A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

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

A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by jackal »

Neither option is truly horrible, though option 4 is much the better.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... sultation/
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by c2R »

Thanks for that, I've responded. Option 4 is definitely far better as it elminates the conflict between the two A12 strategic flows.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by JammyDodge »

Reading through the SOAR, it seems that option 4 is the preferred option, despite its upfront cost, it provides the most benefits for the least disruption
Although, The lower price tag on option 1 makes it more likely, I have hope that option 4 will be taken forward
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Truvelo »

Any drawings for options 2 and 3? The comments just say it's similar to option 4.

I'm surprised there were no options for A12 to A14 north freeflow movements. I've have experienced delays on the southbound exit slip. However, if option 4 does get the go ahead it will allow the signal timings to be altered to give this movement more green time.
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: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by jackal »

The costs of the scheme illustrate the massive difference between outturn and present value of cost, which results in much confusion about how much schemes cost:

Option Outturn cost (£m) PVC (£m)
Option 1 £77.1 £38.7
Option 1B £86.0 £43.2
Option 4 £248.4 £109.7

Option 4 looks a snip at £110m but pricey at £250m - which is it to be? Answer: both!

(1B is a rejected option that's just option 1 built with earthworks rather than retaining walls.)
Truvelo wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 17:54 Any drawings for options 2 and 3? The comments just say it's similar to option 4.
Copdock option 2 - Copy.JPG
Copdock option 3 - Copy.JPG

The first image above is the stage 1 version of option 2. This was developed after the perfectly decent stage 0 design was slain by the new DMRB:

Copdock option 2 stage 0 - Copy.JPG

"The basic layout of Option 2 from stage 0 was updated. The alignment of the new free-flowing slip
roads was revised, increasing their radius. This was due to changes to Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges (DMRB) design standards (CD 122 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions) which
would have meant the radii used previously would now constitute departures from standards"
(from the report JammyDodge links above).

When a design with such massive radii turns doesn't have big enough radii there is something wrong with your design manual...
I'm surprised there were no options for A12 to A14 north freeflow movements. I've have experienced delays on the southbound exit slip. However, if option 4 does get the go ahead it will allow the signal timings to be altered to give this movement more green time.
I agree, they should at least have looked at it. But unlikely it would have gone ahead as the movements to/from A14 south have are busier, with more HGVs, and perhaps the key thing, the scheme seems to be funded from a port connectivity fund.
Last edited by jackal on Sat Oct 30, 2021 18:19, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by SouthWest Philip »

Option 4 is pretty decent, but I can't help but think it would be better for the two eastbound entries to merge separately onto the A14 than merge together first with the main flow from the A12 on the wrong side. And surely the A14 would need to be widened at least as far as the next junction?

It might perhaps have been better if the junction had been built originally as a directional-T between the A12 and A14 with the old A12 retained and bridging the A14 to maintain access between the A12 South and Ipswich?
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by c2R »

Truvelo wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 17:54 Any drawings for options 2 and 3? The comments just say it's similar to option 4.

I'm surprised there were no options for A12 to A14 north freeflow movements. I've have experienced delays on the southbound exit slip. However, if option 4 does get the go ahead it will allow the signal timings to be altered to give this movement more green time.
Yes, I also responded to say that a filter lane for strategic A12 to A14 westbound should be considered in option 4 - this would mean that local traffic could be queued on the roundabout even longer to allow strategic A14 eastbound to A12 to be given an longer green stage.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Bryn666 »

Jackal hits the nail on the head: DMRB is unfit for purpose where freeflow interchanges are concerned.

It is obsessed with the notion that unless you can steam though at 70 mph then it must be a roundabout instead. Whoever signed off on that concept needs to just go and get a job stacking shelves in a warehouse because they know diddle squat about highway design.
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
gromitA303
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 22:23

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by gromitA303 »

Option 4 is preferable but I fear we will end up with Option 1 due to locals concern over environmental impacts of Option 4.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by KeithW »

Bryn666 wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 13:01 Jackal hits the nail on the head: DMRB is unfit for purpose where freeflow interchanges are concerned.

It is obsessed with the notion that unless you can steam though at 70 mph then it must be a roundabout instead. Whoever signed off on that concept needs to just go and get a job stacking shelves in a warehouse because they know diddle squat about highway design.
Agreed, my favourite junction as must be plain by now is the A19/A66 junction, you are seriously pushing your luck if you exceed 50mph on some of the routes BUT the reality is that it copes extraordinarily well with high volumes of turning traffic in a compact space. The fact that its freeflow trumps all the other considerations.
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by fras »

Bryn666 wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 13:01 Jackal hits the nail on the head: DMRB is unfit for purpose where freeflow interchanges are concerned.

