New M5 Junction 10 Planned

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

User avatar
M4Simon
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 10121
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 22:35
Location: WGC, Herts
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by M4Simon »

Alderpoint wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 01:10
jackal wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 18:50 It should be possible to add the missing movements while retaining the existing ones as freeflow:
They are saying it's £220m to improve the junction, so it must be more than that?
£220m does sound like a lot, but bear in mind that it is likely to be a package of measures over a much bigger area to support development and regeneration and won't just be the motorway junction.

Also consider:
Land costs
Environmental mitigation
Utility diversions
(If Jackal's scheme is built), likely to need the rebuilding of the A4019 bridge in order to fit, probably just to the north in order to fit the southbound merge plus clearances under the bridge.
Other on-line improvements to the A4019 corridor
Changes to the River Chelt bridge? Probably not - appears to be far enough south not to be an issue.
Changes to other routes
Signal junctions (or roundabouts or whatever)
Design costs
Risk and contingency - at this stage, this will be a considerable portion of the proposed budget.

Simon
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!

Please contact me if you want to know more
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Micro The Maniac »

While they are at it, they should renumber the A4019 as the A46, at least between J10 and the existing disappearance of the A46 at North Street - that way at least it's a clear multiplex between J10 and J9
User avatar
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31475
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by roadtester »

Peter Freeman wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 04:13
roadtester wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 19:04 Since the aim seems to be to facilitate/encourage use of J10, won't the increased traffic require a roundabout (obviously difficult in that location) or something to handle the volumes better?
No it won't. It will simply require the signalised intersections to have a sufficient number of lanes.
Fair enough - it's just that for better or worse, as Bryn suggests, it also seems to be outside HE's normal repertoire.
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by A303Chris »

For £220 million it must be a new junction, but the article also states a new road to facilitate development, so are some of the costs for this road as well.

However as the HE have said that junction 9 of the M27 is going to be improved like this, a junction exactly the same as J10 of the M5, I expect any improvement to be an abomination.
The M25 - The road to nowhere
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Richardf »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 09:13 While they are at it, they should renumber the A4019 as the A46, at least between J10 and the existing disappearance of the A46 at North Street - that way at least it's a clear multiplex between J10 and J9
Good idea, give the route a more important number and remove the multiplex with the A40 at least. The rest of the A4019 could even be downgraded to a B road maybe?

I still maintain though the A46 between the M4 and Cheltenham should be downgraded and the number reallocated to the A417/9 but I seem to be alone in that so this at least gives a bit more importance to the A46.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Richardf wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 16:26 I still maintain though the A46 between the M4 and Cheltenham should be downgraded and the number reallocated to the A417/9 but I seem to be alone in that so this at least gives a bit more importance to the A46.
Maybe...

Personally, I'd like to see a single number (ideally of ExpressWay standard) from M5/11A not just to Swindon (currently A419/A417) but down to Bournemouth (currently A346/A338) - this *could* be the A35 which gets lost into the A338 (with the remaining bit of the A35 between Bournemouth and Southampton an extension of the A33, and a A3xxx number allocacated for the two offshoots within So'ton)
Richardf
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:19
Location: Dorchester
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Richardf »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2019 08:28
Richardf wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 16:26 I still maintain though the A46 between the M4 and Cheltenham should be downgraded and the number reallocated to the A417/9 but I seem to be alone in that so this at least gives a bit more importance to the A46.
Maybe...

Personally, I'd like to see a single number (ideally of ExpressWay standard) from M5/11A not just to Swindon (currently A419/A417) but down to Bournemouth (currently A346/A338) - this *could* be the A35 which gets lost into the A338 (with the remaining bit of the A35 between Bournemouth and Southampton an extension of the A33, and a A3xxx number allocacated for the two offshoots within So'ton)
Could work. Have to extend the A31 to Honiton though. Or use the A33 number for your N-S route and renumber the existing A33.
My latest Road Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHsktQHcMB
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Richardf wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2019 18:39 Could work. Have to extend the A31 to Honiton though. Or use the A33 number for your N-S route and renumber the existing A33.
Honiton to Bournemouth can stay A35... it's only East of Bournemouth that would need renumbering (as an extension of the A33)
ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by ABB125 »

In an update to this scheme, apparently the funding application has been successful. The project was also mentioned in the RIS2 document. A consultation is planned in "summer 2020".
Interestingly, the FAQs document states that the scheme will involve an "all movements junction", which is subsequently defined like this: "A junction is classified as ‘all movements’, or free-flowing, when all the turning movements through a junction occur on slip roads, with different streams of traffic merging as opposed to coming to a stop."
To me, that definition implies something like the M4/M5 interchange, or M40/M25; surely that's a bit excessive for this scheme (although I won't complain!)?
https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/medi ... h-2020.pdf
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Chris Bertram »

ABB125 wrote: Sat Mar 21, 2020 20:09 In an update to this scheme, apparently the funding application has been successful. The project was also mentioned in the RIS2 document. A consultation is planned in "summer 2020".
Interestingly, the FAQs document states that the scheme will involve an "all movements junction", which is subsequently defined like this: "A junction is classified as ‘all movements’, or free-flowing, when all the turning movements through a junction occur on slip roads, with different streams of traffic merging as opposed to coming to a stop."
To me, that definition implies something like the M4/M5 interchange, or M40/M25; surely that's a bit excessive for this scheme (although I won't complain!)?
https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/medi ... h-2020.pdf
Whilst accepting that the currently very limited access junction at J10 may not be fit for purpose over 40 years after its opening, I will simply observe that Princess Elizabeth Way, described as having an issue with "rat-running", is in fact a Class A road numbered A4013, and not a mere suburban side street that forms a convenient short-cut.
“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
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Truvelo »

