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.
millionmiledriver wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 16:24
Just try to get from say Bishops Stortford to the Southend area you have to use the Army and Navy roundabout (it is adding significant mileage to use the M11/M25/A127 ) The flyover has for years looked like a cheap 1960s (?) gimcrack Bailey Bridge type construction probably put up very quickly Chelmsford has the A12 north and South but no proper East /West bypass a road I would much rather use The city must have doubled in size over the past 30 years
That's an argument for a proper outer bypass. Provide one so that the central areas can be made less car dominated. However what will happen instead is a bypass will be filled with houses and tin sheds thus undermining its function. This is where new roads generate new traffic.
As I mentioned up thread there is already one being proposed that would take traffic from the A12 up to the A131/A120 to provide access to Bishops Stortford, Stansted and the M11. A protected corridor has been established and yes development is a factor although I doubt there will be any houses or tin shed actually on the road
millionmiledriver wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 16:24
Just try to get from say Bishops Stortford to the Southend area you have to use the Army and Navy roundabout (it is adding significant mileage to use the M11/M25/A127 ) The flyover has for years looked like a cheap 1960s (?) gimcrack Bailey Bridge type construction probably put up very quickly Chelmsford has the A12 north and South but no proper East /West bypass a road I would much rather use The city must have doubled in size over the past 30 years
Not definitive or scientific, but, looking at route planning software earlier, the Army and Navy route was the longest in time of three suggested alternatives with the quickest being via the A120 and A130 east of Chelmsford. It is enough for me to contend that, in general, traffic does not "have to use" the Army and Navy interchange on the journey quoted and it is a driver's choice.
RichardA35 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 17:44
ooking at route planning software earlier, the Army and Navy route was the longest in time of three suggested alternatives with the quickest being via the A120 and A130 east of Chelmsford.
Presumably, there are two options for this route, as well - either A120/A131/A130 or A120/B1008/A130.
Either way, this looks a far superior route on a map than bashing through the centre of Chelmsford!
I wonder whether the A1060 should be downgraded to a B-road, to make it clearer that it is not part of the best route from Bishop's Stortford to Southend.
RichardA35 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 17:44
Not definitive or scientific, but, looking at route planning software earlier, the Army and Navy route was the longest in time of three suggested alternatives with the quickest being via the A120 and A130 east of Chelmsford. It is enough for me to contend that, in general, traffic does not "have to use" the Army and Navy interchange on the journey quoted and it is a driver's choice.
As of today there if you want to use the A120/A130 is not a great route as it takes you round what is in effect a congested S2 ring road which carries more than 20,000 vehicles a day and which is still being developed. It simply does not have any spare capacity. When I tried to use it last year it was a nightmare. This is why Essex County Council is proposing a new bypass.
The B1008 is also not a great alternative. The section through Broomfield is extremely busy and quite narrow in parts (it already has HGV restrictions), and as it's an old street with some properties not having driveways, there can often be long queues when vehicles park in the road. There are also very long queues at peak periods both ways up to the hospital roundabout, and in the evenings long queues due to cyclists regularly using the road and holding traffic behind them (pavement too narrow, plus road too busy and too narrow usually to pass). The council seem aware of this issue and are trying to create a cycle route on a byway to take them away from the main road. There are also long queues caused by traffic trying to turn right in to School Lane, as there is no filter lane and unless they remodel the junction by taking part of the green opposite the library out, there's no room to do anything. It's a road that seems to have frequent issues with old water and gas mains plus flooding and accidents - the latter as sightlines in Broomfield for the crossings are poor, not helped by all the parked cars. It's an old road that just isn't designed for the traffic it takes.
Another problem is long queues in the evening heading up to the A130/A131 roundabout, which often go back at least a mile and a half.
Berk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 17:50
A good example would be someone travelling from the Rodings to Basildon. They would need to travel along the A1060 into town (which they can’t avoid, because guess what, there’s no northern/western bypass), past the flyover and on to the A1114 and on to the A130. It doesn’t matter whether they’re being green and getting a lift/car-share, using the bus or whatever.
Please explain why reducing capacity would help someone in that situation.
The A1060 is already a heavily congested road. They have recently remodelled the Chignal Road junction, just as you enter the city (long overdue), and hopefully a left turn lane will ease some of the queues there at peak intervals. I think the work is now complete but I haven't been over to see the impact since the work ended. The queues here in to the city would regularly stretch back past the roundabout for Writtle, almost back to Roxwell. Traffic would back well in to Writtle as well. I'm not sure you can just filter that traffic away from the Hatfields and the Rodings on to the M11. I suspect any attempt at sticking a bypass round very leafy territory will not even get past stage 1.
Latest news is bids for the flyover's removal are now going in. However it's been quoted it will take thirteen weeks to take the flyover down. I'm surprised they haven't gone for a few sharp weekend closures to shut the roundabout off and smash most of it down, but I would imagine that has been discussed, and would just cause too much chaos in the area for it to be tolerable.
It looks like now though that work on redesigning the junction may not start until 2023, so there's going to be significant problems in the meantime in the Chelmsford area for many years to come.