It is obsessed with the notion that unless you can steam though at 70 mph then it must be a roundabout instead. Whoever signed off on that concept needs to just go and get a job stacking shelves in a warehouse because they know diddle squat about highway design.
And every new road, dual or single carriageway, always seems to come out at 50 mph or less !
M19
Member
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2001 05:00
Location: Rothwell, Northants

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by M19 »

So this is why we end up with so many crap light infested dumbbell type junctions where there ought to be free flow direct connector junctions?

Give a choice between a dumbell and a compact free flow, even if it means lower speed limits in the turns I’d take the latter every time. Apply the criteria of what takes the least time and effort and the latter would win.

Surely under the climate emergency agenda, free flow has to be better than junctions that create congestion for the sake of it.
M19
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Bryn666 »

M19 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 15:40 So this is why we end up with so many crap light infested dumbbell type junctions where there ought to be free flow direct connector junctions?

Give a choice between a dumbell and a compact free flow, even if it means lower speed limits in the turns I’d take the latter every time. Apply the criteria of what takes the least time and effort and the latter would win.

Surely under the climate emergency agenda, free flow has to be better than junctions that create congestion for the sake of it.
This is exactly my argument. You also develop grade separation as default so other modes aren't interacting with heavy traffic as the Dutch are now demonstrating as part of sustainable safety - people prefer to walk and ride bikes if their route is not constantly interrupted by car routes. We've factored this into LTN 1/20 but DMRB still encourages crap roundabouts and at grade crossings controlled by signals.
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
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Bomag »

Bryn666 wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 13:01 Jackal hits the nail on the head: DMRB is unfit for purpose where freeflow interchanges are concerned.

It is obsessed with the notion that unless you can steam though at 70 mph then it must be a roundabout instead. Whoever signed off on that concept needs to just go and get a job stacking shelves in a warehouse because they know diddle squat about highway design.
It's comments like this which would indicate that you should think about join her on the shelves.

Does putting free flow links at a reduced design speed result in
1. All traffic slowing to the appropriate design speed, or
2. Large percentage of traffic steaming through at 70mph, often with an inability to get round the curves within the same lane.

For all projects to put in free-flow links at a junction designers are reminded why they don't ever want to do another.
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by JammyDodge »

Bomag wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 17:23
Bryn666 wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 13:01 Jackal hits the nail on the head: DMRB is unfit for purpose where freeflow interchanges are concerned.

It is obsessed with the notion that unless you can steam though at 70 mph then it must be a roundabout instead. Whoever signed off on that concept needs to just go and get a job stacking shelves in a warehouse because they know diddle squat about highway design.
It's comments like this which would indicate that you should think about join her on the shelves.

Does putting free flow links at a reduced design speed result in
1. All traffic slowing to the appropriate design speed, or
2. Large percentage of traffic steaming through at 70mph, often with an inability to get round the curves within the same lane.

For all projects to put in free-flow links at a junction designers are reminded why they don't ever want to do another.
There really should be a variable design speed depending on the roads intersecting
Example:
Motorway - Motorway = 50mph
Motorway - Trunk A = 40mph
Motorway - Other = 30mph
Other = 30mph

Advisory signs should be used heavily to help drivers adjust to an appropriate speed.
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Bryn666 »

Bomag wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 17:23
Bryn666 wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 13:01 Jackal hits the nail on the head: DMRB is unfit for purpose where freeflow interchanges are concerned.

It is obsessed with the notion that unless you can steam though at 70 mph then it must be a roundabout instead. Whoever signed off on that concept needs to just go and get a job stacking shelves in a warehouse because they know diddle squat about highway design.
It's comments like this which would indicate that you should think about join her on the shelves.

Does putting free flow links at a reduced design speed result in
1. All traffic slowing to the appropriate design speed, or
2. Large percentage of traffic steaming through at 70mph, often with an inability to get round the curves within the same lane.

For all projects to put in free-flow links at a junction designers are reminded why they don't ever want to do another.
However does, I dunno, the rest of the world cope with freeflow interchanges in a small footprint? British exceptionalism again?

I must have missed the reports of vast swathes of the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, the USA, Japan, China, Israel, to name just a few where they get around this problem by using reduced speed limits and transition lengths that take you from higher speed to lower speed having dead people scattered along their verges.

