M42 Junction 6 improvement

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
Alderpoint
Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 14:25
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Alderpoint »

Work appears to have started on this now. The B4102 Solihull road has been closed between Catherine-de-Barnes and Hampton-in-Arden until Dec 2022.

More details here.
Let it snow.
darkcape
Member
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 14:54

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by darkcape »

With traffic management going out on the M42-M6 link for the HS2 delta junction, and the HS2 Marston box just north of J9, its going to be fun for drivers on the M42for the next few years!
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!
mikehindsonevans
Member
Posts: 1359
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:44
Location: Cheshire, but working week time in Cambridge

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by mikehindsonevans »

darkcape wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 23:32 With traffic management going out on the M42-M6 link for the HS2 delta junction, and the HS2 Marston box just north of J9, its going to be fun for drivers on the M42for the next few years!
Well, HE solved this on Monday night (21st). The M40N to M42N junction was closed, throwing everyone across to the M5
Mike Hindson-Evans.
Never argue with a conspiracy theorist.
They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7544
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by jackal »

There was some interesting discussion of the design of the new junction in the Recommendation Report, starting PDF p. 83:

5.2.52. Junction 5A is positioned about 1.8km south of M42 Junction 6 and it is
designed in the form of a ‘dumb-bell’ with 2 roundabouts positioned
either side of the M42 connected by a new bridge about 100m to the
north of the existing Solihull Road bridge [APP-007 and APP-008]. It is to
have south facing slip roads only. If built exactly as indicated on the
Works Plans, the junction would result in the loss of 0.36ha of the
Ancient Woodland at Aspbury’s Copse. If moved 10m to the north within
the LoD, the junction would result in the loss of the 0.21ha of Ancient
Woodland [see AS-035 and AS-037]. The locational constraints affecting
the position and design of the junction are set out elsewhere46. The
ARCADY modelling demonstrates that the western roundabout will
operate within capacity (RFC≤0.75) and in free-flow conditions (LoS=A).
5.2.53. The concern is that the dumb-bell design with its 2 roundabouts is an
unnecessary impediment to the free flow of traffic if there are only to be
south facing slip roads [AS-018, RR-001, RR-007, RR-008, REP4-025,
REP5-011, REP6-027]. Such a design is very unusual on the motorway
network [REP4-010, REP4-025, REP5-011, REP6-027]. Although the
introduction of north facing slip roads might enhance the resilience of the
motorway, should problems materialise elsewhere [RR-014, REP2-007,
REP3-010], the junction could not accommodate the introduction of the
mooted MSA at this location without substantial reconfiguration entailing
further damage to the adjacent Ancient Woodland and departures from
standards on the motorway [REP2-022].
5.2.54. The redesign of Junction 5A to include north facing slip roads without the
mooted MSA is likely to enhance the resilience of the motorway,
particularly in offering alternative routes to or from the Airport or the
NEC in the event of problems on the gyratory at Junction 6 and perhaps
elsewhere [RR-001]. However, the inclusion of north facing slip roads
requires departures from standards on the motorway [REP2-022]; the
weaving lengths between Junction 5A and Junction 6 would fall well
below the normal 2km minimum for rural motorways at roughly 1.2km
and the approval in principle for such a departure in relation to the
mooted MSA also envisages an upgrade to an ‘all lane running’ smart
motorway [APP-173, appendix 4]. There are thus some advantages in
45 M42 Junction 6 Improvement Scheme: Technical Appraisal Report (SGAR1),
Mouchel, 2016
46 See paragraphs Error! Reference source not found. to Error! Reference
source not found. above
M42 JUNCTION 6 IMPROVEMENT: TR010027
REPORT: TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2020 77
terms of safety and costs in avoiding the introduction of north facing slip
roads.
5.2.55. The Applicants claim that the proposed layout for Junction 5A largely
follows similar layouts for junctions across the motorway network and
reflects a standard arrangement shown in the DMRB TD 22/06, figure 5/2
