Improving A229 M2-M20

[Patrick Harper]

The reason you need to split local and strategic traffic is because those local journeys that are under 5 miles need to move towards being possible by other means than hopping in a car and sitting in traffic, and being able to hop on a motorway for 2 miles and then back off again just encourages you to do that by car. Over 2/3rds of trips are under 5 miles according to 2016 figures - many people are capable of walking, cycling these lengths. Those who won't because of time reasons could benefit from an accessible and properly funded public transport service.
Just taking 25% of short trips out of cars could revolutionise things. It isn't impossible and you can still have a strong economy whilst discouraging car use. It's a myth of car manufacturers that owning a car is freedom, it's a massive annual expense that spends most of its life parked up somewhere.

Again, this is digressing into a separate issue. I know you hold this view, and we probably all agree to varying degrees. But that smacks of social engineering, and motorists have not yet been persuaded to that view. Extra (non-road) infrastructure would be required to achieve that persuasion, if at all.

If this is your attitude, I highly recommend cycling the entirety of the Great North Road through Bedfordshire.

[MotorwayPlannerM21]

Honestly, I think the remaining D2M sections of the M2 need upgrading to D3M more than the A229 needs an upgrade. I've been on a good fraction of this country's motorways in my life and I'd have to say the D2M part of the M2 is the least effective one I've been on. Overtaking lorries make both lanes run at 50-60mph and it's a very unpleasant drive; I've been in a coach undertaking cars on the M2 and that's in normal, non-congested conditions. There's a reason the M20 is a far better route from London to the channel tunnel and it's because it's D3M throughout it's length. It makes all the difference on roads that carry a lot of HGV traffic.

The M2 could definitely do with an upgrade, but that shouldn't be an excuse not to sort out the A229. It has problems without all the extra traffic that would come with the LTC. The M2/A2 may be the route to Dover from the LTC, but the A229/M20 will be the route to the Channel Tunnel, so still needs sorting out.

[someone]

There's a reason the M20 is a far better route from London to the channel tunnel and it's because it's D3M throughout it's length.

There is, and that reason is a conscious and deliberate effort to make the M20 the main route to the channel ports.

And given the M2/A2 corridor is a longer route to Folkestone, and means having to travel through Dover, it would never be the first choice to the channel tunnel for long distance traffic anyway.

Even if you wanted that corridor to be the the main route to Dover, grade separation (three roundabouts and a set of lights) and dualling of the S2 sections of the A2 would be bigger priorities than upgrading the M2.

But it is not, which is why the investment goes into the M20.

The M20 is shortest route to the channel tunnel regardless of where on the M25 you start. It will take all traffic to the channel ports from the west (joining via the M26), and is only four miles longer to Dover for traffic from the north (joining via the A282 and M25) to Dover.

Unless the M20 is struggling so badly, it makes more sense to target investment on the one corridor that providing all alternative high quality route for specifically Dartford to Dover traffic. Which would cost significantly more for only a small benefit.

And the L.T.C. will not change this equation. The best route to the channel tunnel will still be via the A229 to the M20. But this route will also only be one mile longer to Dover than staying on the M2 / A2, worsening the cost-benefit ratio, whilst trading one set of at-grade junctions for another.

I assume it is only because of the current quality of the A229 that Dover traffic is signed to remain on the M2 rather than switch to the M20. And that direction is mainly aimed at local north Kent traffic anyway. Long distance traffic to Dover had already been directed to the M20 from Dartford, and even on the A2 out of London it says to leave at Darenth for the M25 and M20.

The A229 is much more important strategically than the Sittingbourne bypass and will become even more so with the opening of the L.T.C. The M2 is essentially the Medway, Canterbury, and Thanet motorway. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[Micro The Maniac]

The M2 could definitely do with an upgrade, but that shouldn't be an excuse not to sort out the A229. It has problems without all the extra traffic that would come with the LTC. The M2/A2 may be the route to Dover from the LTC, but the A229/M20 will be the route to the Channel Tunnel, so still needs sorting out.

The problem you have with the A229 is that it runs across the Kent Downs AONB - and as we know from elsewhere, this is now a big obstacle for improvements.

