1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

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

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

1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by ABB125 »

Hello,
In the 1990s there were plans drawn up to build a bypass of the A438 through Ashchurch, and A435 through Beckford, and continuing on to join the Evesham bypass (subsequently renumbered as part of the A46) . I seem to think the scheme was approved, but then cancelled due to a recession?
Anyway, I have a copy of the consultation booklet showing the proposed route options and junction locations as well as prices, but there is very little detail regarding the actual road itself. Does anyone on here know any details of this scheme, such as whether it was going to be single or dual carriageway (like the section north of Evesham from the 1990s), or proposed junction layouts? Was it planned to be grade-separated or roundabouted? What was proposed for the M5 junction?
Thanks very much for any enlightenment you can provide me with.
User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 19171
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by Steven »

It looks to be a little older than that; though it's all tied up historically with the Strensham - Solihull Motorway, and its later withdrawal and replacement with all-purpose schemes along what is now the A46 corridor.

According to National Roads England 1985, the "A438 West of Ashchurch - A435" was in the Trunk Road preparation pool as a 3 mile single carriageway road costing £6.7 million. It's also listed in the 1987 document as the same. I've also gone back to the 1980 document (as I don't have a copy of the 1983 one), and it's there too, but not in the 1978 one.

It's not listed in Roads for Prosperity (1989) , because it wasn't a new scheme, but it does appear in the follow-up Trunk Roads, England in to the 1990s as "A435/A438 South of Evesham - M5 Improvement", now as a 10 mile two-lane dual carriageway, with an associated cost of £25 million, with the Preferred Route expected in 1993.

By the time of Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review, it's officially retitled as "A46 Evesham - M5 Improvement", but it doesn't make it into either the Priority 1 or Priority 2 list, and instead is just listed as "Longer Term", with no further details.

It looks to have been removed from the programme in the November 1995 review.
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: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by ABB125 »

Steven wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 15:57 It looks to be a little older than that; though it's all tied up historically with the Strensham - Solihull Motorway, and its later withdrawal and replacement with all-purpose schemes along what is now the A46 corridor.

According to National Roads England 1985, the "A438 West of Ashchurch - A435" was in the Trunk Road preparation pool as a 3 mile single carriageway road costing £6.7 million. It's also listed in the 1987 document as the same. I've also gone back to the 1980 document (as I don't have a copy of the 1983 one), and it's there too, but not in the 1978 one.

It's not listed in Roads for Prosperity (1989) , because it wasn't a new scheme, but it does appear in the follow-up Trunk Roads, England in to the 1990s as "A435/A438 South of Evesham - M5 Improvement", now as a 10 mile two-lane dual carriageway, with an associated cost of £25 million, with the Preferred Route expected in 1993.

By the time of Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review, it's officially retitled as "A46 Evesham - M5 Improvement", but it doesn't make it into either the Priority 1 or Priority 2 list, and instead is just listed as "Longer Term", with no further details.

