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
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

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

Post by Truvelo »

Big L wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:59 With depressing inevitability...
The road will only pass a few houses which is a council estate off Dark Lane.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
ScottB5411
Member
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 20:04
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

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

Post by ScottB5411 »

How disappointingly pathetic.
How about some more beans Mr. Taggart?
darkcape
Member
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 14:54

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

Post by darkcape »

Berk wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 00:37 Canning the scheme would mean keeping the status quo. A congested, sluggish A460, where traffic barely touches 10mph.

Just because a scheme isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it shouldn’t continue. - as long as sufficient redundancy and future-proofing is built in, so that the missing elements can be finished later.
The problem with "future-proofing" a scheme for a link which was already identified as required is that it is a waste of money - it is better value to get as much done as you can at once as you already have the prelim costs, suppliers etc on board. And it is less disruption for the public. By the time the M54-M6 Link opens someone may come up with the money and then drivers will face another few years of disruption.

You're right, something is better than nothing, but that attitude is what is causing plenty of botches to be rebuilt later on. Look at the A555, which I'll put money on that the minute it opens local papers will be printing calls for the link between A6 and M60 at Bradbury to be completed.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Jeni
Banned
Posts: 7313
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 22:28

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

Post by Jeni »

I take it from the posts that we know what the final junction layouts are?

I couldn't see those, can someone link me?
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

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

Post by Truvelo »

Jeni wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 16:07 I take it from the posts that we know what the final junction layouts are?

I couldn't see those, can someone link me?
On page 10 of this thread there's links to the latest updates on the scheme. The junction layouts have gone back to the drawing board. I assume new, simpler cut down, designs will be announced in due course.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

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

Post by Berk »

darkcape wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:45
Berk wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 00:37 Canning the scheme would mean keeping the status quo. A congested, sluggish A460, where traffic barely touches 10mph.

Just because a scheme isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it shouldn’t continue. - as long as sufficient redundancy and future-proofing is built in, so that the missing elements can be finished later.
The problem with "future-proofing" a scheme for a link which was already identified as required is that it is a waste of money - it is better value to get as much done as you can at once as you already have the prelim costs, suppliers etc on board. And it is less disruption for the public. By the time the M54-M6 Link opens someone may come up with the money and then drivers will face another few years of disruption.

You're right, something is better than nothing, but that attitude is what is causing plenty of botches to be rebuilt later on. Look at the A555, which I'll put money on that the minute it opens local papers will be printing calls for the link between A6 and M60 at Bradbury to be completed.
Indeed. Or what about Catthorpe?? There’s no reason why that couldn’t have been fixed from the start (though it would’ve added a sizeable chunk to the A14 budget).

Sadly, I’m convinced it’s the way the government likes to spend its money.
User avatar
Berk
Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 02:36
Location: somewhere in zone 1

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

Post by Berk »

Truvelo wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 14:56
Big L wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:59 With depressing inevitability...
The road will only pass a few houses which is a council estate off Dark Lane.
Quite frankly, if I lived in the area, I wouldn’t have any confidence about getting to work, or hospital etc, on time.

So how anyone can complain about this scheme (particularly if they’re local) is beyond me.
ais523
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 19:52
Location: Birmingham

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

Post by ais523 »

Jeni wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 16:07 I take it from the posts that we know what the final junction layouts are?

I couldn't see those, can someone link me?
We know what their original plans were, but they've decided to review the layouts to see if they can come up with something better. So we don't know what the final layouts are (and most likely, neither do HE yet).
Jeni
Banned
Posts: 7313
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 22:28

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

Post by Jeni »

So, y'all fusing over something that hasn't even been designed yet then?
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

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

Post by Truvelo »

What we're all worried about is the final layout, particularly J11, will be inferior to the 2017 proposals.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

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

Post by jackal »

Jeni wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 16:07 I take it from the posts that we know what the final junction layouts are?

