Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
 today - Removal of Severn Bridge Tolls
22/12/2018 - Christmas service changes
04/01/2019 - Look forward - 2019 Severnside
07/01/2019 - JSP consultation closes
10/01/2019 - CHRUG
14/01/2019 - TWSW Board
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
December 17, 2018, 09:36:00 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[152] Santa's Melksham Christmas Fruit Machine
[98] Closure of Old Oak Common (81A) December 2018
[87] Advent quiz 2019
[59] XC Dawlish cancellations now beyond a joke!
[56] Tube travel linked to the spread of flu-like illnesses
[44] New Stations for Bristol Commuters
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: M4 Junction 18A  (Read 344 times)
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2432



View Profile
« on: December 06, 2018, 10:28:04 am »

South Glos have made a strong case for a new junction on the M4, just over 2km to the east of the current M32 junction (J19) near where the A432 currently crosses.

There's not really much of a public transport angle to this story; it should take traffic away from the overheated A4174/M32 junction, and one has to assume that the highways engineers have considered the possibility that the traffic jams will just move to the new junction...

The thing that really caught my eye was the cost of this scheme: 428M. Four hundred and twenty-eight million pounds. Goodness me, that would go a long way towards paying for MetroWest...
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1675


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2018, 12:23:42 pm »

Interesting to see that there were so many options/suboptions considered. I'd only heard reference to "Western" and "Eastern" options, but it was more than that.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2432



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2018, 01:29:38 pm »

Correction: the proposed junction is at the Westerleigh Road bridge, which is just over 3km east of the M32 junction.

Looking at the documents I see that they plan to shift the M4 north of its current alignment, which goes a little way towards explaining the cost... nonetheless 428M is an astonishing amount of money; just remember that the Borders Railway project came in at around 300M for 30 miles of track; Filton Bank was 33M. Portishead, including its controversial platinum rails, is estimated at 175M...
Logged
Clan Line
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 124



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2018, 03:23:41 pm »

Why, in this country, do we seem to be incapable of doing any transport project properly and at the time that it is needed ?? This applies equally to road, rail & air.  This idea was first mooted in the late 90s, along with a flyover/under for the ring road where it crosses the M32.  If it had been done then it would have only cost 42.50 !

428 million !!  A better idea, buy a purpose built fleet of 5 car (which can be extended to 6 in 10/20 yrs time) dmus with full through corridor, 4 abreast comfortable seating, adequate leg room, a good scattering of fixed tables, fold down tables on the airline seating, working air conditioning and a mini buffet ( Wink) for Cardiff - Portsmouth then save the rest for a Junc 18A scheme when the idea is re-floated in 2038.

Nah ! DfT will cascade the 5 car IETs to that route in 2064 and save billions so they can electrify St Erth to St Ives. (HS7)
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1675


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2018, 05:38:09 pm »

Looking at the documents I see that they plan to shift the M4 north of its current alignment, which goes a little way towards explaining the cost...
So what will (would) happen to existing carriageways? Is the plan to actually demolish them and return the land to some other use or simply to build an short parallel section of motorway to serve the new junction, leaving the existing section in use as the main alignment, a little like a smaller-scale version of what happened with original M4 when the "new" Severn Bridge was built?
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2432



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2018, 06:09:31 pm »

I don't think the scheme is fully developed yet. As I understand it though the intention is to demolish most of the old alignment, perhaps using some of it as the basis of a local access road.
Logged
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1319


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2018, 07:07:02 pm »

When the M4 was built passive provision was made for a service station at Pucklechurch and anyone travelling the M4 in either direction can see the blocked off exit and entry slip roads.

DfT or whoever decreed that the service station would not happen but left in limbo that a link to Yate could utilise the infrastructure but were so long winded that any land to make this connection was sold to housing developers and houses were built scuppering that plan. That was the eastern option. A revised eastern option was mooted which would have taken traffic on a circular route round Pucklechurch to join the Ring Road at the Shortwood roundabout but this was rejected fiercely by the Pucklechurch community so this left just the western option.

As this saga has gone on for years land immediately adjoining the M4 itself was sold to, yet again, housing developers. This means that to provide the requisite westbound exit and entry slip roads to be constructed these must use the existing alignment of the M4 so a kink in the motorway proper has to be provided. Authority dithering again.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2432



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2018, 07:28:00 pm »

Yes; you can see the 'passive provision' near Yate here: https://goo.gl/maps/CoUJfga18JA2

...which is not to be confused with the 'road to nowhere', running more or less from 5 o'clock to 11 o'clock in this view: https://goo.gl/maps/quxZWvv2CFq

Isn't the re-alignment more to do with the need to build the new junction without bringing the M4 to a halt for a couple of years, though? Whatever they do it will be necessary to divert traffic around the works, but by building the new junction off the existing line they can presumably minimise the cost of diversions.
Logged
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1319


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2018, 09:04:58 pm »

Isn't the re-alignment more to do with the need to build the new junction without bringing the M4 to a halt for a couple of years, though? Whatever they do it will be necessary to divert traffic around the works, but by building the new junction off the existing line they can presumably minimise the cost of diversions.

No, the current M4 boundary fence is shared with a massive DPD couriers depot and a massive warehouse building currently under construction leaving nowhere to shoehorn in the westbound M4 exit and entry slip roads as I stated. The Lyde Green housing development then continues and shares the M4 boundary fence with a continuation of the road named Jenner Boulevard beyond with its junction with Willow Herb Road.


Logged
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2432



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2018, 10:25:48 pm »


No, the current M4 boundary fence is shared with a massive DPD couriers depot and a massive warehouse building currently under construction leaving nowhere to shoehorn in the westbound M4 exit and entry slip roads as I stated. The Lyde Green housing development then continues and shares the M4 boundary fence with a continuation of the road named Jenner Boulevard beyond with its junction with Willow Herb Road.


Everything you say is true, but I don't share your conclusion that this is the result of a planning cockup. If you look at the first option in SOBC_Appendix_B_Scheme_Drawings.pdf, you can see that most of the new junction could be constructed with minimal disruption to the current M4. Having had daily experience of the congestion and delay caused by a much simpler scheme to throw the MetroBus bridge over the M32, I see this as preferable.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants