M54 Extension and M6 Toll/M42 Jct Improvements announced

[Jeni]

This is terrific. Any of the options is fine with me. They all avoid using the roundabout at J11 so theoretically the traffic lights could be removed. I just hope it doesn't get watered down when it comes to construction.

A consultation where Truvelo approves of all options... We're onto a winner!

[Berk]

It is a bit unusual, but maybe this a case where it's better to wait a bit to make the right choices, and the right decision??

Shame they couldn't have done the same with the A27.

[ais523]

I was at the Shareshill consultation. (Fun fact that really highlights why this improvement is needed: I decided to walk back from Shareshill towards Wolverhampton on the basis that it seemed unlikely a bus would turn up any time soon, and I could easily keep pace with the traffic. When I actually reached M54 J1, it turned out that there'd been an accident there, which might explain the slowness but rather illustrates the poor safety record. The A460 kind-of felt like an S2 motorway, too, with the mix and amount of traffic that was on it; it felt very weird crossing the road.)

I asked about the standard planned for the road. For all three, it's "at least D2AP but probably D2M", and the "D2M" was originally described as "motorway" before being corrected to "with hard shoulder". In other words, I'm pretty sure that all three options are currently planned to be motorway links. (And why wouldn't they be? They freeflow onto a motorway at both ends and will probably be built to a motorway standard.)

It's worth noting (this was mentioned at the consultation but is also in the online brochure) that the plan's to make a decision by the end of 2017, so hopefully it'll be fairly speedy. (Some of the people present seemed to think that HE had already made up their minds what to build and were just "going through the motions" of a consultation, and that might be evidence towards that, but I'm unconvinced; if the consultation really is a sham, HE have done a very good job of hiding what their favoured option is.)

I'm happy with all three options (and they each produce a junction complex which is freeflow for all motorway movements except those between Cannock and Ray Hall, which is possible but not freeflow).

One potentially hidden drawback to the C options is that they'd apparently lead to some sort of traffic-repelling measures on the A460 in order to try to persuade traffic to use the motorway rather than one of the shorter A roads. Another is that worried about the weaving distance between the new M54 terminal junction and M54 J1; I'm going to have to measure that out on a map to see if it's long enough. Unsurprisingly, the C options were the most popular among the other consultees I talked to (the consultation was taking place in Shareshill and the C options are more distant from it than the B option is); I'm not convinced that traffic noise or visual intrusion would be much of an issue, though, even with the B option (you can hardly see to the east from Shareshill as it is).

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.)

EDIT: I also established that unfortunately, this new link road won't be future-proofed for if/when the rest of the Western Orbital gets built. So I strongly suspect this is the only bit we'll be getting in the forseeable future.

[Truvelo]

EDIT: I also established that unfortunately, this new link road won't be future-proofed for if/when the rest of the Western Orbital gets built. So I strongly suspect this is the only bit we'll be getting in the forseeable future.

The Western Orbital is all but dead. Even so, the link with the Western Orbital is just to the west of J2 so it wouldn't affect it in any way should it be resurrected.

[ais523]

The Western Orbital is all but dead. Even so, the link with the Western Orbital is just to the west of J2 so it wouldn't affect it in any way should it be resurrected.

I know, I just thought it was worth tying the ends up.

(Also, "just to the west of J2" isn't a location that'd work nowadays, it's covered in business parks.)

[fras]

When I responded to the original consultation, I suggested that Jn 11 should be removed in its entirety as I considered the addition of additional entries/exits to those existing made it all far too crowded. All of the new options still seem to put a quite a lot into a rather too small space.

To make space for the new junction and its connections , my proposal would, having closed and removed Jn11, involve the diversion of the A460 away along an improved Hilton Lane to the roundabout on the A462, then along the B4156 for a bit then cross country to where Saredon Road meets the M6 Toll. A west-bound entry point would be put in here so as to give access to both M6 north and south. Past the M6 Toll bridge a short section of new road could be built round the back of Middle Hill Farm but is not strictly necessary. M6 users coming south wanting the A460 to go south would use Jn12 A5 to get to the A460 roundabout.