[A9NWIL]

The reason you need to split local and strategic traffic is because those local journeys that are under 5 miles need to move towards being possible by other means than hopping in a car and sitting in traffic, and being able to hop on a motorway for 2 miles and then back off again just encourages you to do that by car. Over 2/3rds of trips are under 5 miles according to 2016 figures - many people are capable of walking, cycling these lengths. Those who won't because of time reasons could benefit from an accessible and properly funded public transport service.
Just taking 25% of short trips out of cars could revolutionise things. It isn't impossible and you can still have a strong economy whilst discouraging car use. It's a myth of car manufacturers that owning a car is freedom, it's a massive annual expense that spends most of its life parked up somewhere.

Again, this is digressing into a separate issue. I know you hold this view, and we probably all agree to varying degrees. But that smacks of social engineering, and motorists have not yet been persuaded to that view. Extra (non-road) infrastructure would be required to achieve that persuasion, if at all.

If this is your attitude, I highly recommend cycling the entirety of the Great North Road through Bedfordshire.

Thats suicide to attempt such a thing!

[Cryoraptor]

The M2 could definitely do with an upgrade, but that shouldn't be an excuse not to sort out the A229. It has problems without all the extra traffic that would come with the LTC. The M2/A2 may be the route to Dover from the LTC, but the A229/M20 will be the route to the Channel Tunnel, so still needs sorting out.

The problem you have with the A229 is that it runs across the Kent Downs AONB - and as we know from elsewhere, this is now a big obstacle for improvements.

Cough A303 blackdown hills cough

I'm not really sure what the big deal with upgrading the A229 is if I'm honest. Every time I've been down it I've never had a problem (although that's not to say it doesn't face congestion ever). It seems to be one of the higher quality roads in this country. Of course, upgrading it to D6M and renumbering it to M2000 would ease traffic but are upgrades necessary? Like I have already said, there are many areas on the Kentish network that appear to be in much more dire need of upgrades than the M2, let alone the A229.

[Cryoraptor]

There's a reason the M20 is a far better route from London to the channel tunnel and it's because it's D3M throughout it's length.

There is, and that reason is a conscious and deliberate effort to make the M20 the main route to the channel ports.

And given the M2/A2 corridor is a longer route to Folkestone, and means having to travel through Dover, it would never be the first choice to the channel tunnel for long distance traffic anyway.

Even if you wanted that corridor to be the the main route to Dover, grade separation (three roundabouts and a set of lights) and dualling of the S2 sections of the A2 would be bigger priorities than upgrading the M2.

But it is not, which is why the investment goes into the M20.

The M20 is shortest route to the channel tunnel regardless of where on the M25 you start. It will take all traffic to the channel ports from the west (joining via the M26), and is only four miles longer to Dover for traffic from the north (joining via the A282 and M25) to Dover.

Unless the M20 is struggling so badly, it makes more sense to target investment on the one corridor that providing all alternative high quality route for specifically Dartford to Dover traffic. Which would cost significantly more for only a small benefit.

And the L.T.C. will not change this equation. The best route to the channel tunnel will still be via the A229 to the M20. But this route will also only be one mile longer to Dover than staying on the M2 / A2, worsening the cost-benefit ratio, whilst trading one set of at-grade junctions for another.

I assume it is only because of the current quality of the A229 that Dover traffic is signed to remain on the M2 rather than switch to the M20. And that direction is mainly aimed at local north Kent traffic anyway. Long distance traffic to Dover had already been directed to the M20 from Dartford, and even on the A2 out of London it says to leave at Darenth for the M25 and M20.

The A229 is much more important strategically than the Sittingbourne bypass and will become even more so with the opening of the L.T.C. The M2 is essentially the Medway, Canterbury, and Thanet motorway. And there is nothing wrong with that.

You just outlined the reasons why the M20 was built to D3M standard to begin with. I pointed out that practically speaking, it's a better motorway than the M2 because it was built to that standard, and the motorway has succeeded in what it was meant to do.

Even if we dumb down the M2's job to being the Medway Bypass as you describe, that doesn't change the problems the motorway has. Every single time I've ever been on that stretch of the M2, on and off peak, the exact same thing happens and traffic ends up flowing at 50-60mph in both lanes, which suggests it's a long-standing issue with the road.

The A229 however? Never had a problem at all and most of those times were when we were using the M2 in the same journey.

