A420 reopens with roadworks completed a week early

A420 reopens with roadworks completed a week early

A420 reopens with roadworks completed a week early

First published in News
Last updated
by

ROADWORKS to upgrade the surface of the A420 close to Shrivenham have been completed a full week ahead of schedule to the relief of residents.

The programme from Oxford County Council began on 23 July and had been expected to last for seven weeks, but the road is now fully open to traffic once more.

Diversions had been in place for traffic between Swindon and Oxford as a section of the road between the Bourton turn-off and the Watchfield roundabout was impassable.

The £3.5m project is now complete after teams worked through weekends and nights as required.

Oxford County Councillor David Nimmo Smith, cabinet member for transport, said: “This is excellent news and I am sure that local people and the travelling public who use the A420 will be delighted.

“The A420 was in desperate need of significant repair and I am pleased we managed to complete the work before Network Rail close the A417 for their electrification work and before the schools returned. We will continue to work closely with them to mitigate the impact of their works on local communities and the travelling public.

“It is not always possible to do things ahead of schedule, but our engineers and contractors always try their best to work quickly and safely.

“As well as celebrating the early finish I would like to thank the local people and road users who have been very patient during such a major job.”

Shrivenham parish council chairwoman Sarah Day said lessons need to be learned from the handling of the roadworks after a number of contraventions.

“We did not experience the volume of traffic we thought we might get which is a huge plus,” she said. “The problem was that of the traffic we did get through the majority were exceeding the speed limit. That was awful for the older residents attempting to cross the road.

“Another issue was that the signs were put in the wrong place, so Swindon-bound traffic was continuing through Faringdon Road and through Shrivenham, and traffic was backing up from the pinch point there.

“Eventually they changed them the day before the fete and it was lovely after that. It is just a shame it took them so long.

“Within 48 hours we knew there was a serious problem but it took them five weeks to react.

“There was also a lack of enforcement. We were told marshalls would be present to stop HGVs from coming through the village, but we got the same vehicles doing it repeatedly.

“That said the traffic has reduced greatly through the village and it is nice to have a new surface because it might encourage more people to use the A420 because it has been in such a bad state.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:27pm Sat 30 Aug 14

johnboy207 says...

Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?
Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled? johnboy207
  • Score: -1

6:45pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Always Grumpy says...

johnboy207 wrote:
Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?
Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass.
Not like the Adver to get something wrong.
[quote][p][bold]johnboy207[/bold] wrote: Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?[/p][/quote]Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass. Not like the Adver to get something wrong. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 6

8:21pm Sat 30 Aug 14

South Stand says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
johnboy207 wrote:
Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?
Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass.
Not like the Adver to get something wrong.
Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnboy207[/bold] wrote: Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?[/p][/quote]Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass. Not like the Adver to get something wrong.[/p][/quote]Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks. South Stand
  • Score: -14

8:42pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Always Grumpy says...

South Stand wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
johnboy207 wrote:
Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?
Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass.
Not like the Adver to get something wrong.
Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.
There isn't any dual carriageway around Shrivenham.
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnboy207[/bold] wrote: Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?[/p][/quote]Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass. Not like the Adver to get something wrong.[/p][/quote]Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.[/p][/quote]There isn't any dual carriageway around Shrivenham. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 4

9:15pm Sat 30 Aug 14

South Stand says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
South Stand wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
johnboy207 wrote:
Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?
Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass.
Not like the Adver to get something wrong.
Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.
There isn't any dual carriageway around Shrivenham.
Further up the road towards Oxford there is, or did you manage to miss this queue, caused by the Shrivenham roadworks.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnboy207[/bold] wrote: Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?[/p][/quote]Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass. Not like the Adver to get something wrong.[/p][/quote]Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.[/p][/quote]There isn't any dual carriageway around Shrivenham.[/p][/quote]Further up the road towards Oxford there is, or did you manage to miss this queue, caused by the Shrivenham roadworks. South Stand
  • Score: -13

11:06pm Sat 30 Aug 14

swindon1989 says...

South Stand wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
South Stand wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
johnboy207 wrote:
Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?
Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass.
Not like the Adver to get something wrong.
Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.
There isn't any dual carriageway around Shrivenham.
Further up the road towards Oxford there is, or did you manage to miss this queue, caused by the Shrivenham roadworks.
I drive to Oxford and back everyday through rush hour and I have not experienced and tailbacks on the A420 during the roadworks. The duel carriageway section is about 10 miles from shrivenham so any tailbacks like the one pictured would not have been caused by the road closure.
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnboy207[/bold] wrote: Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?[/p][/quote]Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass. Not like the Adver to get something wrong.[/p][/quote]Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.[/p][/quote]There isn't any dual carriageway around Shrivenham.[/p][/quote]Further up the road towards Oxford there is, or did you manage to miss this queue, caused by the Shrivenham roadworks.[/p][/quote]I drive to Oxford and back everyday through rush hour and I have not experienced and tailbacks on the A420 during the roadworks. The duel carriageway section is about 10 miles from shrivenham so any tailbacks like the one pictured would not have been caused by the road closure. swindon1989
  • Score: 8

7:32am Sun 31 Aug 14

AustinField says...

