1990s A435 (now A46) upgrade proposals Ashchuch-Evesham

[SouthWest Philip]

All three options look expensive ways of not solving the problem. Would it not be better to bypass all the A46 from Evesham southwards, by building a new road from M5J8 to the A46 north of Evesham (passing N of Bredon hill)?

Ding ding, we have a winner. This solves the issues on the A46 while extending the strategic corridor down the underutilised M50, relieving the congested M40, M42 and northern end of the M5.

It looks like this route would be about 10 miles versus 14 miles for the online upgrade+junction south of J9, so it's presumably cheaper, especially as they could, in time honoured tradition, just bodge the A46 onto the existing J8 roundabout and call it a day

Whilst this has merit, the he problem here is that passing north of Bredon Hill would be far more visually intrusive, and probably controversial, than upgrading the existing A46 corridor. A new road may also need to cross the River Avon and it's flood plain four times, adding significant costs. Some of the villages in the way are quite pretty and desirable too.

Whilst a northern route would offer a good strategic route for the A46, the reality is the current route better serves real life traffic flows. And an improvement along this corridor would better serve both Cheltenham and Evesham.

[Truvelo]

Whilst this has merit, the he problem here is that passing north of Bredon Hill would be far more visually intrusive, and probably controversial, than upgrading the existing A46 corridor. A new road may also need to cross the River Avon and it's flood plain four times, adding significant costs. Some of the villages in the way are quite pretty and desirable too.

I'm sure some or all those reasons is what killed the original Strensham-Solihull motorway proposals hence why modern solutions have looked at a more southern corridor.

[jackal]

All three options look expensive ways of not solving the problem. Would it not be better to bypass all the A46 from Evesham southwards, by building a new road from M5J8 to the A46 north of Evesham (passing N of Bredon hill)?

Ding ding, we have a winner. This solves the issues on the A46 while extending the strategic corridor down the underutilised M50, relieving the congested M40, M42 and northern end of the M5.

It looks like this route would be about 10 miles versus 14 miles for the online upgrade+junction south of J9, so it's presumably cheaper, especially as they could, in time honoured tradition, just bodge the A46 onto the existing J8 roundabout and call it a day

Whilst this has merit, the he problem here is that passing north of Bredon Hill would be far more visually intrusive, and probably controversial, than upgrading the existing A46 corridor. A new road may also need to cross the River Avon and it's flood plain four times, adding significant costs. Some of the villages in the way are quite pretty and desirable too.

Whilst a northern route would offer a good strategic route for the A46, the reality is the current route better serves real life traffic flows. And an improvement along this corridor would better serve both Cheltenham and Evesham.

On the other hand, the fact it's shorter is a big environmental benefit, and the cost saving could perhaps go on a short tunnel for the most sensitive section. As we've seen already there's plenty of NIMBYism on the existing corridor too so I don't think that's decisive. The J8 route should at least be investigated given the potential advantages across all dimensions (environmental, cost, transport efficiency).

[ABB125]

From a strategic perspective, M50-north of Evesham is the best option. Direct connection to the M50, less road mileage overall. Should have been built when the Strensham-Solihull motorway was first proposed.
However, it'll never be built now, because:

• On the whole, there isn't any significant infrastructure on that side of the hill, so a large road would stick out like a very sore thumb. I can assure you, it wouldn't go down well with the locals...
• Bredon Hill is a somewhat challenging obstacle to go round, without demolishing a large proportion of Great Comberton. The terrain isn't exactly the easiest to put a high-quality road through.
• Similarly with the River Avon, a minimum of 4 crossings would be needed between the M50 and Evesham. Quite possibly, the two at Great Comberton could be combined into one huge viaduct. Which would need to be quite a few metres in the air. Which very definitely wouldn't go down well.
• Does nothing for Evesham-Tewkesbury/Cheltenham local traffic, as any new route would be far longer then the current A46 for those journeys. Especially as the vast majority of Evesham's recent housing development has been on the south side of the town.
• Doesn't bypass Ashchurch, so threatens the viability of the (minimum) 10,000 new "homes" to be built.
• (Most importantly) It won't be of any use to me personally, whereas a new road roughly following the existing alignment would be very useful indeed!

