M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

[Steven]

One thing I forgot to mention is that both flavours of Option C will involve a small amount of widening on M54. The road will be widened to D3M over the top of the J1 roundabout (though without hard shoulders over the bridges), and the west-facing slips at J1 will be converted to a regular exit/entry taper rather than a lane drop.

East of J1 it will be D3M with a lane drop for the braided slips at the new junction for C West; and D4M including a lane gain from J1 then double drop for C East - hence the serious weaving issues over a short distance. To the east of the relevant junction option, it will remain as D2M.

[A320Driver]

Meanwhile, my main concern with option B is buildability at the south end. You couldn't reuse the existing bridges at M54 J1; they're only wide enough for S2 sliproads (i.e. you couldn't fit an S2M through them), so you'd have to drop the hard shoulder temporarily at the junction, but more importantly an S2 sliproad going through the existing bridge would have to be pretty much at 90° to the motorway; you couldn't easily rework it as a skew bridge, which is that that fork-dumbbell combination really wants. So I'm not sure how you'd construct the junction without closing the M54 for an extended period of time to build a bridge underneath it. (It has to go under rather than over due to the topography at the site and the desire for the new motorway not to tower over Featherstone.) Maybe there's some trick to this that I'm not getting, though. (Perhaps not; the brochure mentions disruption to M54 J1 during construction as a significant drawback.)

Bridges were built under the M1 at J19 and also M25 Cobham services so it is do-able.

[chaseracer]

Consultation on the M54/M6Toll link ends at 23:59 on Friday.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ion/intro/

[fras]

I responded to the consultation and went for Option C, with the caveat that I considered its northern end was putting far too much into a very small space, and it would be better to eliminate Jn 11, and divert the A460 away to the south. If Hilton Lane and Saredon Road is the basis, no new bridges are needed. Obviously needs money for the improvements to these two roads, and probably a new bit to cut out going into Cheslyn Hay.

[chaseracer]

I responded to the consultation and went for Option C...

East or west?

[fras]

I responded to the consultation and went for Option C...

East or west?

Sorry, can't remember !

[Steven]

...and a big chunky envelope from Highways England dropped through my door today regarding the M54-M6-M6 Toll Link road.

Edited highlights:

* Preferred route has been chosen as Option B West.
* Standard is Dual 2-lane, but no statement regarding all-purpose/motorway/Special Road/expressway.
* Junction options are all deleted, and further work will be completed on this. Hopefully this means that the stupid Cherwell Valley-style roundabout chain at the southern end for Wolverhampton -> Cannock and M6 traffic will not be coming back.

And the biggie:
The section between M6 and M6 Toll has been deleted.

This element was subject to other contributions which unfortunately have not been secured.

Translation: MEL have almost certainly backed out of paying for it. The route is now just a link between M54 J1 and M6 J11 combined with a bypass for Featherstone.

[nowster]

Doh!

[rhyds]

And the biggie:
The section between M6 and M6 Toll has been deleted.

This element was subject to other contributions which unfortunately have not been secured.

Translation: MEL have almost certainly backed out of paying for it. The route is now just a link between M54 J1 and M6 J11 combined with a bypass for Featherstone.

Well that's a bit sodding useless. MEL must be very short of cash or not geared for increased traffic if they won't pay for a link that would massively increase the number of paying drivers on their road.

[jackal]

Great update Steven! Disappointing to hear that MEL have most likely dropped out - I hope HE/DfT at least had the foresight to incorporate MEL break fees to cover the costs of the implied delay to the scheme and wasted option development. But I agree they shouldn't build that portion if MEL won't contribute.

I'm glad option B west was selected as it's far more direct and doesn't rely on squeezing extra traffic over the J1 bridges, which could become a new bottleneck (especially if Western Orbital traffic is eventually relying on this corridor to reach the M6). In the current policy environment I expect it will be to motorway regulations whether it has HS or not.

You could actually build option B west exactly as per the options brochure (see below), just without the portion north of the M6. Or more precisely, all you would build north of the M6 would be the loop for M6sb->M54. The extra bit could be added if MEL stump up the cash. Alternatively, they could now replace the M6sb->M54 loop with a higher speed connector, though this would make it harder to add the future link to the M6T.

I thought the design for J1 was really good. It freeflows the strategic connections, which is a far cry from Cherwell Valley. Three roundabouts to get from the A460 to the M6 may not be ideal but it's hardly a dealbreaker when there are already dozens of at-grade junctions and property frontages on the A460. The improvement still makes that movement vastly quicker by taking traffic off J1 and bypassing the A460 north of the M54.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... on_V11.pdf

[c2R]

Here's a link to the consultation report etc. https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... link-road/

[Truvelo]

The 2017 options all allowed traffic between the M54 and Cannock to bypass the J11 roundabout. Does the removal of the M6 Toll link also remove this feature?

[Steven]

The 2017 options all allowed traffic between the M54 and Cannock to bypass the J11 roundabout. Does the removal of the M6 Toll link also remove this feature?

It doesn't say. Basically the junction options at either end have been removed and replaced with vague circles. Anything is possible at this point.

[tomuk]

The 2017 options all allowed traffic between the M54 and Cannock to bypass the J11 roundabout. Does the removal of the M6 Toll link also remove this feature?

