A69 junction improvements

[Chris56000]

Hi!

The A69 Styford and Bridge End Roundabouts were both constructed as roundabout junctions with the intention of adding the missing flyovers at a later date - are these schemes as dead as the dodo now, and wasn't one of them intended for an A69 dualling scheme to run further west of Hexham now abandoned?

Can any members who've got access to University/Academic/Archive resources in the Carlisle - Newcastle corridor fill me in on the A69 please? - I'd like to find out more about what was once planned for the A69 road that never got built!

Chris Williams

PS!

I'm not sure if they've all been replaced now but most of all the side-road signage approaching these roundabouts was original white 1960s/1970s Worboys era with the very dark green rectangular 'A69' patches and other routes bracketed black-on-white when I was last up that area

[Mark Hewitt]

No prospect those being grade separated for the foreseeable future. Traffic levels just don't warrant it, not even close.

[wrinkly]

There is a current study into whether they should dual either the A66 or the A69 for the whole distance between the A1 and M6. If they chose to dual the A69, I suppose it would increase the chances of these two junctions being completed, but it would not be certain - and my guess is that the A66 will get priority over the A69 anyway.

There used to be a proposal for a D2 bypass of Warwick Bridge but it was largely supplanted by the creation of the A689 between Brampton and J44 by improving the B6264 and a yellow road.

I don't remember any other previous proposal to dual the A69 west of the present end of the dual carriageway near Hexham. I don't think it was even in Roads for Prosperity.

[Chris56000]

Which brings me to another question - would the A69 Hexham Bypass scheme have been built single-carriageway with non-GSJ flat roundabouts if planned today or are current traffic-flows enough to warrant the 1970s-provided D2?

I acquired a book, "Traffic Research" published by HMSO in 1965 and schemes like the Hexham bypass certainly does fall into the remit, according to this book, of dual-carriageway being wanted - I think dual-carriageway was considered at (what was in use then!} 11000-14000 "passenger car units per 16 hour day."

What are the current approx. flows on this section of A69?

Chris Williams

[Mark Hewitt]

There is a current study into whether they should dual either the A66 or the A69 for the whole distance between the A1 and M6. If they chose to dual the A69, I suppose it would increase the chances of these two junctions being completed, but it would not be certain - and my guess is that the A66 will get priority over the A69 anyway.

There used to be a proposal for a D2 bypass of Warwick Bridge but it was largely supplanted by the creation of the A689 between Brampton and J44 by improving the B6264 and a yellow road.

I don't remember any other previous proposal to dual the A69 west of the present end of the dual carriageway near Hexham. I don't think it was even in Roads for Prosperity.

Although it would be great, dualling the A69 would be a big undertaking. The single carriageway from Hexham to the M6 is a very long way, although it would bring the most benefit in terms up upgrading the route.

The A66 in contrast is relatively straight forward to complete the remaining sections.

[85CF380]

..... The single carriageway from Hexham to the M6 is a very long way, although it would bring the most benefit in terms up upgrading the route.

As a minimum I'd like to see two or three '+1' overtaking lanes in each direction, Hexham-M6.

[Mark Hewitt]

There already are but it's such a long way between them they have little effect.

[Chris56000]

Hi!

The Spring 2017 £220-million Congestion Relief Pinch Point Announcement here specifically mentions "an unbroken length of Dual Carriageway between Hexham and Newcastle", so it looks as design and construction of the two schemes to complete the flyovers is on the cards to begin soon, and at £15 million for each mooted I suspect it will be a simple Commonhead-type GSJ completion rather than a redesign of the interchanges!

Chris Williams

[Glenn A]

The Bridge End roundabout looks like it would have been grade seperated when built in the seventies, but the recession in the mid seventies saw it abandoned on cost grounds most likely. Actually it wouldn't be too difficult to have the A69 go under the roundabout and the government is considering this, rather than the cheap and not very effective option of placing traffic lights on the roundabout.
Also Mr Grayling has been in Cumbria on Thursday and seems committed to a by pass of Warwick Bridge. While the A689 has reduced some lorry traffic on the A69, and most traffic to west Cumbria now uses the A689 to reach the A595, traffic wanting to reach the east end of Carlisle, which has two large trading estates and the football stadium, still has to use the A69. I would hope this nasty stretch of road, with its sharp bends and propensity to flood, is replaced at the very least by a wide S2.

[djw1981]

If GSJ'ing the A69/A6079 roundabout, I wonder if they will try to incorporate the A6079 (N) junction to the west - either as a LILO or by diverting it to join the new GSJ

There's already a lane towards Hexham as far as a narowoverbridge, just as the carriageways flare https://goo.gl/maps/hmpQg1Ls6Rr .

[wrinkly]

The Bridge End roundabout looks like it would have been grade seperated when built in the seventies, but the recession in the mid seventies saw it abandoned on cost grounds most likely. Actually it wouldn't be too difficult to have the A69 go under the roundabout and the government is considering this, rather than the cheap and not very effective option of placing traffic lights on the roundabout.

The two sites are each shown as £15M in the recent list. The only other scheme with a comparable price tag is the new junction on the M11 - and even that is slightly less. So it seems clear that grade separation is intended.

