A1 Western bypass widening

[mbeatts]

Looks like they will be pushing us over onto the new section at Bowes Incline to then complete the central reserve and opening up the new Allerdene bridge to complete the tie ins at either end very soon.

[OliverH]

Looks like they will be pushing us over onto the new section at Bowes Incline to then complete the central reserve and opening up the new Allerdene bridge to complete the tie ins at either end very soon.

Article from the National Highways website: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-road ... e-project/
Article from the Northern Echo: https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... use-works/

[Paul7755]

Looks like they will be pushing us over onto the new section at Bowes Incline to then complete the central reserve and opening up the new Allerdene bridge to complete the tie ins at either end very soon.

Article from the National Highways website: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-road ... e-project/
Article from the Northern Echo: https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... use-works/

More progress, NH on Twitter say all Northbound traffic will be on the new bridge tomorrow morning.

Also in Northern Echo here:
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... oal-house/

[Mark Hewitt]

In addition, the southbound carriageway of the Bowes Incline on the A1 has seen a change with traffic now making use of some of the new lanes.

Does this mean they have reinstated the lane gain between A167 Angel of the North and the A1231 turn off? As that being down to two lanes there as been causing horrendous delays for a long time, to the extent that going the long way around via local roads is always quicker.

[Te2024]

Interesting to see the old Allerdene bridge was never demolished as planned over the Christmas possession. Another year to wait then.

[Glenn A]

This road should have been D3 or D3M when it was first planned in the early eighties. I know traffic levels were much lower than now, but traffic numbers were rising steadily in the eighties and by the noughties, Newcastle western by pass was struggling at peak times and at other times joining the D2 could be quite hair raising and 70 mph was too high for an urban road. The current D3 with a 60 mph speed limit is ideal as traffic flows much better and i's less stressful to join and drive on. I never use the traditional A167/ A1058 route to reach the coast now and use the quicker A1/A19.

[jabbaboy]

This road should have been D3 or D3M when it was first planned in the early eighties. I know traffic levels were much lower than now, but traffic numbers were rising steadily in the eighties and by the noughties, Newcastle western by pass was struggling at peak times and at other times joining the D2 could be quite hair raising and 70 mph was too high for an urban road. The current D3 with a 60 mph speed limit is ideal as traffic flows much better and i's less stressful to join and drive on. I never use the traditional A167/ A1058 route to reach the coast now and use the quicker A1/A19.

It was built in the 70's wasn't it? Unless your talking about the Northern section which I totally agree. Blaydon Bridge is starting to become a bit of a problem already, which no doubt will get even worse once this new scheme is complete. Mind a lot of is coming from the bad layout with the A695 gaining 2 lanes and people wanting to head towards Hexham needing to get across 2 lanes in 1/2 mile or so.

Mind Foxpond Roundabout at the end of the A1231 will be interesting once this is done as that's been a problem for years and there's nothing planned to sort it out. Having extra traffic flowing along the A1 won't help it at all.

[Mark Hewitt]

Right now during the works they need to get the s/b exit to the A1231 sorted as it used to be a lane gain from the A167 which dropped at the A1231 but now all traffic has to join the main two lanes before traffic can exit.

The tailbacks often go into Team Valley.

[jackal]

Mind Foxpond Roundabout at the end of the A1231 will be interesting once this is done as that's been a problem for years and there's nothing planned to sort it out. Having extra traffic flowing along the A1 won't help it at all.

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

More realistically, the roundabout could be reconstructed as a signalised crossroads, with loads of green time for the A1231. A big improvement on the current rbt, which is effectively three signalised junctions for the dominant movement in a ridiculously compressed space.

[Bryn666]

Mind Foxpond Roundabout at the end of the A1231 will be interesting once this is done as that's been a problem for years and there's nothing planned to sort it out. Having extra traffic flowing along the A1 won't help it at all.

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

More realistically, the roundabout could be reconstructed as a signalised crossroads, with loads of green time for the A1231. A big improvement on the current rbt, which is effectively three signalised junctions for the dominant movement in a ridiculously compressed space.

I like your first idea - another alternative to free up the roundabout would be divert Rockcliffe Way to turn directly onto the B1288 to meet the A194(M) at J1 instead. You then have the space to eliminate Foxpond rbt entirely and don't need any new slip roads or bridges other than maybe an underpass for cyclists and pedestrians.

[Mark Hewitt]

Mind Foxpond Roundabout at the end of the A1231 will be interesting once this is done as that's been a problem for years and there's nothing planned to sort it out. Having extra traffic flowing along the A1 won't help it at all.

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

More realistically, the roundabout could be reconstructed as a signalised crossroads, with loads of green time for the A1231. A big improvement on the current rbt, which is effectively three signalised junctions for the dominant movement in a ridiculously compressed space.