Obviously Hilton Lane and the B4156 would need some straightening and widening work to make it suitable for its new role as an 'A' road. Some new road to make the junction better to the A462 will also be needed to cut the acute angle that is there now.

I suppose my proposal is likely to cost more than the current options, but gives a much better junction laid over the top of where Jn11 once was, with easy curves.

[jackal]

This road essentially is a section of the Western Orbital, just on a different line. Were the WO to be revived it could come up to J2, multiplex with the M54, then along the new road and M6(T).

[gepree68]

If the planned road (between M54 and M6 J11) is indeed going to be a motorway, will it have its own number (e.g. M542), or will it just be "an unnamed motorway between M54 and M6"?

Also, what would be the junction numbers (if any) of the junctions on the new road?

[Truvelo]

The WO if revived would need to run alongside the M54 as C/D roads. There would be terrible weaving if it was to share the same carriageway.

The new road will probably just be signed in brackets. (A460) if heading east and (M54) if heading west.

[jackal]

The WO would presumably be braided with the west facing slips at J2 so the weaving distance would be as at present. I doubt you'd need C/D lanes up to J1 - it's only 60k AADT, so even with doubled AADT would be fine as D4 ALR.

[jackal]

There are also continuing calls for an actual 'M54 extension':

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/201 ... -turns-25/

[gepree68]

If they go for Option C West or Option C East, it's going to be a bit unusual travelling between M54 and M6 north.

Travelling east on M54 you would come across junction 10A. Here you would take the junction, and then travel north to the next junction (marked M6 junction 11), where you would turn off again, and only then join the M6.

Having the M54 junction having the M6 junction number J10A would make you think you're about to join M6 straight away (between J10 and J11), and that you could stop at Hilton Park Services and/or leave M6 at junction 11.

Probably the best solution to this problem would be to renumber M54 J1 to M54 J1A, and then make the new junction M54 J1.

[chaseracer]

The Western Orbital is all but dead. Even so, the link with the Western Orbital is just to the west of J2 so it wouldn't affect it in any way should it be resurrected.

The WO's similarity to Monty Python's parrot was confirmed by HE at the Featherstone consultation today.

[Steven]

I enjoyed that consultation today - was interesting and it was much better organised than the last time around, with people who knew what they were talking about.

Freakiest moment was where one of the people from HE suddenly asked me "are you the person with the website all about old motorways?"

In short - from reading between the lines, it's clear that HE's preferred choice is C West (purple), and to be fair, it's by far the best of the three. Whilst most people have said they'd actually be happy with all three, B and C East suffer from other problems that C West doesn't. It was also clear that the routes were indicative, and subject to further work once the final route has been chosed.

The replacement M54 J1 shown with the "new" B suffers from problems with the new roundabouts. The eastern one of the northern two (if that makes sense) will suffer from large numbers of conflicting traffic. The junction layout is very "Cherwell Valley", in that the vast majority of traffic needs to pass through the one roundabout - with all Wolverhampton <-> Link road passing through it in both directions, all traffic to and from Featherstone, and all Wolverhampton -> M54 east traffic (as well as the silly movement of link road -> M54 east). HE are aware of the potential problems with that roundabout and apparently will be looking into it in more detail. They're also aware that traffic heading north from Wolverhampton will have to pass through all three roundabouts, which is obviously not ideal for what is a serious amount of traffic.

C East suffers from a serious amount of weaving required between M54 J1 and the new junction - it will require the M54 to be widened to D4M between the two, and with its location immediately to the east of the extant weaving section between J1 and J2. It's also got problems with going straight through a section of ancient woodland.