I can't see a fully freeflowing junction ever being built there, the traffic levels just don't warrant it. I suspect by freeflowing they mean there will be a left turn filter lane at all four slip roads. The right turns will all require stop lines, traffic lights or roundabouts.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Chris5156 »

Yes, there’s a real cack-handed misunderstanding there about what “all movements” means, and it doesn’t mean that!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Bryn666 »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 13:00 Yes, there’s a real cack-handed misunderstanding there about what “all movements” means, and it doesn’t mean that!
No surprise, HE went to great lengths to redefine all the basic motorway terms as part of their jobs for the boys re-write of DMRB, meaning anything said previously is now wrong.
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
ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by ABB125 »

The consultation is now open!
https://m5-junction-10-have-your-say.gl ... e/homePage

As might be expected, all the options are two-bridge roundabouts on the site of the current junction, with (unsurprisingly) the current slip roads being closed.
Here is the consultation brochure: https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/ ... 6ba49c31ff

Note that the project also includes dualling of the A4019 into Cheltenham as far as the Fire Station, leaving maybe half-a-mile of single carriageway between the newly dualled bit and the existing dual carriageway at Kingsditch. This section is apparently part of a separate planning application - I'm going to hesitantly suggest that I will be very surprised if this short bit ever gets done. The traffic-light junction with the A38 at Coombe Hill is also planned to be upgraded.

EDIT: I should add that Gloucestershire County Council's definition of all-movements is, in reality, the same as everyone else's. So no free-flow anywhere - in fact, they're planning to remove the free-flow already there!
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Chris5156 »

What a massive waste of £240m. So much being replaced wholesale, on a job that will involve working around the live junction at all times, and all to create a two-bridge roundabout that I would bet a fiver will require signalising from day one.

I can't for the life of me see why this wasn't considered, given that it uses the existing bridge and a fair part of the existing sliproads, will cater nicely for the major turning flows, and be less disruptive to build. It would surely come in cheaper than either of the options being presented, which are functionally identical anyway, and can be embellished with whatever signals, roundabouts and free-flow turns you like.
m5j10.png
But then what do I know :roll:
ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by ABB125 »

Chris5156 wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 18:47 What a massive waste of £240m. So much being replaced wholesale, on a job that will involve working around the live junction at all times, and all to create a two-bridge roundabout that I would bet a fiver will require signalising from day one.

I can't for the life of me see why this wasn't considered, given that it uses the existing bridge and a fair part of the existing sliproads, will cater nicely for the major turning flows, and be less disruptive to build. It would surely come in cheaper than either of the options being presented, which are functionally identical anyway, and can be embellished with whatever signals, roundabouts and free-flow turns you like.

m5j10.png

But then what do I know :roll:
Something along these lines will be going in my response to the consultation. I believe M20 Jn 10a cost around £100 million, so £240 million seems rather a lot for something very similar here (although admittedly this scheme involves a few miles of online dualling).
Even the rejected options are standard roundabouts, although we don't know what the "longlist" of ideas was. Surely Atkins can do better than this?

The only issue I can think of with your idea is space for the merge onto the southbound carriageway - there's only a hard shoulder's worth of space, which may or may not be enough.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9287356 ... 312!8i6656
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Truvelo »

The options being proceeded with require demolition of some or all the houses on the southern side of the junction whereas the rejected options avoid this. However I suspect these houses have been compromised by noise ever since the M5 was built so the owners may relish the prospect of being compulsory purchased at full market value.

As for the junction itself I feel the two bridge roundabout is a step ahead of the usual dumbbell or signalised mess which is commonplace nowadays. Chris' design would need to be signalised from day 1 and would only be useful if it was built with six slip roads but there's plenty of buildings in the way to do this. And besides, 6-ramp parclos aren't liked in this country because there are dodgy for NMU's unless separate segregated footpaths and cycleways are built.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
DavidBrown
Member
Posts: 8398
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 00:35

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by DavidBrown »

Just another 2p into the pot in terms of the thought behind the bridges - has the existing A4019 bridge not had some serious structural defects in the recent past? I know some major remedial works took place on it a few years back, but I can't remember the extent of the issues and if the works were seen as a long-term fix or a sticking plaster with something like this in mind for the near future? That said, it doesn't explain the fact that two of the options include using the existing bridge, or why all three options are extremely similar. I can't remember another consultation like this where all the options were as near identical?
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by SouthWest Philip »

DavidBrown wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 20:22 Just another 2p into the pot in terms of the thought behind the bridges - has the existing A4019 bridge not had some serious structural defects in the recent past? I know some major remedial works took place on it a few years back, but I can't remember the extent of the issues and if the works were seen as a long-term fix or a sticking plaster with something like this in mind for the near future? That said, it doesn't explain the fact that two of the options include using the existing bridge, or why all three options are extremely similar. I can't remember another consultation like this where all the options were as near identical?
All the bridges on this section have had work done on them over the years and several appear to have some chucks of concrete missing! I rather suspect they need replacing anyway and that probably is reflected in the options being put forward.
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Truvelo »

Would you believe it. I've been looking at the original plans I have for the M5 and I found this from 1946. Amazing to see the current proposal is was what was originally planned 74 years ago. Of course, had this been built back then the bridges would definitely need replacing by now :)
Attachments
piffselm.jpg
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Post Reply