The police signs worked warning motorists about the closure of the A420 at Shrivenham. I've not known the road so quiet for 30 years. It was a delight!

The best thing was that there were virtually no lorries. Shrivenham did experience some inconvenience, but nothing like the horror that we envisaged.

The bit of road shown in the Adver photo is at least 15 miles away from the closure!
The police signs worked warning motorists about the closure of the A420 at Shrivenham. I've not known the road so quiet for 30 years. It was a delight! The best thing was that there were virtually no lorries. Shrivenham did experience some inconvenience, but nothing like the horror that we envisaged. The bit of road shown in the Adver photo is at least 15 miles away from the closure! AustinField
  • Score: 2

8:18am Sun 31 Aug 14

Blackmalkin says...

Bet it's all broken again by the end of the winter. This road gets way too much HGV traffic, which is directed to use the A34/M4 by signs at Oxford but uses the A420 to save fuel and time. According to a road engineer I know, cars aren't heavy enough to cause any significant damage to main roads and ALL the damage is down to lorries (damage is proportional to the axle weight to the power of four, to is about 46000 times higher for a 44 tonne HGV on four axcles than for a 1.5 tonne car on two axles).
Bet it's all broken again by the end of the winter. This road gets way too much HGV traffic, which is directed to use the A34/M4 by signs at Oxford but uses the A420 to save fuel and time. According to a road engineer I know, cars aren't heavy enough to cause any significant damage to main roads and ALL the damage is down to lorries (damage is proportional to the axle weight to the power of four, to is about 46000 times higher for a 44 tonne HGV on four axcles than for a 1.5 tonne car on two axles). Blackmalkin
  • Score: -7

9:01am Sun 31 Aug 14

Always Grumpy says...

South Stand wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
South Stand wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
johnboy207 wrote:
Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?
Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass.
Not like the Adver to get something wrong.
Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.
There isn't any dual carriageway around Shrivenham.
Further up the road towards Oxford there is, or did you manage to miss this queue, caused by the Shrivenham roadworks.
That's miles away and that stretch of dual carriageway doesn't look anything like the Adver photo. Anyway there's no way tailbacks that long would have developed - Shrivenham to Kingston Bagpuize, 13 miles!
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnboy207[/bold] wrote: Didnt know the A420 was being repaired on the dualled section, thought it was by shrivenham which is not dualled?[/p][/quote]Not sure what stretch of road shown in the photograph. Definitely NOT the Shrivenham byepass. Not like the Adver to get something wrong.[/p][/quote]Err........maybe, just maybe, it's the queue leading into the roadworks.[/p][/quote]There isn't any dual carriageway around Shrivenham.[/p][/quote]Further up the road towards Oxford there is, or did you manage to miss this queue, caused by the Shrivenham roadworks.[/p][/quote]That's miles away and that stretch of dual carriageway doesn't look anything like the Adver photo. Anyway there's no way tailbacks that long would have developed - Shrivenham to Kingston Bagpuize, 13 miles! Always Grumpy
  • Score: 5

11:44am Sun 31 Aug 14

Alan Bast*rd says...

Blackmalkin wrote:
Bet it's all broken again by the end of the winter. This road gets way too much HGV traffic, which is directed to use the A34/M4 by signs at Oxford but uses the A420 to save fuel and time. According to a road engineer I know, cars aren't heavy enough to cause any significant damage to main roads and ALL the damage is down to lorries (damage is proportional to the axle weight to the power of four, to is about 46000 times higher for a 44 tonne HGV on four axcles than for a 1.5 tonne car on two axles).
Poor surfacing was the issue. Your mate is wrong.
How come other roads which do not get hgv traffic break up and get pot holes etc?
[quote][p][bold]Blackmalkin[/bold] wrote: Bet it's all broken again by the end of the winter. This road gets way too much HGV traffic, which is directed to use the A34/M4 by signs at Oxford but uses the A420 to save fuel and time. According to a road engineer I know, cars aren't heavy enough to cause any significant damage to main roads and ALL the damage is down to lorries (damage is proportional to the axle weight to the power of four, to is about 46000 times higher for a 44 tonne HGV on four axcles than for a 1.5 tonne car on two axles).[/p][/quote]Poor surfacing was the issue. Your mate is wrong. How come other roads which do not get hgv traffic break up and get pot holes etc? Alan Bast*rd
  • Score: 8

11:45am Sun 31 Aug 14

MrAngry says...