I like your first idea - another alternative to free up the roundabout would be divert Rockcliffe Way to turn directly onto the B1288 to meet the A194(M) at J1 instead. You then have the space to eliminate Foxpond rbt entirely and don't need any new slip roads or bridges other than maybe an underpass for cyclists and pedestrians.

Even them you need both ways access from the B1288 as this road makes up for the lack of options at J65 in general when it comes from getting to and from the A194(M) and A1 north of the junction.

[Bryn666]

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

More realistically, the roundabout could be reconstructed as a signalised crossroads, with loads of green time for the A1231. A big improvement on the current rbt, which is effectively three signalised junctions for the dominant movement in a ridiculously compressed space.

I like your first idea - another alternative to free up the roundabout would be divert Rockcliffe Way to turn directly onto the B1288 to meet the A194(M) at J1 instead. You then have the space to eliminate Foxpond rbt entirely and don't need any new slip roads or bridges other than maybe an underpass for cyclists and pedestrians.

Even them you need both ways access from the B1288 as this road makes up for the lack of options at J65 in general when it comes from getting to and from the A194(M) and A1 north of the junction.

Back to Jackal's cheaper signalised junction alternative then - no bridges needed, not perfect but would make things better.

[jabbaboy]

Mind Foxpond Roundabout at the end of the A1231 will be interesting once this is done as that's been a problem for years and there's nothing planned to sort it out. Having extra traffic flowing along the A1 won't help it at all.

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

More realistically, the roundabout could be reconstructed as a signalised crossroads, with loads of green time for the A1231. A big improvement on the current rbt, which is effectively three signalised junctions for the dominant movement in a ridiculously compressed space.

I honestly wouldn't have a clue, the junction is a complete mess and the complete lack of A1/A194(M) is needed as badly as much as anything else to effectively complete the Newcastle / Gateshead ring. It's a bit of a chore right now, to the stage it's quicker go through Gateshead at certain times of the day.

It doesn't help the A1(M) / A194(M) is really well built, but as a result takes up so much space. It'd be interesting what the busiest flows there are as I wouldn't be surprised if the A1 <> A1231 is up there with one of the highest.

[jackal]

Mind Foxpond Roundabout at the end of the A1231 will be interesting once this is done as that's been a problem for years and there's nothing planned to sort it out. Having extra traffic flowing along the A1 won't help it at all.

An exotic possibility would be a left turn from A1(M) southbound (just after the current A1231 diverge) to run parallel with the A194(M) under the A1231 bridge - there's just about space if the A194(M) nb shifts a couple of metres right. This link road would then loop around to briefly run parallel to the B1288, then bypass Foxpond roundabout, merging into the A1231 eastbound. This would be lowspeed freeflow (loop radius approx 50m). The only new bridge would be an accommodation bridge for Auld Brothers Auto Dismantlers inside the loop.

More realistically, the roundabout could be reconstructed as a signalised crossroads, with loads of green time for the A1231. A big improvement on the current rbt, which is effectively three signalised junctions for the dominant movement in a ridiculously compressed space.

I honestly wouldn't have a clue, the junction is a complete mess and the complete lack of A1/A194(M) is needed as badly as much as anything else to effectively complete the Newcastle / Gateshead ring. It's a bit of a chore right now, to the stage it's quicker go through Gateshead at certain times of the day.

It doesn't help the A1(M) / A194(M) is really well built, but as a result takes up so much space. It'd be interesting what the busiest flows there are as I wouldn't be surprised if the A1 <> A1231 is up there with one of the highest.

An A1 to A194(M) freeflow left turn could be provided pretty simply.

A194(M) to A1 could take off and land inside the big mainline flares, with offside diverge and merge, and ~75m radius (the same as the A1231 loop).

While an offside diverge and merge is not ideal, I think it's excusable where you are effectively providing a continuous Newcastle/Gateshead orbital. Also the current rebuild has a double lane gain on the northbound A1 from the A1231, which really isn't needed, so it would be quite tidy to have one of the lanes coming from the A194(M) instead, even if from the right.

The weaving lengths on the A194(M) would be about 700m on both carriageways. While fancy arrangements would be possible, I'd simply suggest widening to three lanes up to the next junction, with lane gain and drop at each end. There's much worse weaving elsewhere on the 'orbital' and this bit of the A194(M) would not be hugely busy even with the new links (currently it's only 25k AADT). As noted, there's space for widening under the A1231 bridge.

Has it ever been proposed to provide direct A1<>A194(M) links? They seem a pretty glaring omission.

[Conekicker]

It would be nice to think that when the current works are finished, the entire bypass would have a 60 limit on it and not the mixture of 50/60 that finished sections currently have. At peak, it's not like you can do 50 on there anyway, so increasing it to 60 should improve flows out of peak.

[Peter Freeman]

Has it ever been proposed to provide direct A1<>A194(M) links? They seem a pretty glaring omission.

Indeed. That's the most glaring out of several omissions.

