Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by ABB125 »

Some preliminary designs for the upgrade of Lofthouse junction between the M1 and M62 have been revealed by National Highways.

Options are:
  • Build a new roundabout :roll:
  • Add a single free-flow right-turn sliproad in the opposite quadrant to the current free-flow sliproads
  • Convert the junction to a 4-level stack
I think I've interpreted the brochure correctly, but they it isn't very clear as to whether "free-flow" means "actual free-flow" or "National Highways free-flow which is anything but". Other options were considered, but discounted according to the consultation brochure. I haven't yet found any documentation showing what these were.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... sultation/
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ure_V5.pdf
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by Bryn666 »

ABB125 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 13:41 Some preliminary designs for the upgrade of Lofthouse junction between the M1 and M62 have been revealed by National Highways.

Options are:
  • Build a new roundabout :roll:
  • Add a single free-flow right-turn sliproad in the opposite quadrant to the current free-flow sliproads
  • Convert the junction to a 4-level stack
I think I've interpreted the brochure correctly, but they it isn't very clear as to whether "free-flow" means "actual free-flow" or "National Highways free-flow which is anything but". Other options were considered, but discounted according to the consultation brochure. I haven't yet found any documentation showing what these were.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... sultation/
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ure_V5.pdf
It's got to be the full free-flow for me as it fits in the existing footprint and is a million times better than any roundabout hybrid. Any other option is a waste of time, especially ones that require retention of aging structures that already look ready to collapse despite £lots of work.
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
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by KeithW »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 13:45 It's got to be the full free-flow for me as it fits in the existing footprint and is a million times better than any roundabout hybrid. Any other option is a waste of time, especially ones that require retention of aging structures that already look ready to collapse despite £lots of work.
Option C reminds me somewhat of the A66/A19 free-flow junction which copes very well with high volumes of turning traffic 40 years on from its opening. Its curves are a little tight but there seems to be more room available at Lofthouse.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.56404 ... !1e3?hl=en
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by jackal »

Option A is pointless, and so obviously so that they are surely only presenting it to show that a smaller scale option is not viable. 2.5 years to construct and as they say, the existing traffic problems may return within five years! And as all four roundabout bridges are replaced with wider versions it would presumably cost ~£200m... for what they admit is only a temporary solution. A total non-starter - burning cash for the sake of it.

The Option B approach of an extra direct connector is normally sensible, but at this location it is devalued by (1) the dire structural state of the existing bridges that it plans to reuse (the only option that does so, so in that respect worse than A even) and (2) the very high volumes, which necessitate full freeflow. As they say, this option is also a temporary solution, only buying ten years until delays return. Even so, it's clearly better than A as it is at least an incremental step towards a long term solution (it basically builds C's fourth level connector).

Option C is perfect. The option of replacing the roundabout level of a stackabout with two direct connectors has been discussed on here several times previously, and it's great to see it being taken up by this option. It must be easier at Lofthouse as, unusually, the roundabout is the top level, so there're no bridge supports to get in the way. The one concern I've had with this approach is disruption, as you are likely to have a gap between the roundabout closing and the connectors opening. I see they propose a four year construction period, so maybe they're doing clever things to minimise that gap, and six of eight movements can certainly stay open throughout.

In short, they've come up with the clearly correct answer - we can all at last retire our Lofthouse crayons. Now we just have to hope that C is actually selected.
astondb9
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 23:51

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by astondb9 »

Do Highways England reports usually admit some options will only help temporarily? They seem to have already made their mind up which one is the one to go for.
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by A303Chris »

Has to be free flow, the first two are pointless given the structures are shot for the first one and the new roundabout is screwed again within 15 years.

It seems NH want the third one and are desperately making a case for it.
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by Bryn666 »

A303Chris wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:54 Has to be free flow, the first two are pointless given the structures are shot for the first one and the new roundabout is screwed again within 15 years.

It seems NH want the third one and are desperately making a case for it.
Looks like they found a good consultant for a change, and not a fee-grabbing imbecile group that take the money and run. Wonders never cease.
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
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by A303Chris »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:56
A303Chris wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:54 Has to be free flow, the first two are pointless given the structures are shot for the first one and the new roundabout is screwed again within 15 years.

