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

Isleworth1961
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 14:15
Location: South Gloucestershire

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Isleworth1961 »

Truvelo wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 19:48 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.
I would have thought the chances of any of the current occupants of the houses living there pre-motorway would be quite slim, and that those living there now had some idea of what living next to a motorway would be like when they bought the property.
B4444
Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 20:14

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by B4444 »

Quite often these types of properties are owned by housing associations and let on short term contracts.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Chris5156 »

Truvelo wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 20:56 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 :)
What a find! I love this :D
Isleworth1961
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 14:15
Location: South Gloucestershire

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Isleworth1961 »

B4444 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 09:00 Quite often these types of properties are owned by housing associations and let on short term contracts.
The houses near junction 10 look extremely unlikely to be owned by a housing association.
Isleworth1961
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 14:15
Location: South Gloucestershire

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Isleworth1961 »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 16:51 When first constructed, this junction was a temporary terminus of M5 from the north. SB traffic not wanting to go to Cheltenham merged into a single lane which continued around the loop, which was two-way during this period and allowed traffic to turn left onto A4019 to access A38 at the Coombe Hill traffic lights. Obviously traffic was lighter back then, but on summer Saturdays you were still in for a long wait to exit the motorway, and traffic was backed up a long way from the lights. Oh happy days ...
For how long was this? No mention on the M5 timeline, as far as I can see. I can only find reference to it opening from J9 to J13 in March 1971.
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 »

Isleworth1961 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:08
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 16:51 When first constructed, this junction was a temporary terminus of M5 from the north. SB traffic not wanting to go to Cheltenham merged into a single lane which continued around the loop, which was two-way during this period and allowed traffic to turn left onto A4019 to access A38 at the Coombe Hill traffic lights. Obviously traffic was lighter back then, but on summer Saturdays you were still in for a long wait to exit the motorway, and traffic was backed up a long way from the lights. Oh happy days ...
For how long was this? No mention on the M5 timeline, as far as I can see. I can only find reference to it opening from J9 to J13 in March 1971.
It can't have been very long, as we were only taken off M5 at this location once on a journey from the West Midlands to visit rellies in Torquay. Maybe summer 1970?
“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!
ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by ABB125 »

I've had a response from the J10 team regarding my query about the short, undualled section. Apparently this is planned to be dualled as part of the Elm Park development to the north of the A4019, resulting in D2 all the way from the M5 to central Cheltenham. I believe this Elm Park development is currently awaiting planning permission.
User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 19171
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Steven »

Chris Bertram wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:51
Isleworth1961 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:08
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 16:51 When first constructed, this junction was a temporary terminus of M5 from the north. SB traffic not wanting to go to Cheltenham merged into a single lane which continued around the loop, which was two-way during this period and allowed traffic to turn left onto A4019 to access A38 at the Coombe Hill traffic lights. Obviously traffic was lighter back then, but on summer Saturdays you were still in for a long wait to exit the motorway, and traffic was backed up a long way from the lights. Oh happy days ...
For how long was this? No mention on the M5 timeline, as far as I can see. I can only find reference to it opening from J9 to J13 in March 1971.
It can't have been very long, as we were only taken off M5 at this location once on a journey from the West Midlands to visit rellies in Torquay. Maybe summer 1970?

Ah, if only we could see historic maps on a website somewhere then we'd find out it was mapped in that state in April 1971, but the road to the south was open by Feb 1972...

The matching OS Route Planning Maps (which are both still in copyright) concur.
Steven
Motorway Historian

Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by jackal »

The HE proposals seem lower capacity, higher land take and higher expense than my suggestion from a while back, which retains the existing freeflow and adds the missing movements.

M5 J10 - Copy.png

NMU access is a completely silly excuse not to do this, just use signalised crossings. The roundabout obsession is beyond a joke when the rest of the developed world feels free to use freeflow, DDIs and SPUIs as appropriate.
Isleworth1961
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 14:15
Location: South Gloucestershire

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Isleworth1961 »

Steven wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 13:19 Ah, if only we could see historic maps on a website somewhere then we'd find out it was mapped in that state in April 1971, but the road to the south was open by Feb 1972...