I couldn't see those, can someone link me?
Jeni wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 21:04 So, y'all fusing over something that hasn't even been designed yet then?
We have the preliminary design (see plan at bottom of p.10), which shows M6 J11 to be completely hopeless. We also have comments in the Scheme Assessment Report about the design for M54 J1 being 'confusing', which sounds like an excuse to ditch the freeflow and leave that as another mess of conflict points.

None of this is final, but it's pretty much a core activity of SABRE to 'fuss' about bad junction designs before the planning application is submitted. There are even a few documented cases where such fussing (in the form of consultation responses) has improved the final design :)
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

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

Post by jackal »

Here's my go at J1. It's basically similar to HE's earlier proposals but with a couple of changes to account for the fact the new link won't now continue to the M6toll: (1) high speed connector rather than loop for M6sb->link and (2) south-facing slips to allow M6toll and local traffic to bypass Featherstone.

M6 A460 - Copy.png
M6 A460 - Copy.png (63.5 KiB) Viewed 1726 times
Last edited by jackal on Wed Oct 03, 2018 00:55, edited 1 time in total.
ais523
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 19:52
Location: Birmingham

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

Post by ais523 »

Does that comply with diverge→diverge spacing rules? The two diverges southbound look standards-violatingly close to me (although I don't have a good sense of the scale of the map). Or are there enough spare lanes to make it a lane drop?

The signage for it would also be quite complex. (It'd be simplified by considering the new link road to be part of the M54.) I do like the way that your route works as a motorway without cutting off any accesses, though.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35758
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

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

Post by Bryn666 »

ais523 wrote: Tue Oct 02, 2018 13:17 Does that comply with diverge→diverge spacing rules? The two diverges southbound look standards-violatingly close to me (although I don't have a good sense of the scale of the map). Or are there enough spare lanes to make it a lane drop?

The signage for it would also be quite complex. (It'd be simplified by considering the new link road to be part of the M54.) I do like the way that your route works as a motorway without cutting off any accesses, though.
Is this why the M60 was stupidly left as a single lane exit at the M61 due to the proximity of the A580 exit beyond? If so that is a ridiculous "standard".

This arrangement is quite simple to operate though, you take Jackal's fork junction and plug the existing J11 offslip into that, so the diverge takes place off the mainline. Likewise, the northbound entry needs realigning so the existing onslip merges with the new road, avoiding the mess of the split in the northbound carriageway. Some engineering should take place so that there are two lanes going up the current single lane ramp, with tiger-tail merge. That then allows for a tiger tail merge and lane gain from the new road as it joins the ALR section.

Southbound you have the following arrangement:

Lane 1: M6, (M54), (A460)
Lane 2: M6
Lane 3: M6, M6 Toll
Lane 4: M6 Toll
Attachments
J11.jpg
J11.jpg (63.05 KiB) Viewed 1629 times
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

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

Post by jackal »

I think there is space for the two diverges, but Bryn's layout with only one diverge from the mainline is preferable.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35758
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

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

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Tue Oct 02, 2018 17:20 I think there is space for the two diverges, but Bryn's layout with only one diverge from the mainline is preferable.
An alternative but more expensive option would be to remove the north slips from the existing J11 entirely and relocate them to M6 T8, that means two merges and diverges on both motorways rather than everything on the M6.

Of course that involves touching MEL land so probably a non starter but safe design should trump petty ownership wrangles.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6019
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

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

Post by SteveA30 »

Since some of you in the 'biz' clearly have better ideas than whoever is doing it, is there anyway of influencing them? Or, is it that Gov departments just implement the cheapest option every time?
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

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

Post by Truvelo »

So long as all merges face the same way I can see no problems with regards to close spacing and weaving. Only when you have slip roads facing one another does weaving occur but not in the case of Jackal's layout.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35758
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

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

Post by Bryn666 »

Truvelo wrote: Tue Oct 02, 2018 20:12 So long as all merges face the same way I can see no problems with regards to close spacing and weaving. Only when you have slip roads facing one another does weaving occur but not in the case of Jackal's layout.
Rapid merges in succession will cause slowdowns as people move across to let people in (simple flow dynamics) but in theory there's not really an issue with rapid diverges provided the signing is adequate.

