M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

[JF2309]

Erm, that was the same government. No change of administration occurred.

Though OK, Labour rubber-stamped the plans, they were in a position to have mandated changes, if they'd wanted to.

Simply put, no it wasn’t the same Government. It was the same party, but not the same Government. Again, as tedious as it is, it is equally subtle, but important to get right.

[fras]

As far as I know, the free-flow links to the M6 Toll have been deleted because the owners won't cough-up any money. As it went bust the owners who lent the money and are now in charge are veryobviously in "mark time" mode waiting for somebody to buy it, hopefully the government. Why this road was ever built as a private toll road is a scandal really. But that was the last Labour government for you. The previous Conservative one under the hapless John Major was even worse. I think it was under him that we got the dreadful cheapskate junction M6?m1/A14 as I recall, but I may be wrong. Only 25 years to put it right !!

Yes, as Berk says, M6Toll was very much inherited from the Major government. It was pretty much ready to go when Labour got in in 1997. I suspect the choice at that stage was between going ahead, abandoning the scheme altogether, or putting it to the back of the queue for a rethink as a non-tolled project. In fact, I’m not sure, given contracts that may have already been in place, whether backing out was even an option - MEL had been awarded the scheme back in 1991:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_Toll

I think I actually slagged off both the Labour and previous Conservative governments and was politically neutral, and still am when it comes to roads infrastructure. It was the Major government that decided to not build any more roads because "they would only fill with traffic" (stated by Kenneth Clark as Chancellor). It was the 1997 Labour government that cancelled the A556 scheme, now built nearly 20 years later, the plans going back well over 30 years.

But it's OK to spend money on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers apparently.

[KeithW]

I think I actually slagged off both the Labour and previous Conservative governments and was politically neutral, and still am when it comes to roads infrastructure. It was the Major government that decided to not build any more roads because "they would only fill with traffic" (stated by Kenneth Clark as Chancellor). It was the 1997 Labour government that cancelled the A556 scheme, now built nearly 20 years later, the plans going back well over 30 years.

But it's OK to spend money on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers apparently.

Defence of the Realm is the first duty of any government and failing in that duty is a capital mistake as Neville Chamberlain found. Not so much by signing the Munich agreement but because he refused to increase the pace of rearmament in the face of massive military expansion by Japan, Germany and Italy.

As for the M6 Toll the timeline is this

1980 Proposals were put forward for a new motorway referred to as the Birmingham North Relief Road (BNRR) and designed to alleviate the increasing congestion on the M6 through Birmingham and the Black Country in England. PM at the time Margaret Thatcher - expected to be publicly financed,
1981-1982 Scheme put on hold due to economic conditions - in short there was no money to build it.
1986 Preferred route put forward
1989-1990 Economic recession again puts scheme in doubt. Decision is made to proceed with privately finances toll road and companies invited to tender - PM Margaret Thatcher
1992 Midland Expressways Limited selected - PM John Major
1994 -1996 Second public enquiry held - PM John Major
1997 Go ahead given - PM Tony Blair

The Statutory Instrument authorising the road was issued in 1998

When it comes to building roads I would point that the 'Roads for Prosperity' scheme was promulgated in 1989 under Margaret Thatcher and only formally abandoned in 1996 mainly for political reasons due to opposition to road building projects such as the Newbury bypass . The fact that this opposition was rooted in the southern heartlands of Conservative party support and an election was looming was the real driver. Ironically of course many of the main schemes such as widening parts of the M1 and M25 motorway to D4 and extending the M3 past Winchester across Twyford Down would go ahead under the Blair Government.

[Berk]

That’s another thing. The Twyford Down section was built 1994-95, also during the Major Government.

[KeithW]

That’s another thing. The Twyford Down section was built 1994-95, also during the Major Government.

You are correct - my mistake.

[jackal]

I found the scoping report on the PINS website. This shows the updated design as of January.

The main changes from the previous version are that (1) there's no sign of a half diamond partway along the link and (2) M6 J11 will be reconstructed as a large conventional two-bridge roundabout, with both bridges replaced and six arms (if you count each pair of slips as one arm). M1 J24 (prior to the recent improvements) comes to mind. When will they learn?

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... Report.pdf

[Chris5156]

Yes, the new M6 J11 in that plan is a real case of “just enough” engineering, isn’t it?

[gepree68]

The main changes from the previous version are that (1) there's no sign of a half diamond partway along the link and (2) M6 J11 will be reconstructed as a large conventional two-bridge roundabout, with both bridges replaced and six arms (if you count each pair of slips as one arm). M1 J24 (prior to the recent improvements) comes to mind. When will they learn?

The diagram you showed is not quite clear.

Is the layout something like this?

Also is the new road (Y) going to be a motorway, or just a new bit of A460?

[MotorwayPlannerM21]

Also is the new road (Y) going to be a motorway, or just a new bit of A460?

I would assume all-purpose due to the fact that it plugs directly into a roundabout at the northern end. Apparently this provides the best journey times (?).

[Jeni]

Yes, the new M6 J11 in that plan is a real case of “just enough” engineering, isn’t it?

