A556 Preferred Route Announced

[Johnathan404]

That's right, whilst we've been getting excited about the A555 it seems that this one's progressed as well:

News Distribution Service | Highways Agency | Plan (GIF) | Plan (PDF)

It looks like the route is option B from their proposals (which had 83% of the public's support), only with fewer junctions, and will be HQD2 largely in a cutting.

OK, so it doesn't beat A556(M) and it doesn't look like anything will happen at M6 J19, but even so it's not that bad. I'm not sure what will happen at M56 J7 where it looks like the roundabout will get a bypass of sorts, but will probably be at-grade. Why not build a link between J7 and J8, where traffic can then take the A556 south?

[Bryn666]

About time. This quote sums it up rather well:

8 The A556 currently carries approximately 50,000 vehicles per day with HGVs contributing approximately 18% of this figure. There were 200 accidents in the period 1998 to 2005, including 5 fatalities and 39 serious injuries. At present the road is heavily congested for long periods of the day.

The M65 j2-6, a full blown D2M, carries about the same number of vehicles per day and is now starting to suffer congestion at peak periods in a few select places. How an S4 manages to not be gridlocked 24 hours a day defies all logic. Get it built, and ideally open before 2015!

[SouthWest Philip]

This is a second rate bodge job. The only sensible option was the original A556(M) proposal with free-flow at both ends onto the M6 and M56 and no junctions in between. It would almost certainly have been cheaper to build and safer insofar as local traffic and accesses are completely separated from through traffic.

[Johnathan404]

How about:

a556.gif (18.38 KiB) Viewed 7970 times

It seems that once again the Highways Agency have overlooked asking me what I think.

[Chris5156]

It seems that once again the Highways Agency have overlooked asking me what I think.

At least I know it wasn't just me. I'm starting to wonder if they've lost my phone number.

This looks good - in the sense that something has to be done and this counts as "something". But for the road linking one of the UK's largest conurbations to the Midlands and the South, it seems quite laughable that it still won't be possible to make the journey by motorway even after the upgrade.

[wrinkly]

The only sensible option was the original A556(M) proposal with free-flow at both ends onto the M6 and M56 and no junctions in between.

The versions of the A556(M) proposal that I saw didn't have no junctions in between. That is, they did have some junctions in between: a full dumbell with the A50 (in the same place as the one now proposed), and a half-dumbell with the A556 north of M6 J19 to enable traffic from Manchester on the A556(M) to get to the Northwich direction and vice versa.

The preferred route now announced looks to me very short on detail. In that respect it's like the preferred route announced in 2002 for the A5117 improvement, which included no details of junctions, despite the fact that the junctions were the whole reason for the scheme. We'll have to wait to see how the M56 junction is handled, and whether there'll be a junction with the present A556 north of Bucklow Hill, or just a dead end.

It could even be that further proposals for the M6 junction emerge as part of a future announcement about hard shoulder running on the M6.

The HA fought hard several years ago to keep the A556(M) alive, but loads of other organisations were against it.

[cabriolet214]

Wow! They're extending the A556 far enough northwards to meet the A66 at a roundabout?!

Seriously, it's better than what's there at present but why no freeflow to/from the M6?

[jackal]

OK, so it doesn't beat A556(M) and it doesn't look like anything will happen at M6 J19, but even so it's not that bad. I'm not sure what will happen at M56 J7 where it looks like the roundabout will get a bypass of sorts, but will probably be at-grade. Why not build a link between J7 and J8, where traffic can then take the A556 south?

Seriously, it's better than what's there at present but why no freeflow to/from the M6?

I wouldn't read too much into what exactly the big pink line on the latest map does. It's just supposed to be the mainline, I think, so new slips may well extend beyond it.

The HA's thinking up to this point has, so far as I know, always involved freeflow junctions with the M6 and M56 (see, e.g., here - which includes more online widening and more junctions than the latest announcement, but that shouldn't affect the terminal junctions).

I'd be very surprised and disappointed if the final plan isn't to provide freeflow to/from M6S and M56E. Indeed, I'd oppose the scheme if there was no such provision. I'm optimistic as experience suggests the HA treat 50,000+AADT routes as deserving of freeflow.

[wrinkly]

Of course, any freeflow with the M6 would be likely to have an effect on Knutsford service area.