It doesn't say. Basically the junction options at either end have been removed and replaced with vague circles. Anything is possible at this point.

If your read the scheme assessment report it is made clear that there will be no freeflow at the northern end it will just connect to existing M6 J11.

It will be D2AP because it will replace the existing A460 at J11 so there needs to be a route for non-motorway users.

Also it is suspiciously notes:

'The replacement of the existing M54 Junction 1 roundabout with three roundabout
dumbbell arrangements has the potential to be off-putting to road users, and this
junction would be developed further'

What's the betting that we lose freeflow at M54 J1 as well?

We have basically returned to the rejected option A 'Featherstone Bypass' from the 2014 consultation. This is completely unacceptable we wanted full freeflow motorway link to M6/M6 Toll not a link to the congested J11.

I wonder if the long gestation of this project has led to the requirement for the contribution from MEL to lapse.

Completely useless for Western Orbital too.

[fras]

So essentially a lot of money is spent to improve the lives of the citizens of Featherstone, but apart from that there are no other benefits whatsoever, as the congested Jn11 will remain congested, and probably J1 1 M54 as well if there are no free-flow links. A "Potmess" as the lower deck would say.

[ais523]

It looks like D2M and D2AP are both being seriously considered as standards. The reasoning for D2AP seems pretty weak (after all, you have the A460 as an LAR), so hopefully they go with the sensible option.

I was concerned about buildability of the junction at the M54 end; apparently it's been confirmed that the junction can be built (although the technique that's implied for building it is suspiciously close to "bulldoze it and start over"). That said, it's clear that the current design is something that's considered to be excessively confusing, and that new designs are being looked at.

The north end of the scheme should hopefully at least be future-proofed (and it makes lots of sense why you'd refuse to build it if MEL aren't willing to pay for it). It looks like versions both with and without the link to the M6 Toll are being considered at the moment. I think it would make sense to build the freeflow to the M6 unconditionally, though.

It's clear from the assessment report that the link between the M6 Toll and the rest of the scheme has by far the worst cost/benefit ratio of anything in it, which is interesting. Presumably the construction costs would be very high in that area (especially as the land is apparently fairly hard/impactful to acquire).

[jackal]

If your read the scheme assessment report it is made clear that there will be no freeflow at the northern end it will just connect to existing M6 J11.

It will be D2AP because it will replace the existing A460 at J11 so there needs to be a route for non-motorway users.

Also it is suspiciously notes:

'The replacement of the existing M54 Junction 1 roundabout with three roundabout
dumbbell arrangements has the potential to be off-putting to road users, and this
junction would be developed further'

What's the betting that we lose freeflow at M54 J1 as well?

We have basically returned to the rejected option A 'Featherstone Bypass' from the 2014 consultation. This is completely unacceptable we wanted full freeflow motorway link to M6/M6 Toll not a link to the congested J11.

This is all right on the money. It is disingenuous to present option 'B (West) (excluding M6 Toll Link)' as a development of B when it has all the essential elements of option A, the least popular option from the original consultation. And it was least popular for good reason - it's a local bypass with bodged at-grade junctions at one, if not both, ends, and therefore serves little strategic purpose.

It looks like D2M and D2AP are both being seriously considered as standards. The reasoning for D2AP seems pretty weak (after all, you have the A460 as an LAR)

The SAR states that 'Modified Option B(W) (excluding M6 Toll Link) would need to be constructed as an All Purpose Dual carriageway as the current proposed junction layout at M6 Junction 11 severs the A460 link for non-permitted motorway users'. It specifically looks as though local access is provided via a half diamond GSJ at Hilton Lane, which non-motorway traffic would have to access:

[Berk]

...and a big chunky envelope from Highways England dropped through my door today regarding the M54-M6-M6 Toll Link road.

Edited highlights:

* Preferred route has been chosen as Option B West.
* Standard is Dual 2-lane, but no statement regarding all-purpose/motorway/Special Road/expressway.
* Junction options are all deleted, and further work will be completed on this. Hopefully this means that the stupid Cherwell Valley-style roundabout chain at the southern end for Wolverhampton -> Cannock and M6 traffic will not be coming back.

And the biggie:
The section between M6 and M6 Toll has been deleted.

This element was subject to other contributions which unfortunately have not been secured.

Translation: MEL have almost certainly backed out of paying for it. The route is now just a link between M54 J1 and M6 J11 combined with a bypass for Featherstone.

I’m sorry, but I’m not up to speed with how the scheme was being funded.

Was a partnership proposed between HE and MEL, and that MEL would fund, build and operate part of the (planned) scheme?? And does this now mean only HE’s contribution is currently moving forwards??

Can another organisation be approached to replace MEL, or will the contract be let separately??

This being said, half a link is still better than no link at all (where we are now).

[jackal]

^ It is and always has been a toll free HE scheme. All that's changed is MEL are no longer providing partial funding, and accordingly the dedicated link to the M6 toll has been cut.

[Berk]

Isn’t this more than likely due to MEL’s own restructuring and buyout?? That being said, it was taken over by the funding banks, and in doing so, wiped out all the accumulated debt from construction costs.

So there’s not really a substantive reason why they couldn’t commit, perhaps they just didn’t want to.