M60 J10-12 proposed changes

[Squadgy]

I thought people may be interested in having a look at this Planning Application which is presently with Salford and Trafford councils for consideration. I can't find any mention of it on these forums already, so to explain :

Traffic on the M60 gets snarlled up around the Trafford Centre - Peel Holdings who own and built the Trafford Centre have proposed the construction of a new swing bridge immediately East of the existing Barton High Level Bridge.

You won't be able to get off the M60 anti-clockwise at junction 10 - instead you will leave at J11 and come over the new bridge.
If heading for Irlam or Barton Airfield you will turn right before the new bridge, under the high level bridge, head past the site of the proposed new rugby stadium and then join the existing A57.

There's also a load of other proposed changes affecting J10, J11 and J12.

All very complicated - I wonder how long it will take to be approved/ built?!

[Chris5156]

That's quite a find - and might help to sort out the usual Trafford Centre jams in that area.

I like the idea of splitting the junction either side of Barton Bridge, with a dual carriageway connecting them - won't be any faster for anybody but the extra roadspace will be very welcome.

[Squadgy]

I also find it a bit weird that Peel Holdings can make a planning application to remodel a motorway- surely the Highways Agency would need to be involved in the planning and funding?

[Roadtripper_Ian]

An interesting set of proposals. Not sure that I like their proposed chage to J12 - all Trafford Centre traffic would take the same exit as the M62 traffic before diving off down a new slip onto the existing c/d carriageway to J11. At least it means queues on roads other than the M60.

Highly amusing is the proposed Metrolink alignment on there - Peel Holdings making allowance for public transport? Must be a mistake....

[Squadgy]

The other thing to bear in mind is what would happen when a ship wants to go through - having been stuck in a queue for about 20mins on the Millennium Bridge in Trafford Park I can tell you that these bridges take about 10mins to open, ship to go through, and to reopen to traffic again.

Surely the proposed scenairo would mean traffic backing up towards the motorway

An interesting set of proposals. Not sure that I like their proposed chage to J12 - all Trafford Centre traffic would take the same exit as the M62 traffic before diving off down a new slip onto the existing c/d carriageway to J11. At least it means queues on roads other than the M60.

Well, there's a point ! That 'new' slip road actually is already there - the proposed one is pretty much in exactly the same loaction as the disused sliproad at J12 that we discussed here : Disused Slip Road M60 J12, how's that for forward planning

[Chris5156]

Surely the proposed scenairo would mean traffic backing up towards the motorway

TBH I don't think this is a major consideration - there aren't that many ships on the canal, and besides - traffic is already backing up on the motorway! At the very least this new system would prevent it from doing that all the time.

[Squadgy]

That's true Chris, but consider coming on to the feeder lane at 70mph to find a queue a short distance ahead - they'd need to be very prominent signage telling everyone to slow down!

[Haydn1971]

I've seen things like this before for places like Meadowhall - many a time it's purely speculative to get planning approval for a highway network to give confidence to future investors at a site.

In some cases the schemes are very workable, in others, sometimes the Highways Agency nor the Local Authority are consulted and feel bullied by the developer. Looking at this scheme, it seems as though Peel Holdings wish to develop a large area of land to the west of the Trafford Centre, but intellegently has, (or should i say it's consultant has) realised that adding anything else to this area would totally blow the existing J10 in terms of traffic figures.

The proposed solution is a cheap cynical attempt to get Peel Holdings permission to develop more land without doing what really is needed here and thats widening the M60 ! A similar thing happened at Meadowhall where the owner wished to extend the centre and proposed a silly access ramp from and to the lower deck of the Tinsley Viaduct, directly into the site to avoid improving the existing routes from the M1 to the site - Sheffield CC told them where to go and so should the LA in this case...

Looking at the scheme, although it looks impressive, the most costly single element would seem to be the swing bridge, at maybe £5M, then the remaining infrastructure might add up to a further £20M at a push... Widening the M60 to D4M/D5M here would be in the region of £100's of Millions due to the existing viaduct. A similar parallel could be drwn to the strengthing works on Tinsley Viaduct which are costing the HA £89M just to put back the 3rd lane on the M1 and ensure the thing doesn't fall down. Imagine a small device under the viaduct and the hell what would break loose if the viaduct was the target of a terror attack ???

[A303Chris]

I also find it a bit weird that Peel Holdings can make a planning application to remodel a motorway- surely the Highways Agency would need to be involved in the planning and funding?

In fact they do not have to involve the Highways Agency all they have to do is issue a notice under article 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Development Procedure) order 1995 on the land owner saying they are submitting a planning application that is affecting there land. Developers quite often do this on back land development put an outline application in and then once they have permission negotiate with the land owners.

With regards to funding all works will be funded by the Developer who will have to sign a Section 278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980 with the relavant Highway Authority's before work can commence. An agreement can only be entered into once Planning permission has been obtained.

We often get Notice's in on us (I am team leader of a Highways Development Control section) saying that developers are proposing to alter the highway, which we do not always agree with. We often object and argue the toss at a public inquiry.

Usually before an application is submitted developers will have approched the Highway Authority to discuss there plans, but given I can not find anything on the HA web site, they may have not in this case

Hope this helps.