So which road is more in need of an upgrade? Clearly that section of the M2 is busy enough that it suffers from constant problems and would greatly benefit from D3M, while the A229 seems to be getting requests to be upgraded because 'muh hill (which is already incidentally D3 to my knowledge so I'm not sure what much else you can do with that)' and 'muh thames crossing'.

[MotorwayPlannerM21]

I'm not really sure what the big deal with upgrading the A229 is if I'm honest [...] are upgrades necessary?

Yes.

[MotorwayPlannerM21]

So which road is more in need of an upgrade? Clearly that section of the M2 is busy enough that it suffers from constant problems and would greatly benefit from D3M, while the A229 seems to be getting requests to be upgraded because 'muh hill (which is already incidentally D3 to my knowledge so I'm not sure what much else you can do with that)' and 'muh thames crossing'.

That section (M2 - M20) has 3 lanes on a quarter of it (the northbound climbing section), while the rest is 2 lanes. It may be alright most of the time, but it can get really bad (and will only get worse with the LTC) and is the only decent route between Medway and Maidstone, so if there's an incident, as there are only two lanes for most of it, the whole road (at least the affected carriageway(s)) has to closed, causing chaos on the local road network (one of the rat-runs is this, not even S2). The section that can actuallly get the worst is in fact the 3 lane bit. Only one lane leaves for the M2, despite more traffic (AFAIK) leaving. This means when busy, lane 1 is solid, lane 2 is full of people wanting to cut the queue in lane 1, and lane 3 is flowing quickly. In times like these, joining here is an absolute nightmare.

Not to mention the appalling state of the junctions at either end.

[KeithW]

I'm not really sure what the big deal with upgrading the A229 is if I'm honest. Every time I've been down it I've never had a problem (although that's not to say it doesn't face congestion ever). It seems to be one of the higher quality roads in this country. Of course, upgrading it to D6M and renumbering it to M2000 would ease traffic but are upgrades necessary? Like I have already said, there are many areas on the Kentish network that appear to be in much more dire need of upgrades than the M2, let alone the A229.

The construction of the Lower Thames Crossing east of Gravesend and Tilbury will increase traffic on the road as traffic using the M20 will use the A229 rather than go the long way round via the M20/A282/A2. Given that the hill is quite steep, a lot of that traffic will be HGV's and the AADF is already pushing 70k the answer is yes.

The M20 at that point has an AADF of over 120k if only 20% switch to the LTC that will add 24,000 extra vehicle movements a day. As has already been said the issue is not simply widening but improving the junction with the M2 which was a bodge at best.

[Peter Freeman]

I used GE historical view to step back through the years for A229's interchanges with M2 and M20, looking for long queues, in order to ensure that I understood exactly where the main problem is. I see it is M2 eastbound to A229 southbound (you all know that anyway).

I was fascinated to see that the M20 interchange is already on its third incarnation, and the M2 one on its second. The 'nicest' one was the original M2 interchange: (a) a dumbbell over A229 and (b) a trumpet over M2, (a) and (b) efficiently sharing one roundabout. The remains of the eastern dumbbell roundabout are still visible. It was a cute and clever layout, and generally more direct than today's version, but grossly under-powered.

So then I looked again, this time paying more attention, at the three 2020 options on offer, only to find that they're all rubbish: just more mucking around with roundabouts. And through-abouts - for goodness sake! Definitely one of the worst intersection inventions ever.

I don't have a good suggestion to make. Jackal's ideas may be the best we'll get for the amount of money HE can afford, but it really requires a complete re-start.

Regarding the number of A229 lanes, I'm surprised that the uphill part of northbound doesn't have 3 lanes like the approach to M2 does (though on GE I can't see any congestion caused by it). But more than 3 lanes can't be required: the northbound queuing is surely caused by (i) the single lane exit to M2 and (ii) insufficient distance to get into the left lane following the final minor road merge going north. Free-flowing the M2 connector should unblock that. If not, then a bit of creative braiding is required there.

[someone]

So which road is more in need of an upgrade?

In my experience, the A1 north of Peterborough, and especially the junction around Newark when it backs up the road. And at least that is competing for the same Highways England budget as the M2. Unlike the the A229, as that is the responsibility of Kent County Council. Also I am sure the cost of two junction improvements will be much less than widening 16 miles of motorway.