It looks to have been removed from the programme in the November 1995 review.
Thanks.
I've found the consultation booklet I mentioned (which I've scanned, see here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dvv4GE ... sp=sharing (the file is too big to use as an attachment)). This is the first time I've looked at it for a few years, so I had forgotten a few details; nevertheless, here are the key points:
  • The document is from 1993, earlier than I thought.
  • The document acknowledges that the existing road is poor, has numerous minor junctions and affects the quality of life in villages it passes through. This is even more true nearly 30 years later (although, in the current situation, the road feels like it has already been bypassed!). Incidentally, I believe Beckford/Little Beckford is the only village directly on the whole of the A46 between the M5 and Lincoln.
  • The new road would have indeed been dual carriageway, with a standard roundabout junction with the M5. A short section of the existing Evesham bypass would be dualled, but to the south of the new road. It appears that the northern half of the bypass would have remained single, resulting in dual carriageways either side of a short single carriageway town bypass (once the new dual carriageway north of Evesham opened).
  • Quite rightly, an online improvement scheme and building the road on the alignment of the old Ashchurch-Evesham railway were both rejected as unsuitable.
  • Remote northern or southern versions of the scheme (such as proposed for the Strensham-Solihull motorway) were also rejected (which I agree with as a local, even though from a strategic perspective an extension of the M50 would be preferable).
  • In terms of junctions, there would be the following:
  • Two-bridge roundabout on the M5 (interestingly the only junction with a diagram in the document)
  • Limited junction at Pamington (doesn't say which direction the slip roads would have faced, but I suspect west facing so that traffic from Pamington to the M5 could bypass Ashchurch). In my opinion, probably unnecessary
  • Full junction at Teddington Hands (definitely the correct choice) that would (perhaps unconventionally) retain the existing roundabout, with access made by slip roads connecting to existing roads rather than the roundabout itself
  • Limited junctions at either end of the existing Sedgeberrow bypass, which would be consumed by the new road. No junction types are specified.
  • A junction for the Four Pools roundabout on the Evesham bypass (again, type unknown, and not needed in my opinion)
  • A "two-level intersection" at the end of the new road at the A44 roundabout on the bypass
If you or anyone else knows of further documents relating to plans for the road, or junction designs, please do share it.
For a modern context, funding for an Ashchurch bypass has recently been granted as part of the Major Road Network. Western Gateway is leading the development of this project, but no plans are yet released.
-----------------------------------------------
In terms of the 1993 proposals, my response to the consultation would have been along the lines of:
  • The brown route at Teddington Hands would be preferred as it would reduce the impact on Teddington and Alstone (which now have a vocal A46 lobby group), with no severance to the amenities at the roundabout from those villages.
  • Why is there no limited junction to the north of Little Beckford to reduce residual traffic past the village? There would need to be a bridge over the road to Alderton in this vicinity, which could be used for said junction.
  • There is no access off the new road to the Vale truck stop (now closed, the new truck stop at Teddington Hands could be considered a replacement) and petrol station south of the road to Ashton (where the pylons cross the road). Why is this?
  • Sedgeberrow doesn't really need two junctions; my preference would be for the northern one only, located where all the yellow roads meet. I would use a dumb-bell junction, with the old road through Sedgeberrow extended to the new junction as a local access road. This junction would also act at "Evesham South".
  • The Evesham bypass to the north of the A44 roundabout needs dualling (possibly to three lanes in a modern context as local and strategic traffic would both be using the road here). (Unfortunately this is the most difficult and expensive section to dual, with a river crossing, railway crossing, and the only road overbridge on the bypass!)
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by Truvelo »

Thanks for sharing that. I did remember seeing proposals for this improvement scheme on an archive catalogue somewhere but I never got round to viewing the documents. In your first post you asked whether it would be grade separated or at-grade roundabouts. The brochure clearly shows it would be grade separated. The layout of M5 J9 isn't clear as to whether there would be a limited connection to the M5 between both roundabouts of whether traffic travelling between the new road and M5 north would have to negotiate both roundabouts.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by jackal »

Some info on the current incarnation of this scheme (though only going as far east as the A435 Teddington Hands roundabout):

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/high ... rt-scheme/
User avatar
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31476
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by roadtester »

Used to go that way a lot. It always felt substandard after some of the other upgrades around Evesham and along the A46 in the Midlands but I didn't realise there had been concrete plans for an upgrade.

I always used to find it interesting to go past the vast MoD site on that section - there was always a lot of interesting equipment/vehicles to be seen from the road.
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by jackal »

A September 2018 Option Assessment Report shows three options. All options at this time were single carriageway and all options redirected the A46 onto the A435 south of Teddington Hands - this is a long diversion in the case of option 3.

Option 1 provided a limited access freeflow junction south of J9.

A46 option 1 - Copy.JPG

Option 2 provided a new two-bridge roundabout at the same site.

A46 option 2 - Copy.JPG

Option 3 would link to M5 Junction 10.

A46 option 3 - Copy.JPG

Costs (Q1 2016) were £169m for option 1, £299m for option 2, and £164m for option 3. Option 1 delivers twice as much benefit as option 2 and nearly four times as much as option 3. BCRs were 1.13 for option 1, 0.32 for option 2, and 0.34 for option 3.

The full report is here: https://ln5.sync.com/dl/2972edda0/cc4zr ... a-2gfmfzzj

Other useful resources are at this residents' website, though it seems biased towards a silly option 3-type design: https://taagroup.co.uk/

A consultation is expected in 2022.
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by SouthWest Philip »

jackal wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 16:51 A September 2018 Option Assessment Report shows three options. All options at this time were single carriageway and all options redirected the A46 onto the A435 south of Teddington Hands - this is a long diversion in the case of option 3.

Option 1 provided a limited access freeflow junction south of J9.


A46 option 1 - Copy.JPG


Option 2 provided a new two-bridge roundabout at the same site.


A46 option 2 - Copy.JPG


Option 3 would link to M5 Junction 10.


A46 option 3 - Copy.JPG


Costs (Q1 2016) were £169m for option 1, £299m for option 2, and £164m for option 3. Option 1 delivers twice as much benefit as option 2 and nearly four times as much as option 3. BCRs were 1.13 for option 1, 0.32 for option 2, and 0.34 for option 3.

The full report is here: https://ln5.sync.com/dl/2972edda0/cc4zr ... a-2gfmfzzj

Other useful resources are at this residents' website, though it seems biased towards a silly option 3-type design: https://taagroup.co.uk/

A consultation is expected in 2022.
Option 1 would need to be dual carriageway on safety grounds alone given that it would lead inescapably to free-flow motorway slips! It would be the best option for the predominant flow between the M5(S)<>A46(N), but would still leave significant flows through Ashchurch with more local traffic heading to/from Tewkesbury or the M5(N).

All of these options would be unsatisfactory due to being single carriageway when it is patently clear that the A46 needs fully dualling from Tewkesbury to Warwick, although at least option 1 could be turned into something sensible.

If option 3 were built it would probably still be quicker to stay on the M5 to junction 9 if heading to Evesham. The 30/40mph slog through Ashchurch would be cancelled out by the additional five miles or so of motorway compared to the ridiculous single carriageway and roundabout infested route via Bishop's Cleeve which would soon be overwhelmed by development.

Hopefully the next time an Ashchurch bypass is presented the options will all be dual carriageway with free flow for the predominant flow to/from M5(S), regardless of any other local connections.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by jackal »

My sense is that subsequent work is leaning towards dualling. If anything, though, that should favour option 1 even more as it has a much shorter length of dualling required than option 3, and the expense of the fork interchange is already included in the single carriageway design.
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by Truvelo »

Option 1 would get my vote. Option 2 would also work as the link to the A38 would be useful but what would happen to the existing J9 in this case as the north facing slips at the new junction would cause issues.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by jackal »

Truvelo wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 13:57 Option 1 would get my vote. Option 2 would also work as the link to the A38 would be useful but what would happen to the existing J9 in this case as the north facing slips at the new junction would cause issues.
The report says option 2 'would see the closure of the existing junction slip roads', which seems a bit extreme - no reason the north-facing slips couldn't remain.
ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by ABB125 »

jackal wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 16:23
Truvelo wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 13:57 Option 1 would get my vote. Option 2 would also work as the link to the A38 would be useful but what would happen to the existing J9 in this case as the north facing slips at the new junction would cause issues.
The report says option 2 'would see the closure of the existing junction slip roads', which seems a bit extreme - no reason the north-facing slips couldn't remain.
Indeed - the NIMBYs (and others) don't seem to realise that it should be possible to keep the existing J9 northbound sliproads, regardless of what mess is chosen for the inevitable new junction for the bypass. And that it wouldn't be difficult (so therefore won't happen) to link the existing junction to the new one. One of the common "reasons" to oppose the new road is that (especially if all the existing J9 sliproads are removed) traffic for the M5 will have to use the new road. Shock horror!! It's not like a bypass exists to remove traffic from an existing road, is it? :roll:
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 16:23
Truvelo wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 13:57 Option 1 would get my vote. Option 2 would also work as the link to the A38 would be useful but what would happen to the existing J9 in this case as the north facing slips at the new junction would cause issues.
The report says option 2 'would see the closure of the existing junction slip roads', which seems a bit extreme - no reason the north-facing slips couldn't remain.
Not the DMRB wonks and their 2km between exits problem is it?
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: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by ABB125 »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 18:55
jackal wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 16:23
Truvelo wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 13:57 Option 1 would get my vote. Option 2 would also work as the link to the A38 would be useful but what would happen to the existing J9 in this case as the north facing slips at the new junction would cause issues.
The report says option 2 'would see the closure of the existing junction slip roads', which seems a bit extreme - no reason the north-facing slips couldn't remain.
Not the DMRB wonks and their 2km between exits problem is it?
How did you know?! :D
User avatar
ForestChav
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11081
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
Contact:

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by ForestChav »

jackal wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 16:23
Truvelo wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 13:57 Option 1 would get my vote. Option 2 would also work as the link to the A38 would be useful but what would happen to the existing J9 in this case as the north facing slips at the new junction would cause issues.
The report says option 2 'would see the closure of the existing junction slip roads', which seems a bit extreme - no reason the north-facing slips couldn't remain.
They are a bit close, and the movements would be served by the A38 and A438 anyway, so not sure why you'd need both junctions to be full access.

Option 2 is probably the better one due to it linking to the A38, though the issue there is anything which isn't heading for the A38 south would still have to go into Tewkesbury, due to the lack of any other form of bypass. Ideally that section needs to carry on across the river and back round to the A38 at the north of the town but that's probably something for another thread.

I like the idea of a more formal link to the A4019 but this should probably be dualled to make it more attractive than going down the M5. But then as others have said the whole section between Warwick and here needs dualled anyway, especially around Evesham.
C, E flat and G go into a bar. The barman says "sorry, we don't serve minors". So E flat walks off, leaving C and G to share an open fifth between them.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
ColinB
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 14:51

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by ColinB »

All three options look expensive ways of not solving the problem. Would it not be better to bypass all the A46 from Evesham southwards, by building a new road from M5J8 to the A46 north of Evesham (passing N of Bredon hill)?
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by Truvelo »

ColinB wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 10:31 Would it not be better to bypass all the A46 from Evesham southwards, by building a new road from M5J8 to the A46 north of Evesham (passing N of Bredon hill)?
Between Evesham and Teddington isn't that bad as it's well aligned and is NSL although a lower limit came into force in Beckford a few years ago. The real problem is between Teddington and the M5 and this is not helped by several huge housing developments taking place along the south side of the A46 with more to come. This will only add to the traffic and number of signalised junctions required.
Attachments
development.jpg
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26211
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by Owain »

ColinB wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 10:31 All three options look expensive ways of not solving the problem. Would it not be better to bypass all the A46 from Evesham southwards, by building a new road from M5J8 to the A46 north of Evesham (passing N of Bredon hill)?
By coincidence, I drove the A46 between the M69 and M5 yesterday.

The former A438 section is easily the worst bit of what is otherwise a very desirable alternative to the M42. For a while now, I've thought that linking it to the M50 junction via a new road leaving the existing route to the north of Evesham - just as you suggest - would be the best solution.

That would not only give easy access to the M50 as well as the M5, but would also take A46 traffic off the existing Evesham bypass, leaving it to the A44.
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by SouthWest Philip »

Truvelo wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 16:09The real problem is between Teddington and the M5 and this is not helped by several huge housing developments taking place along the south side of the A46 with more to come. This will only add to the traffic and number of signalised junctions required.
You have to wonder why anyone would want to live right next to a motorway with a 'noise bund' blocking out the daylight?!

Of course if they decided to close the current slip roads at jnc 9 and build a new junction further south, all the new businesses and housing around jnc 9 would find themselves a two mile drive away from the motorway, and heading in the wrong direction if they want to go north.

Personally I don't think any of these developments should be allowed to happen until the strategic road network - specifically dual carriageway/motorway replacement for the A46 - has been put in place.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: 1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

Post by jackal »

ColinB wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 10:31 All three options look expensive ways of not solving the problem. Would it not be better to bypass all the A46 from Evesham southwards, by building a new road from M5J8 to the A46 north of Evesham (passing N of Bredon hill)?
Ding ding, we have a winner. This solves the issues on the A46 while extending the strategic corridor down the underutilised M50, relieving the congested M40, M42 and northern end of the M5.

It looks like this route would be about 10 miles versus 14 miles for the online upgrade+junction south of J9, so it's presumably cheaper, especially as they could, in time honoured tradition, just bodge the A46 onto the existing J8 roundabout and call it a day :twisted:
Post Reply