Settlements on A-roads that will never be bypassed

[SouthWest Philip]

I think we're probably 30 years too late to get a Pickering bypass.

I do the wonder whether the A169 might actually be busier than the A170? Whitby is a major resort and a lot of traffic would come from the direction of York and the A64.

[Peter350]

Also to those who say that the A303 is a natural bypass to the north of Salisbury... It just is not, don't kid yourself

Put it this way. If the A303 never became the high quality route that it is today, most of its traffic would be using the A30 through Salisbury.

[KeithW]

I think the Genoa issue was actually more one of poor maintenance, plus a design which allowed concrete-encased cables to corrode undetected, with little room for redundancy when it did.

I watched a documentary which seemed to explain the actual reasons for the collapse relatively well; what they had was a suspension bridge but due to the proximity to the sea, to help it resist corrosion the bridge cables were concentrated into the four encased runs, making it not only difficult to visually detect the corrosion (as it is in all steel-concrete bridges) unlike a conventional suspension bridge where the load is spread out across multiple cables holding the deck up at several points, once the steel corrosion has impacted sufficiently on its tensile strength, it will no longer be able to manage the load of the decks. (Not too dissimilar to what the issues which would be at Clifton and Hammersmith for example without remedial works, I would expect, but periodic inspections have helped there).

I understand the Molardi bridge is under replacement, but not sure how any potential solution would be better. Since steel will rust in normal conditions, and it is the steel which holds the strength in the structure and not the concrete (which offers some protection), a conventional suspension would probably rust quickly due to the salt content in the air, a similarly concrete-encased structure would have the same issue, and a non-suspended bridge would require shorter spans and still potentially have the same issue...

As for Salisbury, I'm really not sure what a bypass would actually do. Longer distance traffic would clearly use the A303 / M3 / M27 / A31 or parts of it, which is a somewhat distant but usable bypass, how much traffic is local to the city or the area?

The Morandi Bridge was the worst of all worlds.

It was actually a Cable Stayed bridge. With a suspension bridge a cable of multiple strands is woven in place and is anchored at each end. Separate suspension cables or rods in the case of the Avonmouth bridge hold up the decks. The potential weakness of a suspension bridge is that wires within the main cables may corrode unseen. In the UK such bridges now have dehumidification systems to slow this and acoustic monitoring systems. Suspension cables may be replaced but replacing the main cables effectively means pulling the bridge down and starting again.

In a cable stayed bridge the cables are directly attached from the pylons to the bridge deck. Modern bridges of this design have multiple cables that may be individually replaced and there is in any case multiple redundancy.


In the case of the Morandi bridge there was just one cable bundle encased in concrete. This meant there was no structural redundancy and no way of monitoring the condition. The example here which did not fail had been spotted as a problem when the concrete started to break up due to the corrosion of the internal cables and was strengthened, the span that did fail had not been strengthened as there was no visible corrosion.


There are suspension bridges that have been in service in maritime environments for a very long time and are still in good condition. The Golden Gate Bridge between San Francisco and Marin County was built in 1933 and when inspected in 2018 passed with flying colours.

Three months after engineers descended on rope from tower to tower on the Golden Gate Bridge as part of a federally regulated bridge biannual inspection, the inspection results are in: The bridge is structurally sound, but needs a paint job and cosmetic work.

It suffered no damage during the 1971 magnitude 7.1 earthquake and a the ongoing seismic retrofit will ensure that its strong enough to survive a magnitude 8 quake which is more than could be said of much of the city. While any steel structure is subject to rust a a good painting and inspection routine can keep it safe. You cannot examine steel tendons encased in concrete.

In the UK there has been a mandatory inspection regime on bridges for may years, it was just such an inspection that lead to the decision to reroute the A14 and remove the Huntingdon Viaduct

[roadtester]

The A40 at Cheltenham will probably never get done.

In fairness, the option of A436 -> A417 already exists for E-W traffic, and N-S traffic has M5.

Yes - we all use that! .... In fact it would make some sense to improve it and renumber it as A40.

Does it really count as a bypass though?

Surely there's a difference between a purpose-built section of road designed to alleviate an urban congestion blackspot, and a situation where people who are quite geeky and knowledgeable about roads pick out a not necessarily obvious diversionary route consisting of existing established roads that takes you off the numbered A road in question?

[Chris Bertram]

In fairness, the option of A436 -> A417 already exists for E-W traffic, and N-S traffic has M5.