[REP3-010, REP4-010]. It does not. It is intended to offer only south
facing slip roads rather than slip roads in both directions (as illustrated in
figure 5.2) and, of the 9 junctions identified with uni-directional slip
roads on motorways and dual carriageway A-roads, only 1 (on an A-road
rather than on a motorway) exhibits a similar layout connecting to a
‘local’ road on only one side [REP4-010, REP4-025, REP5-011, REP6-
027]; in this case the connection is to the mainline link road, there is no
connection to any ‘local’ road on the eastern side of the motorway. The
Applicant suggests that the Scheme layout provides the required traffic
capacity to cater for future forecast growth and is the most efficient and
optimal arrangement for delivering the Scheme objectives with or
without the mooted MSA at Junction 5A [REP4-010]. But that too is not
quite right. Although the Scheme does cater for growth, the current
configuration of the Junction could not accommodate the likely traffic
generated by an MSA here. On the contrary, substantial works would be
required to reconfigure and, as assessed, partially signalise the junction
in order to provide the necessary capacity [APP-173, appendix 4]. Such
works would inflict further damage on the adjacent Ancient Woodland
and require up-grades to the motorway running regime.
5.2.56. It is recognised that a free-flow junction arrangement provides additional
traffic capacity to the road network, although it is suggested that such
additional capacity is not required by the Scheme [REP2-007]. Instead,
the Applicants claim that, in comparison to a free-flow design, the
proposed layout for Junction 5A has several advantages.
▪ The overall footprint and associated land-take is smaller;
▪ There is less impact on sensitive environmental features such as
Ancient Woodland;
▪ The requirement for the diversion of statutory undertakers’ apparatus
is less;
▪ There are safer conditions for maintenance workers; and
▪ There is inherent flexibility to allow improved access to the road
network for future local and regional growth.
5.2.57. Most of those claimed advantages are ephemeral or dubious [REP4-025,
REP5-011, REP6-027]. The footprint and associated land take
comparisons rather depend upon how the concepts are defined and on
the detailed design of the free-flow link, not much more than a sketch in
this context. The impact on Statutory Undertakers similarly must depend
on the detailed design and the location of the free-flow junction. The
safer conditions for maintenance workers are something of a chimera
since this must largely depend upon the imposition of appropriate speed
limits and safety markings (cones, lanes or other signs) and the
straightforward arrangements of a free-flow junction might have
advantages over the need to negotiate roundabouts. As for the claim that
M42 JUNCTION 6 IMPROVEMENT: TR010027
REPORT: TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2020 78
the dumb-bell arrangement for Junction 5A might have less impact on
the adjacent Ancient Woodland, there is little justification. One of the
potential advantages of a free-flow arrangement is that the Junction
might be moved further north (being unencumbered by the constraints
imposed by north facing slip roads) with the possibility of avoiding any
impact on the Ancient Woodland.
5.2.58. Nevertheless, the one sound advantage of the intended dumb-bell design
is that it embodies inherent flexibility allowing access to the strategic
road network to accommodate future local and regional growth. The local
and regional growth envisaged is to be delivered through the UK Central
and Solihull Urban Growth Company [APP-048 and APP-049] and the UK
Central Hub - Growth and Infrastructure Plan (2018); it is reflected in
both the emerging Local Plan Review and the UK Central strategy and it
seeks to build on the opportunities offered by HS2 and its juxtaposition
with strategic commercial and business concerns nearby. This DCO
Scheme is seen as phase 2 in a programme to deliver the infrastructure
necessary to accommodate that growth. The final phase is not yet
defined. However, it is recognised that further road capacity will be
needed, and that one potential solution would be to build link roads
between the new M42 Southern Junction [Junction 5A] and the existing
Junction 6 on both sides of the motorway to provide direct access to the
UK Central Hub [and the] HS2 Station [REP4-010]. The dumb-bell design
for Junction 5A can accommodate the links envisaged, even though some
reconfiguration might be required. The free-flow design cannot. The ExA
concludes that the dumb-bell design is thus warranted here.

