M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
fras
Member
Posts: 2745
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

Post by fras » Wed Jul 28, 2021 13:41

Maybe I've missed something, but it's not very cycling-friendly is it, (although neither is the present layout !) ? Three roundabouts to negotiate on the proposed new Jn 1 M54 to keep to the old road. Then there is the absolutely horrendous roundabout proposal for Jn 11 M6 !
The new Jn 11 M6 involves the complete demolition of the existing bridges, and installation of two new ones on a larger diameter roundabout. Surely this must cost almost the same as putting in at least a part-free flow junction ? Can it be the same designer who was responsible for the dreadful Switch Island up near Liverpool !

Its yet another spatchcock, but a very expensive one !

User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3006
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

Post by Patrick Harper » Thu Jul 29, 2021 21:31

Well the current roundabout is only two lanes wide + footpaths, if the plan for the new roundabout is for a wider circular carriageway plus filter lanes then that's still an improvement, and a less disruptive one than full freeflow would be to the area. Assuming they've setup their traffic modelling software correctly and they're choosing a design with regards to the stats generated from that, it's probably fine.

Looks like the M54 J1 design separates trunk from local traffic so cycling around it should be less daunting despite making the journey three small roundabouts instead of one big one. These sorts of schemes tend to make the footpaths shared use as well for those who are really scared.
YouTubeYouTube (music)Vimeo | Formerly: Paspie (2010–2015) • Paianni (2015–2018) • Skye (2018–2020)

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6444
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

Post by jackal » Fri Jul 30, 2021 08:00

Patrick Harper wrote:
Thu Jul 29, 2021 21:31
Well the current roundabout is only two lanes wide + footpaths, if the plan for the new roundabout is for a wider circular carriageway plus filter lanes then that's still an improvement, and a less disruptive one than full freeflow would be to the area. Assuming they've setup their traffic modelling software correctly and they're choosing a design with regards to the stats generated from that, it's probably fine.
The freeflow design bypassed the existing roundabout (see plan I posted on previous page). It would have been much less disruptive than the selected design, which requires demolition of the existing junction.

Remarkably there are not even any freeflow filter lanes in the selected design, nor any potential for any as they've put the old A460 between the link road and north facing onslip.

You have a lot of faith in the software. It's not an objective judge but a slave to the selected parameters and inputs. Usually the target is to keep the junction within 'capacity' at peak times. This is defined so it can be (and with this design, is bound to be) achieved with substantial queues. Furthermore, offpeak and interpeak journey times are usually treated as a 'don't care'. See HE's own metastudy of dozens of pinchpoint schemes, which found that average journey times usually increased. The modelling is basically rigged to deliver this dire outcome of a massively wide, fully signalized roundabout.

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

Post by Chris5156 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 08:15

Patrick Harper wrote:
Thu Jul 29, 2021 21:31
These sorts of schemes tend to make the footpaths shared use as well for those who are really scared.
This is true, but not good enough any more, IMO. Shared footpaths that are used for cyclists are a terrible compromise. HE has a vast budget and even dedicated spending for improvements to NMU provision; they should be working towards dedicated cycle facilities on all their schemes. That applies more than anywhere else in a situation like this where you’re going to see a whole junction ripped up and rebuilt - it’s an opportunity to make real improvements that won’t be repeated. Fail to provide properly for NMUs now and it will be difficult to ever add provision for them later.

fras
Member
Posts: 2745
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

Post by fras » Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:40

Let's be honest, and say that the proposals are not very good at all. The link should be motorway only and then NMC can be catered-for in a decent manner.

Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 936
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: B3272/A325/A331

Re: M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

Post by Micro The Maniac » Fri Jul 30, 2021 21:10

Steven wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 13:09
And I see they've also finally decided to make the link an all-purpose road.
What is it with DfT and their reluctance to designate new motorways?

A link between two moorways is, err, an APDC?

fras
Member
Posts: 2745
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

Post by fras » Fri Jul 30, 2021 21:40

fras wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:40
Let's be honest, and say that the proposals are not very good at all. The link should be motorway only and then NMC can be catered-for in a decent manner.
Sorry, I meant "Non-Motorway Traffic" or NMT

Phil
Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

Post by Phil » Sat Jul 31, 2021 00:08

Chris5156 wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 08:15
Patrick Harper wrote:
Thu Jul 29, 2021 21:31
These sorts of schemes tend to make the footpaths shared use as well for those who are really scared.
This is true, but not good enough any more, IMO. Shared footpaths that are used for cyclists are a terrible compromise. HE has a vast budget and even dedicated spending for improvements to NMU provision; they should be working towards dedicated cycle facilities on all their schemes. That applies more than anywhere else in a situation like this where you’re going to see a whole junction ripped up and rebuilt - it’s an opportunity to make real improvements that won’t be repeated. Fail to provide properly for NMUs now and it will be difficult to ever add provision for them later.
If HE budget was that vast we wouldn't have an at grade solution being pushed in the first place.

The simple truth is, like most things in this country, the Government tries to do things on a shoestring (so it can claim to keep taxes low) while simultaneously diverting huge chunks of valuable taxpayers cash (which could be spent actually doing things) down the trousers of their outsourcing friends by stripping Government bodies of all expertise to do things in house.

HE have effectively been reduced to an uninformed commissioning agent with precious little engineering talent or vision within. They say to a contractor "this is the budget - go and give me a solution which can be built within it (with minimal landtake so we can minimise trouble from the neighbours / protest lobby)". Back comes the contractor with an at grade design festooned with traffic lights (and which they will claim makes the design NMU friendly) and some computer models which say it will just about work and the HE PR machine goes into overdrive about how wonderful they (HE) are for coming up with such a excellent design.

Post Reply