I must say I have great reservations about a Hamburger junction. The one they installed in Darlington at a cost of £12 million made things worse rather than better and is going to removed. https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... ent-plans/
They are currently building one on the A66 at the Cargo Fleet Roundabout. The result is massive congestion from the roadworks and like most locals I dont expect any improvement at all over the existing signalised roundabout as there is a high volume of turning traffic. The proper solution would have been flyover for the A66 and there is ample room for one. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Car ... authuser=0
Only option B (two-way flyover) is really an improvement. Major signalised rebuilds like the hamburger, enlarged roundabout or double T-junction are expensive and disruptive like a GSJ but with very uncertain long term benefits (as the Darlington example and HE meta-analysis show). The second best option is probably A (do minimum) tbh.
jackal wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 13:44
Only option B (two-way flyover) is really an improvement. Major signalised rebuilds like the hamburger, enlarged roundabout or double T-junction are expensive and disruptive like a GSJ but with very uncertain long term benefits (as the Darlington example and HE meta-analysis show). The second best option is probably A (do minimum) tbh.
Without rehashing the arguments from upthread, the "improvement" called for in the project objectives (IMV) are in a public transport focus ahead of the private motorist, so I suspect the new flyover will be deemed unaffordable and not fulfilling the objectives wwhich will be for the P & R bus to transit the junction as quickly as possible.
jackal wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 13:44
Only option B (two-way flyover) is really an improvement. Major signalised rebuilds like the hamburger, enlarged roundabout or double T-junction are expensive and disruptive like a GSJ but with very uncertain long term benefits (as the Darlington example and HE meta-analysis show). The second best option is probably A (do minimum) tbh.
Without rehashing the arguments from upthread, the "improvement" called for in the project objectives (IMV) are in a public transport focus ahead of the private motorist, so I suspect the new flyover will be deemed unaffordable and not fulfilling the objectives wwhich will be for the P & R bus to transit the junction as quickly as possible.
I certainly am rehashing arguments here, but it's hard to see how a hamburger, bigger roundabout, etc would allow the bus to get through the junction quicker than it would on a flyover.
That said, it's far from the most pressing location for a GSJ so I wouldn't be too bothered by do minimum. My real bugbear is the big, expensive reconstruction project with a forest of lights that doesn't really improve things.
If it's going to be substantially rebuilt as a signalised junction, I'm not sure how much value I would see in retaining any part of the roundabout. Signalising a roundabout is really a do-minimum attempt to increase its capacity; if you're going to remodel a junction then you shouldn't be building a signalised roundabout at the outset.
I quite like the idea of rationalising it into a pair of signalised T-junctions, but I'd want to see the traffic flow modelling for that one. I certainly don't like the idea of building an even bigger signalised roundabout
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 18:56
I'd call the bluff of people and say make any new flyover (if it happens) buses only.
Something fairly similar to that is happening in Birmingham, with the grade separation at the A4540/A456 junction (which is famously "the wrong way round") being converted into a tram tunnel (IMO it would make sense for buses to use it as well, as it's in a good orientation for buses despite being less useful for cars; I don't know whether this is in the plans or not). I'm not sure whether this is the first instance of an existing grade-separated movement being converted to public transport only, but it's the sort of thing that makes sense if you want to ensure that the public transport can always keep moving.
The Werrington Grade Separation project near Peterborough is a good example of this. Hurn Road, the road being diverted, is a minor road, but it has been grade separated since 1997 (a few years after the level crossing was also closed).
Now, a dive-under is being built so that Spalding and Lincoln-bound trains don’t have to cross the fast ECML lines at grade. They will use the Stamford lines and platforms to approach the tunnel, before branching off.
Hurn Road will now have a different course (the adjacent bridleway is being upgraded to S1.5) and direct access to the A15, just south of the petrol station.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 18:56
I'd call the bluff of people and say make any new flyover (if it happens) buses only.
Something fairly similar to that is happening in Birmingham, with the grade separation at the A4540/A456 junction (which is famously "the wrong way round") being converted into a tram tunnel (IMO it would make sense for buses to use it as well, as it's in a good orientation for buses despite being less useful for cars; I don't know whether this is in the plans or not). I'm not sure whether this is the first instance of an existing grade-separated movement being converted to public transport only, but it's the sort of thing that makes sense if you want to ensure that the public transport can always keep moving.
Wasn't the underpass on Arundel Gate in Sheffield converted to buses only for a short period before it was filled in?
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
jackal wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 13:44
Only option B (two-way flyover) is really an improvement. Major signalised rebuilds like the hamburger, enlarged roundabout or double T-junction are expensive and disruptive like a GSJ but with very uncertain long term benefits (as the Darlington example and HE meta-analysis show). The second best option is probably A (do minimum) tbh.
The double T-junction is the way to go -
Much less disruptive and time-consuming than a GSJ build.
Higher peak capacity than a signalised roundabout or hamburger.
Cost-effective.
Pedestrian friendly and safe.
However -
The scheme as shown is perhaps slightly under-provisioned in terms of the number of lanes for the main flow. There is space.
Further bus-gate inclusion (eg. westbound A1114) might be good, though I have no idea how the bus-flows go here.
Reading through this thread and the one on the Newport Relief Road, I'm startled by how many Sabristi have recently joined the "We Hate Cars" Society.
Last edited by Peter Freeman on Thu Dec 26, 2019 09:12, edited 1 time in total.
Yes, there does seem to be a “public transport good, cars bad” atmosphere at times.
But when you put it to people we need real, effective alternatives, such as trams, or buses or trains that run on time (without having cancellation reasons), they seem to go into arse-covering mode, much like the customer services staff.
Provide transport that’s direct, affordable, and doesn’t get cancelled, and people will use it.
cancellation reasons), they seem to go into arse-covering mode, much like the customer services staff.