M5 Oldbury viaduct works

[Robert Kilcoyne]

BBC Midlands Today led its evening news with a report on the progress of the roadworks. It appears that the extent of the repair work required was underestimated and over 5,000 separate repairs were required. The roadworks are running three months behind schedule and it appears that the work will not now be completed until early 2019.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/m5-o ... -milestone

[A9NWIL]

I was wondering how this was getting on.

[brummie_rob]

Some interesting replies on the Facebook page include:

Christine, initially it was planned to close M5 junctions 1 and 2 so that the usual 50mph speed limit on motorway works could be adopted. However, after concerns raised by Sandwell MBC and the West Midlands Combined Authority on the affect that this would have on the local economy, the scheme was re-planned to the current traffic management configuration and programme. As the distance between junctions 1 and 2 is only 1.8 miles, to ensure that the traffic management system we installed complied with the motorway merging traffic regulations, this led to the 30mph speed restriction that is in place at the moment.

Basically if a 50 mph speed limit was in place M5 junctions 1 - 2 would have to close. Electronic signage is only used for variable speed limits on smart motorways, M5 J1 - 2 is not a smart motorway section. In addition, as part of our works, gantries have either been removed for replacement or stripped for renovation and are not in use.

And this one about the length of works after being asked about a delay:

Hello Matthew, based on our initial inspections, we expect the northbound carriageway to be in a better condition than the southbound. This means there should be a smaller number of repairs to complete. We have also largely completed the scaffolding to the northbound. We've also made some changes to how we carry out the repairs which have improved our efficiency and means we are now completing repairs at higher rate. As we will be undertaking the work to the northbound carriageway in summer there is less risk of delay due to weather conditions.

These factors should mean that we can complete the repairs to the northbound carriageway quicker and we still expect to complete the repair of both carriageways by Autumn 2018.

I drive this every day and to be honest it hasn't been as bad as I expected. Breakdowns and accidents are minimal compared to smart motorway work areas. My pet hate and there is no answer to this is why some days the traffic flows gone through it at 2pm and other days it is queuing for a mile on approach. Doesn't matter what day it is, yesterday there was zero queue, today it was from J3 and it was the same time.

[Chris5156]

Some interesting replies on the Facebook page include:

Christine, initially it was planned to close M5 junctions 1 and 2 so that the usual 50mph speed limit on motorway works could be adopted. However, after concerns raised by Sandwell MBC and the West Midlands Combined Authority on the affect that this would have on the local economy, the scheme was re-planned to the current traffic management configuration and programme. As the distance between junctions 1 and 2 is only 1.8 miles, to ensure that the traffic management system we installed complied with the motorway merging traffic regulations, this led to the 30mph speed restriction that is in place at the moment.

Basically if a 50 mph speed limit was in place M5 junctions 1 - 2 would have to close.

That sounds like weapons-grade nonsense to me. A junction spacing of two miles is too close to allow the junctions to remain open with lane closures at 50mph? I've never heard that argument before and can't recall a time when adjacent motorway junctions were closed during roadworks because of "motorway merging traffic regulations".

Can anyone in the industry comment? Conekicker?

[Bryn666]

Someone went hyper risk averse I think - they've read DMRB, looked at how long a merge taper should be, decided it was impossible to achieve with 50mph running and therefore gone for 30.

This is the killer issue with HE these days, it's saturated with people who have solutions to problems no one has.

[Robert Kilcoyne]

Some interesting replies on the Facebook page include:

Christine, initially it was planned to close M5 junctions 1 and 2 so that the usual 50mph speed limit on motorway works could be adopted. However, after concerns raised by Sandwell MBC and the West Midlands Combined Authority on the affect that this would have on the local economy, the scheme was re-planned to the current traffic management configuration and programme. As the distance between junctions 1 and 2 is only 1.8 miles, to ensure that the traffic management system we installed complied with the motorway merging traffic regulations, this led to the 30mph speed restriction that is in place at the moment.

Basically if a 50 mph speed limit was in place M5 junctions 1 - 2 would have to close.

That sounds like weapons-grade nonsense to me. A junction spacing of two miles is too close to allow the junctions to remain open with lane closures at 50mph? I've never heard that argument before and can't recall a time when adjacent motorway junctions were closed during roadworks because of "motorway merging traffic regulations".

Can anyone in the industry comment? Conekicker?

