The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.
A38 Derby Junctions
Received 04 August 2019
From Alan Bradwell
“1 - The proposed plan continues the mistakes of the existing layout, in that it fails to fully segregate A38 Trunk traffic from Derby urban traffic. This has been the problem for the last 40 years. 2 - The proposed plan benefits only A38 Trunk traffic, not Derby urban traffic. All the access points to the old A5111 Derby Ring Road (which is now the A38) will be blocked on the proposed plan, despite statements in early proposals that this would not happen. Derby urban traffic is being forced onto a 50mph 3-lane Trunk road over 3 sections, mixing with much lorry traffic, and with no alternative roads provided. The plan should have a separate 3-lane dual carriageway for the A38 and a separate A5111 Derby Ring Road adjacent. The plan is not bold enough. 3 - The building of the proposed plan (bridges, underpasses, slip-roads, additional lanes) takes place ON the line of the existing roads, which will lead to massive delays for the 30,000 vehicles using the A38 daily, such as occurred with the last "Small Improvements" in 2015, showing that HA are not capable of carrying out their plan without massive delays. The plan is not bold enough - it should take more land and allow work to be carried out off-road to avoid delays. 4 - There are 6 access junctions between the A38 and Derby roads - this is too many; some are unneccessary. If the A38/A516 junction (a dual carriageway into Derby centre) were made bi-directional (by off-road work), the Kingsway junction would be redundant. If the A5111 Queensway were re-instated as in 2) above, there would be no need for the A38/Kedleston Rd. junction, which is currently only uni-directional. The plan is not bold enough - Four junctions into Derby is enough. 5 - The proposed plan to build an underpass at Markeaton junction on the line of the existing road whilst maintaining current traffic flows is ridiculous. The Plan is not bold enough. The underpass must be built to the west of the junction, on land now occupied by Macdonalds/Garage, but compulsorily purchased, so that it can be built off-road, leading to no A38 delays. The A38 can be shifted temporarily to the east onto unused Territorial Army land to give room for the underpass construction; this carriageway will form the new A5111 later. The gradient of 7.5% up Windmill Hill from the underpass will be a problem for lorries. Some land will be needed from Markeaton Park, but this is no loss as that bit of Park is unused because of the traffic noise- a noise barrier will be needed. 6 - The proposed plan for a new bridge over the railway at Little Eaton junction, and two bridges for the 2-off 2-lane flyovers for the A38 is excessive. The latter will be a visual intrusion and the height will generate much more noise than keeping the A38 on the ground and raising the B6179 on a single carriageway bridge above it. Two auxiliary junction roundabouts can be sited on spare land to the north and south of the junction, as in the proposed plan for Kingsway junction, which was deemed acceptable for Derby traffic flows. These roundabouts can be constructed off-road prior to the bridge building and will allow diversions during the build, with no delays. One bridge is cheaper than 3 bridges, especially a new bridge over the railway line. 7 - To summarize - the whole scheme is badly thought-out and does not solve the 40-year old problem of mixing A38 and Derby urban traffic. It is not bold enough in that the proposals are just tinkering with the existing layouts, with the likelihood that the construction on the existing roads will lead to massive delays over several years. The plan should seek to improve the lot of Derby urban traffic in the future, not just A38 traffic, and produce as little visual and noise pollution as possible. This plan does not do that and should be rejected.”