It seems NH want the third one and are desperately making a case for it.
Looks like they found a good consultant for a change, and not a fee-grabbing imbecile group that take the money and run. Wonders never cease.
Was thinking the same, shame they were not employed on the M25 J10 Wisley scheme, if ever a scheme needed free flow that was it!
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by jackal »

Come to think of it it would actually be a five level stack:

1. S to W (existing)
2. M1 (existing)
3. M62 and B6135 (existing)
4. E to N and W to S (replacing roundabout)
5. S to E (new)

Of course it does not dedicate a level to local traffic like a Texan five level stack does, and is functionally more similar to a four level stack.
A303Chris wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:54 the new roundabout is screwed again within 15 years.
They actually say within 5 years! How can they present such an option with a straight face?
A303Chris wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 15:03
Bryn666 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:56 Looks like they found a good consultant for a change, and not a fee-grabbing imbecile group that take the money and run. Wonders never cease.
Was thinking the same, shame they were not employed on the M25 J10 Wisley scheme, if ever a scheme needed free flow that was it!
Remember that one of the consulted options for Wisley was really good too, and the terrible selected design is actually pretty similar to option A here...
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by c2R »

jackal wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 15:48 Come to think of it it would actually be a five level stack:

1. S to W (existing)
2. M1 (existing)
3. M62 and B6135 (existing)
4. E to N and W to S (replacing roundabout)
5. S to E (new)

Of course it does not dedicate a level to local traffic like a Texan five level stack does, and is functionally more similar to a four level stack.
A303Chris wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:54 the new roundabout is screwed again within 15 years.
They actually say within 5 years! How can they present such an option with a straight face?
A303Chris wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 15:03
Bryn666 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:56 Looks like they found a good consultant for a change, and not a fee-grabbing imbecile group that take the money and run. Wonders never cease.
Was thinking the same, shame they were not employed on the M25 J10 Wisley scheme, if ever a scheme needed free flow that was it!
Remember that one of the consulted options for Wisley was really good too, and the terrible selected design is actually pretty similar to option A here...
I think the difference with Wisley is that isn't not motorway to motorway and it's in the middle of a green belt forest...
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by WHBM »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:56 Looks like they found a good consultant for a change, and not a fee-grabbing imbecile group that take the money and run. Wonders never cease.
OK, which one of us was it then ... :)
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by jackal »

c2R wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 16:13
jackal wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 15:48 Come to think of it it would actually be a five level stack:

1. S to W (existing)
2. M1 (existing)
3. M62 and B6135 (existing)
4. E to N and W to S (replacing roundabout)
5. S to E (new)

Of course it does not dedicate a level to local traffic like a Texan five level stack does, and is functionally more similar to a four level stack.
A303Chris wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:54 the new roundabout is screwed again within 15 years.
They actually say within 5 years! How can they present such an option with a straight face?
A303Chris wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 15:03

Was thinking the same, shame they were not employed on the M25 J10 Wisley scheme, if ever a scheme needed free flow that was it!
Remember that one of the consulted options for Wisley was really good too, and the terrible selected design is actually pretty similar to option A here...
I think the difference with Wisley is that isn't not motorway to motorway and it's in the middle of a green belt forest...
I'm not sure motorway vs non-motorway is that important. Perhaps surprisingly the volumes of traffic are quite similar at Wisley and Lofthouse: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19910&p=907487#p907487

The forest is an important difference, yes. Also Lofthouse is, I'm sure, much easier to convert to a full stack - it's bigger, has one freeflow right turn already, and because the roundabout is the top level there are no head scratching questions like "how am I going to get two 50mph slip roads through through here or under here?" The stack design they came up with for Wisley (see below) involved putting two extra levels on top, and leaving an empty level where the roundabout used to be, which was always going to be intrusive and expensive compared to reusing the roundabout level as at Lofthouse.

18.jpg
Last edited by jackal on Mon Nov 01, 2021 17:07, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by c2R »

I like the consultation questionnarie on other things that they should consider. I've suggested that if money is no object I'd like braiding between Lofthouse and Belle Isle....
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by c2R »

jackal wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 16:40 I'm not sure motorway vs non-motorway is that important. Perhaps surprisingly the volumes of traffic are quite similar at Wisley and Lofthouse: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19910&p=907487#p907487

The forest is an important difference, yes. Also Lofthouse is, I'm sure, much easier to convert to a full stack - it's bigger, has one freeflow right turn already, and because the roundabout is the top level there are no head scratching questions like "how am I going to get a two 50mph slip roads through through here or under here?"
I think it's a bit important because there are a number of property accesses including RHS Wisley on both sides of the A3 south of Wisley, with vehicles requiring turning movements - also that the roundabout is used by equestrians and cyclists avoiding the steep climb up the flyover - there are bridlepath accesses to the roundabout: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3228091 ... 384!8i8192

Not that I'm condoning that sort of highway design - it's :censored: appalling.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by jackal »

c2R wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 16:49
jackal wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 16:40 I'm not sure motorway vs non-motorway is that important. Perhaps surprisingly the volumes of traffic are quite similar at Wisley and Lofthouse: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19910&p=907487#p907487

