The Barthomley Link saga continues (A500 West)

[fras]

Cheshire East have now approved a proposal to seek funding for working up the business case, and also planning documents for dualling the Barthomley Link, all one and a half miles of it ! If the last Labour government hadn't sloughed-off the A500 West to Cheshire CC, it would probably have been built by now, as the Highways Agency built the Hough and Shavington Bypass as a dual carriageway, and fully intended to complete the job.

http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/council_ ... ridor.aspx

[Chris5156]

If the last Labour government hadn't sloughed-off the A500 West to Cheshire CC, it would probably have been built by now, as the Highways Agency built the Hough and Shavington Bypass as a dual carriageway, and fully intended to complete the job.

Is that really true? I was under the impression that was one of the trunk roads that was due to be de-trucked in the 1997/1998 review and the Hough and Shavington Bypass was one of the schemes the HA had to build in order to get the relevant local authority to agree to take the road back - the A63 Selby Bypass was another, built as a trunk road scheme and then immediately detrunked. I wasn't aware the HA actually had any intention of doing further work on that bit of the A500.

[jackal]

The A500 Basford/Hough/Shavington bypass was the only A500 West scheme listed in the 1998 review, so the Conservatives (from whom the list was inherited) presumably had at least 140 major trunk road schemes ahead of any follow on scheme.

[wrinkly]

More details (3 months old now) of the proposal to dual the A500 on the south side between M6 J16 and the A531:

http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ie ... px?ID=1954

[Truvelo]

I'm surprised the bridges are being completely replaced and the roads above diverted. The A453 dualling kept them and added an extra span.

[wrinkly]

Options for the two overbridges are discussed in sections 3.5, 3.6, 3.10.7 and 3.10.8, all within Appendix B. It's concluded there that allowing for the possible need for temporary bridges, the online and offline options are similar in cost. Despite the wording in section 7.5(b) of the main report, I suspect the design is not yet at the stage where that decision has yet been taken.

[wrinkly]

Not sure whether this is the right thread as there's also one called just "A500".

I happened to wonder just now whether anything had happened recently on the proposal to dual the single-carriageway section of the A500 west of the M6, so I did a web search and found that Cheshire East's page on it was last updated yesterday!

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/highway ... lling.aspx

It says that the council will be making the CPO and side roads order this year.

"Making" an order is not such a big deal for a local authority scheme as it used to be (or in Wales and Scotland still is) for a trunk road scheme. Once made it has to be submitted to the DfT for confirmation, and it is at that stage that the possibility of objections and a public inquiry arises.

[brummie_rob]

I checked this page last week as everything had been quiet and it said 'due to start in 2022'. Yet a further delay on the scheme which is frustrating.

The road is much better since the J16 improvement were done however there is a regularity with the amount of cars who seem to pootle along doing 40 on here which causes a knock on effect to back the rest of the road up.

[c2R]

It's good to see this being progressed; hopefully one day there will be more improvements to come.

I've been using this route a lot recently while driving a large van - as the van tops out at about 60, it works out quicker to get to Birkenhead via this route even with the lower NSL speed limits of 50 and 60 in the van than using the M6/M56 route.

[danfw194]

Have only ever driven this at non-peak times, but I can envisage that Eastbound is no fun at all at peak times. Did the extra capacity added (I'm guessing around 2014ish based on GSV) on approach to J16 help much at all?

[Duple]

Have only ever driven this at non-peak times, but I can envisage that Eastbound is no fun at all at peak times. Did the extra capacity added (I'm guessing around 2014ish based on GSV) on approach to J16 help much at all?

Yes, in a way. But it isn't perfect.

I had read there was some disputes over land owned by the Duchy of Lancaster as they want to make use of the land which they see as "unprofitable".

Whilst googling for the above, I hadn't realised quite how much land "Prologis" actually owned around Crewe.

This is one of the CPOs, it is from 2013 though.

[jackal]

Have only ever driven this at non-peak times, but I can envisage that Eastbound is no fun at all at peak times. Did the extra capacity added (I'm guessing around 2014ish based on GSV) on approach to J16 help much at all?

Yes, in a way. But it isn't perfect.

That approach is not so bad.

But on the other side, the A500, having done a big grade separated loop around Stoke, bangs into the roundabout with only two lanes (signalised, natch).

The junction is crying out for segregated left turn lanes.

[danfw194]

That approach is not so bad.

But on the other side, the A500, having done a big grade separated loop around Stoke, bangs into the roundabout with only two lanes (signalised, natch).

The junction is crying out for segregated left turn lanes.

Is that going to make a massive difference though on the approach you talk about? I have no data to support this theory, but I would imagine probably only 10-20% of traffic making the approach is intending to take M6 South. I guess a segregated left turn lane would be a cheap, low hanging fruit to pick.

I would be wondering instead if there is any way to allow traffic wanting M6 North to use both lanes on approach, instead of just choking up the right hand lane. Of course, it goes without saying that the money-no-object solution would be to fully grade separate the junction, but it's not ever going to happen.

[Bryn666]

That approach is not so bad.

But on the other side, the A500, having done a big grade separated loop around Stoke, bangs into the roundabout with only two lanes (signalised, natch).

The junction is crying out for segregated left turn lanes.

Is that going to make a massive difference though on the approach you talk about though? I have no data to support this theory, but I would imagine probably only 10-20% of traffic making the approach is intending to take M6 South. I guess a segregated left turn lane would be a cheap, low hanging fruit to pick.

I would be wondering instead if there is any way to allow traffic wanting M6 North to use both lanes on approach, instead of just choking up the right hand lane. Of course, it goes without saying that the money-no-object solution would be to fully grade separate the junction, but it's not ever going to happen.

J16 is signalised, it's perfectly possible to remark the circulatory to allow two lanes onto the northbound M6. The reason this is not done is because British roundabout designers are absolute morons in 90% of cases and have no idea how to squeeze the most out of a roundabout before you need to do anything more expensive. I am surprised they've not repurposed the HGV bay in the middle for a bypass right turn lane avoiding the need to travel past the A500 west and B5078 entries and freeing up some conflict. This would be relatively cheap and make a huge difference. Unlike J15, which is a geometric death trap and needs rebuilding ASAP, 16 never really causes horrendous problems.

[jackal]

That approach is not so bad.

But on the other side, the A500, having done a big grade separated loop around Stoke, bangs into the roundabout with only two lanes (signalised, natch).

The junction is crying out for segregated left turn lanes.

Is that going to make a massive difference though on the approach you talk about? I have no data to support this theory, but I would imagine probably only 10-20% of traffic making the approach is intending to take M6 South. I guess a segregated left turn lane would be a cheap, low hanging fruit to pick.

I would be wondering instead if there is any way to allow traffic wanting M6 North to use both lanes on approach, instead of just choking up the right hand lane.

Yeah, I was mostly thinking about the SW and NE corners for a SLT, though it would possibly be useful in SE as well.

My main complaint with A500 east was the two lane entry. The circulatory carriageway is three lanes all the way around, so it's literally just the cost of, say, 85m of flaring so the A500 E entry can actually access the capacity on the roundabout like the A500 W entry can.

Complicating things slightly is the long layby 65m back from the junction, but it could probably lose 20m of its awe inspiring 400m+ length, or alternatively extend it 20m in the other direction to compensate.

[Bryn666]

That approach is not so bad.

But on the other side, the A500, having done a big grade separated loop around Stoke, bangs into the roundabout with only two lanes (signalised, natch).

The junction is crying out for segregated left turn lanes.

Is that going to make a massive difference though on the approach you talk about? I have no data to support this theory, but I would imagine probably only 10-20% of traffic making the approach is intending to take M6 South. I guess a segregated left turn lane would be a cheap, low hanging fruit to pick.

I would be wondering instead if there is any way to allow traffic wanting M6 North to use both lanes on approach, instead of just choking up the right hand lane.

Yeah, I was mostly thinking about the SW and NE corners for a SLT, though it would possibly be useful in SE as well.

My main complaint with A500 east was the two lane entry. The circulatory carriageway is three lanes all the way around, so it's literally just the cost of, say, 85m of flaring so the A500 E entry can actually access the capacity on the roundabout like the A500 W entry can.

Complicating things slightly is the long layby 65m back from the junction, but it could probably lose 20m of its awe inspiring 400m+ length, or alternatively extend it 20m in the other direction to compensate.

I'd be inclined to just convert it all into an extra lane... it's an awful layby and regularly causes problems with people pulling out into fast moving traffic on the left hand bend.

[jackal]

It also has a cafe van permanently parked up in it. Given the quality of the road east of here it's tantamount to serving bacon butties on a motorway HS. It probably should be converted to a lane as you say with more formal facilities provided nearby.

[fras]

That approach is not so bad.

But on the other side, the A500, having done a big grade separated loop around Stoke, bangs into the roundabout with only two lanes (signalised, natch).

The junction is crying out for segregated left turn lanes.

Is that going to make a massive difference though on the approach you talk about? I have no data to support this theory, but I would imagine probably only 10-20% of traffic making the approach is intending to take M6 South. I guess a segregated left turn lane would be a cheap, low hanging fruit to pick.

I would be wondering instead if there is any way to allow traffic wanting M6 North to use both lanes on approach, instead of just choking up the right hand lane.

Yeah, I was mostly thinking about the SW and NE corners for a SLT, though it would possibly be useful in SE as well.

My main complaint with A500 east was the two lane entry. The circulatory carriageway is three lanes all the way around, so it's literally just the cost of, say, 85m of flaring so the A500 E entry can actually access the capacity on the roundabout like the A500 W entry can.

Complicating things slightly is the long layby 65m back from the junction, but it could probably lose 20m of its awe inspiring 400m+ length, or alternatively extend it 20m in the other direction to compensate.

Problem here is that whilst the entries to the on-slips are 2-lane (as built in the 60s), the 4-lanes of the SMART motorway project mean only a single lane accesses the motorway, so if you're in the 2nd lane of the on-slip, you have to move over to the left to join the single lane access. A typical spatchcock so often used by Highways England, (now Nat Highways). There doesn't seem to be any realisation in this flawed organisation that it's no good increasing capacity on the motorway if you ignore the junctions. Fortunately the revised Jn 16 (M6 North to A566 North), does seem to work reasonably well, (I 've come this way several times in the past few weeks).

[droopsnoot]

I checked this page last week as everything had been quiet and it said 'due to start in 2022'. Yet a further delay on the scheme which is frustrating.

Now updated to say "main works to start in 2024".

[fras]

I checked this page last week as everything had been quiet and it said 'due to start in 2022'. Yet a further delay on the scheme which is frustrating.

Now updated to say "main works to start in 2024".

If you think this is bad, Middlewich has been waiting for a bypass for at least 27 years, probably longer !
When Highways England handed over the A500 West to Cheshire CC in the 1997 Labour government sloughing off of one third of the Strategic Road Network, (with no money transfer, of course), HE had completed the dual carriageway Hough bypass to Nantwich. I wrote to the Cheshire CC at the time, enquiring about Cheshire CC completing the dualling to the M6, and was fobbed off. The writer of the letter stated they saw no need for improvement !