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.
Seems to be the same as the design from January, with J11 botch.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:53
The shape of J11 and the entry alignment from the A460 is atrocious, even for "signalised from day one" roundabouts.
Also "motor way service area" on the labels layer suggests this has been farmed out abroad to cheaper design teams.
It would be good if as many people as possible who live/work in the local area or travel through on a regular basis can answer the consultation and raise their concerns about J11.
I would submit the following answer to Q10 myself, but since I have no local connection and have been through here maybe three times in my life, I doubt I'd be taken seriously. But perhaps it will provide inspiration for those who might not otherwise participate:
Accessible version:
10. How satisfied are you with the design of the junctions at either end of the proposed link road?
M54 junction 1 - Very satisfied
M6 junction 11 - Very dissatisfied
Please explain your reasons for your level of satisfaction with the design of M54 junction 1.
The design provides all needed movements to appropriate standards, especially the direct links between the link road and M54(W). Movements using the roundabouts are straightforward to navigate. Traffic flow could be a bit better by building the outer two roundabouts in "teardrop" shape as the U-turn movements are not needed, but this is not a major issue.
Please explain your reasons for your level of satisfaction with the design of M6 junction 11.
The new junction is not fit for purpose and will be frustrating to navigate. Direct freeflow links should be provided between the new link road and M6(N) and possibly also M6Toll(E) as long distance traffic will be making these movements and will be interrupted by the junction. Other movements should be provided for using unsignalised roundabouts like in the M54 junction. If there is insufficient funding to provide direct freeflow links to the M6(N) as part of the scheme, the existing junction's bridges should remain in use instead of being demolished and rebuilt, to reduce the cost of the scheme with a view to providing these direct links in a future scheme instead.
J11 proposal is appalling and puts non motorised users and local traffic directly in conflict with strategic traffic, increases severance and will be congested from day one. I can't see how anything better can't be done for the money, given they're proposing to demolish the existing bridges as well...
c2R wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 23:42
J11 proposal is appalling and puts non motorised users and local traffic directly in conflict with strategic traffic, increases severance and will be congested from day one. I can't see how anything better can't be done for the money, given they're proposing to demolish the existing bridges as well...
Not that I would be disagreeing with you, but why would non-motorised users want to be going that way?? You already have a busy dual-carriageway, and the junction is with a major motorway.
It’s hard to see why people would be riding horses or invalid carriages, or even worse, walking around there.
Keiji wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 21:54
It would be good if as many people as possible who live/work in the local area or travel through on a regular basis can answer the consultation and raise their concerns about J11.
I would submit the following answer to Q10 myself, but since I have no local connection and have been through here maybe three times in my life, I doubt I'd be taken seriously. But perhaps it will provide inspiration for those who might not otherwise participate:
It doesn't make any difference where you live, and in fact you don't even need to tell them. If you pay taxes you're paying for it, so might as well have your say.
I wrote a heavily referenced nine paragraph reply about J11...
c2R wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 23:42
J11 proposal is appalling and puts non motorised users and local traffic directly in conflict with strategic traffic, increases severance and will be congested from day one. I can't see how anything better can't be done for the money, given they're proposing to demolish the existing bridges as well...
Not that I would be disagreeing with you, but why would non-motorised users want to be going that way?? You already have a busy dual-carriageway, and the junction is with a major motorway.
It’s hard to see why people would be riding horses or invalid carriages, or even worse, walking around there.
You completely ignored cyclists which are the primary NMU that would be travelling between Cannock and Wolverhampton...
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
c2R wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 23:42
J11 proposal is appalling and puts non motorised users and local traffic directly in conflict with strategic traffic, increases severance and will be congested from day one. I can't see how anything better can't be done for the money, given they're proposing to demolish the existing bridges as well...
Not that I would be disagreeing with you, but why would non-motorised users want to be going that way?? You already have a busy dual-carriageway, and the junction is with a major motorway.
It’s hard to see why people would be riding horses or invalid carriages, or even worse, walking around there.
He is, literally the first drop of the google street view:
There's lots of houses, small shops, and bus stops there. Pedestrians will need to cross the junction in order to get to bus stops (e.g. to get on busses going in the direction that they want to go: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6575769 ... 312!8i6656
Berk wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 00:29Not that I would be disagreeing with you, but why would non-motorised users want to be going that way?? You already have a busy dual-carriageway, and the junction is with a major motorway.
It’s hard to see why people would be riding horses or invalid carriages, or even worse, walking around there.
NMUs have to cross the motorway somehow, and that typically means using the junctions just like a motor vehicle would.
I've crossed the M54 at junction 1 as a pedestrian before now. It was very easy, the existence of a motorway above me didn't really matter at all, it was just like crossing a normal A-road roundabout. I haven't tried M6 J11, but based on Street View images the current layout shouldn't be any harder to cross (e.g. it has proper footpaths, including dedicated pedestrian space on the bridges over the M6, and NMUs are visible nearby in the Street View images, so it must be actually in use at the moment).
c2R wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 23:42J11 proposal is appalling and puts non motorised users and local traffic directly in conflict with strategic traffic, increases severance and will be congested from day one. I can't see how anything better can't be done for the money, given they're proposing to demolish the existing bridges as well...
