M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
When one looks at the site from the air, the constraints on options are quite plain to see. With money available, but not huge, the option chosen looks pretty good to me. Clearly there is never going to be an "Almondsbury" there !
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4728
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
I'm quite a fan of the loop idea. It's like a much grander M62 J6/M57 J1. That has worked wonders for the roundabout there, albeit slightly different scenarios.
Simon
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
The loop is a reasonable attempt, my only real concern, is that the M60N middle lane of 5 to the roundabout for M62E, is potentially going to queue back between two flowing streams for M66N and M60W which will be fun for those who don't know the area and are trying to get in the right lane late. Will need to be well signed several miles back.
I presume all consultations need a 'rings' effort to show alternatives were considered.
I presume all consultations need a 'rings' effort to show alternatives were considered.
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
The right turn from the M60 to M62 is surprisingly not that heavy as everyone in the know goes up the A663/A627(M). Indeed, it's often quicker to use the "Leeds M62" lane, then the signals, and join the M60 instead of sitting in the current queue for the left turn free-flow lane...C83 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 22:57 The loop is a reasonable attempt, my only real concern, is that the M60N middle lane of 5 to the roundabout for M62E, is potentially going to queue back between two flowing streams for M66N and M60W which will be fun for those who don't know the area and are trying to get in the right lane late. Will need to be well signed several miles back.
I presume all consultations need a 'rings' effort to show alternatives were considered.
The uphill section from J19 causes a natural slowdown for traffic anyway, so it isn't going to be as hectic as you may fear.
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: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
I thought corrugated barriers were frowned upon now as they act like bacon slicers on a sliding motorcyclist?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 21:45 I'd expected a concrete barrier between J14-18 but nope. 12-14 was done.
But it seems concrete barriers are now not being installed in Area 10, the M53, M56, M65, and M67 have all been given new corrugated steel barriers. Wonder how they swung the departures for that given the traffic levels warrant concrete.
As for the Simister scheme the twin bridges looks like the illegitimate child of a Mensa quiz and Escher puzzle
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
It will still have traffic lights on a motorway. I'd prefer a scheme where the M60-M60 route was the mainline, and you turned off to get to the other routes, as per one of the suggestions on page one here.
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
No it wouldn't? The M60 to M60 movements are freeflow with the Northern Loop option. You will still need traffic lights to go between different motorways, which is regrettable but not unusual.
Well, HE haven't deigned to provide turn counts, but as the M62 is a bit busier than the M60 (S) it stands to reason that M60-M62 should retain the mainline. Note that this has always been the plan - even the 60s drawings show the mainline continuing along the M62.I'd prefer a scheme where the M60-M60 route was the mainline, and you turned off to get to the other routes, as per one of the suggestions on page one here.
One thing that is different from the 60s plan is that the M66 gets priority with the M60 clockwise merging from the left. This probably doesn't match volumes but is understandable as it saves a bridge, will match the anticlockwise arrangement, and still allows the M60 to get two dedicated lanes (double lane gain).
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
How on earth has the inner links options made it this far? It’s absolutely abysmal - all that money and I honestly think it would actually be worse than the existing situation
-
- Member
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
- Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
Let's benevolently assume that the inner-links option is a joke - included because you have to put forward a choice. Then the North Loop proposal is as much as we could expect, and will do the job, for now.
If more was affordable, I'd suggest providing a similar loop in the NW quadrant, catering for the M60 anti-clockwise to M62 movement. It could repeat the rather good design of the NE loop, including: an early diverge (shared with the new left turn jet-lanes), a long 3- or 4-span bridge, a loop on the big green space, and the eastbound ramp to the roundabout slightly bent out of the way (as on the M66 one). The loop would be smaller than the NE one, but I don't believe its radius would be a problem - ever heard about speed limits? And the M62 mainline might be too high to bridge: try a tunnel.
I realise that this right turn is not the next in order of traffic demand, but the other two are difficult. Treating a lower order movement substantially alleviates the stress on the remainder (collateral benefit). The roundabout would, with these two right turns removed, have only one conflict point to signalise. And incidentally one piece of the roundabout circulation would be rendered redundant!
If this extra cannot be afforded, the current design should at least be future proofed for this (or another) second stage.
If more was affordable, I'd suggest providing a similar loop in the NW quadrant, catering for the M60 anti-clockwise to M62 movement. It could repeat the rather good design of the NE loop, including: an early diverge (shared with the new left turn jet-lanes), a long 3- or 4-span bridge, a loop on the big green space, and the eastbound ramp to the roundabout slightly bent out of the way (as on the M66 one). The loop would be smaller than the NE one, but I don't believe its radius would be a problem - ever heard about speed limits? And the M62 mainline might be too high to bridge: try a tunnel.
I realise that this right turn is not the next in order of traffic demand, but the other two are difficult. Treating a lower order movement substantially alleviates the stress on the remainder (collateral benefit). The roundabout would, with these two right turns removed, have only one conflict point to signalise. And incidentally one piece of the roundabout circulation would be rendered redundant!
If this extra cannot be afforded, the current design should at least be future proofed for this (or another) second stage.
Last edited by Peter Freeman on Thu Jun 25, 2020 09:03, edited 1 time in total.
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
Might've been mentioned before, but - although I like the loop, I think it's good - traffic heading from Liverpool towards Ashton (i.e. M60 eastbound to M60 southbound) will need to cross A56 traffic as well as any existing traffic heading onto the roundabout.
What I mean by that is, heading east, Lane 1/2 is M60S, Lane 3 is M66, Lane 4/5/6 is M62. I think Lane 1 should be M66, Lane 2/3 M60S, and so on. That way there'd be less weaving. I'm saying that from the position of it might not be feasible to squeeze the loop bridge in...