[PeterA5145]

I'd be very surprised and disappointed if the final plan isn't to provide freeflow to/from M6S and M56E. Indeed, I'd oppose the scheme if there was no such provision. I'm optimistic as experience suggests the HA treat 50,000+AADT routes as deserving of freeflow.

I sincerely hope it does end up with free-flow at both ends, otherwise it will be the bodge job that Philip suggests, and still be subject to chronic congestion. I suppose anything must be better than nothing, but a minimum of £147m seems an awful lot to pay for something not providing free-flow.

Given that various HA documents in recent years have spoken of the road being designed to "a 50 mph standard" I also fear that we will end up with a road with a 50 mph limit that in practice can easily be driven at 70 mph in a car

[paranoid]

At one stage the plan was for a flat junction with the A50; thankfully I notice the HA page says it will be "two-level", although the PDF and map say nothing at all on the matter - I wonder if this is cause to be cautiously optimistic about the terminal junctions, as jackal says.

[Helvellyn]

What is the local provision for this scheme? A big purple line doesn't tell me much, but it's looking like rather a long way around for me to get to Rostherne now (if I ever stop making excuses and go back!)

As far as freeflow junctions go (there's no question that they are needed!) it appears to me to be showing one for the M56. That's the easier one to sort out. I hope the indication from the map isn't too accurate, and it's just plumping for the easy option when it comes to the M6 (access on to Northwich still being needed).

Given that various HA documents in recent years have spoken of the road being designed to "a 50 mph standard" I also fear that we will end up with a road with a 50 mph limit that in practice can easily be driven at 70 mph in a car

Why do I have a horrible feeling you'll be right?

[SouthWest Philip]

At one stage the plan was for a flat junction with the A50; thankfully I notice the HA page says it will be "two-level", although the PDF and map say nothing at all on the matter - I wonder if this is cause to be cautiously optimistic about the terminal junctions, as jackal says.

I don't really see that a junction with the A50 here is necessary at all.

[wrinkly]

At one stage the plan was for a flat junction with the A50;

Are you sure of that? Since the A556(M) proposal was dropped, the publicly available documents have been very vague about side road crossings, but my interpretation is that a flat junction with the A50 was never proposed.

What is the local provision for this scheme?

I don't think anyone knows right now.

[mistral]

What's the likelihood of anything being built as a result of these latest plans?

[PeterA5145]

I don't really see that a junction with the A50 here is necessary at all.

It is, as there won't be junctions with the original A556 at either end of the bypassed section, so otherwise A50 traffic (including that from Knutsford) and local residents would be deprived of access to the two motorway junctions.

[jackal]

What's the likelihood of anything being built as a result of these latest plans?

It's officially 'in preparation for programme entry' (see, e.g., here). I think it's very likely that it will be built in the next ten years.

At one stage the plan was for a flat junction with the A50;

I don't think this is the case, but the previous plan had a flat junction with the A5036 IIRC.

I don't really see that a junction with the A50 here is necessary at all.

It is, as there won't be junctions with the original A556 at either end of the bypassed section, so otherwise A50 traffic (including that from Knutsford) and local residents would be deprived of access to the two motorway junctions.

It may be that they'll include a LILO or single slip at either end, and just haven't marked the junctions because they would be relatively insignificant. Even if that is the case, the A50 GSJ would still be needed for right turns.

[SouthWest Philip]

I don't really see that a junction with the A50 here is necessary at all.

It is, as there won't be junctions with the original A556 at either end of the bypassed section, so otherwise A50 traffic (including that from Knutsford) and local residents would be deprived of access to the two motorway junctions.

All the more reason for building the original offline A556(M) and keeping the old road intact.

[gaz909]

This design is a total shambles and has been designed from a local perspective. When I drove from Cornwall to Manchester Airport I simply could not believe my eyes.

Needs to be sorted. This is a nationally strategic road and should be free-flow D2 or should have motorway status. What those plans are about, I have no idea.

Why don't we pop a roundabout in for Knutsford traffic, maybe some traffic lights too? We could have some local lanes popping off it too for tractor access?

Sorry about the sarcasm but I'm sick of the half baked penny pinched plans that I consistently see. The UK network seems to be a hotchpotch of local cock-ups with no national strategy in place. I could name ten examples of these kinds of 'gaps' in the network, but I don't have to, because you can too.

Rant over.

[roadtester]

It's officially 'in preparation for programme entry' (see, e.g., here). I think it's very likely that it will be built in the next ten years.

That document's a very interesting find - is there a page that links to e.g. equivalent documents for other regions?