Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

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
JF2309
Member
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:43

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by JF2309 »

Berk wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 16:38 Once again, how can an authority get away with no safety checks??

Closing a structure because it’s unsafe may be a requirement - but it’s not a requirement to allow something to deteriorate to a point where closure is the only option.

You have years to get to that stage. Years of negligence, and no maintenance.
Right. Well no. Not a single part of this post is correct.

First off, if you read the OP you’ll see the flyover has been monitored for a while, it has previously been found to have been deemed not in a fit enough state to be used. Maintenance has been carried out, as is routine, its now been deemed as not worth the investment to save.
Runwell
Member
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 00:16

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Runwell »

KeithW wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 23:23
RichardA35 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 20:37 ]It was something for its time which has now passed. DfT policy will not allow a direct replacement as a junction remodel will promote modal shift onto bus, pedestrian or cycling alternatives and that will unlock the funding. Also the problems appear to be in the concrete of the piers (from the summary not the full report) so a substantial rebuild to modern standards would be needed not just redecking.
It would not need a junction remodel it would be a case of simply removing an old single lane defective structure and replacing it with a new one.
It won't be a like for like replacement. For too long it's been recognised that the single lane flyover is not fit for purpose. A two-way flyover has long been proposed. In fact a few years back when they added a left turn lane on to Chelmer Road at the roundabout, they took the opportunity to reroute the utilities at the junction, in order to make any bid for funds for the major junction improvement needed more likely to be successful. Recent talk though has been to go down the 'hamburger' route. I suspect any new route is going to make heavy use of the Park & Ride service from Sandon.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by RichardA35 »

KeithW wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 23:23
RichardA35 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 20:37 ]It was something for its time which has now passed. DfT policy will not allow a direct replacement as a junction remodel will promote modal shift onto bus, pedestrian or cycling alternatives and that will unlock the funding. Also the problems appear to be in the concrete of the piers (from the summary not the full report) so a substantial rebuild to modern standards would be needed not just redecking.
snip engineering lesson /snip
The problem is not simply related to bridge engineering - if it were, we could employ anyone, possibly even retired folk, to sort it out.
The problems at the whole junction are many and various as described in the link below that I had studied before making any comment.
As stated previously the flyover is a product of a past time and any replacement would struggle mightily to satisfy DfT funding
criteria. Currently the scheme objectives are across a balanced scorecard located here
  • Objectives
    • Provide enhanced connectivity for communities within and beyond Chelmsford to support and
    promote sustainable housing, economic growth and regeneration both now and in the future
    • Offer inclusive, attractive, and safe active travel measures (walking and cycling) across an
    improved and comprehensive network to encourage increased use
    • Improve safety and the perception of safety for all users on the Chelmsford City network to
    enhance and promote a safe travelling environment
    • Positively manage resilience and journey time reliability improving journey times for passenger
    transport services travelling into/out of the City Centre Core
    • Actively manage resilience and journey time reliability for private transport trips within the core
    urban area of Chelmsford and in particular management of through trips
    • Manage environmental conditions (Air Quality and Noise)
    • Where possible increase the attractiveness of the gateway into the City Centre through design
    and public realm enhancements
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7547
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by jackal »

The best thing that can be done for public transport (i.e. buses) in this corridor is to replace the flyover. For instance, journey times from the P&R at Sandon will have increased without it. Improving walking/cycling facilities is something routinely done as part of major road improvements like this in an urban area.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Bryn666 »

A single lane flyover set to tidal flow does not provide the same capacity for buses (which could not use it anyway) that a properly designed bus priority system can.
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
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Bryn666 »

Of course living in a free market if motorists want their flyover they can always crowdfund it.

Oh. Only want a free lunch?
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
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by RichardA35 »

jackal wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:22 The best thing that can be done for public transport (i.e. buses) in this corridor is to replace the flyover. For instance, journey times from the P&R at Sandon will have increased without it. Improving walking/cycling facilities is something routinely done as part of major road improvements like this in an urban area.
Not really, there is a bus lane and bus gate on the N/B Baddow bypass for the P & R that bypasses the queue of cars.
The flyover just allowed single occupancy cars to clog up the city centre to everybody's detriment as buses couldn't use it and perpetuated pedestrians being forced underground subordinate to the car.
Looks like any future scheme will rebalance priorities.
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Chris Bertram »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:26 Of course living in a free market if motorists want their flyover they can always crowdfund it.

Oh. Only want a free lunch?
VED? Fuel tax? VAT on fuel (including the fuel tax)? Free lunch, did you say? And yes, I know none of this is ring-fenced, but to characterise any expenditure on roads as a "free lunch" for motorists is a bit of a pee-take, quite honestly.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Bryn666 »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:36
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:26 Of course living in a free market if motorists want their flyover they can always crowdfund it.