Could quite easily be a Stereophonics album... Just enough engineering to perform

[jackal]

The main changes from the previous version are that (1) there's no sign of a half diamond partway along the link and (2) M6 J11 will be reconstructed as a large conventional two-bridge roundabout, with both bridges replaced and six arms (if you count each pair of slips as one arm). M1 J24 (prior to the recent improvements) comes to mind. When will they learn?

2019-05-21 M54 J1.png
The diagram you showed is not quite clear.

Is the layout something like this?

Also is the new road (Y) going to be a motorway, or just a new bit of A460?

Yes, it's as you've drawn, though the roads between the three new roundabouts will be dual by the looks of it. You can see the higher quality original at p. 204:
https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... Report.pdf

I can't see any mention in the Scoping Report of whether the road would be motorway or not. The 2018 Scheme Assessment Report said that the version then current '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'. In the new version the existing A460 is left intact and J11 expanded to six arms, so the link road isn't needed for non-motorway traffic.

2018

2019

[jackal]

Also is the new road (Y) going to be a motorway, or just a new bit of A460?

I would assume all-purpose due to the fact that it plugs directly into a roundabout at the northern end. Apparently this provides the best journey times (?).

As explained above, the previous version had to be AP, not because it terminated on a roundabout (lots of motorway links do), but because it severed local access. That's not true of the current version so they can go either way with it.

[Bryn666]

They can do a J19 to J11. The symmetry!

The funny thing is I recall Steven and I doing some relatively simple concept sketches on paper for the seemingly clueless HE guys at the exhibition last year.

Obviously it was too complicated for them.

[Herned]

When will they learn?

It is odd when the current road period includes a number of sorting out previous stupidities that they choose to build a new one. Still, at least it will give some contractors something to do in 2035!

[Truvelo]

J11 is going to remain a nasty experience. If you're going to the expense of replacing two bridges then at least build two new bridges giving freeflow movements to some of the main traffic flows. To simply spend the money on enlarging the roundabout seems like a terrible waste. It will only provide slightly more stacking space for the queues, not do away with them. The 2018 proposal did sort out one of the conflict points. The current proposal is as daft as the M25/A3 junction deprovement

What is really needed was a proposal from a couple of years ago for direct links to M6 Toll J8 allowing the A460 to completely bypass J11.

[Berk]

Although I probably agree with you, and think if they’re putting this much resources into delivering a scheme which isn’t fully free-flow it’s a bit of a waste, at the same time we need to be pragmatic.

It’s absolutely dire that a suitable HQDC wasn’t provided 20 years ago when the M6T was being built. And the current route is beyond a joke, in fact you could say it’s more like a car park than a road. Speed cameras when traffic barely crawls at 10mph.

We have to face facts that this scheme is going to be built in stages, just like dozens elsewhere. And might be improved in the 2030s sometime.

[Berk]

Did we actually get confirmation that MEL have pulled out? This seems in line with the Scheme Assessment Report:

As a result of complications in securing third party funding contributions for the scheme, further assessment has been undertaken to review alternative cost saving options for the preferred route Modified Option B(W).
<snip>

But the PRA hints at a different story:

As part of the scheme, we’ll no longer include a direct link from the M6 to the M6 Toll. The free-flow connection to the M6Toll was subject to other contributions. However, the level of contributions available was not enough to meet the cost of the free-flow link. We have amended the connection to provide the improved value for money solution we are presenting today. The route presented today does not rule out providing a free-flow connection at some point in the future [my emphasis

If MEL are still part funding then I don't have as much of a problem with the slightly botched preferred route as a cut price M6 toll connection. If they're not funding at all then it's hard to see what point there is to it.

As far as I know, the free-flow links to the M6 Toll have been deleted because the owners won't cough-up any money. As it went bust the owners who lent the money and are now in charge are veryobviously in "mark time" mode waiting for somebody to buy it, hopefully the government. Why this road was ever built as a private toll road is a scandal really. But that was the last Labour government for you. The previous Conservative one under the hapless John Major was even worse.

As I understand it, MEL is now just an operating vehicle for the owners, who are an infrastructure fund. As a result of the banks foreclosing and flogging it off, MEL is now doing very nicely, and bringing a good, debt-free income stream with it.

It therefore follows the new owners’ decision not to fund an A460 link is purely due to them wishing to keep a greater share of profits to themselves - rather than invest in infrastructure. A bit worrying seeing as they’re supposed to be an infrastructure fund.

[ais523]

The junction at the south end looks wrong, if that's a final design. Assuming the bits not marked in purple don't change, the vertical elevation doesn't work out (e.g. the sliproad from M54 westbound to A460 southbound goes into a sharp dip followed by a steep climb, which doesn't make sense). That is, unless they're planning to dig out the area underneath the current M54, which seems almost impossible to build for a reasonable price and in a reasonable length of time; the road's built on an embankment, and tunnelling under it would leave me somewhat worried about structural failure (although there's clearly room to do so).

[jackal]

They will put the new road through under the M54. The fact the latter is already on an embankment reduces earthworks/structural costs. It's still relatively complex though much less so than the freeflow link at Lofthouse, for instance, which was put in a deep trench to get under both mainlines and various other roads.

[chaseracer]

Yes, the new M6 J11 in that plan is a real case of “just enough” engineering, isn’t it?

Indeed. For how long, though...?