Blackmalkin wrote:
Bet it's all broken again by the end of the winter. This road gets way too much HGV traffic, which is directed to use the A34/M4 by signs at Oxford but uses the A420 to save fuel and time. According to a road engineer I know, cars aren't heavy enough to cause any significant damage to main roads and ALL the damage is down to lorries (damage is proportional to the axle weight to the power of four, to is about 46000 times higher for a 44 tonne HGV on four axcles than for a 1.5 tonne car on two axles).
It is true that heavy vehicles cause much more damage, but not quite as badly as you describe. A 44t vehicle would have 6 axles. The max weight for a 4 axle vehicle is 38t. Either way the maximum axle weight for both is 11.5t (the axle weights are not equally distributed). An 18t two axle vehicle can also have an axle weight of 11.5t. Similarly a 1.5t car would have axle weights of approx. 0.9t and 0.6t.. In practice most 44t vehicles using the road won't be fully loaded either.

Vehicle speed and road condition are also factors. A fast moving vehicle on a potholed road will cause more damage than a slow moving vehicle on a smooth road due to dynamic impact effects.
[quote][p][bold]Blackmalkin[/bold] wrote: Bet it's all broken again by the end of the winter. This road gets way too much HGV traffic, which is directed to use the A34/M4 by signs at Oxford but uses the A420 to save fuel and time. According to a road engineer I know, cars aren't heavy enough to cause any significant damage to main roads and ALL the damage is down to lorries (damage is proportional to the axle weight to the power of four, to is about 46000 times higher for a 44 tonne HGV on four axcles than for a 1.5 tonne car on two axles).[/p][/quote]It is true that heavy vehicles cause much more damage, but not quite as badly as you describe. A 44t vehicle would have 6 axles. The max weight for a 4 axle vehicle is 38t. Either way the maximum axle weight for both is 11.5t (the axle weights are not equally distributed). An 18t two axle vehicle can also have an axle weight of 11.5t. Similarly a 1.5t car would have axle weights of approx. 0.9t and 0.6t.. In practice most 44t vehicles using the road won't be fully loaded either. Vehicle speed and road condition are also factors. A fast moving vehicle on a potholed road will cause more damage than a slow moving vehicle on a smooth road due to dynamic impact effects. MrAngry
  • Score: 5

5:11pm Sun 31 Aug 14

dukeofM4 says...

It's fantastic they've finished early. However, it doesn't alleviate problem that it needs to be dualled all the way to the A34.

That'll happen in 2050 I suppose.
It's fantastic they've finished early. However, it doesn't alleviate problem that it needs to be dualled all the way to the A34. That'll happen in 2050 I suppose. dukeofM4
  • Score: 3

8:42pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Alan Bast*rd says...

dukeofM4 wrote:
It's fantastic they've finished early. However, it doesn't alleviate problem that it needs to be dualled all the way to the A34.

That'll happen in 2050 I suppose.
And the massive queues from the a420 onto the a34. And the a34 needing to be 3 lanes as its daily gridlock on there.
[quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: It's fantastic they've finished early. However, it doesn't alleviate problem that it needs to be dualled all the way to the A34. That'll happen in 2050 I suppose.[/p][/quote]And the massive queues from the a420 onto the a34. And the a34 needing to be 3 lanes as its daily gridlock on there. Alan Bast*rd
  • Score: 4

6:44pm Mon 1 Sep 14

johnmwebb says...

Such a lot of whinging for a short term diversion.

I don' think The main problem was the not speeding and everytime i went through we were in a queue going slowly and locals vehicles were being let out.

The problem of the pinch point was totally avoidable and I presume was left their due to local selfishness.

Perhaps any local complainers (probably a petty minority) who now enjoy their peaceful road again but be banned from the A420.

am not being horrible against anybody and i am sure it must have been inconvenient but in a world with many problems the whinging of some in Shrivenham reflects badly on them
Such a lot of whinging for a short term diversion. I don' think The main problem was the not speeding and everytime i went through we were in a queue going slowly and locals vehicles were being let out. The problem of the pinch point was totally avoidable and I presume was left their due to local selfishness. Perhaps any local complainers (probably a petty minority) who now enjoy their peaceful road again but be banned from the A420. am not being horrible against anybody and i am sure it must have been inconvenient but in a world with many problems the whinging of some in Shrivenham reflects badly on them johnmwebb
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree