M621 (was M1) Leeds

[c2R]

I can't help thinking the money would be better spent on the M1 between the M62 and M621 - the amount of weaving that occurs here, and queueing on the M1 southbound in lane three during evening peak is a bit of an accident waiting to happen....

Perhaps by separating the M621 and M1 southbound traffic before the merge point into either M1 or M62 and then braiding the separate carriageways to remove the conflicts... although I suspect I've more than blown the budget!

[hat]

what i can never work out is why it has taken so long to put some decent lighting in the tunnels

[wrinkly]

The westbound entry slip at junction 2 is particularly fearsome, as it's completely blind until the last minute and the merge is very short even for a 50 mph limit.

The easiest thing to do there would be to convert the hard shoulder to a weaving lane as far as the J1 exit.

And the westbound entry from junction 4 is possibly the only place on the motorway network where you have to merge twice to stay on the main line, within the space of a mile. The combination of the tight bend on the sliproad and entering in the exit lane for the next junction (all of 300 yards away) makes the entry itself pretty hairy too.

I doubt they'll do anything there. Do we know the scale of budget?

what i can never work out is why it has taken so long to put some decent lighting in the tunnels

Do you mean on the A58(M)? That's Leeds City Council.

[jackal]

And the westbound entry from junction 4 is possibly the only place on the motorway network where you have to merge twice to stay on the main line, within the space of a mile. The combination of the tight bend on the sliproad and entering in the exit lane for the next junction (all of 300 yards away) makes the entry itself pretty hairy too.

I doubt they'll do anything there. Do we know the scale of budget?

This can be fixed simply and cheaply by reassigning lanes as shown below (red). For bonus points they could put in a physical barrier (blue) to eliminate weaving on the westbound carriageway. The road is D3M, so you could have two lanes to the left of the barrier and one lane plus hardstrip to the right.

[Chris5156]

This can be fixed simply and cheaply by reassigning lanes as shown below (red). For bonus points they could put in a physical barrier (blue) to eliminate weaving on the westbound carriageway. The road is D3M, so you could have two lanes to the left of the barrier and one lane plus hardstrip to the right.

That's 3 to 2A, not 4 to 3. I don't think you could do the same there to solve the problems between 4 and 3.

[jackal]

This can be fixed simply and cheaply by reassigning lanes as shown below (red). For bonus points they could put in a physical barrier (blue) to eliminate weaving on the westbound carriageway. The road is D3M, so you could have two lanes to the left of the barrier and one lane plus hardstrip to the right.

That's 3 to 2A, not 4 to 3. I don't think you could do the same there to solve the problems between 4 and 3.

I think lefthandedspanner was referring to this section when he said 'merge twice to stay on the main line, within the space of a mile'? Though I certainly could have been clearer that I was referring to 3 to 2A specifically.

[Bryn666]

I still query the point of 2A. Given it's numbered 2A, I think HE might do too

[Chris5156]

That's 3 to 2A, not 4 to 3. I don't think you could do the same there to solve the problems between 4 and 3.

I think lefthandedspanner was referring to this section when he said 'merge twice to stay on the main line, within the space of a mile'? Though I certainly could have been clearer that I was referring to 3 to 2A specifically.

Hmmm. I see what you mean. You do have to merge twice to stay on the mainline from 4 westbound - once to get out of the lane gain that is then dropped at 3, and a second time to move over before the next lane drop at 2A.

I still query the point of 2A. Given it's numbered 2A, I think HE might do too

It does seem particularly pointless, especially given the trouble it causes with weaving. You can easily get from the local roads there to the M621 by taking Elland Road towards junction 2, or (given the layout of the junction I think this is its purpose) from Beeston and Hunslet Carr to the M621 or central Leeds by taking Dewsbury Road direct to junction 3 or Tunstall Road to junctions 4 and 5. It must be near the top of the list of junctions on trunk road motorways that could be closed entirely without any noticeable inconvenience to its users.

I'm not at all clear why it was given the number 2A or when. It doesn't appear to have been added later, certainly not later than the present junction numbering scheme circa 1998.