Oh. Only want a free lunch?
VED? Fuel tax? VAT on fuel (including the fuel tax)? Free lunch, did you say? And yes, I know none of this is ring-fenced, but to characterise any expenditure on roads as a "free lunch" for motorists is a bit of a pee-take, quite honestly.
Apart from any replacement flyover would be funded entirely out of Essex council tax payers pockets, which means people who don't use it are subsidising its replacement. We often hear cries of "why should we spend on cyclists when I don't cycle" but no one bats an eye lid when motorist demands are paid for by those who don't drive.

That is why the entitlement moniker is used.
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
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Chris Bertram »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:45
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:36
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:26 Of course living in a free market if motorists want their flyover they can always crowdfund it.

Oh. Only want a free lunch?
VED? Fuel tax? VAT on fuel (including the fuel tax)? Free lunch, did you say? And yes, I know none of this is ring-fenced, but to characterise any expenditure on roads as a "free lunch" for motorists is a bit of a pee-take, quite honestly.
Apart from any replacement flyover would be funded entirely out of Essex council tax payers pockets, which means people who don't use it are subsidising its replacement. We often hear cries of "why should we spend on cyclists when I don't cycle" but no one bats an eye lid when motorist demands are paid for by those who don't drive.

That is why the entitlement moniker is used.
Actually much of Essex CC's funding comes from the central government block grant, to which we all contribute.

You seem to direct much of your ire at private motorists. But what about the movement of goods, on which we all depend? You can't move it all by rail, and for all goods, the "last mile" at the very least will depend on adequate road infrastructure. The flyover may have only accommodated cars, but it would have got them out of the way of buses and lorries just for that short distance. Similarly, providing properly for cyclists also facilitates the flow of goods vehicles and public transport. I have no issue with decent cycling provision. But we don't have to treat it as a zero-sum game.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Bryn666 »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:53
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:45
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:36 VED? Fuel tax? VAT on fuel (including the fuel tax)? Free lunch, did you say? And yes, I know none of this is ring-fenced, but to characterise any expenditure on roads as a "free lunch" for motorists is a bit of a pee-take, quite honestly.
Apart from any replacement flyover would be funded entirely out of Essex council tax payers pockets, which means people who don't use it are subsidising its replacement. We often hear cries of "why should we spend on cyclists when I don't cycle" but no one bats an eye lid when motorist demands are paid for by those who don't drive.

That is why the entitlement moniker is used.
Actually much of Essex CC's funding comes from the central government block grant, to which we all contribute.

You seem to direct much of your ire at private motorists. But what about the movement of goods, on which we all depend? You can't move it all by rail, and for all goods, the "last mile" at the very least will depend on adequate road infrastructure. The flyover may have only accommodated cars, but it would have got them out of the way of buses and lorries just for that short distance. Similarly, providing properly for cyclists also facilitates the flow of goods vehicles and public transport. I have no issue with decent cycling provision. But we don't have to treat it as a zero-sum game.
But that's the problem. This flyover doesn't help essential movements as they're just shunted into a queue further along whilst the cars flew over the top taking advantage of their over-provision. Numerous people have said the flyover faces the wrong way, it purely exists to benefit solo car commuters and no-one else.

Also having a park and ride is rendered pointless if private cars can soar past the provision for it on a flyover...

Getting upset about this flyover being demolished really makes no sense. There are better junction designs available for this site and hopefully someone has the brains to take advantage of the fact.
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
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Chris Bertram »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:59
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:53
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:45

Apart from any replacement flyover would be funded entirely out of Essex council tax payers pockets, which means people who don't use it are subsidising its replacement. We often hear cries of "why should we spend on cyclists when I don't cycle" but no one bats an eye lid when motorist demands are paid for by those who don't drive.

That is why the entitlement moniker is used.
Actually much of Essex CC's funding comes from the central government block grant, to which we all contribute.

You seem to direct much of your ire at private motorists. But what about the movement of goods, on which we all depend? You can't move it all by rail, and for all goods, the "last mile" at the very least will depend on adequate road infrastructure. The flyover may have only accommodated cars, but it would have got them out of the way of buses and lorries just for that short distance. Similarly, providing properly for cyclists also facilitates the flow of goods vehicles and public transport. I have no issue with decent cycling provision. But we don't have to treat it as a zero-sum game.
But that's the problem. This flyover doesn't help essential movements as they're just shunted into a queue further along whilst the cars flew over the top taking advantage of their over-provision. Numerous people have said the flyover faces the wrong way, it purely exists to benefit solo car commuters and no-one else.

Also having a park and ride is rendered pointless if private cars can soar past the provision for it on a flyover...

Getting upset about this flyover being demolished really makes no sense. There are better junction designs available for this site and hopefully someone has the brains to take advantage of the fact.
I'm hearing about a hamburger affair with forests of signals. Will that really be an improvement? Don't get me wrong, I'm unlikely to be moving to Chelmsford any time soon, so it won't be a personal concern of mine, but I'm fascinated to hear what people will propose, and for what reasons.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Bryn666 »

It's presently a mix of priority entries to a roundabout with some signalised arms. That in itself is a recipe for trouble as the signal controlled arms will block back as people inevitably ignore any keep clear markings.

