M42 Junction 6 improvement
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
The latest information on the Solihull website is that Highways England has no outstanding objections on road safety grounds and they are drawing up planning conditions. Sounds fairly close.
- Attachments
-
- PL_2015_51409_PPOL-HIGHWAY_ENGLAND_-_HOLDING_DIRECTION__2MONTHS_FROM_23_12_-605488.pdf
- (67.49 KiB) Downloaded 47 times
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
As that document says, HE are witholding consent until the J6 consultation can be taken into account:
Of further relevance to this application is Highways England’s developing scheme for
the improvement of Junction 6 of the M42 Motorway. Three scheme options have
been identified and have now been issued for public consultation. This consultation
is a live process with the objective of seeking public views on the options presented;
it continues until 27 January 2017 after which we will need to take into account of
public consultation responses received. As the MSA proposals may impact upon
these options it is considered that the current period of non-determination should be
extended beyond the end of the consultation period so as to not to risk prejudicing
the outcome of this public consultation.
On the basis of the above we are recommending that the planning application
not be determined for a period of 2 months beginning today 23 December
2016. In addition, until the planning conditions that we are likely to recommend are
finalised and the consultation process is completed we are not currently in a position
to consent under section 175B of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) to new
accesses to / from the M42 motorway as proposed in the planning application.
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
My guess is that if there's overwhelming public support for Option 3 (which makes it very hard to build a services safely), the developers will be asked to redesign their junction, whereas if Option 1 or 2 (which are very compatible with a services in that location) ends up being the favoured one, the go-ahead for the services will be given very quickly. So HE is simply placing the services on hold until they can be sure that they won't have to build a conflicting junction nearby.
- Alderpoint
- Member
- Posts: 1685
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 14:25
- Location: Leamington Spa
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
Thanks for that. The preferred route on p. 13 shows a few changes from the consulted version of option 1:
1. Instead of being 'all movements', the new M42 junction is a half dumbbell (south-facing slips only).
2. The B4438 is severed, so to get to Catherine de Barnes you have to use the new link road via slips.
3. Unspecified improvements to the A45 either side of J6.
4. Freeflow lefts in NW and NE quadrants of J6, but not SE.
5. Widening and signalization to J6 itself, focused on SE quadrant.
I'm struggling to get my head around the new M42 junction. Any MSA traffic would have to go through the new junction, clock interchange, and J6! Maybe they're not going to have an MSA there, but in that case there's no reason not to have a freeflow junction instead.
1. Instead of being 'all movements', the new M42 junction is a half dumbbell (south-facing slips only).
2. The B4438 is severed, so to get to Catherine de Barnes you have to use the new link road via slips.
3. Unspecified improvements to the A45 either side of J6.
4. Freeflow lefts in NW and NE quadrants of J6, but not SE.
5. Widening and signalization to J6 itself, focused on SE quadrant.
I'm struggling to get my head around the new M42 junction. Any MSA traffic would have to go through the new junction, clock interchange, and J6! Maybe they're not going to have an MSA there, but in that case there's no reason not to have a freeflow junction instead.
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
And why not move the dumbbell onto the B4102 and have it serve that road as well.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Big and complex.
- RichardA35
- Elected Committee Member
- Posts: 5716
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
- Location: Dorset
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
A good way to mobilise the good burghers of Solihull to object to the scheme. At first glance, the scheme looks to maintain the local roads status quo and avoid creating new rat runs or access onto or off the motorway network so everyone should be reasonably happy.Truvelo wrote:And why not move the dumbbell onto the B4102 and have it serve that road as well.
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
The consultation responses were strongly in favour of an all-access junction in the "5A" location, so it's a little surprising to see a half-dumbbell (with some useless sections of roundabout!) there instead. I get the feeling from the various documents that HE want to provide a full access junction but don't have a working design for it yet.
It was definitely a goal of the scheme to make access between the B4102 and the new motorway junction as awkward as possible (which most attempts I've seen, including this one, do via the use of limited access junctions). It's not the sort of road that you want to dump a large amount of motorway traffic onto.
It was definitely a goal of the scheme to make access between the B4102 and the new motorway junction as awkward as possible (which most attempts I've seen, including this one, do via the use of limited access junctions). It's not the sort of road that you want to dump a large amount of motorway traffic onto.