[ABB125]

Ding ding, we have a winner. This solves the issues on the A46 while extending the strategic corridor down the underutilised M50, relieving the congested M40, M42 and northern end of the M5.

It looks like this route would be about 10 miles versus 14 miles for the online upgrade+junction south of J9, so it's presumably cheaper, especially as they could, in time honoured tradition, just bodge the A46 onto the existing J8 roundabout and call it a day

Whilst this has merit, the he problem here is that passing north of Bredon Hill would be far more visually intrusive, and probably controversial, than upgrading the existing A46 corridor. A new road may also need to cross the River Avon and it's flood plain four times, adding significant costs. Some of the villages in the way are quite pretty and desirable too.

Whilst a northern route would offer a good strategic route for the A46, the reality is the current route better serves real life traffic flows. And an improvement along this corridor would better serve both Cheltenham and Evesham.

On the other hand, the fact it's shorter is a big environmental benefit, and the cost saving could perhaps go on a short tunnel for the most sensitive section. As we've seen already there's plenty of NIMBYism on the existing corridor too so I don't think that's decisive. The J8 route should at least be investigated given the potential advantages across all dimensions (environmental, cost, transport efficiency).

I can guarantee that any NIMBYism along the current route is nothing compared to what you would get if you tried to build a northern route to J8.

The advantage of the current lot of NIMBYs (TAAG) is that a good number of their objections are either nonsense, or will cease to be an issue once the plans are revealed.

[SouthWest Philip]

Also worth noting that the amount of traffic heading between the A46 and M50 must be fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things, even if a direct continuation of the M50 to the A46 would be somehow Sabristicly pleasing on the map!

The great majority of vehicles on the A46 south of Evesham would be going to/from Cheltenham/Gloucester or the M5(S), as evidenced by the regular queues heading off the M5 onto the A46. And upgrading along the existing corridor serves those flows better.

[jackal]

Also worth noting that the amount of traffic heading between the A46 and M50 must be fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things, even if a direct continuation of the M50 to the A46 would be somehow Sabristicly pleasing on the map!

The great majority of vehicles on the A46 south of Evesham would be going to/from Cheltenham/Gloucester or the M5(S), as evidenced by the regular queues heading off the M5 onto the A46. And upgrading along the existing corridor serves those flows better.

A big part of the point of the A46 upgrades is to change traffic patterns, i.e. away from the Birmingham box. There are journeys from the East Midlands to places like Hereford that currently don't touch the A46 or M50, but could do.

In any case, this stuff is all a bonus - the main advantage of the route is that it's the shortest way to the M5. BOGOF.

[Truvelo]

A big part of the point of the A46 upgrades is to change traffic patterns, i.e. away from the Birmingham box. There are journeys from the East Midlands to places like Hereford that currently don't touch the A46 or M50, but could do.

But as mentioned in threads regarding a completely GSJ'd A27 taking away traffic from the M25 it will only work if the A46 is fully dualled and grade separated between the M5 and M69 otherwise the M42 will always be the more attractive route.

[Rogndave]

A big part of the point of the A46 upgrades is to change traffic patterns, i.e. away from the Birmingham box. There are journeys from the East Midlands to places like Hereford that currently don't touch the A46 or M50, but could do.

But as mentioned in threads regarding a completely GSJ'd A27 taking away traffic from the M25 it will only work if the A46 is fully dualled and grade separated between the M5 and M69 otherwise the M42 will always be the more attractive route.

I'm aware of at least one regular traveller from SW England to the East Midlands who transfers from the M5 to the A46 to avoid the stress of using the M42 Solihull section and I'm sure he's not alone. Further improvements to the A46, e.g. Coventry grade separations will surely add to the number of such transfers, even while some sections remain single carriageway.

[Jonny A46]

I remember using this section of the A46 when travelled from Bristol to Stratford upon Avon on a family holiday. I tend to agree that the section between the M5 and Teddington is the weak link in the route, as it was a bit of slog, but progress was fine from Teddington to Evesham and the dual carriageway north of there was excellent. I think a bypass for Ashchurch would make this route significantly more desirable for strategic traffic while also benefitting short to medium distance journeys (e.g. Gloucester to Evesham), although the planned housing development to the south shown earlier in the thread is likely to make it difficult to connect a bypass to the M5 at junction 9.