It's rather curious to look at J65 from a current and high-level point of view. Its design was, understandably then, a fork - A1M splits into A1 and A194M. However, analysed clinically now, the complex is a 4-way motorway cross, with local complications. The N-S route is A1M to A194M, the E-W route is A1 to A1231. With an (unrealistic-to-expect) abundance of foresight, it could have been built as, for example, a stack or cloverstack. Space was not in short supply.

Now, it's the usual story - imperative to make the best of what's already there by adding, widening and re-purposing. Also, at the same time, trying not to waste, trying to minimise cost, and trying not to end up with a complicated and confusing pig's ear! Jackal has a proposal -

An A1 to A194(M) freeflow left turn could be provided pretty simply.

A194(M) to A1 could take off and land inside the big mainline flares, with offside diverge and merge, and ~75m radius (the same as the A1231 loop).

There's not much space there - does that really fit?

While an offside diverge and merge is not ideal, I think it's excusable where you are effectively providing a continuous Newcastle/Gateshead orbital. Also the current rebuild has a double lane gain on the northbound A1 from the A1231, which really isn't needed, so it would be quite tidy to have one of the lanes coming from the A194(M) instead, even if from the right.

The weaving lengths on the A194(M) would be about 700m on both carriageways. While fancy arrangements would be possible, I'd simply suggest widening to three lanes up to the next junction, with lane gain and drop at each end. There's much worse weaving elsewhere on the 'orbital' and this bit of the A194(M) would not be hugely busy even with the new links (currently it's only 25k AADT). As noted, there's space for widening under the A1231 bridge.

That sounds like the simplest and most rational fix. It's commendably pragmatic: just-about-adequate capacity, low-speed curves, offside diverge and merge, and rather short weaving lengths (radical compromises, for you, Jackal!). The "double lane gain" you mentioned, from Foxpond, is indeed not essential, and its long, tiger-tailed form wastefully steals from the A1 weaving length up to J66.

I agree with the several posters who've suggested that A1 northbound should have 3 lanes after the fork. A lane-gain from the Service Area could make 4 on A1M, splitting into 3 lanes for A1 and 2 lanes for A194M (gantry-signed as Bryn described). Having 3 lanes here would help traffic heading for A167 - it could get into lane 1 far in advance of J66. Traffic subsequently merging without a lane-gain from Foxpond would encounter relatively few occupants in lane 1, and could easily move right out of it before it drops at J66. Meanwhile, Jackal's traffic from A194M southbound would be smoothly adding as lane 4, becoming lane 3 at J66.

[jackal]

It's rather curious to look at J65 from a current and high-level point of view. Its design was, understandably then, a fork - A1M splits into A1 and A194M. However, analysed clinically now, the complex is a 4-way motorway cross, with local complications. The N-S route is A1M to A194M, the E-W route is A1 to A1231. With an (unrealistic-to-expect) abundance of foresight, it could have been built as, for example, a stack or cloverstack. Space was not in short supply.

Good point. A cloverstack with the A1/A1(M) cutting the corner like this would've been ideal: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@43.52866 ... ?entry=ttu

Now, it's the usual story - imperative to make the best of what's already there by adding, widening and re-purposing. Also, at the same time, trying not to waste, trying to minimise cost, and trying not to end up with a complicated and confusing pig's ear! Jackal has a proposal -

An A1 to A194(M) freeflow left turn could be provided pretty simply.

There's not much space there - does that really fit?

Tightish for a left turn, but it would still be big compared to the right turn radius (or that of the existing loop).

In that vein, I've never entirely agreed with the convention that short turns (left in the UK) need much bigger radii than long turns. The convention is so hard-wired that equality of radii looks outright bizarre: https://www.google.com/maps/place//@24. ... ?entry=ttu But really, there is nothing inherent to short turns that means they need to be bigger, especially where space is tight. Physics doesn't care if it's a left or a right.

[Peter Freeman]

^ My " does that really fit ? " was referring to the right turn (A194M to A1). I assume your design has both the connectors crossing the quarter-pie shaped grassy space that contains the Plant Nursery, the Fishery, etc. It would need two skew bridges. I agree that it will fit.

I also agree with your comments about acceptable left turn radii. The convention makes no sense, if it exists. I hadn't really thought about it.

[Bryn666]

As ever it's accidents of history why we've got to where we have - the original A1 shifting routing three times hasn't helped either.

The fork was built well before the A1231 and given Washington was overspill for Gateshead that explains why the roads point towards there, and J64 was intended as the route south.

I suspect today's traffic patterns weren't even considered feasible during those early design stages. The fork isn't the issue - it's the chronic lack of capacity on the A1 beyond that is. It'll be interesting to see if the widening makes this junction better or worse, for sure.

[JammyDodge]

If you wanted to go the whole hog, something like this would be workable:

Although, to manage weaving you would need to diverge the A194(M) South -> A1 North before J1 south slip joins, but that movement is catered with the existing loop