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.
wrinkly wrote:I've always suspected the offline route is only there to prove they've considered all possibilities.
The time for showing that they've considered all options (like the tunnel idea that's bandied about every now and then) is long past. If they thought only the online option was credible then only one option would go to consultation, as with the Downhill Lane consultation.
My take is that HE think offline is the best option. But they also realize there will be controversy, so in case that proves insurmountable, they have the other option in as a backup
The local newspaper in Maghull had a wraparound from Highways England showing the two options under consideration.
Option 1
The first option, the 'online option', involves changes to the existing A5036. Highways England says originally it wanted to grade separate 4 major junctions on the corridor, however after assessment of potential land issues and disruption to residents, all junction changes will be 'at grade' instead. The current proposals include:
2 junctions (Copy Lane, Hawthorne Road) will be widened;
2 junctions (Park Lane, Kirkstone Road) will have signal timing changes;
1 junction (at the Netherton Hotel) will become a signalised 'hamburger roundabout' allowing through A5036 traffic to continue through the island.
The second option, the 'offline option', involves constructing a new dual carriageway through Rimrose Valley Country Park. It will go from the Broom's Cross Road/Brickwall Lane junction of the A5758 (replacing the current traffic light junction with a signalised roundabout) to slightly SW of the A5036 Princess Way roundabout in Litherland. Lydiate Lane and Edge Lane (which cross the route) will become bridges.
Neither option is particularly satisfactory. Option 1 just tinkers around the edges and certainly won't stop this from being a heavily congested corridor. Option 2 does bypass many congested junctions, but would still leave numerous signalized junctions between the port and the motorway network, as well as the small matter of going through the middle of a country park.
As a non-local interested in improving strategic infrastructure I should favour option 2, and I suppose I do, but it has such significant downsides I can't say I'm too enthusiastic. It should really be for locals to decide which option is least obnoxious.
Last edited by jackal on Fri Jan 13, 2017 18:34, edited 1 time in total.
With competent signals design Option 1 need not be a horrendous bodge job.
But there is the rub... competent signals design usually means a willingness to prohibit lesser movements and provide for them elsewhere. No one likes doing that.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Why did they interpret online grade separation as requiring 4 GSJs, including one at each of Park Ln and Copy Ln (meaning three major junctions within a mile)? One or two GSJs, with the rest either LILOed or bridged without slips, would do the job with a much lower level of destruction.
In any case the Rimrose route has some terrible looking junction designs that, unless severe measures are taken on the existing road, look to make journey times longer; no way would such a road be NSL and the extra distance doesn't seem worth the loss of green space in the urban area.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Presumably option 2 would also be used for an A565 bypass of Crosby, so double usefulness. Still seems unlikely and only really put in for 'magicians choice' to get option 1 whereas other online options wouldn't.
2 GSJs at the A5038 and A5090 with either LILOs, bridges, or extended frontage roads to deal with the other side roads would be the obvious high-capacity option. But when that just dumps traffic on Switch Island, why try too hard?
"“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations" Thomas Jefferson
si404 wrote:2 GSJs at the A5038 and A5090 with either LILOs, bridges, or extended frontage roads to deal with the other side roads would be the obvious high-capacity option.
Sounds like a plan to me.
But when that just dumps traffic on Switch Island, why try too hard?
One scheme at a time, eh. There will be plenty of cash swilling around for road improvements in the next decade or so - Switch's time will come.
Bryn666 wrote:Both are junctions where the obvious answer of a flyover or underpass still seems to elude the authorities.
But where would you put the grade-separated route? A5036 to M57? A5036 to M58? M57 to M58? M57 to A5758? M58 to A59?
I'd argue that the first one is the most major route, though if the M58 got further than the M6/had a better junction with the M6, then that would be. Free-flowing connectons between all three trunk roads is ambitious, but justifiable.
"“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations" Thomas Jefferson
If HE wanted to build a A5036 flyover in the past, they wouldn't have known where to build it, given the possibility if the offline bypass.
It would even be hard to include a A5036 flyover as part of this scheme, because of uncertainty about other developments. For instance, at the moment the logical connection would be to the M57, but if the M58 is extended to the M61 as is proposed, that would then replace the M57/M62 as the main way from the port to Manchester or Yorkshire.
So the lack of A5036 flyover at Switch Island is at least somewhat comprehensible. It's the lack of freeflow between M57 and M58 that I find most baffling.
Also have to consider if there'll be any traffic from the south using the Mersey Gateway route in as well. Docks traffic is routed up the M57 and back in, this won't change any time soon as far as I can tell.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Higher quality proposal for the online option - obviously something HE won't touch with a barge pole but we can dream.
Switch Island improved New S4 underpasses at Heysham Road and Park Lane, along the same lines as the A34 through Perry Barr New GSJ at Boundary Road/Netherton Way with minor modifications to local roads to reflect new layouts Frontage roads extended and made one-way alongside each carriageway
The improvements end after Hawthorne Road in order to reduce the huge platoons of traffic that would otherwise end up at the A565 junction - overwhelming it.
I'd expect the speed limit to remain at least at 40 mph.
The obvious downsides are all the land acquisitions and stats diversions required; it wouldn't be the cheapest of schemes. Also sinking an S4 mainline would be a large undertaking but not impossible. £lots?
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
I'd suggest a fair number of vehicles would come away from the A59 and use the M57 instead if the direct link was there, which in turn would enable local environmental improvements for residents. That's all predict-and-provide though rather than based on any serious analysis.
The radii is roughly 200m if my ruler work is right, which would be about a 50 limit. If it means I get free-flow where I want it to go I would happily take reduced radii and lower speed limits.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Switch Island improved