Not that I would be disagreeing with you, but why would non-motorised users want to be going that way?? You already have a busy dual-carriageway, and the junction is with a major motorway.
It’s hard to see why people would be riding horses or invalid carriages, or even worse, walking around there.
You completely ignored cyclists which are the primary NMU that would be travelling between Cannock and Wolverhampton...
Not that I’m questioning cyclists’ right to cycle there, but I think once then the new road is opened, it will be so saturated with motor vehicles, and much faster and less congested than before, I think most cyclists would genuinely prefer to take an off-road rather than directly parallel NMU route.
What you would need is a bridleway throughpass for cyclists and horse-riders from the end of the current A460 (at J11), through to Wolverhampton Road past Hollies and Wheatsheaf farm, and link that up with the other half beyond M6T T8. Reinstating the old road for NMU’s, basically.
I think once then the new road is opened, it will be so saturated with motor vehicles, and much faster and less congested than before, I think most cyclists would genuinely prefer to take an off-road rather than directly parallel NMU route.
Unless you want to cycle on a road that feels like the M6...
Well, I think many people (including me) want the new road to be a motorway, in which case cyclists couldn't use it. They'd be using the A460 (or whatever designation it was downgraded to) instead.
However, the plans as drawn show the A460 crossing the M6 at J11, so the NMUs would need to try to cross there. It's not unreasonable to argue that NMU provision should be separate from the new junction rather than part of it, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that on the plans at the moment.
(FWIW, the current A460 is pretty usable as a pedestrian, and would presumably become more so after the new road is built. I'm not sure what it's like for cyclists.)
The previous version of J11 was significantly less bad, with the northbound slips folded out of the way. The northbound movement onto the M6 could be made freeflow with a minor adjustment, and the southbound movement off the M6 doesn't conflict with the northbound offslip.
jackal wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 09:57
You're right, it removes one of two conflicts with that movement.
I sketched an alternative similar to the proposal for M54 J1.
That works for me. It's probably unlikely that the Western Orbital will ever happen as a motorway regardless of what people say they'd like to build so the talk of the M6 Toll link is probably a waste of time and not worth entertaining.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Berk wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 19:55
I agree with the first part, but not the second. Why would people be wanting to make journeys from Manc/Liverpool/Stafford to Telford??
Because Telford is a reasonably large town with an industrial base? You've also got journeys from the above named to Wolverhampton to factor in, which is going to be a larger number than Telford is simply due to the size and importance difference.
Linking with the M6Toll and a quicker route to London and other parts of the Midlands makes much more sense.
Why? Telford to Stafford is 20-odd miles. Telford to Coventry is 50. Telford to Leicester is the same distance roughly as Telford to Manchester or Liverpool.
At least you’re not having to crawl through 2 underpasses like at Catthorpe...
Unless you're trying to travel along A460, where there's now a string of roundabouts...
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Ryk wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2006 14:55
I think what he means is, you cannot have an all purpose road connecting two motorways with no local acces or egress inbetween, the A42 has access between the M42 and M1, and the A556 is an Ap through route (I.e. has access either side of the M56 and M6.
So it could only be Ap if the provison for local access was given in at least two places in between the M54 and M6 toll or otherwise, or the route continued beyond the M54 and M6 toll or otherwise.
Where is that rule/law explicitly stated ? I can see why it may be undesirable but how does a local access half way along it make it OK. If there are no local accesses along it vehicles prohibited under motorway regulations cannot access it anyway.
Berk wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 19:55
I agree with the first part, but not the second. Why would people be wanting to make journeys from Manc/Liverpool/Stafford to Telford??
Maybe they are people from Telford wanting to get home?
Steven wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 20:31Unless you're trying to travel along A460, where there's now a string of roundabouts...
I think there's some desire to traffic-calm the A460 after the new route is built (directing all through traffic but the slowest onto the new link road instead)
I argued in a previous round of consultations that a B-road (or unclassified) designation, plus a 30mph speed limit, was probably enough. Putting a mess of roundabouts at both ends would probably also help in that respect.
For what it's worth, if there's a full access junction at M54 J1, you could even disconnect the A460 to general traffic at M6 J11 and have a usable setup (you'd probably want a bus gate, though, as the bus to Shareshill probably wouldn't appreciate needing to U-turn to continue onwards to Cannock). Another possibility would be to disconnect the A460 south of M6 J11 from the junction, connecting it towards Cannock but nowhere else; that would provide an obvious motorway crossings for NMUs at the same time. I might try to draw that junction, actually, as now I've mentioned this it seems to make a lot of sense.
EDIT: This doesn't work; even assuming that M6 southbound to A4601 is irrelevant, there are too many minor movements that can't be fit in and can't easily be provided elsewhere, e.g. A462 northbound to M6 northbound.