Nah, let's just stick another [[unacceptable language - censored]] roundabout in instead.

The asteroid of the future needs to wipe out our highway design dinosaurs and fast.
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
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Bomag »

Bryn666 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 19:42
Bomag wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 17:23
Bryn666 wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 13:01 Jackal hits the nail on the head: DMRB is unfit for purpose where freeflow interchanges are concerned.

It is obsessed with the notion that unless you can steam though at 70 mph then it must be a roundabout instead. Whoever signed off on that concept needs to just go and get a job stacking shelves in a warehouse because they know diddle squat about highway design.
It's comments like this which would indicate that you should think about join her on the shelves.

Does putting free flow links at a reduced design speed result in
1. All traffic slowing to the appropriate design speed, or
2. Large percentage of traffic steaming through at 70mph, often with an inability to get round the curves within the same lane.

For all projects to put in free-flow links at a junction designers are reminded why they don't ever want to do another.
However does, I dunno, the rest of the world cope with freeflow interchanges in a small footprint? British exceptionalism again?

I must have missed the reports of vast swathes of the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, the USA, Japan, China, Israel, to name just a few where they get around this problem by using reduced speed limits and transition lengths that take you from higher speed to lower speed having dead people scattered along their verges.

Nah, let's just stick another **** roundabout in instead.

The asteroid of the future needs to wipe out our highway design dinosaurs and fast.
The don't cope, in that it doesn't have any positive effect over a decent roundabout. Along time ago there was a spate of overruns on the A14 Trimley junction, oddly they were speed adaptation of A14 vehicles; the same mix of vehicles of the A12 didn't have any.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Bryn666 »

Bomag wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 22:29
Bryn666 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 19:42
Bomag wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 17:23

It's comments like this which would indicate that you should think about join her on the shelves.

Does putting free flow links at a reduced design speed result in
1. All traffic slowing to the appropriate design speed, or
2. Large percentage of traffic steaming through at 70mph, often with an inability to get round the curves within the same lane.

For all projects to put in free-flow links at a junction designers are reminded why they don't ever want to do another.
However does, I dunno, the rest of the world cope with freeflow interchanges in a small footprint? British exceptionalism again?

I must have missed the reports of vast swathes of the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, the USA, Japan, China, Israel, to name just a few where they get around this problem by using reduced speed limits and transition lengths that take you from higher speed to lower speed having dead people scattered along their verges.

Nah, let's just stick another **** roundabout in instead.

The asteroid of the future needs to wipe out our highway design dinosaurs and fast.
The don't cope, in that it doesn't have any positive effect over a decent roundabout. Along time ago there was a spate of overruns on the A14 Trimley junction, oddly they were speed adaptation of A14 vehicles; the same mix of vehicles of the A12 didn't have any.
Let me get this straight, you genuinely believe roundabouts are more efficient at connecting two major routes than a free flowing interchange?

There is no such thing as a "decent roundabout" when there are huge turning flows. Maybe you should try using Simister Island, or Lofthouse, and review your opinion on such designs, certainly National Highways agree (finally) that such roundabouts are crap or they wouldn't be proposing to add freeflow links to the former and replacing the latter entirely with freeflow movements.

If British highway designers are incapable of designing a slip road onto a two bridge roundabout without encouraging overshoot then the problem is with designers, not drivers. I'm no defender of bad driving but the rest of Europe has evolved beyond the straight line into a roundabout and weaving length mentality that should have died here in about 1967. You get S curve speed transitions on entry, fully circular roundabouts that do not increase circulatory speeds and increase loss of control incidents, and single lane entries.

The mind absolutely boggles that people writing our design manuals are still happy to implement designs that kill people.
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
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Bomag »

Bryn666 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 22:44
Bomag wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 22:29
Bryn666 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 19:42

However does, I dunno, the rest of the world cope with freeflow interchanges in a small footprint? British exceptionalism again?

I must have missed the reports of vast swathes of the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, the USA, Japan, China, Israel, to name just a few where they get around this problem by using reduced speed limits and transition lengths that take you from higher speed to lower speed having dead people scattered along their verges.

Nah, let's just stick another **** roundabout in instead.

The asteroid of the future needs to wipe out our highway design dinosaurs and fast.
The don't cope, in that it doesn't have any positive effect over a decent roundabout. Along time ago there was a spate of overruns on the A14 Trimley junction, oddly they were speed adaptation of A14 vehicles; the same mix of vehicles of the A12 didn't have any.
Let me get this straight, you genuinely believe roundabouts are more efficient at connecting two major routes than a free flowing interchange?

