Upgrading the A66 and A69

[Paul7755]

The existing bypass is enough of a state that they would be best off making the long mooted northern bypass the strategic route (with GSJs to match). Certainly cheaper and less disruptive than GSJing the six existing rbts+dualling online.

Are there cases of a trunk road being rerouted from an existing out-of-town bypass to one around the other side of town?

The A1 around Newcastle (Tyne Tunnel > Western bypass) might be a good example?

[KeithW]

The existing bypass is enough of a state that they would be best off making the long mooted northern bypass the strategic route (with GSJs to match). Certainly cheaper and less disruptive than GSJing the six existing rbts+dualling online.

Are there cases of a trunk road being rerouted from an existing out-of-town bypass to one around the other side of town?

The A1 at Newcastle has already been mentioned but at Hatfield the A1 bypass was west of the new town along what is now the A1000 but was rerouted to run west of it past the airfield along what was then the A555

[KeithW]

The existing bypass is enough of a state that they would be best off making the long mooted northern bypass the strategic route (with GSJs to match). Certainly cheaper and less disruptive than GSJing the six existing rbts+dualling online.

Are there cases of a trunk road being rerouted from an existing out-of-town bypass to one around the other side of town?

Darlington needs both. HGV's headed for the A66 from Teessport, the Teesside conurbation or Seal Sands will not use the northern bypass. For the most part the southern bypass is relatively easy to dual as to the South and East is open country. Ideally the roundabout at Burdon would be replaced by a GSJ where the Northern and Southern bypasses divide. The southern bypass is already a strategic road managed by Highways England. It would have been nice to see it in RIS3. The northern bypass is being promoted by the regional authority, the TVCA.

The ideal option would be to dual it offline from Burdon to the railway bridge and leave the existing section as an LAR. You would need a new bridge over the railway anyway. That way you could get away with a single GSJ on the southern section. Probably at the B6279 as that is where the Symmetry Park Development is happening.

The tricky bit is Blackwell where it would meet the A66(M) as there is not much space there. It will probably mean some CP and demolition.

[jackal]

^ So what I'm saying is that the plans for a local, development-orientated northern bypass, with the current bypass remaining as the trunk route, are misconceived. Fully GSJing the existing bypass or bypassing it to the south is totally pie in the sky (not in RIS2 or planned for RIS3). The northern bypass is all there is on the table, so if there is going to be a significant strategic improvement, it must be this. Development can then take place along the existing bypass, which is better suited to that than being part of an essential east-west strategic route.

To get from J57 to the Burdon roundabout is only about a mile longer via a sensibly routed northern bypass (8.5 rather than 7.5) so the northern route could be strategic if built appropriately.

[KeithW]

^ So what I'm saying is that the plans for a local, development-orientated northern bypass, with the current bypass remaining as the trunk route, are misconceived. Fully GSJing the existing bypass or bypassing it to the south is totally pie in the sky (not in RIS2 or planned for RIS3). The northern bypass is all there is on the table, so if there is going to be a significant strategic improvement, it must be this. Development can then take place along the existing bypass, which is better suited to that than being part of an essential east-west strategic route.

To get from J57 to the Burdon roundabout is only about a mile longer via a sensibly routed northern bypass (8.5 rather than 7.5) so the northern route could be strategic if built appropriately.

J57 to Burdon and then to J56 is however more like 13 miles longer and both the southern and northern bypass have an AADF of 20k which is why I said we needed both.

The commercial development along the southern bypass is not going to stop and further development is happening at the other end of the A66 around Stockton, Middlesbrough, Teesport and the old steel making areas are also being championed by the TVCA who have gained control of the land. I would not go via J57 if headed for the A66 and points farther south, neither will commercial vehicles.

I did make the point that it was not in RIS3 but that does not mean it will not be needed. Another TVCA requirement is improving access to Teesside Airport. Until 2019 neither the airport nor the abandoned areas along the Tees between South Bank and Redcar were under the control of the TVCA, both now are.

[thatapanydude]

I would personally be in favour of extending the A66(M) along an alignment broadly like this. This would practically connect Teeside with a motorway connection!

A northern bypass is no use to traffic coming from the South.

