A456, A457 (Birmingham): Were There Plans For Further Widening?

[gepree68]

In Birmingham, both A456 and A457 were widened (from S2 to D2) in 1970s (A456) and 1980s (A457):

• A456 (between A4123 and A4030) - the light blue section
• A457 (avoiding Smethwick) - the purple section

Was any further widening planned for these two roads?

It seems odd for two D2 roads to just become S4 and S2 with no further dualling planned.

[SouthWest Philip]

A few years ago, the AZ Road Atlas and Birmingham Street Map showed the A41 having been rerouted along the A457 and A4252 between central Birmingham and the M5 which there suggests there may have been grander plans for this route. By the following editions, AZ had reverted to showing the A41 on it's original course.

[Chris Bertram]

2021-04-27 A456 A457.png

In Birmingham, both A456 and A457 were widened (from S2 to D2) in 1970s (A456) and 1980s (A457):

• A456 (between A4123 and A4030) - the light blue section
• A457 (avoiding Smethwick) - the purple section

Was any further widening planned for these two roads?

It seems odd for two D2 roads to just become S4 and S2 with no further dualling planned.

Truvelo probably had the definitive answer, but I suspect not, especially in the case of A456. Only in the stretch leading up to Five Ways were property lines moved back - and that section *was* dualled. Much of the property on the south side of that road belongs to the Calthorpe Estate, who would have been very skilful at protecting their interests. And S4 has more-or-less coped anyway. The other factor is that the dualling stops at the Birmingham city boundary, so that speaks of a lack of dialogue between Sandwell council and Birmingham council.

There are a lot of dualling schemes for which partial preparation was made in Birmingham but never implemented - I live near to a couple. You'll find service roads, properties set well back from the road line, suspiciously wide verges in various places. But not on the Hagley Road.

[Chris Bertram]

A few years ago, the AZ Road Atlas and Birmingham Street Map showed the A41 having been rerouted along the A457 and A4252 between central Birmingham and the M5 which there suggests there may have been grander plans for this route. By the following editions, AZ had reverted to showing the A41 on it's original course.

Yes, that was curious, and probably somewhat speculative. Needless to say, nothing like it ever materialised on the ground.

[ForestChav]

A few years ago, the AZ Road Atlas and Birmingham Street Map showed the A41 having been rerouted along the A457 and A4252 between central Birmingham and the M5 which there suggests there may have been grander plans for this route. By the following editions, AZ had reverted to showing the A41 on it's original course.

Yes, that was curious, and probably somewhat speculative. Needless to say, nothing like it ever materialised on the ground.

Perhaps not too dissimilar to a mid-90s AA map renumbering the A523 from A52 to the A6 as A52, and the A52 running into Stoke as the A524. Don't think that really got onto the ground either, so to speak...

[Steven]

A few years ago, the AZ Road Atlas and Birmingham Street Map showed the A41 having been rerouted along the A457 and A4252 between central Birmingham and the M5 which there suggests there may have been grander plans for this route. By the following editions, AZ had reverted to showing the A41 on it's original course.

Yes, that was curious, and probably somewhat speculative. Needless to say, nothing like it ever materialised on the ground.

Perhaps not too dissimilar to a mid-90s AA map renumbering the A523 from A52 to the A6 as A52, and the A52 running into Stoke as the A524. Don't think that really got onto the ground either, so to speak...

Well, actually, you say that but...



There are a number of signs in Newcastle town centre referring to the A524, including relatively new ones.

[Truvelo]

Truvelo probably had the definitive answer, but I suspect not, especially in the case of A456.

The A457 dualling ending where it does is almost certainly due to the boundary as already mentioned. However in 1917/1918 it was policy for main roads in Birmingham to have a right of way of 110 feet. This can be seen where dual carriageways have a wide central reservation with two rows of trees running down it. Whether or not this applied to A457 Dudley Road is unclear as it was almost continuously built up on both sides at the time making any widening impossible without a lot of demolition. A report from 1952 shows which roads were due to be widened and only the section between the inner ring and Middleway is included.

In the case of the A456 this was also built up by 1917 so the same probably applies. Again, the 1952 report makes no mention of widening this road. By the 1960s this wouldn't have mattered as the Edgbaston Expressway would have removed a lot of the traffic.

So to answer Gepree's question I believe the council in Smethwick simply wanted to divert traffic away from the town's main shopping street and didn't care about dumping the traffic back on the existing road at the boundary which would be Birmingham's problem. The A456 like many other main roads in the city was widened to provide a 110 foot right of way in places where it was possible. This obviously meant only the stretches which were still rural by 1917 ended up like this which explains why it is dualled only west of the A4040.

[Chris Bertram]

The A456 like many other main roads in the city was widened to provide a 110 foot right of way in places where it was possible. This obviously meant only the stretches which were still rural by 1917 ended up like this which explains why it is dualled only west of the A4040.

That is a stretch where the city boundary runs along the road, although the mapping suggests that the dualling was done within the Birmingham boundary. 1:25000 mapping suggests that the boundary is either along the northern highway boundary, or in the centre of the eastbound carriageway. This means that in places the streetlighting is different on each side of the road, and some weight restriction zone signs can be found on cross-turnings.