Report: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... Report.pdf

General arrangement: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... _Plans.pdf

PS - Also of note is Highways England's sabristic "Table of Uni Directional Dumbbell Junctions in England" at PDF p. 68 here: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... stions.pdf As the ExA mentioned, only the infamous A13/A126 junction is really like M42 J5A, with a local road on only one side. Still a good effort!
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Is it just me, but I find the idea of placing a Motorway Service Area on a junction with only south-facing sip-roads rather odd.

It means that any traffic uses the MSA has to use the non-motorway link road, the A45 and then M42/J6 (or vice versa)
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Chris5156 »

jackal wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 01:21There was some interesting discussion of the design of the new junction in the Recommendation Report, starting PDF p. 83:
(snip)
Wow - thanks for sharing this.

Reading it, the precis version seems to be "this junction is terrible, and NH's assessment of it is nonsense, but there will be lots of development nearby and development is king, so OK then".

It's a real gold star example of where strategic highway planning is right now.
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by A303Chris »

jackal wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 01:21
PS - Also of note is Highways England's sabristic "Table of Uni Directional Dumbbell Junctions in England" at PDF p. 68 here: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... stions.pdf As the ExA mentioned, only the infamous A13/A126 junction is really like M42 J5A, with a local road on only one side. Still a good effort!
Thanks for posting but it is defiantly a case of it's not perfect, but it's not bad enough for me to say no.

However the uni directional dumbell schedule at the end within Appendix A is very sabreist, but what an error on the last page referring to the new A30 Chybucca junction which states will be located at the junction of the existing junction of the A30 and B4328. Now that I would like that
The M25 - The road to nowhere
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Peter Freeman »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 07:13 Is it just me, but I find the idea of placing a Motorway Service Area on a junction with only south-facing slip-roads rather odd.

It means that any traffic uses the MSA has to use the non-motorway link road, the A45 and then M42/J6 (or vice versa)
My reading of the Report (as quoted by Jackal) is that there would NOT be a "Service Area on a junction with only south-facing slip-roads". It appears to accept that approval for an MSA would automatically trigger the addition of north-facing slips, and the likelihood of that is part of the reason for them finally saying 'OK, you can have the dumbbell then'. Unfortunately, the Report does note that, in that case, there would need to be some 'reconfiguration' (presumably extra lanes) and 'partial signalisation'. In that case I would recommend that the reconfig should result in a signalised diamond (delete the little roundabouts).
User avatar
Jonathan B4027
Member
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2002 21:45
Location: Oxford or Birmingham

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Jonathan B4027 »

Apparently going to be the A4545.
Casino Manager: "It was a good night. Nothing Unusual."
Harold Shand: "Nothing unusual," he says! Eric's been blown to smithereens, Colin's been carved up, and I've got a bomb in me casino, and you say nothing unusual ?"
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Chris Bertram »

Jonathan B4027 wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 14:45 Apparently going to be the A4545.
"In the year 4545 ..."
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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!
tom1977
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:36

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by tom1977 »

Hearing rumours that the M42 services at Junction 5a have been approved
User avatar
ReissOmari
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 21:51
Location: Birmingham

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by ReissOmari »

Peter Freeman wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 14:51
Micro The Maniac wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 07:13 Is it just me, but I find the idea of placing a Motorway Service Area on a junction with only south-facing slip-roads rather odd.

It means that any traffic uses the MSA has to use the non-motorway link road, the A45 and then M42/J6 (or vice versa)
My reading of the Report (as quoted by Jackal) is that there would NOT be a "Service Area on a junction with only south-facing slip-roads". It appears to accept that approval for an MSA would automatically trigger the addition of north-facing slips, and the likelihood of that is part of the reason for them finally saying 'OK, you can have the dumbbell then'. Unfortunately, the Report does note that, in that case, there would need to be some 'reconfiguration' (presumably extra lanes) and 'partial signalisation'. In that case I would recommend that the reconfig should result in a signalised diamond (delete the little roundabouts).
Image

Image
ReissOmari..
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Bryn666 »

Oh that totally won't be jammed solid from day one. They have learned nothing from Birchanger Green or Cherwell Valley I see.
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: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by ais523 »

I think the main concern here is more about weaving on the M42 mainline between J5a and J6 than it is about J5a itself. M42 J2 rarely seems to get jammed, for example, despite being an access to an A road and a services.