But sadly for us, funding decisions are not based on your or my personal ordeals and preferences. I have been on the M2 and it has flowed nicely. I have been on the A229 and it has been congested. You may have had no problems on the A1. So maybe it is best that decisions are based on actual usage and modelled predictions rather than our subjective experiences.

[MotorwayPlannerM21]

Regarding the number of A229 lanes, I'm surprised that the uphill part of northbound doesn't have 3 lanes like the approach to M2 does (though on GE I can't see any congestion caused by it). But more than 3 lanes can't be required: the northbound queuing is surely caused by the single lane exit to M2 and insufficient distance to get into the correct lane following the final minor road merge going north. Free-flowing the M2 connector should unblock that, otherwise just a bit of creative braiding is required there.

The third lane starts just after these signs (if you go up the road a bit it will be clearer). I think the third lane is mainly a climbing lane rather than for capacity, as currently most of the time the extra capacity isn't really needed until closer to the M2. The LTC will of course bring more traffic to the road so there may be a need for a fourth lane starting at about the same place as the third one currently does (for the same purpose), but I'm not sure whether it would be needed or not. Extending the third lane back to the M20 and making the southbound carriageway 3 lanes between the two motorways is definitely required for the LTC, along with free-flow at the two junctions where possible (M20 might be a little difficult). I'm currently working on my own (maybe somewhat optimistic) plan on how to upgrade the route.

[Peter Freeman]

Thanks for clarifying. I'd formed the impression that the third lane began after the steep hill.

[JackieRoads]

Four options for improving M2 J3 were discussed in a 2016 report (see p. 14 this thread). The only realistic one IMO was this:

CV2: "At the northern end a 50mph speed limit (85 km/h design speed) free-flowing link is proposed from the M2 eastbound onto a slip road that connects to the A229 southbound. No viaduct would be required for this link. In order to accommodate the proposed alignment, the following existing infrastructure would need to be removed:
 A229 overbridge just north of the M2
 A229 northbound section between the A2045 interchange and M2
 A2045 southbound off-slip and northbound on-slip
 B2097 interchange
 Reconfigure local roads
... Northbound traffic on the A229 would require two new bridges approximately 500m long in total to connect to the M2 westbound."

Here's my interpretation of it:

M2 A229 CV2 - Copy.png

See also the 2013 AECOM plan for a full A229 upgrade (with an improbable tunnel for M2 to A229):

https://www.scribd.com/document/3505190 ... ement-Copy

That could work, but I hope they wouldn't just leave the roundabout to the north (Bridgewood) as it is. Ideally, we'd need a big signalised crossroads with 4-5 lanes on each A229 approach for the amount of traffic that goes straight through there in the morning and evening rush hours. Obviously this would be a nightmare during construction as the flyover would have to be closed and demolished before the junction is built, but it would be better in the long term than maybe adding more lanes to the roundabout as they might do.

You see, MotorwayPlannerM21 drew up a route planning for the new M2, you can spot the changes to the current M2 J3. (They can be found in the Fantasy Maps and Ideas thread, not to go off-topic)

[trickstat]

So which road is more in need of an upgrade?

In my experience, the A1 north of Peterborough, and especially the junction around Newark when it backs up the road. And at least that is competing for the same Highways England budget as the M2. Unlike the the A229, as that is the responsibility of Kent County Council. Also I am sure the cost of two junction improvements will be much less than widening 16 miles of motorway.

But sadly for us, funding decisions are not based on your or my personal ordeals and preferences. I have been on the M2 and it has flowed nicely. I have been on the A229 and it has been congested. You may have had no problems on the A1. So maybe it is best that decisions are based on actual usage and modelled predictions rather than our subjective experiences.

This is a very valid point. There are quite a few roads that get mentioned as needing upgrades that I have driven on and not had a problem with. However, this tends to be because I haven't ever driven on them or needed to drive them at weekday peak times. For example, I have lived my whole life about 30 minutes south of the Black Cat roundabout and I think I have only once been in a large queue on the A1 to the south of it, and only once to the north of it. This is because, over the years I have usually only driven it at weekends or at weekdays when I can leave later in the morning.

[Cryoraptor]

In my experience, the A1 north of Peterborough

Can't disagree with that one, I think I outlined my idea of what should happen to the A1 and surrounding roads on the create a road thread.

