M6(Toll) Some interesting facts

jim · Post by **jim** » Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:42

Following the recent Awayday, one of the subjects we talked about was the M6(Toll). Some interesting facts about the road emereged from what each of us knew.
1. The road cost approx ?485.5 million to build, that's nearly ?18 million pounds a mile. A foot note to this is that the West Coast rail line upgrade is costing ?12 million per mile.
2. The road will link into the exsiting network via a main carriageway link in order to encourage more people to use it. I.e.more money for Midand Expressway Ltd.
3. The road will have a concrete suface the biggest concrete layer ever use in the UK has been brought in from France especially for the job.
4. The M6(Toll) is also the biggest single road contract ever tendered in the UK.
5. The old unused GSJ flyover mounds at the bottom of the A38 are to be used in the scheme.
6. There is talk of 'single-ing' some of the exsiting A5 near to the new road after completion.
7. The M6(Toll) is due open in Jan 2004.
8. The M74 extension into glasgow city centre and the M4 diversion in south Wales may also be the next toll roads. People will be looking to see how well this one does first.
Cheers Jim.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:59

Jim, you left your Colourmaster Northern England map in the pub on Saturday. Suffice to say, I have it for safe keeping. Do you want me to post it back to you? If so, mail me privately.
Paul

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Nov 15, 2002 13:02

Also, you could expand on point 5), or add this as 9):
All the earthworks that need to be constructed will use aggreagates extracted locally, and a s much use will be made of earth cleared from one section of the road's course for another section. This will save x thousand lorry journeys and cut down on localised pollution, etc.
X = number to follow
Paul

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Nov 15, 2002 13:04

Lifted from http://www.bnrr.co.uk/environment/en_mi.htm(knew it was there somewhere):

Some 3 million tonnes of sand and gravel will be re-used in the construction as special fills and aggregates for concrete and drainage. 1.5 million will be processed as premium aggregates for concrete to form the foundation layers for the road. This will reduce the need for externally quarried materials, which would have to be brought to the site by road. This and the use of our site concrete production plants will save some 400,000 lorry journeys to and from the site.

Paul

Roadtripper_Ian · Post by **Roadtripper_Ian** » Sat Nov 16, 2002 09:44

Concrete???????
Another reason not to use it.
Ian

M4Simon · Post by **M4Simon** » Sat Nov 16, 2002 11:15

Ian: <<Concrete??????? Another reason not to use it.>>
Sorry, I am missing the point here. The web site is saying that most aggregates are extracted from within the site and re-used saving 400,000 lorry movements by road - this has to be a good thing.
If you didn't build your road base out of concrete you'd have to build it out of a bitumin -bound material, the main constituent of which is exactly the same as concrete - i.e. aggregates. If you can't get them on site, you have to bring them in.
No matter what foundations you use, the wearing course (or according to the latest version of the Specification for Highway Works, the Surface Course) can be made of asphalt with the lower noise levels that that usually asociated with a concrete road.
Cheers,
Simon

M4Simon · Post by **M4Simon** » Sat Nov 16, 2002 11:20

Oooops, just re-read the first message in this thread and realised what the point about concrete was!
I imagine they have chosen concrete because it requires less maintenance than black top and works out cheaper in thelong run.
I'd be interested to know how they have dealt with the noise issues, though.
Simon

jim · Post by **jim** » Sun Nov 17, 2002 13:04

I imagine they have chosen concrete because it requires less maintenance than black top and works out cheaper in thelong run.
I'd be interested to know how they have dealt with the noise issues, though.
Yes I thought this too and yes again they must have chosen a concrete surface due to the cost savings long term. After I wrote the initial this a firgot to include what Paul had mentioned about the use of exavated materials in a more logical way around the site. Its for all these points that I think the M6(Toll) could become a seminal road in Britain, but we will just have to see if anyone uses it. Another point which was made at the Awayday was what happens late at night when the traffic is a little quieter would'nt the old M6 still be the cheaper alternative? As we don't know any details about toll charges this is difficult to say. Although when I once lived in Hull some people did go round the M62 / M18 / M180 to avoid paying the Humber Bridge toll.
Jim