Admittedly, the A45 is a busier road than the A441 is, but J5a isn't taking all the A45 traffic – it's only taking a portion of it, with J6 handling the rest.

(From a discussion I had at the consultation, apparently National Highways think that the weaving between J5a and J6 will be something of a safety risk, but the safety gain from having a services will be larger than the safety loss from having a substandard weaving distance. It's worth noting that the idea of having north-facing slips at J5a was surprisingly popular at consultation, to the extent that many people were surprised when they were omitted from the final plans.)
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Bryn666 »

ais523 wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 12:45 I think the main concern here is more about weaving on the M42 mainline between J5a and J6 than it is about J5a itself. M42 J2 rarely seems to get jammed, for example, despite being an access to an A road and a services.

Admittedly, the A45 is a busier road than the A441 is, but J5a isn't taking all the A45 traffic – it's only taking a portion of it, with J6 handling the rest.

(From a discussion I had at the consultation, apparently National Highways think that the weaving between J5a and J6 will be something of a safety risk, but the safety gain from having a services will be larger than the safety loss from having a substandard weaving distance. It's worth noting that the idea of having north-facing slips at J5a was surprisingly popular at consultation, to the extent that many people were surprised when they were omitted from the final plans.)
The proposals suggest the dumbbell will be signalised from the off, which immediately tells you their traffic forecasts are wrong. The alarm bells should be ringing - this junction is purely about adding more development along the M42 corridor using the nebulous excuse of "well HS2 will prevent traffic growth" as justification. NH are not about providing safe roads, they are about ensuring developers can make money by sticking their sites on the SRN.
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
Mapper89062
Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2021 21:25
Location: on your map

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Mapper89062 »

Even with the services, there's still no reason not to have a loop at junction 5A instead of the eastern roundabout, which would a) reduce the risk of tipovers by avoiding a tiny roundabout, b) reduce the impact on the woodland as discussed above, and c) allow extra stacking space for the western roundabout if it is ever necessary.

Or is the intention to put even more development there... :roll:
Just your average mapper, bringing you a map-focused take on today's world
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by Chris5156 »

Mapper89062 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 16:49 Even with the services, there's still no reason not to have a loop at junction 5A instead of the eastern roundabout, which would a) reduce the risk of tipovers by avoiding a tiny roundabout, b) reduce the impact on the woodland as discussed above, and c) allow extra stacking space for the western roundabout if it is ever necessary.

Or is the intention to put even more development there... :roll:
I think you know the answer!
User avatar
ReissOmari
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 21:51
Location: Birmingham

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by ReissOmari »

The bridge over the M42 connecting the roundabouts along with the new Solihull Road bridge will both be installed over this weekend.

Image
Image

https://twitter.com/HighwaysWMIDS/statu ... 5898795015
ReissOmari..
ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by ABB125 »

ReissOmari wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 20:36 The bridge over the M42 connecting the roundabouts along with the new Solihull Road bridge will both be installed over this weekend.

Image
Image

https://twitter.com/HighwaysWMIDS/statu ... 5898795015
Indeed it will! I'll be there to watch, I believe we will be allowed to take pictures but can't share them until after National Highways have done their own PR stuff; I'll put some on here when I can.
User avatar
ReissOmari
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 21:51
Location: Birmingham

Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement

Post by ReissOmari »

ABB125 wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 00:00 Indeed it will! I'll be there to watch, I believe we will be allowed to take pictures but can't share them until after National Highways have done their own PR stuff; I'll put some on here when I can.
Hope you didn't have a wasted journey as NH cancelled the works an hour after the closure was due on Friday!
ReissOmari..
Post Reply