[ABB125]

The consultation for the Ashchurch bypass has now officially been delayed until "Autumn 2022". The preferred route announcement is also planned in 2022. So, either the consultation will be in early September, with the announcement in late December, or they're lying. Which is more likely?

Compare the latest timeline (top) with the original (bottom):

This is for a project which was all on track to be consulted on in early 2021, if only those pesky local elections hadn't gotten in the way...

[ABB125]

Another year's delay to the Ashchurch bypass project.
Consultation on route options was due this month. Then about a week ago this appears on the local anti-group website:

And today, all is revealed courtesy of this email from Gloucestershire County Council:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You may be aware that Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) was planning to undertake a non-statutory public consultation for the M5 Junction 9 & A46 (Ashchurch) Transport Scheme this autumn.

As part of good practice in scheme development external advice was sought, which highlighted that further work should be undertaken before going out to public consultation. Following this external advice, we have now decided to undertake this additional work, to further review and shortlist scheme options. This work will be carried out with National Highways’ support. The non-statutory public consultation will now take place once the additional analysis has been completed, which could take 9 months, with public consultation taking place in late 2023 at the earliest (dates tbc).

We will continue to keep you updated on the progress of the scheme including confirmation of the revised public consultation dates on our dedicated scheme webpage: https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/j9

You can also email the project team at M5Junction9@atkinsglobal.com with any queries you may have.

Yours faithfully,

Note how "could take 9 months" appears to equal at least a 12-month delay to the project. It also implies that even if the the "additional analysis" (of what exactly?) takes, say, two months, the project will still be delayed for the 12+ months. This is a project that, as I've said before, was "fully ready to go to consultation*" in early 2021 but the local elections got in the way.

PS: this "external advice", I wonder which big-name consultancy did the report? Surely not Atkins, who are developing the scheme (the Council assumes everyone thinks they're doing it in-house), because that would be a conflict of interest? Either way, I really want to know what's going on here (not just this latest setback but all the delays) because I suspect they aren't telling us everything.
When they do finally get around to doing a consultation, I'll suddenly become a Very Difficult Person Who Asks Lots Of Awkward Questions And Won't Accept A Fob-Off Answer.

*Unfortunately I didn't save any evidence of this statement, and that iteration of the project webpage hasn't been archived as far as I'm aware.

[ABB125]

A very interesting update on the Ashchurch bypass project, courtesy of Tewkesbury MP Laurence Robertson in Parliament:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... Tewkesbury

Gives hints about planned route options (and, particularly, what is not planned), and also some explanation of recent delays to the project

[SouthWest Philip]

A very interesting update on the Ashchurch bypass project, courtesy of Tewkesbury MP Laurence Robertson in Parliament:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... Tewkesbury

Gives hints about planned route options (and, particularly, what is not planned), and also some explanation of recent delays to the project

What is needed is a grade-separated dual carriageway from Tewkesbury/Cheltenham to Warwick with south-facing free flow to/from the M5. (Linking the M50 to the A46 north of Evesham to achieve this is not really practical from an environment point of view, and the reality is that M5(S) <> A46 is the predominant movement that needs addressing.)

What I suspect is that the county and borough council are planning a non-free flowing development route that might coincidentally form a bypass of Ashchurch. If a serious bypass and proper fix for the A46 was planned it should be Highways England developing the plans, it's their road after all.

[ABB125]

A very interesting update on the Ashchurch bypass project, courtesy of Tewkesbury MP Laurence Robertson in Parliament:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... Tewkesbury

Gives hints about planned route options (and, particularly, what is not planned), and also some explanation of recent delays to the project

What is needed is a grade-separated dual carriageway from Tewkesbury/Cheltenham to Warwick with south-facing free flow to/from the M5. (Linking the M50 to the A46 north of Evesham to achieve this is not really practical from an environment point of view, and the reality is that M5(S) <> A46 is the predominant movement that needs addressing.)

What I suspect is that the county and borough council are planning a non-free flowing development route that might coincidentally form a bypass of Ashchurch. If a serious bypass and proper fix for the A46 was planned it should be Highways England developing the plans, it's their road after all.