[jackal]

^ So what I'm saying is that the plans for a local, development-orientated northern bypass, with the current bypass remaining as the trunk route, are misconceived. Fully GSJing the existing bypass or bypassing it to the south is totally pie in the sky (not in RIS2 or planned for RIS3). The northern bypass is all there is on the table, so if there is going to be a significant strategic improvement, it must be this. Development can then take place along the existing bypass, which is better suited to that than being part of an essential east-west strategic route.

To get from J57 to the Burdon roundabout is only about a mile longer via a sensibly routed northern bypass (8.5 rather than 7.5) so the northern route could be strategic if built appropriately.

J57 to Burdon and then to J56 is however more like 13 miles longer and both the southern and northern bypass have an AADF of 20k which is why I said we needed both.

The commercial development along the southern bypass is not going to stop and further development is happening at the other end of the A66 around Stockton, Middlesbrough, Teesport and the old steel making areas are also being championed by the TVCA who have gained control of the land. I would not go via J57 if headed for the A66 and points farther south, neither will commercial vehicles.

I did make the point that it was not in RIS3 but that does not mean it will not be needed. Another TVCA requirement is improving access to Teesside Airport. Until 2019 neither the airport nor the abandoned areas along the Tees between South Bank and Redcar were under the control of the TVCA, both now are.

Well, as what you're describing is essentially the Combined Authority's plan, I guess we'll see how that works out. But 'prioritise a crappy northern development route while hoping that the A66 is improved some day, maybe' doesn't look a promising strategy to me.

[jackal]

A northern bypass is no use to traffic coming from the South.

What makes you think that? As explained above, if routed correctly (i.e. J58 rather than J59) the journey is about the same length as via the southern bypass or your outer bypass.

[KeithW]

Well, as what you're describing is essentially the Combined Authority's plan, I guess we'll see how that works out. But 'prioritise a crappy northern development route while hoping that the A66 is improved some day, maybe' doesn't look a promising strategy to me.

The TVCA plan is to resolve problems on the the A1150/A167 from Little Burdon which I have said twice now needs to go ahead. That does not mean we should look ahead to upgrading what will the only piece of S2 road between Middlesbrough and Penrith. The TVCA might well lobby for it but any such upgrade would be engineered by Highways England. I have never described the northern bypass as a crappy northern development and would not do so.

You seem to have an aversion to the idea of upgrading the A66 which I do not understand and I have never suggested it be prioritised.

[KeithW]

A northern bypass is no use to traffic coming from the South.

What makes you think that? As explained above, if routed correctly (i.e. J58 rather than J59) the journey is about the same length as via the southern bypass or your outer bypass.

Go to Google maps and look at the distances going via the northern bypass and southern bypass to Scotch Corner and it is readily apparent. Going north and then south again is always longer. The selected route for the northern bypass is via J59 or are you deciding its a crappy route and the whole prolonged consultation process should start again ?

[jackal]

I have measured it on Google maps, which is why I said J57 to Burdon (or vice versa) is one mile longer via a properly routed (i.e. J58) northern bypass than via the southern bypass. So of course Scotch corner to Burdon is also only a mile longer via such a northern bypass. It is counterintuitive, so you really do need to measure it, not just eyeball it.

[jackal]

You seem to have an aversion to the idea of upgrading the A66 which I do not understand and I have never suggested it be prioritised.

I'm all in favour of upgrading the A66 but via a new strategic northern bypass. This achieves the same as the proposed northern bypass+southern A66 upgrade at much lower overall cost.

[ManomayLR]

If we're looking at offline improvements, I'd think a motorway-grade "M62 relief road" would be the best way to go.

[KeithW]

I have measured it on Google maps, which is why I said J57 to Burdon (or vice versa) is one mile longer via a properly routed (i.e. J58) northern bypass than via the southern bypass. So of course Scotch corner to Burdon is also only a mile longer via such a northern bypass. It is counterintuitive, so you really do need to measure it, not just eyeball it.