And fair enough. I can only speak from my experiences and my thoughts, and from my experience, the M2 is a bigger problem than the A229. But of course, I don't expect upgrades to happen purely because I say so.

You may have had no problems on the A1

To be honest, the only time I've been through the Lincolnshire section of the A1 was when I was 6 on the way to York, so I wouldn't really remember what sections were a problem as I don't think I had any idea what Lincolnshire actually was at that point . Having said that I think the journey (from London where we lived at the time) took 5-6 hours so we probably did encounter trouble at some section, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was in Lincolnshire.

[MotorwayPlannerM21]

I'm currently working on my own (maybe somewhat optimistic) plan on how to upgrade the route.

And here it is.

I've tried to keep it somewhat in the realm of reality. The idea is to widen the road to D3, with a possible fourth lane up the hill, and add free-flow connections for the principal strategic movements (facilitating a nice link between the LTC and Channel Tunnel).

M2 Junction
The M2 junction is inspired by some of the designs seen up-thread, but with a bit of my own flair added. I've tried to retain the free-flow on the A229 where possible, with the current flyover at the Bridgewood roundabout (A229/A2045/B2097) replaced with a one-way one for southbound traffic (unfortunately, there's not enough space for a northbound one, so that traffic has to go through a signalised junction). The A2045/Walderslade Woods is also fully dualled between the M2 and A229 to allow it to handle more traffic (it works fine right now, but due to changes in the layout, more traffic would be directed down it). Also, it may partly be to look neater!

Lower Bell Junction
The junction by the Lower Bell pub (with Rochester Road, which goes to Aylesford) has been for the most part unchanged for the southbound carriageway, although the northbound on-slip has been looped around the other side, moving it away from the old route of the A229, which would be extended as a(n) LAR, possibly allowing this section to become a motorway if desired. The services on both carriageways would also be removed and possibly relocated.

M20 Junction
The M20 junction is a bit more limited for space, although easier in terms of topography (compared to the M2). I've squeezed in an elevated loop from the M20 WB to A229 NB, merging before the M20 bridge. To facilitate this, the A229 NB unfortunately has to be narrowed to one lane lane, but this shouldn't cause too much trouble, and it also allows there to be a lane drop for M20 traffic from Maidstone, which can get quite a lot during the evening rush hour, often queuing back onto the A229. While this is obviously at least partially caused by the Running Horse Roundabout, a lane drop wouldn't go amiss. On the topic of the Running Horse Roundabout, my plan obliterates the two roundabouts at the junction, replacing them with syncronised, signalised junctions. I figure if it's going to be signalised anyway (which, by traffic levels there, is probably needed), it might as well be done properly, rather than just slapping traffic lights on a roundabout. The access onto the slip-road from Sandling (by Tyland Barn) is also removed (traffic would have to go to either Sandling Road or back to the Lower Bell junction). As such, the southern quarter of the roundabout -- which is currently only used by traffic from Sandling or the A229 wishing to U-turn -- would be closed to normal traffic, although retained for emergency use. U-turns can still be made at the Running Horse no-longer-Roundabout.

[e17simon]

Hi there,

Im not sure whether this has already been mentioned but here goes.

There should be a dedicated filter lane from the M20 Westbound joining onto the A229 northbound making D3 from there. At the moment it's just a sliproad onto a D2 but in approx 200 metres up the road it turns in a D3.

[Gareth Thomas]

Whilst upgrading is needed, could it be possible that the M20 continues to remain the signed route for the Channel Tunnel and that the new road becomes the signed destination for Dover? So you could have something like this:

<-- Dover, Canterbury (M2) Gravesend [New Number]

Channel Tunnel (M20), Gatwick, Dartford Crossing M25 -->

That way Dover traffic stays on the M2/A2 route, although some work may have to be done at Brenley Corner and Lydden. Meanwhile Channel Tunnel traffic stays on the M25 towards the M20 and uses the existing route. By taking some of the Dover traffic off the Dartford Crossing and M20, it reduces jams there?

A lot of traffic will still stay on the existing M25/A282 as the new crossing is only of any use if you are going to/from Kent, so I suspect it will still be the main route. If I were driving from, say, Stanstead to the Channel Tunnel, I'd certainly continue to use the M25/A282 as it is almost entirely motorway and mainline, rather than possible queues at either end of the A229 despite the free-flowing links.