So if the original idea had been adopted, it would not have been possible to join or leave the M5 between the A456 and the M6. West Bromwich would only have been accessible from the northbound M5 by going up to Ray Hall, joining the southbound M6, leaving at Junction 7, following the A34 to Scott Arms and turning right onto the A4041. The Scott Arms junction can be very busy at peak times; it would have been horrendous if it had to deal with the added volume of M5 to West Bromwich traffic. Traffic heading from West Bromwich to join the southbound M6 would have had to join the M6 from the A34 at Junction 7, while to join the northbound M6 would have required using either the A41 and the Black Country Spine Road to join the M6 at Junction 10 or use the A4031 then the A4148 Walsall Ring Road (Broadway) to join the M6 at Junction 9. The economic effect on West Bromwich could have been very damaging.

Meanwhile, to access Dudley, traffic on the southbound M6 would have had to be directed off the motorway at Junction 10 then along the A454, A463 and A4123. Traffic heading for Dudley from the southwest would have had to leave the M5 at Quinton then follow the A456 as far as its junction with the A4123, then follow the Birmingham New Road.

While the roads under the management of Sandwell MBC would have borne the impact of the additional traffic if the full closure of Junctions 1 and 2 had gone ahead, there would also have been a lesser, but probably still significant, impact on roads within Birmingham MBC, Dudley MBC and Walsall MBC.

[mapboy]

So if the original idea had been adopted, it would not have been possible to join or leave the M5 between the A456 and the M6. West Bromwich would only have been accessible from the northbound M5 by going up to Ray Hall, joining the southbound M6, leaving at Junction 7, following the A34 to Scott Arms and turning right onto the A4041. The Scott Arms junction can be very busy at peak times; it would have been horrendous if it had to deal with the added volume of M5 to West Bromwich traffic. Traffic heading from West Bromwich to join the southbound M6 would have had to join the M6 from the A34 at Junction 7, while to join the northbound M6 would have required using either the A41 and the Black Country Spine Road to join the M6 at Junction 10 or use the A4031 then the A4148 Walsall Ring Road (Broadway) to join the M6 at Junction 9. The economic effect on West Bromwich could have been very damaging.

Meanwhile, to access Dudley, traffic on the southbound M6 would have had to be directed off the motorway at Junction 10 then along the A454, A463 and A4123. Traffic heading for Dudley from the southwest would have had to leave the M5 at Quinton then follow the A456 as far as its junction with the A4123, then follow the Birmingham New Road.

While the roads under the management of Sandwell MBC would have borne the impact of the additional traffic if the full closure of Junctions 1 and 2 had gone ahead, there would also have been a lesser, but probably still significant, impact on roads within Birmingham MBC, Dudley MBC and Walsall MBC.

My understanding of the proposal was not that the entire junctions would be closed, but only the slip-roads facing into the works; thereby making J1&2 limited access accessible to/from the north and south respectively?

[brummie_rob]

So if the original idea had been adopted, it would not have been possible to join or leave the M5 between the A456 and the M6. West Bromwich would only have been accessible from the northbound M5 by going up to Ray Hall, joining the southbound M6, leaving at Junction 7, following the A34 to Scott Arms and turning right onto the A4041. The Scott Arms junction can be very busy at peak times; it would have been horrendous if it had to deal with the added volume of M5 to West Bromwich traffic. Traffic heading from West Bromwich to join the southbound M6 would have had to join the M6 from the A34 at Junction 7, while to join the northbound M6 would have required using either the A41 and the Black Country Spine Road to join the M6 at Junction 10 or use the A4031 then the A4148 Walsall Ring Road (Broadway) to join the M6 at Junction 9. The economic effect on West Bromwich could have been very damaging.

Meanwhile, to access Dudley, traffic on the southbound M6 would have had to be directed off the motorway at Junction 10 then along the A454, A463 and A4123. Traffic heading for Dudley from the southwest would have had to leave the M5 at Quinton then follow the A456 as far as its junction with the A4123, then follow the Birmingham New Road.

While the roads under the management of Sandwell MBC would have borne the impact of the additional traffic if the full closure of Junctions 1 and 2 had gone ahead, there would also have been a lesser, but probably still significant, impact on roads within Birmingham MBC, Dudley MBC and Walsall MBC.

My understanding of the proposal was not that the entire junctions would be closed, but only the slip-roads facing into the works; thereby making J1&2 limited access accessible to/from the north and south respectively?

I believe that was the case. As a few people pointed out in response to that comment from them as it has said multiple times now that they originally wanted to close the junctions that the motorway was never designed to carry local traffic too but of course it does so alongside long distance traffic, just like the M6.