[Peter Freeman]

Although the layout at each of these locations is obviously intended for simple flyover insertions to make 2-bridge roundabouts, both look suitable, on several grounds, for dumbbells. These would be cheaper to build, and either equally or more effective. No structures have yet been built, so there's no wastage. Minimal new pavement and kerbing.

[Peter Freeman]

... is replaced at the very least by a wide S2.

WS2 - yuk. Britain's poorly-disguised revival of the S3 suicide lane, formerly thought to be dead and buried by the early 1970s.

[Peter Freeman]

I wonder whether Midland Expressways (or whatever the name is now), operators of M6Toll, are getting worried by all this talk of fully-dualled A66 and A69.

[Chris5156]

Although the layout at each of these locations is obviously intended for simple flyover insertions to make 2-bridge roundabouts, both look suitable, on several grounds, for dumbbells. These would be cheaper to build, and either equally or more effective. No structures have yet been built, so there's no wastage. Minimal new pavement and kerbing.

I'd be surprised if that could be done at either location without land acquisition, which they will want to avoid unless it's absolutely necessary because it will add time and expense to the project. If works can be done entirely within the highway boundary then HE will always prefer to do so, IME.

[Gav]

I dont think the M6 toll would be all that bothered, Its north of the already good M62 corridor that caters to those that wish to change sides.

The upgrade of the A1 to motorway means that the A1 is fast becoming a pucker alternative to long distance N/S traffic, the A66 is the better upgrade though as it wont add traffic to the two lane section of the A1(M) or add to the already congested Newcastle bypass.

The A14 upgrades around Cambridge also add towards providing an alternative route towards the ports / tunnel. Will fit in with the new eastern river crossing.

The A69 upgrades mentioned didnt run out of money - they were future proofed, provision was made to allow the A69 to be put through as and when the traffic levels required.

[jackal]

The Bridge End roundabout looks like it would have been grade seperated when built in the seventies, but the recession in the mid seventies saw it abandoned on cost grounds most likely. Actually it wouldn't be too difficult to have the A69 go under the roundabout and the government is considering this, rather than the cheap and not very effective option of placing traffic lights on the roundabout.

The two sites are each shown as £15M in the recent list. The only other scheme with a comparable price tag is the new junction on the M11 - and even that is slightly less. So it seems clear that grade separation is intended.

It was announced in the autumn that these would be GSJs (see here, p. 20). £15m for a full size (ie not compact) GSJ is pretty fantastic value - £50m is more usual nowadays. Of course, this is partly accounted for by the work being inside the highways boundary.

That is also how it is that these schemes will apparently be not just under construction but open by 2020, effectively leapfrogging many schemes announced in 2014 or earlier.

[Peter Freeman]

Although the layout at each of these locations is obviously intended for simple flyover insertions to make 2-bridge roundabouts, both look suitable, on several grounds, for dumbbells. These would be cheaper to build, and either equally or more effective. No structures have yet been built, so there's no wastage. Minimal new pavement and kerbing.

I'd be surprised if that could be done at either location without land acquisition, which they will want to avoid unless it's absolutely necessary because it will add time and expense to the project. If works can be done entirely within the highway boundary then HE will always prefer to do so, IME.

Yes, comparing the available space at the Bridge End Roundabout with land-take at (for example) the semi-dumbbell A68 junction 5km east it does look rather tight - but perhaps not impossible. Just a little bit of extra land would do it, but I do see your point about it being the legal process and approvals and delay rather than the engineering or cost.

[Glenn A]

Which brings me to another question - would the A69 Hexham Bypass scheme have been built single-carriageway with non-GSJ flat roundabouts if planned today or are current traffic-flows enough to warrant the 1970s-provided D2?

I acquired a book, "Traffic Research" published by HMSO in 1965 and schemes like the Hexham bypass certainly does fall into the remit, according to this book, of dual-carriageway being wanted - I think dual-carriageway was considered at (what was in use then!} 11000-14000 "passenger car units per 16 hour day."

What are the current approx. flows on this section of A69?

Chris Williams

Had Hexham not been by passed in 1977, it's very likely the town centre would have totally seized up by now, and even in the seventies, Priestpopple was frequently snarled up, particularly if a delivery lorry had pulled up and traffic was fighting to get past. An S2 by pass probably wouldn't cope with the volume of traffic, and the plan was always for a D2 from Hexham to Newcastle, although a two mile stretch of S2 near Stocksfield lasted until 1988.
As for traffic flows, probably three times bigger than in 1965, but even in 1965, the old S2 A69 was congested and Corbridge in particular was becoming a bottleneck as the A69 met the A68 in narrow streets. Interestingly, though, Throckley, Heddon and Horsley were by passed a year earlier and Corbridge and Hexham, which were more congested, were by passed later.

[wrinkly]

I've been trying to think of other locations where a flat junction was originally designed for later conversion to a one-roundbout, two-bridge GSJ but was actually converted instead to a dumbbell - but so far I've failed.

I can think of at least one where a flat two-roundabout layout was used temporarily during the grade separation works.