Essex Yeomanry Way bypasses the B1009 so that's one arm that could be removed from the junction straight away - provide a filter for cycling and walking so anyone who does work in town has a better option than sitting in traffic. A GSJ exists to the east for those driving to join this bypass (my money is a lot of people here work further afield and want the A12).

That leaves a four arm junction instead of a five arm one. That's infinitely easier to deal with, as you can have an enlarged roundabout (three or four circulatory lanes), or a large capacity signal crossroads.
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
jackal
Member
Posts: 7547
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by jackal »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:45
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:36
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:26 Of course living in a free market if motorists want their flyover they can always crowdfund it.

Oh. Only want a free lunch?
VED? Fuel tax? VAT on fuel (including the fuel tax)? Free lunch, did you say? And yes, I know none of this is ring-fenced, but to characterise any expenditure on roads as a "free lunch" for motorists is a bit of a pee-take, quite honestly.
Apart from any replacement flyover would be funded entirely out of Essex council tax payers pockets, which means people who don't use it are subsidising its replacement. We often hear cries of "why should we spend on cyclists when I don't cycle" but no one bats an eye lid when motorist demands are paid for by those who don't drive.

That is why the entitlement moniker is used.
So public services should only be paid for by those that use them? You are Ayn Rand in ill-fitting lycra and I claim my £5.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Bryn666 »

Pathetic ad hominem aside, please justify why replacing this flyover;

1. provides value for Essex taxpayers
2. is in keeping with 21st century urban traffic planning which is to reduce trips by private vehicle, not induce them
3. improves road safety at this junction - there have been 7 serious collisions in 5 years, and almost 40 slight collisions in the same time period.

Newsflash matey, your beloved grade separation does not work here. Get with the program.
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
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7517
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Big L »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:25 Pathetic ad hominem aside, please justify why replacing this flyover;

1. provides value for Essex taxpayers
2. is in keeping with 21st century urban traffic planning which is to reduce trips by private vehicle, not induce them
3. improves road safety at this junction - there have been 7 serious collisions in 5 years, and almost 40 slight collisions in the same time period.

Newsflash matey, your beloved grade separation does not work here. Get with the program.
Is that because it is grade separation or *bad* grade separation?
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Bryn666 »

Big L wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:36
Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:25 Pathetic ad hominem aside, please justify why replacing this flyover;

1. provides value for Essex taxpayers
2. is in keeping with 21st century urban traffic planning which is to reduce trips by private vehicle, not induce them
3. improves road safety at this junction - there have been 7 serious collisions in 5 years, and almost 40 slight collisions in the same time period.

Newsflash matey, your beloved grade separation does not work here. Get with the program.
Is that because it is grade separation or *bad* grade separation?
If it doesn't work, it is bad grade separation. So why replace it like for like as is being advocated by some?
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
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by WHBM »

Discussion we had at the time the Hogarth was rebuilt

viewtopic.php?t=33110
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19202
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by KeithW »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 09:45

Apart from any replacement flyover would be funded entirely out of Essex council tax payers pockets, which means people who don't use it are subsidising its replacement. We often hear cries of "why should we spend on cyclists when I don't cycle" but no one bats an eye lid when motorist demands are paid for by those who don't drive.

That is why the entitlement moniker is used.
The basis that Essex CC should be using to decide is the best interests of the people who live in the city and region. It is not just about who uses it but who benefits from it. If a road keeps vehicular traffic out of the city centre that benefits cyclists and pedestrians as much as it does motorists. The A66 in Middlesbrough, which is in reality a Northern bypass, made it possible to take cars out of many of the central streets. All the cars and trucks that now use the elevated D2 A66 used to drive through the city centre down Newport Road, Corporation Road and Marton Road before joining the A1085 which was a busy S4/D2 road with narrow lanes which was very cyclist unfriendly as I remember all too well as in my youth I used it to cycle to work at ICI Wilton.

I have no idea if in this case replacing the viaduct is the best solution I was simply pointing out that replacement is possible. We are not talking about a huge structure, the flyover is approx 400 m of single carriageway with plenty of support points available. You could probably knock the existing structure down and haul it away working on weekends for a month. 2 or 3 teams with gas axes and a 12 ton crane should do the job nicely. If its unsafe that will have to be done anyway.

I see there appears to be a pedestrian underpass of the roundabout which is a type of structure I have always hated as they usually became a combination of unofficial latrine, drug dealers paradise and a haunt of muggers. If the decision was made to provide an elevated shared use pathway for pedestrians and cyclists that may well prove to be a better solution once the old structure is hauled away.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Army and Navy flyover, Chelmsford, "can never reopen"

Post by Bryn666 »

The A66 and this flyover are complete apples and oranges. For a start this flyover funnels traffic direct into the city centre...
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
Post Reply