Army and Navy Roundabout Chelmsford new plans

Having a look just at the roundabout (there is clearly lots more, mention of wider network improvements).  For reference - the current situation on Google.

The good:

Bi-directional cycle paths.  These can be a real boon around large junctions so you can get shorter routes / bypass a crossing in both directions.   Albeit you need to be on the correct side of the road to begin with - and here the cycle paths are almost all only on one side.

Being "at grade" might feel socially safer to some as the existing subways look like they're typical UK-standard narrow, dark and unpleasant places, with no sight lines.

On the north side you can cycle past this in one go on a separate path.  This win is somewhat diluted by the lack of continuing cycle paths, and also that you'll need to cross to get there because ...

The bad:

...Most of the roads have a bit of cycle path past the junction which then just stops.  This could be "and you can hop over the footway, then down a side street" but the very quality of the infra here shows the general lack of it.  Not the fault of the roundabout exactly, but cycling needs a network of suitable routes - same as driving.  Plus instead of continous footway / cycle path at side streets they've got both giving up at every one - and even at a pull in / entrance to a field...

You'll be crossing lots and lots of lanes, often in multiple stages.

Mostly no separate waiting areas as JLasTSR says - but then, are lots of people ever going to be here...?

Overall: this is called 'sustainable' but I'm just seeing a football-pitch-sized gyratory.  This is still all about the motor traffic.  That would be OK if this isn't really part of a "route" for cyclists.  I suspect the Dutch would look at this and say "OK - this is part of an urban motorway.  You don't have people walking alongside or crossing motorways - they won't feel safe and the environment is very unpleasant.  Let's just make this efficient for motor traffic.  We'll ensure that there are efficient, direct and pleasant routes for cycling and walking and they don't need to be anywhere near here."

I doubt they'd even try to make this "grade separated" (which is probably the minimum needed).  Is there a serious demand to cycle here?  Is this a "missing node"?  Is there nowhere else that cycling routes can be made in the network avoiding this?  If that's really the case ... then it looks like there's some space to the north and east.  Perhaps by shifting this mess a bit enough space for entrances and exits from a fully grade-separated underpass could be found?  But you'd really want to elevate the cars a bit to avoid steep gradients and to keep the sight lines open at entrances for pedestrians / cyclists.

I guess the new layout makes it "possible" for people to cycle / walk there.  I doubt many would be happy doing so previously due to the multiple lanes and massive traffic flows - but the traffic part remains the same.

Perhaps it helps the buses?

Thanks for the post!

Lots there - this is clearly a major scheme.  Haven't had time to look at everything so just my initial scribble.  From their article:

Essex Highways wrote:

... was being used by up to 70,000 vehicles a day and 72 buses an hour prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. About 10,000 vehicles a day used the flyover prior to its closure.

The junction consists of a five-arm roundabout, which until 2019 had a tidal flyover that carried one-way traffic (cars only) to and from the A1060/A1114 over the roundabout.

The junction is already over capacity during the morning and evening peak times.

And after:

Essex Highways wrote:

... The roundabout would predominantly have three lanes around the circulatory, while there would be two lanes in each direction on the road through the middle of central island between Parkway and Essex Yeomanry Way.

So the've got one thing right - this is a very high-capacity massive football pitch of motor-vehicle mayhem.  It absolutely has to have separate cycle infra.  Otherwise you could add "and occasionally carries Dave, Fred and Sam on bikes - the first because they're incredibly bloody-minded and the latter once, at night, on a dare".

Looking to improve things for the buses is a good sign.  Doing this but not getting them held up by the motor traffic may be difficult.

They're adding a lane through the middle to replace the flyover.  Not sure how that will work, won't it just cause further snarl-ups?  Anyway sounds like it will remain a mess.  Not anywhere remotely pleasant or convenient for active travel.  What it really needs is other modes cycling completely bypassing the area OR something properly grade-separated.  Could be underground (raise the cars so it's less effort for cyclists) or maybe something above the roundabout (but not the usual "concrete trench in the sky to get pedestrians out of the way" please.