Yes - we all use that! .... In fact it would make some sense to improve it and renumber it as A40.

Does it really count as a bypass though?

Surely there's a difference between a purpose-built section of road designed to alleviate an urban congestion blackspot, and a situation where people who are quite geeky and knowledgeable about roads pick out a not necessarily obvious diversionary route consisting of existing established roads that takes you off the numbered A road in question?

Gloucester is already signed that way from Andoversford. So not really a geeky "in the know" option.

[NICK 647063]

I do the wonder whether the A169 might actually be busier than the A170? Whitby is a major resort and a lot of traffic would come from the direction of York and the A64.

While the A169 is probably busier in the summer months it really passes through Pickering without huge issues, the only hold ups are around the A170 roundabout but if that was bypassed by the A170 then the A169 would get more priority through that Junction.

The A170 passes more through the town centre and has parking issues, not only would a Pickering bypass take the A170 traffic away but it would relieve many roads in the area, at present the road from Kirkbymoorside to Amotherby takes a good amount of traffic to Malton and also Flamingo land traffic avoiding Pickering, while the back roads are shorter if a Pickering bypass was built then Kirkbymoorside to Malton traffic would likely use the A170/A169 route, the A170 Pickering bypass does get mentioned now and again by NY CC so don’t think we can say it will never happen.

[KeithW]

I do the wonder whether the A169 might actually be busier than the A170? Whitby is a major resort and a lot of traffic would come from the direction of York and the A64.

In my experience the A169 is a little quieter, neither are usually a problem, where you typically get held up is Falsgrave where the A64 traffic meets the A170.

[Lewis1997]

More likely to see the A1065 downgraded to a B-road and through traffic signposted via the A11/A134 past Thetford than actually have a bypass built I'd guess?

I think we can 100% say Brandon will never get a bypass, Brandon town council and Suffolk cc requested that all through traffic was directed via the upgraded A11, this was done so the only destination signed via the A1065 is Brandon, the thing that I found strange was Suffolk CC wanted this not signed with primary destinations yet insisted the A1065 remained primary so it got its funding from government rather than the council funding it, now I’m not sure if primary routes get far more government money but this is what it implied, this is the reason why it’s still A class primary, personally if it’s not performing a primary role then it should be downgraded, it just seems like Suffolk want the best of both, less traffic but same level of funding.

I’m not sure it’s a completely dead in the water with Brandon being bypassed. If National Rail wanted and insisted on the LC being closed, there would be very little choice but to bypass Brandon in order for an overpass/underpass to be constructed. That is more than less the only exception and reason for bypassing Brandon.

[Jonathan B4027]

Woodstock, though to be fair the M40 put paid to that. Aylesbury, tried in vain but has never got there. Ashbourne for the A515.

[Owain]

Yes - we all use that! .... In fact it would make some sense to improve it and renumber it as A40.

Does it really count as a bypass though?

Surely there's a difference between a purpose-built section of road designed to alleviate an urban congestion blackspot, and a situation where people who are quite geeky and knowledgeable about roads pick out a not necessarily obvious diversionary route consisting of existing established roads that takes you off the numbered A road in question?

Gloucester is already signed that way from Andoversford. So not really a geeky "in the know" option.

Indeed, the reason I've always used it has nothing to do with being a roads geek; my dad always bypassed Gloucester that way when I was a kid.

[roadtester]

Does it really count as a bypass though?

Surely there's a difference between a purpose-built section of road designed to alleviate an urban congestion blackspot, and a situation where people who are quite geeky and knowledgeable about roads pick out a not necessarily obvious diversionary route consisting of existing established roads that takes you off the numbered A road in question?

Gloucester is already signed that way from Andoversford. So not really a geeky "in the know" option.

Indeed, the reason I've always used it has nothing to do with being a roads geek; my dad always bypassed Gloucester that way when I was a kid.

Someone going to Gloucester as a destination might follow that, but I don't think it's obvious that someone setting out to follow the A40 to destinations beyond would say to themselves "Ah, that's the way I need to go to get around Cheltenham on the way to Abergavenny [or wherever]."

Also, that bit of the A436, while very scenic is actually a really crap, slow, piece of road so couldn't really take much in the way of HGVs/through traffic without becoming hopelessly overloaded.

[Herned]

Also, that bit of the A436, while very scenic is actually a really crap, slow, piece of road so couldn't really take much in the way of HGVs/through traffic without becoming hopelessly overloaded.

It's not much worse than the A40 from Witney though, so it's not a big step down in quality, and saves traipsing through Cheltenham.

The A40 has a fair few towns which are unlikely to get bypassed, everywhere between Cheltenham to Carmarthen that haven't been done already seem pretty unlikely

[Owain]

Gloucester is already signed that way from Andoversford. So not really a geeky "in the know" option.

Indeed, the reason I've always used it has nothing to do with being a roads geek; my dad always bypassed Gloucester that way when I was a kid.

Someone going to Gloucester as a destination might follow that, but I don't think it's obvious that someone setting out to follow the A40 to destinations beyond would say to themselves "Ah, that's the way I need to go to get around Cheltenham on the way to Abergavenny [or wherever]."

Also, that bit of the A436, while very scenic is actually a really crap, slow, piece of road so couldn't really take much in the way of HGVs/through traffic without becoming hopelessly overloaded.

[NB - Obviously I meant 'bypass Cheltenham' in my previous post, not Gloucester!]

We were always heading west of Gloucester, because I've never actually lived in Gloucester itself (even if I'd rank it 1st and foremost on a list of 'my' cities!). Local people know to use it.

You are of course right that it isn't a bypass in the sense that it wasn't built as one; since 1922 (or 1935, at least - I don't have time to check!) the A436 has been a road in its own right, which just happens to avoid Cheltenham.

But the fact that it offers a better route than the A40 from Andoversford to the M5 or Abergavenny does rather strengthen the argument in favour of improving it and renumbering it as A40.

And it's not *that* bad! The 50 limit wasn't there when I was a teenager, and just as well!!

[roadtester]

You are of course right that it isn't a bypass in the sense that it wasn't built as one; since 1922 (or 1935, at least - I don't have time to check!) the A436 has been a road in its own right, which just happens to avoid Cheltenham.

But the fact that it offers a better route than the A40 from Andoversford to the M5 or Abergavenny does rather strengthen the argument in favour of improving it and renumbering it as A40.

I certainly think that when the Air Balloon is fixed, more people may twig to the possibilities of the cut-across, and then the pressure to improve the A436 and possibly re-route the A40 that way could grow.

[Norfolktolancashire]

Ambleside is pretty much doomed to suffer from through traffic for ever.

There was once a plan for a western bypass.

No chance now and rightly so, a bypass would encourage more through traffic instead of using the M6/A66 route.

Most traffic is tourist orientated and will go through the town anyway.

[Truvelo]

Ambleside is pretty much doomed to suffer from through traffic for ever.

There was once a plan for a western bypass.

Is this what you are talking about?

http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreh ... 37263.html

[Norfolktolancashire]

Ambleside is pretty much doomed to suffer from through traffic for ever.

There was once a plan for a western bypass.

Is this what you are talking about?

http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreh ... 37263.html

Not seen that link road proposal, I just remember one being adjacent to this unclassified road running northwards

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.98186 ... 312!8i6656

[ForestChav]

Ambleside is pretty much doomed to suffer from through traffic for ever.

There was once a plan for a western bypass.

No chance now and rightly so, a bypass would encourage more through traffic instead of using the M6/A66 route.

Most traffic is tourist orientated and will go through the town anyway.

You could easily do that, but as you say most traffic will stop there anyway. The place is a pain for traffic though.

The sad thing is, part of it is already done - the A5095 from Waterhead to the A593, but then, just dumps all the traffic into the same 1-way system. You could easily carry this on (maybe you could borrow a bit of the current system) to take an alignment west of the church (which is the main reason I want to go back up there now, as it has a Hope-Jones organ, long story) bypassing the rest of the town to the west, but what would be the point? The terrain is fine, but it'd probably end up encouraging more development. To be honest the A591 would be better not primary as it would encourage more traffic to use the M6 and A66.

You'd never be able to bypass Ambleside to the East. I've stayed there a few times though not since the last time when I was about 12 and got dragged up Fairfield (not particularly fun, but bragging points for doing stupidly long hilly walking) and the hills are virtually up to the housing, if not before then! It's a lovely town though.

[Halmyre]

There was once a plan for a western bypass.

Is this what you are talking about?

http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreh ... 37263.html

Not seen that link road proposal, I just remember one being adjacent to this unclassified road running northwards

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.98186 ... 312!8i6656

That takes you to somewhere in Lincolnshire(?) One hell of a bypass for Ambleside...

[Patrick Harper]

Hitchin and Letchworth on the A505.