The forest is an important difference, yes. Also Lofthouse is, I'm sure, much easier to convert to a full stack - it's bigger, has one freeflow right turn already, and because the roundabout is the top level there are no head scratching questions like "how am I going to get a two 50mph slip roads through through here or under here?"
I think it's a bit important because there are a number of property accesses including RHS Wisley on both sides of the A3 south of Wisley, with vehicles requiring turning movements - also that the roundabout is used by equestrians and cyclists avoiding the steep climb up the flyover - there are bridlepath accesses to the roundabout: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3228091 ... 384!8i8192

Not that I'm condoning that sort of highway design - it's :censored: appalling.
I felt the stuff about NMUs was a bad excuse at Wisley, as the cost of dedicated routes and bridges for them is minor in the context of a hundreds of millions of pounds junction upgrade. But fair point about property accesses - it's definitely simpler to go full freeflow at Lofthouse.
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by JammyDodge »

jackal wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:44 In short, they've come up with the clearly correct answer - we can all at last retire our Lofthouse crayons. Now we just have to hope that C is actually selected.
A seems to be just a, look at the utterly useless design that is cheap and won't work
B isn't a terrible option, as it is basically C without 2 links, not desirable, but that can always be fixed in post, lol
But of course the clearly preferred solution, even by NH is of course C. If done properly and built, I can see it being unchanged for a good 50 years
c2R wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 16:43 I like the consultation questionnarie on other things that they should consider. I've suggested that if money is no object I'd like braiding between Lofthouse and Belle Isle....
Braiding would certainly be desirable, but I can live with it being sorted 10-15 years down the line

Edit: I responded to the consultation and commented that the need for braiding in the future between J42 and J43 should be considered in the design of option C, hoping that is the one carried forward
Last edited by JammyDodge on Mon Nov 01, 2021 20:52, edited 1 time in total.
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by JammyDodge »

jackal wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:44 we can all at last retire our Lofthouse crayons
I got the crayons out

J42-43 theoretical braiding solution
M1 J42-43 Braid.jpg
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by Truvelo »

I sent my response to HA, HE, NH or whatever it is known as these days. I made my views clear by strongly supporting option C and ridiculed the rest.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
NICK 647063
Member
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 17:48
Location: Leeds

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by NICK 647063 »

The only viable option is C! I assume when it says the interchange is used by 75,000 vehicles daily it literally means the actual roundabout as the M1 and M62 both have much higher flows, the roundabout is ridiculous at the moment heading on the M62 westbound and wanting the M1 north you are on the roundabout where people can’t seem to deal with a 2 lane exit, only for the 2 lane exit to the M1 to reduce to 1 lane and then to add in you have traffic from the M62 eastbound to M1 northbound having to merge with your slip, I was actually nearly rammed here the other night as all lanes were busy I let one joint from the M62 but the second car didn’t understand the dashed line and well how can I say was very unpleasant, free flow is badly needed here with far longer better merges.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Lofthouse Junction Upgrade Consultation

Post by jackal »

JammyDodge wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 20:52
jackal wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 14:44 we can all at last retire our Lofthouse crayons
I got the crayons out

J42-43 theoretical braiding solution
M1 J42-43 Braid.jpg
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Your sketch has the right idea but it has mainline weaving north of M1 J43 on both M1 and M621, and it also severs access from the M1 to M621 J7. This plan resolves these issues:

M1 M621 - Copy.JPG

The basic concept is the same as yours, i.e., (1) remove the M1 TOTSO and (2) resolve route choice at Lofthouse (J42) north of J43. So the section between J42 and J43 consists of the M1 mainline (inner carriageways) and extended slips from Lofthouse (outercarriageways). But there are also C/D lanes (M1) and braiding (M621) north of J43 to handle weaving there while maintaining full access.

It might actually be possible to fit all of the C/D lanes under existing bridges, which have a decent amount of space, though the speed limit may have to be dropped in places as sightlines would suffer. The M1 J43 to J44 C/D lanes would just be 2+2, so fit under the Wakefield road bridge, which is D3M plus verge. J42 to J43 definitely fits for 3+2, accommodating two lanes for the turning movements at Lofthouse as at present. (3+3, allowing three lanes for the turning movements, might require the Sharp Lane bridge to be replaced, though I'm not convinced the extra lane is actually needed if weaving issues are resolved.)

J43 itself would need one new bridge (the existing bridge is the other bridge needed there) and two more are required for the braiding north of there. So though this looks very complex it may require only three new bridges, and the only significant landtake is for J43 and the braiding north of there.
Post Reply