What I mean by that is, heading east, Lane 1/2 is M60S, Lane 3 is M66, Lane 4/5/6 is M62. I think Lane 1 should be M66, Lane 2/3 M60S, and so on. That way there'd be less weaving. I'm saying that from the position of it might not be feasible to squeeze the loop bridge in...
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
The fly-through shows the access to the loop being a slip to the left of the approach to the roundabout for M66 traffic. If the loop is built, M60S would have to be signed to the inside.stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 14:51 Might've been mentioned before, but - although I like the loop, I think it's good - traffic heading from Liverpool towards Ashton (i.e. M60 eastbound to M60 southbound) will need to cross A56 traffic as well as any existing traffic heading onto the roundabout.
What I mean by that is, heading east, Lane 1/2 is M60S, Lane 3 is M66, Lane 4/5/6 is M62. I think Lane 1 should be M66, Lane 2/3 M60S, and so on. That way there'd be less weaving. I'm saying that from the position of it might not be feasible to squeeze the loop bridge in...
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
Here's how I think they could complete a full freeflow interchange.
Stage 1 - current scheme with Northern Loop.
Stage 2 - direct connector between M62 and M66.
Stage 3 - the two final freeflow movements.
Stage 1 - current scheme with Northern Loop.
Stage 2 - direct connector between M62 and M66.
Stage 3 - the two final freeflow movements.
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
Maybe the best idea is to knock it all down and do an "Almondsbury" !
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
That would involve demolishing most of the village of Simister.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
- Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
The increase to D5 between J18 and J17 might sufficiently alleviate that weaving problem. Is there a similar problem eastbound?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 16:52 Still got major concerns about weaving from J17 however - this will become a lane gain (5 lanes ALR), but you'll still need to move to the right as traffic is moving to the left. The controversial (and ultimately correct answer) if HE want to make the M60 strategic priority, not commuter priority) is to just close J17... that won't ever happen of course.
Four possible measures to address the issue:
a) Could that section fit one more lane, to make it D6, or 6W+5E ? That would slightly help the problem, but not solve it, and I'm guessing there's not quite enough space.
b) The proposed (and even the current) tiger-tail merge westbound from J18 (and perhaps also the diverge for J17) seems excessively generous and thus gobbles up the inter-junction distance. Permission to shorten these from the standard recommendation would help, marginally.
c) Instead of the D4 to D5 transition occurring by lane-gain, the fifth lane should appear spontaneously before the merge - as far as practicable before. Traffic intending to exit at J17 could thus begin moving leftwards earlier. I know of locations on Melbourne's freeways having this design, with good results.
d) The proper fix is ramp braiding. The westbound exit for J17 should diverge immediately after clearing the J18 roundabout supports, and pass below the westbound on-ramp from the roundabout, and below the left-turn free-flow ramp. It should then run parallel to and south of the main M60 carriageway, pass under Sandgate Road through a new aperture just south of the existing structure, and continue to the J17 off-ramp. This, in engineering terms, is not difficult. It's hard for me to see where some of the back-yards end, so just possibly a house or two might be needed.
Regarding closure of J17, in my opinion that's undesirable. It would lead to loss of facility for many users, and possibly increased local traffic problems. It could of course be half-closed, taking away only the east-facing ramps. Still undesirable.
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
There's no space for braiding. The best practical solution to weaving here would be small footprint C/D lanes like M8 J22-J23 or Kingston Bridge (northbound). It might, however, be tricky coming up with a lane allocation appropriate to volumes. D5 lets traffic sort that out for itself.
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
Except when folk try to take the exit from lane 5 at the 100 yard marker board.jackal wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 07:35 There's no space for braiding. The best practical solution to weaving here would be small footprint C/D lanes like M8 J22-J23 or Kingston Bridge (northbound). It might, however, be tricky coming up with a lane allocation appropriate to volumes. D5 lets traffic sort that out for itself.
Make poetry history.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
J17 is very busy - not least with traffic from the Leeds direction, for which it’s the first exit in Manchester proper. Shortening the exit slip to J17 might have the unintended consequence of reducing stacking space and introducing queues onto the mainline.Peter Freeman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 03:06The proposed (and even the current) tiger-tail merge westbound from J18 (and perhaps also the diverge for J17) seems excessively generous and thus gobbles up the inter-junction distance. Permission to shorten these from the standard recommendation would help, marginally.
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
Well, the villages of Sipson and Harmandsworth are to be demolished to build the London Airport 3rd runway !
-
- Member
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
- Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia
Re: M60 Junction 18 Simister Island Interchange
Unless there's some impediment that's not visible to me when using GSV or GE, then I think the "no space" assessment is pessimistic, or connected with engineering timidity.jackal wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 07:35 There's no space for braiding. The best practical solution to weaving here would be small footprint C/D lanes like M8 J22-J23 or Kingston Bridge (northbound). It might, however, be tricky coming up with a lane allocation appropriate to volumes. D5 lets traffic sort that out for itself.
The crossover point for the braiding would be west of the stackabout: not on the school grounds, but on the unused land surrounding the power line pylon. The new carriageway would then move close to the M60 mainline before reaching Sandgate Road. The new aperture there could probably be two lanes wide, but possibly one lane only. The new carriageway would run fairly close to housing for a while then, before transforming into the westbound J17 off ramp. The ramp would have its existing final 3-lane width extended to provide more storage.
I wouldn't recommend this solution to be part of the current project: it's the fatal scope creep. We should see how the completed bare current scheme performs (at J17 and elsewhere) - is there really a serious problem? If so, it becomes a J17, not a J18, problem, and might subsequently need addressing in that context.