-
- Member
- Posts: 966
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 11:41
- Location: Birmingham
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
The B4102 is unsuitable for a large volume of traffic, particularly through Hampton-in-Arden. Also, there is a very busy signalised junction where the B4102 meets the A41 Solihull Bypass west of Catherine de Barnes. It is effectively a six way junction and has to cater for many movements, not only traffic heading to and from Birmingham, but also traffic heading to Solihull town centre from Hampton-in-Arden and Catherine de Barnes and traffic heading to Jaguar Land Rover up the link road bypassing the Damsonwood housing estate. Hence they would not want to overload the B4102 with motorway traffic.ais523 wrote:
It was definitely a goal of the scheme to make access between the B4102 and the new motorway junction as awkward as possible (which most attempts I've seen, including this one, do via the use of limited access junctions). It's not the sort of road that you want to dump a large amount of motorway traffic onto.
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
The Technical Appraisal Report and Scheme Assessment Report are now available. It seems they really are planning to build the preferred route without north-facing slips due to concerns about the 1100m weaving space to J6. They may be added if the MSA gets planning permission, but it is not explained how that would address the weaving issue.
As the SAR explains, there is also 'an increase in the number of conflict points associated with the introduction of additional roundabout junctions, which also gives rise to a predicted increase in accident numbers' (p. 46). The scheme is actually projected to result in 133 additional casualties during the assessment period!
The idea of 'upgrading' an interchange between two grade-separated roads by putting another interchange nearby, introducing additional roundabouts and (eventually) weaving spaces, is fundamentally misconceived. It's not even cheap - £200m at 2014 prices without risk, or £328.7m including inflation and risk.
TAR: https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... rt_web.pdf
SAR: https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... 0Final.pdf
As the SAR explains, there is also 'an increase in the number of conflict points associated with the introduction of additional roundabout junctions, which also gives rise to a predicted increase in accident numbers' (p. 46). The scheme is actually projected to result in 133 additional casualties during the assessment period!
The idea of 'upgrading' an interchange between two grade-separated roads by putting another interchange nearby, introducing additional roundabouts and (eventually) weaving spaces, is fundamentally misconceived. It's not even cheap - £200m at 2014 prices without risk, or £328.7m including inflation and risk.
TAR: https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... rt_web.pdf
SAR: https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... 0Final.pdf
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
While I'm not very familiar with this area, wouldn't it be better if they did something freeflow to take long-distance M42-A45 traffic away from the J6 roundabout, like this?Alderpoint wrote:Preferred route announced: option 1.
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... _web.pdf-1
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
You would need to sort out the weaving between the existing J6 and your new junction on the M42 but as a concept that is not bad.6637 wrote:While I'm not very familiar with this area, wouldn't it be better if they did something freeflow to take long-distance M42-A45 traffic away from the J6 roundabout, like this?Alderpoint wrote:Preferred route announced: option 1.
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... _web.pdf-1
birmingham.png
My only concern would be digging down as you are right against the runway of the Airport so no three level structures there. Likewise the NIMBY factor will come in massively.
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
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
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
Plus the A45 u-bend is earmarked to be cut-and-cover tunnelled at some point in the future so any major junction there would have to take that into consideration.
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!
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
That's interesting. The earlier plan for an immediate tunnel, built as part of the runway extension, was replaced by the plan for the present layout. I didn't know there was a continuing aspiration for a tunnel.darkcape wrote:Plus the A45 u-bend is earmarked to be cut-and-cover tunnelled at some point in the future so any major junction there would have to take that into consideration.
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
My experience of consultations for this particular improvement is that the attitude of the people around Bickenhill to new major projects is not so much "not in my backyard" but "Again? Seriously?".Bryn666 wrote:Likewise the NIMBY factor will come in massively.
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
That would certainly be my reaction if I lived there!ais523 wrote: "Again? Seriously?".
Re: M42 Junction 6 improvement
Apologies but I can't find the source but I definitely read it somewhere - the decision to not build a tunnel a few years ago was basically deferred. I worked on the widening at Bickenhill westbound for the rail bridge replacement just after the u-bend opened and we were told that was the plan also. It would be but similar to a long bridge, with a central pier in A45 centre res and one between A45 eastbound and the perimeter roads.wrinkly wrote:That's interesting. The earlier plan for an immediate tunnel, built as part of the runway extension, was replaced by the plan for the present layout. I didn't know there was a continuing aspiration for a tunnel.darkcape wrote:Plus the A45 u-bend is earmarked to be cut-and-cover tunnelled at some point in the future so any major junction there would have to take that into consideration.
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!
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!