The matching OS Route Planning Maps (which are both still in copyright) concur.
Thanks, hadn't come across that one.
So, are the dates in the M5 chronology incorrect, as it says it opened from J9 to J13 in one go, or are the exact details for each section not actually known?
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by KeithW »

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:

I can only assume its another manifestation of the obsession some British road planners have with roundabout junctions. A classic case locally is the junction between the A66 and A171 at Cargo Fleet which when built ran through an area where most of a village had been razed to make way for it. They built a roundabout that very soon had to be signalised.

In the last year despite it being relatively easy to put the A66 on a flyover they spent a small fortune and several months closure turning it into a throughabout which is as was widely predicted causing even more congestion than existed previously and has produced a rather higher rate of collisions. Given that the same thing had was tried in Darlington on Haughton Road and failed why this decision was made was rather baffling. In fact work started to REMOVE the Darlington throughabout at about the same time Middlesbrough council started to install one.

Now I can see that if the volume of turning traffic was low this could work but the reality is that the A171 has an AADF of about 20k the vast majority of which will be turning on to the A66. If the planned redevelopment of the old Dorman Long Steelworks at South Bank goes ahead they will have to come back and fix it properly - third time lucky ?
Attachments
s A66-Cargo-Fleet-throughabout-aerial1.jpg
User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 19171
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Steven »

Isleworth1961 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 13:44
Steven wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 13:19 Ah, if only we could see historic maps on a website somewhere then we'd find out it was mapped in that state in April 1971, but the road to the south was open by Feb 1972...

The matching OS Route Planning Maps (which are both still in copyright) concur.
Thanks, hadn't come across that one.
So, are the dates in the M5 chronology incorrect, as it says it opened from J9 to J13 in one go, or are the exact details for each section not actually known?
I suspect it might well be, yes. If anyone has time to search, then the London Gazette should have the dates with any luck.
Steven
Motorway Historian

Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by ABB125 »

I've had a look a part of the Technical Appraisal document, which is interesting. It explains all of the options considered (including "missing" options 3 (roundabout to the south) and 4 (upgrade the existing junction to a dumbbell)), and includes detail of the planned merge/diverges. Interestingly they've decided to go "one step beyond" the minimum requirement based on traffic flows, thus 2-lane ghost island merges and diverges are planned. The document states that the minimum requirements would be taper diverges and southbound merge, while the northbound merge would be parallel.

It also references a report from 2012 from JMP Consultants regarding upgrades to the junction - apparently "all options proposed to keep the existing... loop". Does anyone know where I could find a copy of this report? I had a brief look, but didn't get anywhere.
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Truvelo »

Chris5156 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:53
Truvelo wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 20:56 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 :)
What a find! I love this :D
You must have seen these plans already as it's in the same document showing Almondsbury as a cloverleaf.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Chris5156 »

Truvelo wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 20:12
Chris5156 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:53
Truvelo wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 20:56 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 :)
What a find! I love this :D
You must have seen these plans already as it's in the same document showing Almondsbury as a cloverleaf.
Sadly not - the Almondsbury files I've seen refer to earlier designs for a cloverleaf and a stackabout, but only have plans for the four level stack as built. I’m so glad there actually are some cloverleaf plans out there.
Ross Spur
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 20:16
Location: Swadlincote

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by Ross Spur »

Opening Dates were:

J8 - J10 Strensham Interchange to Piffs Elm : 16 June 1970
J10 - J13 Piffs Elm to Stroudwater : 6 April 1971
J13 - J15 Stroudwater to Almondsbury Interchange : 3 December 1971. Also included the 1 mile through the interchange.

The opening of J8 to J10 could have come from a comedy show, which the Birmingham Daily Post took delight in reporting. The official opening included a champagne party on a bridge over the motorway during which Nicholas Ridley, Conservative candidate for Cirencester and Tewkesbury made a speech. With the Labour and Liberal candidates not being invited the Minister of Transport had refused to co-operate in the ceremony on the grounds that it was too party political. The Mayor of Tewkesbury was to have driven a hired vintage car as the first vehicle on the motorway.