I'm intrigued as to what the "grey route" consists of - based on the extremely limited information available, to me it sounds like: a new south facing junction a bit south of current J9, to which the new bypass would connect; closure of the south slips at the existing J9; and a link road between the two, to maintain south access to/from the entire junction complex. Depending on the exact nature of the new junction, bypass and link road(s), this could well be a very good option. But equally (much more likely, in fact) it could be rubbish!
It suggests that the other three options would use the existing J9 - that's basically impossible without knocking down Dobbies. I'm sure that suggestion will go down well... (What idiot approved the whole retail park and housing development there anyway, right in the way of the only sensible place for a new road to join the existing junction? Yet Highways England (as was) had no objection (nor to the extra traffic lights and junctions which have sprung up in the last year or so. Which, predictably, has made congestion worse throughout the day). Though it should be noted that I don't support using the existing junction for the bypass, unless as part of some sort of "grey route" scheme as mentioned above.)
Interesting that Mr Robertson seems far more interested in making it easier for the 10,000 new homeowners in Ashchurch to drive to Tewkesbury, rather than improving public transport for the local journeys (and what better opportunity than concreting over every field of miles around), and removing strategic traffic to improve quality of life near the existing road.
However, he does (sort of?) acknowledge that regardless of what happens at Ashchurch, any traffic for Tewkesbury still has to go through the middle of New Town. There has been no indication thus far that this scheme does anything to improve that (although it would be the perfect opportunity to bypass Ashchurch, new M5 junction to the south, then continue in a sweeping curve to join the Tewkesbury not-quite-a-bypass near Morrisons). Though thinking about it, he mentions that a "link road" is planned across an area which regularly floods; ignoring the fact that Tewkesbury is regularly underwater, I wonder if this suggests a route past Walton Cardiff is being considered? During times of heavy rainfall, land either side of the A38 will be covered in standing water.

[Hdeng16]

Yes I don’t really see the major issue with the split junction - if done properly it’s a sensible option that will actually split the supposedly heavy south>east and east<south traffic away from local traffic in part.

I mean it won’t be done properly so it’ll be awful but that’s true of any junction these days. It’s certainly not the worst option to have been floated, and given dobbies is right up to the junction there aren’t many alternatives. I don’t get why it needed a discussion at this stage or why he was begging for it to be removed

[orudge]

Some posts discussing the proposed upgrade scheme have been moved from the A46 Worcestershire topic.

[jackal]

The current proposals are likely derived from the 2018 options (see previous page).

The MP describes their bête noire, the grey option, like this: "In addition to half-closing the junction, the proposal suggests a link road to a further half-junction just south of junction 9".

This is similar to 2018 options 1 and 2, though it's not an exact match for either, as option 1 wouldn't have closed any J9 slips and option 2 would have closed all J9 slips (not half of them).

I don't really understand how the MP thinks an online improvement of the A46 is a viable option, though I agree about the nonsense of closing slips at J9.

[ABB125]

I don't really understand how the MP thinks an online improvement of the A46 is a viable option, though I agree about the nonsense of closing slips at J9.

An online upgrade simply isn't viable, nor is it desirable: traffic should be removed from roads like this (by building a bypass...). Though having said that, dualling (or at least S4) between the M5 and railway bridge should have been part of the recent "upgrade" of the various junctions along that stretch as part of the retail/housing development.
Regarding closing the south-facing sliproads at J9, I wouldn't object to this in principle, so long as the new junction complex is well-designed and deliberately makes south access from the existing junction as easy as possible. (It won't, of course!) And if the new junction only has south-facing sliproads, then there's no need to close the existing ones (unless they get in the way of plugging in a road linking the two junctions) as there won't be any weaving issues (DMRB hatred on closely-spaced sliproads in the same direction notwithstanding!).

Something like this would be great: a trumpet for the bypass, and links to the existing junction as well. (Not to scale!)

[jackal]

^ If the junction is in the 2018 location it'd be twice the distance (6 vs 3 miles) to get between M5 North and Teddington Hands via the new junction as it would via the existing one.

The trumpet and C/D lanes would only make sense if the new junction is much closer to J9, which conflicts with designated housing areas (a whole other story of course).