The issue here will be the A460, M6, M6T, and M54 link all jockeying to join 4 lanes - 10 into 4 isn't going to end well hence why I feel things need splitting up a bit.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
ais523
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 19:52
Location: Birmingham

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

Post by ais523 »

I went to the exhibition in Essington today. It was remarkably uninformative (there were many fewer staff there than there would be for a consultation exhibition). Apparently, the main purpose of the exhibition was teaching potentially angry attendees about what the specific implications of a "preferred route announcement" are (it creates a corridor that's protected from development, and for which people nearby can claim compensation). They were also willing to hear feedback/advice about how they should design the route, despite being cagey as to what their present plans were.

When I asked about the junctions, I was told that they had various plans but didn't want to make them public. At the north end, though, there was a strong implication that they'd try to make use of the existing M6 J11 roundabout somehow. It seems that the plan is to have no freeflow at the north end, but to design the road in such a way that freeflow could be added later. The uncertainties in the design appear to be about how and if the A460 will connect to the roundabout (it was mentioned that disconnecting the A460 from the roundabout could help prevent rat-running!) and how the new road will connect to it. I encouraged the project staff to choose a design which would avoid requiring the use of the new road to reach, e.g., Shareshill from Cannock or the M6 (and thus enabling motorway restrictions to be added without needing new LARs or rerouting); from my point of view, the best way to discourage use of the existing A460 is to make a sufficiently good new road alongside it that nobody trying to get from end to end wants to use the old one by comparison!

The south end seems to be more or less a complete mystery, and I got the impression that there were no real plans at present. The bridges at M54 J1 are just tantalisingly wide enough to make it seem like they could be of use in a new junction (they're each wide enough for three lanes if straight, or to put a mild amount of skew on a two-lane road), and any freeflow link would only need to cross the M54 once (because the other direction would be a freeflow left, and thus not need a bridge under the M54 at all). The exhibition staff strongly implied that their main difficulty with the project is justifying the choices that they make; it would apparently be almost impossible to get permission to do something like a major rebuild of the M54 unless it can be proven to be necessary.

The other discussion we had was as to the standard of the new road, with both D2AP and D2M under discussion. (Obviously, from my point of view, D2M is the correct standard, as it has a clear upgrade path to D3ALR and it's a well-proven standard for motorways.) Again, the issue here apparently comes down to justification; it seems like the road can only be built as D2M if there's some sort of proof or argument that D2AP would be insufficient (because things like the compulsory purchase orders for the land won't be issued unless they can be proven necessary). I wasn't sure whether the project staff I was talking about wanted a D2M but thought they wouldn't be able to get it through the courts, or whether they thought D2AP was sufficient and were trying to dissuade me from my D2M point of view.

One thing that surprised me a lot was the design life of the scheme; apparently the design contractors have been told to make a design for the road that will last for the next 15 years. This struck me as a particularly short time scale (I was expecting 30 or 120 years). Presumably, if the road's allowed to become obsolete within a decade and a half, it would explain the scheme's apparent lack of ambition. (It was implied, though, that even if the road itself wasn't futureproofed for rising traffic, structures such as bridges could be; it seems likely that even if the road's built as a D2, the bridges would be wide enough to carry a D3.) This also helps explain why the link to the M6 Toll is seen as having a fairly small BCR compared to the rest of the project (the M6 Toll is unlikely to become untolled within the next 15 years, and thus demand along that road will remain fairly small).

(I also mentioned the Western Orbital. The exhibition staff were aware of it but thought it was unlikely to ever actually happen.)
Post Reply