Chris

[M4Simon]

Usually before an application is submitted developers will have approched the Highway Authority to discuss there plans, but given I can not find anything on the HA web site, they may have not in this case

The fact that it is not on the HA website doesn't mean much. It is not a HA promoted scheme so I wouldn't expect to see it there at this stage. Developers frequently enter into informal discussions with highway authorities prior to submitting an application on the basis that the discussions are confidential. If a developer is negotiating the purchase of a parcel of land he wouldn't want other developers to get wind of this.

Simon

[A303Chris]

[

The fact that it is not on the HA website doesn't mean much. It is not a HA promoted scheme so I wouldn't expect to see it there at this stage. Developers frequently enter into informal discussions with highway authorities prior to submitting an application on the basis that the discussions are confidential. If a developer is negotiating the purchase of a parcel of land he wouldn't want other developers to get wind of this.

Simon

Good point, but given the Freedom of Information Act and Civil Liberties, we are finding it harder to keep such things confidential.

[Hugo Nebula]

I thought people may be interested in having a look at this Planning Application which is presently with Salford and Trafford councils for consideration. I can't find any mention of it on these forums already, so to explain :

Traffic on the M60 gets snarlled up around the Trafford Centre - Peel Holdings who own and built the Trafford Centre have proposed the construction of a new swing bridge immediately East of the existing Barton High Level Bridge.

Bad idea.

Junction 11 is one which deserves to be on the CBRD Bad Junctions page due to the ridiculously short distance between J11's entry and J12's exit slips. The countdown markers start literally at the end of the northbound (clockwise) slip. How much worse will it be if all the traffic heading north from the Trafford Centre will have to use it too? At best it'll be like a dodgem track at busy times; at worst the motorway will be closed every week to clear away the crashed cars and bodies.

[Squadgy]

Hello - been away with work for a while, so sorry for not posting. Read news today that the Highways Agency has now approved this scheme (link).

Does anyone know of any link to the Highways Agency documentation regarding it?

[Nicholas]

I can see it now - the whole area will become gridlocked. A lot of traffic leaves junction 11 clockwise, especially in the afternoon peak (often queues up the length of the slip road), so to end up with two junctions' worth of traffic coming off at one junction is going to be a nightmare. Also, as said previously, to have two junctions' worth of traffic coming onto the motorway at J11, coupled with the short space between J11 and J12, that will cause a major safety risk and possibly make congestion even worse than it is now.

Given how regularly I use this section of road, both by car and bus, I can see this being a disaster.

[Ian198]

Are Trafford council still planning a new HQ nearby, presumably adding to the snarlup?

[Squadgy]

Are Trafford council still planning a new HQ nearby,

Yes they are - adjacent to the ski slope.

There are other proposals as well in the public domain in the immediate vicinity:

Port Salford (The 'final hurdle' mentioned in that report is the HA agreement to the road scheme mentioned earlier).

Water Bus terminus linking the area with Salford Quays

Racecourse

These are in addition to the Reds Stadium and the work currently underway on the Ski Slope and Barton Squareshopping centre.

Of course there's Media City UK being built justup the road too,

[Alister Storey]

I think that you'll find this is just Peel putting the feelers out. They are currently seeking permission for the development of the new race course scheme just off j13 at Worsley. This may well be a mutual back scratching excersise for major junction improvement. The whole j10 to j13 area is a nightmare, but the overall cost to the HA to improve it is prohibitive. The S278 agreement would be te only way to go.

You just have to wonder if Peel will ever manage to join Manchester & Liverpool together considering the rakes of land & planning props that they have along the ship canal/m62 corridor!!

[Mackem]

This proposal is linked to permission for the Port Salford scheme. As Peel Holdings are already running coastal services to the Ship Canal & Clydeport (both of which are owned by Peel)they were looking for a proper facility as opposed to the rather temporary looking arrrangement at Irlam. As southern ports are congested the idea is to bring containers to the ship canal, however to get past the highways agency objections from the resultant increase in traffic Peel will have to pay for this scheme.

Port Salford has been on the books for a while, but I can't see any progress. The congestion charge proposal won't help either, even though the port should be outside the charging zone.The attempt to re-open the railway at Carrington (south side of canal) was abandoned when they wouldn't give permission for a multi-modal freight terminal.

[Nicholas]

To put this in the correct topic!

Looks like the parallel link road proposal may be back on the cards.

From BBC News

A new road is being planned to ease congestion near to the Trafford Centre in Greater Manchester.

The road, which would run parallel with the M60 motorway and across the Manchester Ship Canal, has been proposed by developers Peel Holdings.

Trafford Council is due to hold a planning meeting next month to decide whether the road can be built.

The highway, which is projected to cost about £25m, would be delivered in stages over several years.

The Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme (WGIS) near to Barton Bridge would segregate traffic between "through" and local movements.

The section of the M60 it would be built next to is one of the busiest sections of the motorway network, with about 140,000 vehicles using it each day.

The new canal crossing and local feeder roads would also open up access to the Trafford Bus Station at the Trafford Centre without the need to use the motorway, a spokesman for Peel Holdings said.

[jackal]

I don't seem to be able to access the old plans linked to above, but I think this sounds like a good idea. I'm surprised others gave a more mixed response. Isn't this just the sort of decent standard parallel AP route that people always say overcapacity motorways need?

Yes, it's only proposed as a package including new developments, but as the developers are paying for it it can hardly be expected that there would be no upside for them, and the net effect has to be positive on the section of M60 that will have local traffic forcibly removed. There will be effects on other parts of the M60, but these will presumably not be too major as the HA have okayed the plan.