RichardA35 · Post by **RichardA35** » Mon Nov 18, 2002 07:09

Having been on a couple of site visits to BNRRI wasinformed that the final surface is to be a thin asphalt wearing course.
This ties in with the phrase <<processed as premium aggregates for concrete to form the foundation layers for the road.>>

For those aware of technical specs the concrete pavement is being laid as a CRCP (Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement) which since 1999 (on HA roads at least) has to be overlaid with a thin asphalt wearing course. It is very unlikely we will ever again see a concrete running surface on a new road in this country.
See also http://www.bnrr.co.uk/environment/en_no.htm
PS I think the concrete paver is Swiss and was already in the country having been bought by Alfred McAlpine some years ago for jobs like Alconbury - Peterborough on the A1(M)
Hope this helps
Richard

Roadtripper_Ian · Post by **Roadtripper_Ian** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 17:21

I take it that the addition of the thin concrete layer to design specs is newer than the M1 east of Leeds. The concrete sections on there are *awful*. So will the BNRR sound like asphalt (sssssshhhhhhhhhsssssssssshhhhhhhhhh) or Concrete (rrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaraaaararaaaaaaaaaraaaaaaaaaaaraaaaaaaaraaaaaaara)?
Ian

c2R · Post by **c2R** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 17:53

I actually prefer concrete sections of motorway (provided they're not so worn out that the slabs are visibly at different levels - like the M11 between 6 and 7 used to be before resurfacing). It seems less prone to lorry tracks caused by the weight of the trucks in the slow lane, it's also much more visually appealing, and I like the road noise!
Chris.

Chris5156 · Post by **Chris5156** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 18:47

A690: <<I take it that the addition of the thin concrete layer to design specs is newer than the M1 east of Leeds. The concrete sections on there are *awful*.>>
Yes - very bumpy and very very noisy. So noisy, in fact, that the cost savings have been balanced out by the amount of low-noise surfacing that Yorkshire Link (the DBFO company operating it) have had to apply since then. About half the section around Garforth has been done and local councillors and MPs are pushing the company to get the rest done - it's a big improvement.
C2R: <<it's also much more visually appealing>>
I'd disagree there - brand new tarmac, all shiny black, with crisp white lines looks very neat and tidy- much better than the deeply textured grey of concrete with white linescamouflaged onits pale surface.
Chris

RichardA35 · Post by **RichardA35** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 16:11

<<I take it that the addition of the thin concrete layer to design specs is newer than the M1 east of Leeds. The concrete sections on there are *awful*. So will the BNRR sound like asphalt (sssssshhhhhhhhhsssssssssshhhhhhhhhh) or Concrete (rrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaraaaararaaaaaaaaaraaaaaaaaaaaraaaaaaaaraaaaaaara)?>>
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't quite clear- the addition is of a 30mm or so asphalt (tarmac) layer on top of the concrete layer so the BNRR will sound like <<sssssshhhhhhhhhsssssssssshhhhhhhhhh>>
Well put I might add!!!
Rereading the design note, concrete road surfaces are now banned unless exceptionally allowed by the Highways Agency. This ban includes the whisper type concrete surfaces such as on part of the A13 west of M25or A449 Usk area

mnb20 · Post by **mnb20** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 19:41

Yesterday's Autocar had an article about road surfacing, and particularly porous asphalt. Apparently the HA have changed their policy and will no longer specify it anywhere (the article said they had "banned" it) on cost grounds. They had photos looking out of a car driving in heavy rain on normal hot-rolled asphalt and on porous asphalt. The difference in visibility due to spray was amazing. They said that wet roads with it were also much less slippery.
Apparently the surfacing now used in the UKis based on finer chippings than that traditionally used in hot rolled asphalt. There's a name for it but I've forgotten what it is. This is supposedly better than the old stuff in terms of spray, but nowhere near as good as the porous stuff, but it's a lot cheaper.
Porous asphalt is used on some parts of the M25, the A34 Newbury bypass, and probably any trunk roads surfaced at about the same time as those.