[Truvelo]

Where a road runs along the city boundary I find it is built to Birmingham's standards rather than the adjacent authority. The lighting etc is always Birmingham. Both sides of Queslett are also strictly Birmingham in character although recent replacements of lighting has seen this diminish somewhat.

[Chris Bertram]

Where a road runs along the city boundary I find it is built to Birmingham's standards rather than the adjacent authority. The lighting etc is always Birmingham. Both sides of Queslett are also strictly Birmingham in character although recent replacements of lighting has seen this diminish somewhat.

Mapping of Queslett Road is inconsistent. 1:50000 suggests that it's more in Walsall than Birmingham, but 1:25000 indicates the opposite.

[Truvelo]

Where a road runs along the city boundary I find it is built to Birmingham's standards rather than the adjacent authority. The lighting etc is always Birmingham. Both sides of Queslett are also strictly Birmingham in character although recent replacements of lighting has seen this diminish somewhat.

Mapping of Queslett Road is inconsistent. 1:50000 suggests that it's more in Walsall than Birmingham, but 1:25000 indicates the opposite.

I think the border is along the central reservation. This photo I took in 2007 shows differently spaced road markings on the Birmingham and Walsall sides along with the original lighting on the Birmingham side compared with replacements in Walsall.

[Steven]

Where a road runs along the city boundary I find it is built to Birmingham's standards rather than the adjacent authority. The lighting etc is always Birmingham. Both sides of Queslett are also strictly Birmingham in character although recent replacements of lighting has seen this diminish somewhat.

Mapping of Queslett Road is inconsistent. 1:50000 suggests that it's more in Walsall than Birmingham, but 1:25000 indicates the opposite.

I think the border is along the central reservation. This photo I took in 2007 shows differently spaced road markings on the Birmingham and Walsall sides along with the original lighting on the Birmingham side compared with replacements in Walsall.

According to the National Street Gazetteer, the westbound carriageway is maintained by Birmingham City Council, and the eastbound one by a combination of Walsall and Sandwell MBCs.

[Chris Bertram]

Mapping of Queslett Road is inconsistent. 1:50000 suggests that it's more in Walsall than Birmingham, but 1:25000 indicates the opposite.

I think the border is along the central reservation. This photo I took in 2007 shows differently spaced road markings on the Birmingham and Walsall sides along with the original lighting on the Birmingham side compared with replacements in Walsall.

According to the National Street Gazetteer, the westbound carriageway is maintained by Birmingham City Council, and the eastbound one by a combination of Walsall and Sandwell MBCs.

It's Sandwell west of the M5 overbridge and Walsall to the east of it.

[vlad]

A few years ago, the AZ Road Atlas and Birmingham Street Map showed the A41 having been rerouted along the A457 and A4252 between central Birmingham and the M5 which there suggests there may have been grander plans for this route. By the following editions, AZ had reverted to showing the A41 on it's original course.

Sometimes I wonder if A-Z number roads how they want rather than how the Council want. Was that the same edition that renumbered the eastern section of the A4540 as A34 and the western half as A41?

Perhaps not too dissimilar to a mid-90s AA map renumbering the A523 from A52 to the A6 as A52, and the A52 running into Stoke as the A524. Don't think that really got onto the ground either, so to speak...

Now that actually happened, at least if you believe the signs.

[Chris Bertram]

A few years ago, the AZ Road Atlas and Birmingham Street Map showed the A41 having been rerouted along the A457 and A4252 between central Birmingham and the M5 which there suggests there may have been grander plans for this route. By the following editions, AZ had reverted to showing the A41 on it's original course.

Sometimes I wonder if A-Z number roads how they want rather than how the Council want. Was that the same edition that renumbered the eastern section of the A4540 as A34 and the western half as A41?

Perhaps not too dissimilar to a mid-90s AA map renumbering the A523 from A52 to the A6 as A52, and the A52 running into Stoke as the A524. Don't think that really got onto the ground either, so to speak...

Now that actually happened, at least if you believe the signs.

I just dug my Birmingham A-Z out of the car. Rarely used these days, it's the 2008 edition. It shows Hagley Road West with the boundary down the middle of the road, and Queslett Road almost entirely likewise. A4540 is so-numbered all the way round, and is in the minty green colour that they were using for city ring roads, though Wolverhampton didn't get the same treatment. (Coventry isn't in this book).

And although A41 is routed via Soho Road as expected, A4252 Kenrick/Telford Way is numbered as a spur of A457, which I'm sure never happened. Now A4252 suffers from numbering confusion. The first part to open was the northern half, Kenrick way, as A4182, and that remains the number of the road around the southern side of West Bromwich. But when Telford Way opened to A457, that was A4252 and the road from the motorway junction was renumbered to fit in. However, the road markings indicate another number altogether - A4168. This does exist, but it's the road heading northward out of Dudley to the Birmingham New Road. The confusion arises because A4182/A4252 replaced a B road, have a guess, yes it was B4168 that followed Roebuck Lane and crossed the Galton Bridge, now closed to traffic. Sandwell has always had issues with numbering and signage, this is one of the more egregious examples.