The Liberal candidate for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, Denys Robinson, on learning about the ceremony rang the Tewkesbury Town Clerk's office to ask where it was taking place but was misdirected to another part of the motorway. He drove quickly to the opening ceremony and remonstrated with the Town Clerk.

The Liberal candidate for Cheltenham, Dudley Aldridge, had meanwhile gone to one end of the section and was let through by the police, who were not officially co-operating with the Council. Those at the official ceremony looked on with a mixture of surprise and horror as Mr Aldridge's cars streaked under the bridge and unofficially opened the motorway!

What a shower... good fun though.

Ian
Ian
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 »

jackal wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 13:26 The HE proposals seem lower capacity, higher land take and higher expense than my suggestion from a while back, which retains the existing freeflow and adds the missing movements.


M5 J10 - Copy.png


NMU access is a completely silly excuse not to do this, just use signalised crossings. The roundabout obsession is beyond a joke when the rest of the developed world feels free to use freeflow, DDIs and SPUIs as appropriate.
But two bridge roundabouts are God, except when they're not, in which case you get a dumbbell.

The lack of ambition in design strikes again.
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: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by jackal »

DMRB is largely to blame as it says a parclo has a similar capacity to a diamond (i.e. lower even than a dumbbell). This is because it doesn't consider the possibility that [shock] one or both loops might be freeflow or that freeflow left turns might be provided (naturally there are several pages about segregated left turn design at roundabouts). It doesn't even mention SPUIs or DDIs. I wonder if there is any other major industry in the country where international best practice is so blatantly disregarded.
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 »

jackal wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:33 DMRB is largely to blame as it says a parclo has a similar capacity to a diamond (i.e. lower even than a dumbbell). This is because it doesn't consider the possibility that [shock] one or both loops might be freeflow or that freeflow left turns might be provided (naturally there are several pages about segregated left turn design at roundabouts). It doesn't even mention SPUIs or DDIs. I wonder if there is any other major industry in the country where international best practice is so blatantly disregarded.
Every walk of life in government circles at the moment seems to disregard international best practice or convention, it's definitely not unique to Highways England but they are perhaps the most blatant.

Unless "they" have invented it, they don't want to know. Even the way they disparagingly refer to compact roundabouts as "continental" tells you there's resentment over other ways of doing things - and it confirms that innovation in the UK is orientated towards stupid flashing purple lights on green cones instead of actually figuring out how to move people safely and efficiently.
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
booshank
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:05

Re: New M5 Junction 10 Planned

Post by booshank »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 14:26
jackal wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:33 DMRB is largely to blame as it says a parclo has a similar capacity to a diamond (i.e. lower even than a dumbbell). This is because it doesn't consider the possibility that [shock] one or both loops might be freeflow or that freeflow left turns might be provided (naturally there are several pages about segregated left turn design at roundabouts). It doesn't even mention SPUIs or DDIs. I wonder if there is any other major industry in the country where international best practice is so blatantly disregarded.
Every walk of life in government circles at the moment seems to disregard international best practice or convention, it's definitely not unique to Highways England but they are perhaps the most blatant.

Unless "they" have invented it, they don't want to know. Even the way they disparagingly refer to compact roundabouts as "continental" tells you there's resentment over other ways of doing things - and it confirms that innovation in the UK is orientated towards stupid flashing purple lights on green cones instead of actually figuring out how to move people safely and efficiently.

Hasn't this been going on for many decades now, this "not invented here" attitude? For example the USA had already developed quite a bit of experience with freeways (and regional equivalents) when Britain started building its first motorways, such as the first part of the Hollywood Freeway opening in 1940. Yet rather than learning from and developing that experience, it seems Britain decided to reinvent the wheel, maybe even inventing entirely new terms. Not everything they came up with was bad or inferior of course, but it seems that a big opportunity to build on existing experience was missed. Other countries obviously took that experience on board and adapted it to local conditions, making improvements or compromises based on budget/space/traffic volumes etc.
Post Reply