[lefthandedspanner]

This can be fixed simply and cheaply by reassigning lanes as shown below (red). For bonus points they could put in a physical barrier (blue) to eliminate weaving on the westbound carriageway. The road is D3M, so you could have two lanes to the left of the barrier and one lane plus hardstrip to the right.

That's 3 to 2A, not 4 to 3. I don't think you could do the same there to solve the problems between 4 and 3.

I think lefthandedspanner was referring to this section when he said 'merge twice to stay on the main line, within the space of a mile'? Though I certainly could have been clearer that I was referring to 3 to 2A specifically.

It's a very odd setup, but unless it has an obviously detrimental effect I'd not necessarily want to change it.

On the other hand, junction 2 gets massively overloaded for 2-3 hours either side of peak times, so any route which diverts additional traffic from it is very welcome.

(Also, for what it's worth, earlier this year I was hors de combat due to a crippling injury, had to get to and from LGI/St. James's via patient transport, and that junction was completely gridlocked from 2-7 pm. God help anyone in south Leeds who needs an ambulance within an hour of calling 999!)

[jackal]

The brochure has been uploaded ahead of the consultation, which opens on 4 Sep.

They're closing 2A westbound as per Bryn. I see the logic but I think you can achieve the same without closing 2A by putting in the barrier I sketched above. On the whole it's a pretty sensible package of improvements though.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... ns-1-to-7/

[Bryn666]

Outside lane gain... how very non-standard! Meanwhile they want to get rid of the one at M60 J25.

[AndrewH]

Surely making J2 free flowing and adding extra capacity will just mean people will be able to join the queue for the lights at the Armley Gyratory quicker. The traffic already backs up halfway down the Ingram Distributer at peak times, this will probably mean traffic will back up the full length instead.

[wrinkly]

Surely making J2 free flowing and adding extra capacity will just mean people will be able to join the queue for the lights at the Armley Gyratory quicker. The traffic already backs up halfway down the Ingram Distributer at peak times, this will probably mean traffic will back up the full length instead.

Yeah but that's LCC's problem, not HE.

[85CF380]

I can't help thinking the money would be better spent on the M1 between the M62 and M621 - the amount of weaving that occurs here, and queueing on the M1 southbound in lane three during evening peak is a bit of an accident waiting to happen....

Perhaps by separating the M621 and M1 southbound traffic before the merge point into either M1 or M62 and then braiding the separate carriageways to remove the conflicts... although I suspect I've more than blown the budget!

I agree. M1 j43 needs some money spending on it as it can't cope with the evening rush hour traffic & the large amount of weaving created by it's design.

[Owain]

Surely making J2 free flowing and adding extra capacity will just mean people will be able to join the queue for the lights at the Armley Gyratory quicker. The traffic already backs up halfway down the Ingram Distributer at peak times, this will probably mean traffic will back up the full length instead.

Yeah but that's LCC's problem, not HE.

Ideally, the Armley gyratory would allow traffic to flow freely from the A58(M) onto the A643, which would make a continuous dualled route all the way from the A64 to the M621. Even if the money and the will were forthcoming, the railway arches would provide something of an obstacle.

[James1978]

Got a historic question about this road, I have only vague memories of this, but did the ex-M1 section used to have white junction signs instead of blue ones in the 80s? I vaguely remember travelling on that section once in the late 80s as a child going on holiday and being surprised at them, but they would have been gone by 1992 if they ever existed (as we used that section again that year and they were definitely blue by then).

So can anyone remember, did these white signs definitely exist, and if so, what timeframe and what section of road were they used on?

[Bryn666]

You are correct - the M1 was an experimental length for that.

[wrinkly]

Press release

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/find ... 1-in-leeds

[Conekicker]

The hardshoulder on the M621 tends to be on the narrow side, with little to no scope for widening in many places. It will be interesting to see how they convert it into an extra running lane. Presumably whatever the overall width of blacktop is will simply be divided up across the required number of lanes, albeit narrow ones.

[Bryn666]

It'll be a Manchester fix... wait until the DMRB wonks see it and have a fit.