The expected cross-section is indeed D2M, though there is a small possibility that option B will be all-purpose but still with a D2M cross section. That is something that HE want to avoid - it's quite clear from the way they were talking that they would by far prefer a motorway link, especially as one of the major implications of the new link road is to increase safety, so allowing cyclists and tractors would be counter-intuitive. I did point out that if they get talked down from a motorway, that it still really could do with being a Special Road, as otherwise the area has a large potential for development, either industrial or retail and that at least if it's Special then it will make it more awkward to do anything with it. At least, it will be an "expressway" - at which point when I asked if the definition had actually been defined and was met with lots of looking down at shoes!

I also expressed concern with the tightness of some of the loops at the northern end, as well as the frequency of junctions and potential issues with signage at that end. I was told quietly that it's likely that at the northern end that the road would be shifted slightly to the NW to get extra space for the loops, though there are limits as to what can be done with the vertical plane given the layout of J11A. In addition, the link road will start at the (larger) JT8 roundabout, and the likelihood is that it would be a single lane exit from that roundabout, with the merge from M6 Toll being a lane drop on the M6 Toll (and hence the M6 Toll will be two lanes from there to the M6), and hence a lane gain on the link road and therefore there would just be a single merge from the loop instead of multiple merges all on top of one another. The M6 will be reconfigured so that the "two" exits at J11 will actually be a single exit where left lane would be for the new link and right lane for the roundabout.

All in all, it's positive move, well-thought out and HE are very aware of the downsides of the proposals.

[jackal]

Thanks for that. I'm somewhat surprised and alarmed to hear they might go AP even with hard shoulders, and am kicking myself for not remembering to say it should be motorway in my consultation response.

The replacement M54 J1 shown with the "new" B suffers from problems with the new roundabouts. The eastern one of the northern two (if that makes sense) will suffer from large numbers of conflicting traffic. The junction layout is very "Cherwell Valley", in that the vast majority of traffic needs to pass through the one roundabout - with all Wolverhampton <-> Link road passing through it in both directions, all traffic to and from Featherstone, and all Wolverhampton -> M54 east traffic (as well as the silly movement of link road -> M54 east).

Much more traffic than that will be going through the J1 roundabout under C East or West. A medium-sized roundabout with a moderate amoubt of conflict is going to flow better than a big island with lots of conflicts and lots of traffic lights, so the junction arrangement actually supports option B. If only Cherwell had all its strategic movements freeflow like that.

[Berk]

I need to point out that Cherwell Valley was remodelled about 2 years ago. In practical terms the design hasn't changed much - but the first roundabout no longer allows right turns from A43S, and you cannot join the M40 from there.

Instead, the former on-slip near the services has been reopened, and you have to join from there.

[Steven]

Much more traffic than that will be going through the J1 roundabout under C East or West. A medium-sized roundabout with a moderate amoubt of conflict is going to flow better than a big island with lots of conflicts and lots of traffic lights, so the junction arrangement actually supports option B. If only Cherwell had all its strategic movements freeflow like that.

There aren't any traffic lights on the roundabout at J1.

In addition, you say "much more traffic". Which traffic movements do you have in mind?


(and it's compared to how Cherwell Valley worked in functional terms, not literal...)

[jackal]

In addition, you say "much more traffic". Which traffic movements do you have in mind?

- M54wb>Wolverhampton
- Wolverhampton>M54wb
- M54eb>Featherstone
- Featherstone>link road

[Steven]

In addition, you say "much more traffic". Which traffic movements do you have in mind?

- M54wb>Wolverhampton
- Wolverhampton>M54wb
- M54eb>Featherstone
- Featherstone>link road

All of those are left turn only, so will not congest other flows, just as they don't today. In addition, the Featherstone flows will be tiny - and the amount of flow from Featherstone to the link road will be negligible, as they'll mostly just use the extant A460 rather than doubling the distance needed.

The effect of all of them on the much larger, higher capacity roundabout compared with a smaller, low capacity roundabout?

[jackal]

In my view left turns on a roundabout certainly do generate conflicts, and fewer conflicts is preferable to a bigger roundabout. But we can agree to disagree