A164 to be Converted to Dual Carriageway

[A303Chris]

Just seen this, may interest to our members in the East Riding.

It says 6 miles of the A164 will be dualled between between the Lincoln Way and Castle Hill roundabouts, but I cant find where these are.

£40 million to convert to a dual carriageway does seem cheap, but I cant find any plans of the proposals.

[c2R]

Lincoln Way is the Beverley southern relief road, that meets the old line of the A164 just north of Jock's Lodge. Castle Hill is the roundabout where Castle Road ties in, by the hospital.

[Yorkshirelad]

I don't know if the links are still active but I started this thread when the consultation came out.

[url]viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38291/[url]

[A303Chris]

I don't know if the links are still active but I started this thread when the consultation came out.

[url]viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38291/[url]

Thanks for that the plans work. Think its more like 6 km than 6 miles and why not dual it all the way to the A63?

[Rillington]

I agree - if you're going to dual the northern half of the road, why not dual the entire length as I'd imagine that it's quite a busy road.

[Chris5156]

Sheesh etc etc etc.

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/road-schemes/a164 ... mprovement

(It's 5.5km, perhaps reported as 6km in places, which is nearer 3 miles.)

[jackal]

This is an impressive scheme clearly designed to actually keep traffic moving (not pointless signals every few hundred metres as is so often the case). It links up with the DC to the south, creating a good length of DC, and I imagine the next section beyond that will be dualled in time. It's a bit mean to expect an LA to do even more in one go.

[Fluid Dynamics]

Just seen the updated proposals for this scheme now have planning consent. The approved solution for the A164/A1079 junction has changed due to utilities issue compared to the early version I had seen. The layout is rather strange with a forked GSJ on the A164 south of the A1079 where the A164 seems to split with one arm going to a new roundabout on the A1079, with the other going over the existing A1079 junction with all arms removed. Both A164 roads meet up at a series of roundabouts north of the A1079 and south of Beverley. https://www.a164jockslodge.co.uk/visuals/

[jackal]

It's so mad I can't help but liking it. But as actual transport infrastructure... just no.

[Herned]

Seems entirely British to take up so much land where the carriageways split, and then crash into a roundabout. Keeping the loop for east-south traffic would be much better too

[Hdeng16]

What on earth is that?!

[Stevie D]

Just seen the updated proposals for this scheme now have planning consent. The approved solution for the A164/A1079 junction has changed due to utilities issue compared to the early version I had seen. The layout is rather strange with a forked GSJ on the A164 south of the A1079 where the A164 seems to split with one arm going to a new roundabout on the A1079, with the other going over the existing A1079 junction with all arms removed. Both A164 roads meet up at a series of roundabouts north of the A1079 and south of Beverley. https://www.a164jockslodge.co.uk/visuals/

Ugh.
Horrible website design, horrible road design.
The whole layout is confusing and bizarre.
The fork is ridiculously oversized and spread out, taking up far too much land.
Putting a roundabout on the A1079 that is currently freeflowing seems a retrograde step.
Disappointing that the designers don't know how to sign a roundabout on a dual-carriageway.
But at least the fork is a lane gain/drop, according to the tech specs and not the mess shown on the fly-through.

[Hdeng16]

I know we were mostly primed for losing the freeflow under but I don’t understand why the ‘old’ road needs the fork? Why not just stop it up. Was the whole scheme originally to effectively switch the free flow over? Even if the west fork is there to bypass the new roundabout, you then crash into a flow cross over at the Minster way roundabouts.

I’m very confused as to what this achieves… even for development.

[Fluid Dynamics]

I know we were mostly primed for losing the freeflow under but I don’t understand why the ‘old’ road needs the fork? Why not just stop it up. Was the whole scheme originally to effectively switch the free flow over? Even if the west fork is there to bypass the new roundabout, you then crash into a flow cross over at the Minster way roundabouts.

I’m very confused as to what this achieves… even for development.

Looking at this again I can only assume that they are looking to reduce the impact on the A1079 from the new roundabout by splitting A164 traffic between that which wants to join the A1079 from traffic which wants to stay on the A164. The scheme introduces a new free flow link between the A164 and A1079 north towards York. What I don’t understand is why they didn’t keep one of the existing loops in place to allow A1079 south to A164 south movement to be free flow.

The strangest thing is that when the A164 splits neither side can quite make up its mind what it is, neither is D2 and the new road is S3. It would be interesting to see the projected traffic flows which might better inform how this strange design can be justified.

It’s strange that the massive new GSJ junction with its land take and duplication of the A164 is cheaper than moving the pylon and building the 2 bridge roundabout GSJ that was the originally preferred route.

[Bryn666]

The ridiculous over-design that is DMRB and the continued fetishisation of needless roundabouts strike again. This is crap.

[c2R]

I have to agree - the design just doesn't make sense - it uses loads of land and still manages to create a conflict for tow of the major traffic flows. Not only that, but it's bound to facilitate a load of additional development just to the north and make the whole situation even worse.

[Hdeng16]

But as I said above, it doesn’t even seem great for development. The seemingly pointless GSJ fork isn’t helpful.

I don’t see why the existing road can’t be stopped up /tied into the existing unclassified.

It’s like they expect south/north and north/south through traffic to use the old route - but that involves the same number of roundabouts and causes more ‘flow crashes’

This has M40 A43 feels about it… we all know it’s awful but we’re going to build it anyway and no doubt spend more fixing it further down the line.

Incidentally, I wasn’t aware that the still ‘newish’ southern bypass has had 2 roundabouts added to it. Wonder how long before the north west route around Beverley will be faster again

[Truvelo]

The development land would be to the north of the A1079 and I expect some additional roundabouts to appear as those at the corners of this parcel of land don't appear suitable for additional arms.

[jackal]

On reviewing the AADT figures the design is a little less bad than I thought. The A164 is over 30k AADT, which is massive on an S2 so presumably has a lot of suppressed demand, while the A1079 is only around 18k. The fork isn't 'pointless', it addresses the main problem, which is dispersing A164 traffic, in an elegant way - high speed freeflow with lane gains and drops is as good as it gets really.

The concept is basically similar to Longbridge, but with the crucial difference of the roundabout on the A1079, which clearly the designers think can be sacrificed for the busier road. I don't agree with that and would have thought a six slip parclo would achieve much the same in terms of dispersing A164 traffic without dumping a roundabout on the A1079. But while it's far from optimal I have seen worse designs than this.

[Stevie D]

I know we were mostly primed for losing the freeflow under but I don’t understand why the ‘old’ road needs the fork? Why not just stop it up. Was the whole scheme originally to effectively switch the free flow over? Even if the west fork is there to bypass the new roundabout, you then crash into a flow cross over at the Minster way roundabouts.

You keep the old road so that traffic heading to/from Beverley (and probably Minster Way as well) can bypass the A1079 roundabout. If you didn't have that, and just blocked up the old road, you would be putting a lot more traffic through that roundabout, which would reduce capacity and cause more congestion than there is now.