That is so but to change the route to go via J58 would require the current plan which has been approved by the 5 councils, the TVCA and implicitly the DfT to be dropped and the whole political and public consultation process to start again. The problem is you see it took years of wrangling to get this approved and the justification is relieving congestion of traffic for the A1(M) NORTH of Darlington. If you try this HE will announce its not needed as a replacement for the A66 and the odds are nothing will be built. We have been down this road already with the 2009 CTR proposals, local leaders have been trying to sort out this problem since 1996. Now we have an agreement AND £500,000 in funding from the DfT for detailed planning this is NOT the time to start again.
https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/wp-content ... Update.pdf
https://www.constructionenquirer.com/20 ... -projects/

We have also had this discussion before
viewtopic.php?t=39454#p1008315

Sometimes deja vu can be downright tedious,

[KeithW]

If we're looking at offline improvements, I'd think a motorway-grade "M62 relief road" would be the best way to go.

Only if you want nothing to happen.

[Glenn A]

So it seems like should be GSJs for any new (offline) sections, with at-grade access retained elsewhere. Seems a reasonable compromise, and similar to what was done on the A30 on Bodmin Moor recently.

Some of the worst at grade access issues are in fact along the sections due to be dualled.
Along the Penrith to Temple Sowerby section you have direct access to the road from settlements and Centre Parcs.
Kirkby Thore is very bad due to the houses and businesses that have direct access to the road.
At Warcop there are military vehicles crossing the A66 to get to the firing range.
As for the section from Bowes to Carkin Moor the existing road is straight with high speed traffic and a lot of flat junctions where there have been a number of fatal accidents. Frankly that is a very hairy road to get across and what seems to happen is that after a few minutes some drivers just go for it. Mainsgill Farm Shop is notorious in that regard. Dont let the name fool you I have seem smaller supermarkets in sizable towns,
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.47339 ... 6656?hl=en

While there are at grade accesses on the Bowes Moor and Stainmore sections they are typically for residential and farm access so the users know the risks and the gap between carriageways is long enough for light traffic to cross reasonably safely and the sight lines are good.

Don't forget the Llama Karma cafe where I've seen a few people pull out and nearly cause accidents.

[85CF380]

Darlo.
Can't believe the Tees Valley CA have gone for Route A. Route A, the one that looks like it's drawn by an out of control crayon.
Route A does very little to reduce the 20,000 AADT on the A167 to j59, particularly that coming from/going to the centre of Darlington. The A167 looks suitable for on-line widening without the need to dig up half of Tees Valley/Co. Durham.
As Jackal says linking a suitably positioned Burdon bypass linking to the A1(M) at j58 (part of option B) would have been a sensible medium term aim. The southern ring road is never going to get upgraded in a month of Sundays.

[jackal]

^ Indeed, the northern link road being taken forward (route A) is just comically disconnected from the surrounding road network:



An actual Darlington northern bypass would... bypass northern Darlington, i.e. A66 to J58 or thereabouts. At best this is a bypass for Burdon, Beaumont Hill and Coatham Mandeville, and it's not even any good at that as it fails to remove the main flows.

If the link road doesn't make any sense in traffic terms what's it really for? To open up a huge swathe of agricultural land for box housing development: https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... arlington/ This low quality car-dependent greenfield development is the last thing anyone (except politicians and developers) needs.

This is not a price worth paying to get some substandard, quite possibly single carriageway, 'link road' that doesn't go even vaguely in the right direction to relieve existing traffic issues around Darlington. Better to dump it and start planning an actual northern bypass.

[KeithW]

If the link road doesn't make any sense in traffic terms what's it really for? To open up a huge swathe of agricultural land for box housing development: https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... arlington/ This low quality car-dependent greenfield development is the last thing anyone (except politicians and developers) needs.

This is not a price worth paying to get some substandard, quite possibly single carriageway, 'link road' that doesn't go even vaguely in the right direction to relieve existing traffic issues around Darlington. Better to dump it and start planning an actual northern bypass.

I wonder if you realise that your route would be much closer to Skeringham and Springfield Park where the housing development is proposed than the TVCA selected option. . Essentially the land bounded by Burtree Lane , the A1(M) near J58 and Rotary Way looks likely to be opened to development. In fact there is already a huge Argos Distribution centre there complete with a link road to J58.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.55052 ... 6656?hl=en

BTW the Springfield Park Relief Road plan has now been dropped so I am sure the developers would be delighted to see the northern bypass go that way.

[jackal]

Those aren't the only developments - see Northern Echo. In any case, my complaint is that the 'northern link road' only makes sense as a development route and lacks strategic value. It's a very different situation to a strategic grade-separated bypass that happens to go near some developments.