There is no such thing as a "decent roundabout" when there are huge turning flows. Maybe you should try using Simister Island, or Lofthouse, and review your opinion on such designs, certainly National Highways agree (finally) that such roundabouts are crap or they wouldn't be proposing to add freeflow links to the former and replacing the latter entirely with freeflow movements.

If British highway designers are incapable of designing a slip road onto a two bridge roundabout without encouraging overshoot then the problem is with designers, not drivers. I'm no defender of bad driving but the rest of Europe has evolved beyond the straight line into a roundabout and weaving length mentality that should have died here in about 1967. You get S curve speed transitions on entry, fully circular roundabouts that do not increase circulatory speeds and increase loss of control incidents, and single lane entries.

The mind absolutely boggles that people writing our design manuals are still happy to implement designs that kill people.
I think that it is better to have a roundabout rather than having substandard free flow links, as any in-depth analysis of traffic flow and accidents will show.

Having redesigned in principle both Simister and Lofthouse, the former would only work properly with total free-flow links if you took out the south end of Maghull and the north end of Anitree, a hybrid design is OK. As for Lofthouse the bridges will require a shed load of money on them in future and with the links put in by the DBFO co any replacement doesn't need to be a full roundabout (although it would have the capacity). The limited free flow links are sufficient and cheaper, the only problem is that for Area 12 slip closures they won't be able to use it to turn traffic.

While the average designer should be able to design roundabouts better than they actually do, this should not be an excuse to adopt some of the more dodgy aspects from Europe.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A14 Junction 55 Copdock Interchange Public Consultation

Post by Bryn666 »

Bomag wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:42
Bryn666 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 22:44
Bomag wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 22:29

The don't cope, in that it doesn't have any positive effect over a decent roundabout. Along time ago there was a spate of overruns on the A14 Trimley junction, oddly they were speed adaptation of A14 vehicles; the same mix of vehicles of the A12 didn't have any.
Let me get this straight, you genuinely believe roundabouts are more efficient at connecting two major routes than a free flowing interchange?

There is no such thing as a "decent roundabout" when there are huge turning flows. Maybe you should try using Simister Island, or Lofthouse, and review your opinion on such designs, certainly National Highways agree (finally) that such roundabouts are crap or they wouldn't be proposing to add freeflow links to the former and replacing the latter entirely with freeflow movements.

If British highway designers are incapable of designing a slip road onto a two bridge roundabout without encouraging overshoot then the problem is with designers, not drivers. I'm no defender of bad driving but the rest of Europe has evolved beyond the straight line into a roundabout and weaving length mentality that should have died here in about 1967. You get S curve speed transitions on entry, fully circular roundabouts that do not increase circulatory speeds and increase loss of control incidents, and single lane entries.

The mind absolutely boggles that people writing our design manuals are still happy to implement designs that kill people.
I think that it is better to have a roundabout rather than having substandard free flow links, as any in-depth analysis of traffic flow and accidents will show.

Having redesigned in principle both Simister and Lofthouse, the former would only work properly with total free-flow links if you took out the south end of Maghull and the north end of Anitree, a hybrid design is OK. As for Lofthouse the bridges will require a shed load of money on them in future and with the links put in by the DBFO co any replacement doesn't need to be a full roundabout (although it would have the capacity). The limited free flow links are sufficient and cheaper, the only problem is that for Area 12 slip closures they won't be able to use it to turn traffic.

While the average designer should be able to design roundabouts better than they actually do, this should not be an excuse to adopt some of the more dodgy aspects from Europe.
Simister is M60 J18, not Switch Island, which objective analysis shows has never worked since about 1990 when the original large roundabout was first tinkered with. If you have to keep returning to a junction to add an extra lane, or an extra cut through every 5 years then your design is objectively rubbish.

I am absolutely dismayed that you still think a roundabout to connect two high capacity and often high speed roads is ever a logical design choice when dozens of alternatives exist. This explains why so much of the UK road network is, frankly, congested and unsafe. I am even more dismayed that a roundabout is seen as advantageous because it absolves lazy TM contractors and Area managers from having diversion networks.

This plays exactly into the point Chris M made elsewhere - the standards, design rules, and policies are all written to benefit consultants and TM contractors, not the actual end user of the product. I think the industry needs a lot more than a rocket placing underneath it frankly. I know where my conscience stands.
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
Post Reply