I think the original estimations if the junctions were closed was the works could have been completed in a 1 year or less timescale. Not sure what difference it would make as the contraflow would still be needed.

[Bomag]

Someone went hyper risk averse I think - they've read DMRB, looked at how long a merge taper should be, decided it was impossible to achieve with 50mph running and therefore gone for 30.

This is the killer issue with HE these days, it's saturated with people who have solutions to problems no one has.

They were advised to run it at 40mph by the TTM specialists. As mentioned in TSM Chapter 8 if the weight of traffic + TTM layout chosen naturally limits speeds (at peak periods) then there is no need to go lower than 40 mph.

[Bryn666]

It genuinely worries me that my usually flippant remarks have a grain of truth to them.

[Big L]

Rahashof the story in the Express and Star. Remarkable for two things. 1st, no mention of the extra 3 months delay. 2nd, an article from this "newspaper" about roadworks that doesn't use their go-to word 'misery' even once!

[JamesA44]

One of the many things I don't like about the pretend roadworks at M5 Junction 4A is the disingenuous messages on the VMSs just before the junction.
Tonight as an example:-

TO M6 J4
VIA M42 22 MINS
VIA M5 32 MINS

Even if there were no roadworks, you wouldn't ever go all the way up the M5 to get to M6 junction 4 - so it's a nonsense.
The comparison should be to junction 9, not junction 4 ! And I'd be very interested to see what that difference was.

[Big L]

I've posted almost exactly that statement previously, I think in the 'Pointless VMS' thread.

According to the Traffic England website, there is, right now, a sign at the top end of the M40 :

Given that it would take around 10 minutes to get from there to the M5, if that sign is accurate then from the M5/M42 to M6J9 would be 28min by M5 and 38min by M42/M6.

[vlad]

The comparison should be to junction 9, not junction 4 ! And I'd be very interested to see what that difference was.

I'd hazard it's almost always quicker to head straight up the M5 rather than go round the other three sides of the box.

Given that they want to dissuade people from taking that route I can't see them advertising that it's quicker.

[Jeni]

The comparison should be to junction 9, not junction 4 ! And I'd be very interested to see what that difference was.

I'd hazard it's almost always quicker to head straight up the M5 rather than go round the other three sides of the box.

Given that they want to dissuade people from taking that route I can't see them advertising that it's quicker.

You'll be surprised at how often M42-M6 toll is quicker!

[brummie_rob]

The switchover of work to the Northbound carriageway was due to take place around now however is delayed until September.

The heatwave has meant waterproofing hasn't been able to take place in the day.

They now admit it won't be complete by Winter 2018, but will be trying to get three lanes running by then north only whilst they finish the rest of the deck.

[Big L]

It seems that roadworks are like farming. The weather is never right for them. It's always either too hot/cold/snowy/sunny/wet/dry.

[brummie_rob]

It seems that roadworks are like farming. The weather is never right for them. It's always either too hot/cold/snowy/sunny/wet/dry.

Yes seems that way. A lot of people asked on Facebook how hot countries apply waterproofing but the response was they don't need it because they don't salt or have wet winters.

I think overnight working was limited initially due to the houses near by but eventually they conceeded the only way to get it done was working overnight.

[Bendo]

Drove down that way on Friday night, managed to time it just wrong as they were closing J1 - 2, signage didn't help as the gantries were showing L2 & 3 closed with red X but them temp VMSs were showing the lane closure x yards ahead to where the cones were. They could cash in if they had a couple of coppers sat there clocking the 1000's of cars that happily pass under the red X's.

The Friday before that I was behind a Waitrose LGV that decided to ignore the L2 width restriction and was scraping down the barrier. Don't know why these people think its a good idea in a branded lorry.

[brummie_rob]

Drove down that way on Friday night, managed to time it just wrong as they were closing J1 - 2, signage didn't help as the gantries were showing L2 & 3 closed with red X but them temp VMSs were showing the lane closure x yards ahead to where the cones were. They could cash in if they had a couple of coppers sat there clocking the 1000's of cars that happily pass under the red X's.

The Friday before that I was behind a Waitrose LGV that decided to ignore the L2 width restriction and was scraping down the barrier. Don't know why these people think its a good idea in a branded lorry.

CMPG Police have been sitting waiting when the road is being closed dishing out fines for going through the Red X. It does usually appear very quickly however especially when you are usually in lane three coming from M6 SB.