means the extra flyover at Winthorpe can be provided. But I can't really see that, because both options involve a two-bridge roundabout but option 1 includes an additional roundabout and a length of new road that has to be elevated above the floodplain. So yes, option 1, but with the Cattlemarket junction from option 2.

(And extra flaring at Winthorpe and a GSJ at the western end that ties in the southern relief road in a sensible way.)
Yes the agree about the south western roundabout, Truvelo's solution looks good, but I expect the link with the southern bypass lies outside the scope of the scheme. But following the scope of the improvements south of Newark it does seem strange that Highways England have supported an at grade link into that road.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by jackal »

Option 1 is severely lacking. Option 2 is mostly good - I have no issue with the A1 junction design, which takes A46 to A46 movements off the existing junction, similar to Longbridge - but the southern roundabouts are not acceptable.

There was a rejected fully grade separated option, referred to as Option C. Access to the southern bypass is via a half access GSJ, utilising the existing Hawton Lane Bridge, so northern access would seemingly be through Farndon?!

A46 Option C - Copy.jpg

Costings were:

Option A: £650m
Option B: £462m (renamed to option 1 for consultation)
Option C: £662m
Option D: £480m (renamed to option 2 for consultation)

There's no drawing for Option A. It was similar to C but with a flat roundabout for the southern bypass rather than half GSJ. It was conclude that "the forecast outturn estimates for Option A and Option C are significantly more expensive than Options B and D due to the additional construction but do not provide enough additional benefits to justify the increased cost".

BCR is 0.93 for Option 1 and 1.23 for Option 2, which is not surprising as costs are similar but Option 2 grade separates the Cattle Market GSJ.
User avatar
ForestChav
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11081
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
Contact:

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by ForestChav »

I don't think that either the Farndon island is a major issue nor is it usually a major bottleneck. It's where the old A46 pre-dualling and pre-bypass went into Newark, but the old A616 (older A1) is a much quicker way in than any other. So it would be local access mainly to Farndon itself and the SW of Newark, and presumably from around there the new southern relief route to Balderton.

Winthorpe is a different matter and in reality this junction is always going to be a bottleneck irrespective of what you do. It's crammed in quite tightly with the A1 and the railway line and in someone's weird logic decided to plant the A17 there when they built the A46 bypass as well as the showground, truck services and some major distribution hubs eg. DSG so the whole thing is a complete mindboggle.

Because it's so cluttered it's also difficult to work out what the main traffic flows would be to separate off. A46-A46 is probably about the only one you can do. Even if you took the A17 off to meet the A46 further up that would make the route off the A1 to the A17 (which will presumably be the main way for freight into the South Lincs/Norfolk area from the A1) much more convoluted. And the proximity of other things to the junction would make any free flow from the A1 to A46 and vice versa very difficult to do.
C, E flat and G go into a bar. The barman says "sorry, we don't serve minors". So E flat walks off, leaving C and G to share an open fifth between them.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by jackal »

I'd remove the southern roundabouts either as Truvelo suggests or with a short link road to the east, which saves a bridge. I have a few location options for that:

Northern (nearer to Farndon roundabout)
A46 Farndon - Copy.jpg

Central (nearer to planned southern bypass roundabout)
A46 Farndon 2 - Copy.jpg

Southern (utilising Hawton Lane bridge)
A46 Farndon 3 - Copy.jpg
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by jackal »

I've now located jervi's similar proposal from July:

http://jervi.uk/stuff/ren2.png
User avatar
M4 Cardiff
Member
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 15:12
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by M4 Cardiff »

Even if the extra money for full GSJ cannot be allocated currently, surely it would make sense to design the two terminal roundabouts futureproofed with appropriate size and flare to accommodate a later upgraded if needed / money available. Otherwise all that will happen is a Coventry Eastern Bypass situation.
Driving thrombosis caused this accident......a clot behind the wheel.
User avatar
thatapanydude
Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by thatapanydude »

I would rather have a delayed scheme than something 1/2 baked like this. Further to note what has happened with the expressway idea? It doesn't need to be motorways but building GSJ's from the start ought to be a cornerstone of any strategic project.

I can understand no GSJ east of the A1 as its partly at-grade to Lincoln (though it should leave space like the A69 for GSJ'ing) and even at Farndon if its proposed that when the southern bypass is finished it would tie in with a GSJ later. The proposed at-grade on option 1 at Cattlemarket is unforgivable and unacceptable !!

Also noticed that no work seems to be taking place on the A1 here. The turnings onto the junction are truly woeful; they need lengthening with more stacking space - as northbound on the A1 at times queuing on the mainline with the roundabout at capacity !!
A1/A1(M) >>> M1
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: A46 Newark Northern Bypass

Post by Herned »

jackal wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 15:05 Option A: £650m
Option B: £462m (renamed to option 1 for consultation)
Option C: £662m
Option D: £480m (renamed to option 2 for consultation)
From the option report, the only difference between option C and D is the GSJ at Farndon roundabout, yet it is nearly £200m more expensive. Yet the difference between options B and D, where there is also a GSJ/no-GSJ choice, is only £18m. Very strange...
Post Reply