M6 Junction 19 'improvements'

[jackal]

A waste of money IMO. Option B was cheaper and wouldn't have salted the ground for future freeflow in the way Option A does.

I wonder how many of the 75% in favour of Option A didn't grasp that the new bridge would be at the same level as the old ones and signalized at both ends...

[Robert Kilcoyne]

I would have considered building an elongated slip road from around one mile south of Knutsford Services, passing west of the service area, crossing the A5033 and the A556 southwest of Junction 19 before crossing over the M6 northwest of Junction 19 and curving northeastwards to merge with the A556. Similarly, another elongated slip road would leave the A556 before Junction 19, skirting Knutsford Services to the east and then merging with the M6 south of the service area.

[jackal]

One of the rejected options was somewhat similar to that: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... on_WEB.pdf

As previously discussed, all the rejected freeflow options take the new slip road past the first GSJ on the A556 with a tunnel or bypass to the west. A better slip road arrangement would exclude these unnecessary elements:

[jackal]

The consultation report and preferred route announcement, confirming option A (the skewed hamburger), have been published:

http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/m6-junction-19/

[fras]

Let's hope the traffic light program is written by somebody who knows what they are doing, and then tested thoroughly. And not the one who did the programs for the Crewe Arms and Crewe Green installation !

[Bryn666]

A waste of money IMO. Option B was cheaper and wouldn't have salted the ground for future freeflow in the way Option A does.

I wonder how many of the 75% in favour of Option A didn't grasp that the new bridge would be at the same level as the old ones and signalized at both ends...

But we established that J19 is not as busy as other sites on the network so a full free flow is merely a nice to have.

Option B retains 3 signals for traffic heading towards the M56, at least Option A removes the need to pass through the third set.

I've never been heavily stuck at J19 and I think a lot of its problems are exaggerated so I welcome Option A. In terms of buildability it means less disruption for the roundabout too as most of the work is over the motorway which has got used to narrow lanes...

[Big L]

The only times I have seen junction 19 completely seized up were due to problems further along the A556. Those problems seem to be over, for some reason.

[jackal]

A waste of money IMO. Option B was cheaper and wouldn't have salted the ground for future freeflow in the way Option A does.

I wonder how many of the 75% in favour of Option A didn't grasp that the new bridge would be at the same level as the old ones and signalized at both ends...

But we established that J19 is not as busy as other sites on the network so a full free flow is merely a nice to have.

[citation needed]

[wrinkly]

The only times I have seen junction 19 completely seized up were due to problems further along the A556. Those problems seem to be over, for some reason.

I've only once seen it seized up, but the A556 scheme Facebook page has had a lot of complaints of it being seized up lately. The A556 contractors always reply that the signal timing is outside the realm of their contract and HE's other contractors are looking at it (again).

[Bryn666]

A waste of money IMO. Option B was cheaper and wouldn't have salted the ground for future freeflow in the way Option A does.

I wonder how many of the 75% in favour of Option A didn't grasp that the new bridge would be at the same level as the old ones and signalized at both ends...

But we established that J19 is not as busy as other sites on the network so a full free flow is merely a nice to have.

[citation needed]

The A556 north of the M6 has roughly 10k more AADT than the A556 south of it. That level of turning movement could easily be handled by the proposed Option A.

In any case, even with the proposed smart motorway on the M56 between J7 and 6, the big problem remains the crush between M56 J3A and the M60. I'd rather money was spent on this, which is totally and utterly congested for over 6 hours a day every day, as opposed to M6 J19, which gums up for maybe an hour a day at most during the peaks, when you expect there to be delays.

[Steven]

the big problem remains the crush between M56 J3A and the M60.

Do you mean via the Sharston Spur or via Princess Parkway not-Motorway?

[Bryn666]

Sharston - the A5103 is actually the better of the two (until you hit the A5145 lights).

[wrinkly]

Very difficult to see what could be done about that. It's already in partially retained cut, narrow hard shoulders, sinuous route, several bridges, houses nearby, merging with other busy motorways at both ends.

[Bryn666]

Oh yes, it isn't a simple solution. The problem isn't so much the spur being D2, it's the fact it has nowhere to go.

Had the Outer Ring Road been built to the original plans all that traffic would be travelling via Hazel Grove and Bredbury and onto the then M66, and therein is the issue. The A555 is a cop out road when a full motorway was needed.

[jackal]

But we established that J19 is not as busy as other sites on the network so a full free flow is merely a nice to have.

[citation needed]

The A556 north of the M6 has roughly 10k more AADT than the A556 south of it. That level of turning movement could easily be handled by the proposed Option A.

As it's a full access junction, a net change of 10k is consistent with an M56nb->A556nb turning volume of 10k, 20k or even 30k. You can't say much without the actual movement counts from the SAR or TAR.

[wrinkly]

Had the Outer Ring Road been built to the original plans all that traffic would be travelling via Hazel Grove and Bredbury and onto the then M66, and therein is the issue. The A555 is a cop out road when a full motorway was needed.

I suppose it depends on the range of destinations, which I don't know. That could be a long way round for some.

[fras]

I think a lot of people gave up using the A556 "cutoff" due to its sheer awfulness, and haven't yet cottoned on that the new link is open. In the southbound direction there is only one set of lights to get from A556 to the M6, so not too bad really. In the northbound direction it is three sets, and AFAIK these are not linked. The proposed option reduces that by one set.

My main gripe as a roads enthusiast rather than just a user is that we still do not have a London-Manchester motorway even after all the decades of road construction.

[Bryn666]

There are no signals southbound now - the A556 joins J19 at a give way line.

[85CF380]

It'll be interesting to see if this works. A number of traffic lights, stopping (a high %) of HGV's isn't good for traffic flow or pollution production. I often feel that the speed of HGVs through these junctions is over estimated.

[wrinkly]

Another press release, this one dated yesterday. Not sure what it adds except the £50M figure. Seems a lot even by today's standards. No doubt traffic management on the M6 will contribute.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/50-m ... roundabout