Interact
Interact


Bolton Wigan link road.

Started by: gaffer (6917) 

Started: 14th Jan 2022 at 13:32

Posted by: Tommy Two Stroke (8629)

I heard about that a few months back, and the government want the link from the M58 to the new A49 link road, be a dual carriageway, following the route225 along the old railway line, instead of going down Sniffy Brook Road

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 14:19

Posted by: tonker (24559) 


“Bolton and Wigan councils are set to work together to push for the massive infrastructure project which would link junction 5 of M61 with junction 28 of the M6.”

Hmmmm.?

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 15:08

Posted by: Tommy Two Stroke (8629)

Bolton Council, never had or has any interest in building the final half mile of that link road through Bolton territory, because they cannot and could not see of it being any benefit to Bolton, and that was why AGMA and TFGM were set up to integrate the transport infrastructure, throughout the Greater Mankland area, regardless of local authority boundaries.
Take the guided busway from Leigh to Manchester, it runs through Wigan Metro, apart from the last few hundred yards, when it is in Salford, before TFGM, if Wigan had asked Salford to build the last bit of the busway, Salford would have told Wigan to eff off

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 15:27

Posted by: tonker (24559) 

“ project which would link junction 5 of M61 with junction 28 of the M6.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 15:49

Posted by: Tommy Two Stroke (8629)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm indeed

I cannot see them reviving RootA5225 that would have the road going through Hingley, and then swinging towards Westhoughton, and travelling along Quickytuss Way, and up to the motorway.

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 16:01

Posted by: broady (17542) 

Was it not some Nun’s that objected to the route last time around. I think the routes were colour coded.

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 16:20

Posted by: GOLDEN BEAR (4429) 

Well if it takes as long to do,, as the Goose Green /Poolstock by -pass with all that particular planning etc , i don't think i will see it in my lifetime ,or even toward's the next millienium ,,GB

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 16:29

Posted by: Tommy Two Stroke (8629)

Broady

Gaffer posted this in 2008

"From the Lancashire County Council archives. Report by W M Johnson MBE BEng CEng FICE FIHT titled Aintree, Slelmersdale, M6 motorway and the proposed extension to the M61.

In September 1966, the County Surveyor was authorised by the Committee to examine a proposed route for an eastward extension of what was then the about-to-be-constructed Skelmersdale-Upholland By Pass, through the southern fringes of the County Borough of Wigan, to the Manchester-Preston Motorway M61. A bridge had been provided when M61 was constructed to allow for the junction with such a road. As previously stated, this proposed road was, at the time, referred to as Route 225 though the route with that number in the 1949 Road Plan for Lancashire had, in fact, been a link between the centres of Wigan and Bolton.



The County Surveyor had clearly been doing some lobbying when, in July 1967, he reported that the Ministry had asked him, jointly with the Borough Engineer of Wigan, to carry out an appraisal of a possible new East-West Motorway to the South of Wigan. He had, of course, previously been authorised by the Committee to study a proposed route and so a lot of groundwork had already been done. The joint report had been completed in February 1967. Three possible alternative routes were suggested. Line A ran very close to the centre of Wigan, joining the Skelmersdale Regional Road at M6 to the end of the Westhoughton By Pass at Amberswood Common. This route was not really recommended because it involved considerable engineering and planning difficulties and would rapidly become overloaded. Line B linked the same two points using the trackbed of the Pemberton Loop [rail] Line which was expected to close. This route apparently caused unacceptable problems in Ince. Line C, towards which members were being steered, was similar but from the Pemberton Loop Line it ran eastwards alongside existing railways to Amberswood Common. All three routes required completely new links into Wigan. Line C provided the shortest route for through traffic but demanded a greater length of links in view of its relative remoteness from the centre of Wigan. The Committee unsurprisingly accepted Line C as the preferred option subject to further study.



Despite the Ministrys invitation, the proposal for an M6-M61 link had not been included in a government Green Paper on the countrys highway needs published in the spring of 1969 and the Committee resolved to campaign further. In September 1970, the Ministrys response to their pressure was received. It was a categorical No. The Ministry pointed out that there were three of what were described as East-West strategy routes in the Lancashire/Cheshire corridor. They were stated as M62, A580 and M56 and they clearly believed that was enough. Lancashire County Council were not happy!



Following discussions between the chief technical officers of Wigan County Borough, Bolton County Borough and Lancashire County Councils, early in 1971 a working party was set up. It must have seemed wise to them at the time when they invited a senior member of staff of the Regional Controllers Office of the Department of the Environment, which had become the responsible government department for transport, to attend their more important meetings. Their illustrated report was published late in 1972 under the misleading but hopeful title of Mid Lancashire Motorway. Their recommended route essentially followed Line C of the Wigan/Lancashire report of 1967. It was received by the County Councils Highways and Bridges Committee in December 1972 who were told that the estimate was now 19.75m which showed a good return (20.6%) on capital. The findings of the working party were summarised in an insert, clearly produced after the main body of the report. It contained the following paragraph:

The case made for the Mid-Lancashire Motorway is such that it is hoped the justification and need for it is now considered established. IN THIS RESPECT IT IS ENCOURAGING THAT ONLY RECENTLY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT HAVE INCLUDED THE ROUTE AS A PROPOSED TRUNK ROAD IN THEIR CONSULTATIVE PAPERS FOR THE NATIONAL PRIMARY TRUNK ROAD NETWORK FOR THE 1980s.

Unfortunately, the hopes emphasised by the authors by their capitalisation of the last sentence quoted above have not yet been realised.



In 1974, Greater Manchester County Council inherited the responsibility for major highways, other than trunk roads, in the area and continued the campaign. In May 1984 they published a report under the title M58-M61 Link Road (Route 225) in which they reviewed the scheme. Though supporting the route in general as a trunk route, they downgraded the proposal to a two-lane dual carriageway all-purpose trunk road. Incidentally, the report made little reference to the previous history of the scheme merely stating rather inaccurately, in paragraph 7.1, The M58-M61 Link Road, originally proposed by Lancashire County Council as the Mid-Lancashire Motorway, was included in the Consultative Papers for the National Primary Trunk Road Network in the early 1970s. The GMC took steps to protect the recommended route.



By 1989, The Greater Manchester County Council had been dissolved and the Department of the Environment had given way to the Department of Transport as the responsible government department. The chance of trunk road status appeared to be enhanced when the Department, employing Parkman Consulting Engineers, went out to public consultation on proposals for the M6 to M61 Link which was subtitled Wigan, Hindley and Westhoughton Bypass. They put forward three routes, all of which had a common western section from M6 to the point at which the route crossed the A573. This portion of the route, described as the Black Route, essentially followed the original proposals except for the length between A571 and B5238. The Departments consultation paper stated, confusingly, that this length of the protected route had been rejected in favour of the Black route because of its increased impact on industrial and residential propertyand increased cost. Surely that says the opposite of what was intended, or does it?



Three alternatives were proposed for the eastern section. The Brown and Red routes both started off on a common line but the Brown Route then went further north to a new junction on M61 mid way between Junctions 5 and 6. The eastbound carriageway of the Red route went under the M61 and both carriageways then headed south on each side of the M61 to join it and the A58 the present Junction 5 making it rather complex. The Blue route was a radically new proposal, going from the end of the Black route to the south of both Hindley and Westhoughton joining the A6 at Chequerbent and thence, along the A58 to Junction 5 with M61. A58 traffic was taken round the motorway junction to join the A58 to the east of Junction 5 to reduce congestion. There was no steer apparent in the paper but I suppose that, if true consultation is really intended, this must be the case though it may lead to some inaction.



In 1993 Parkmans, again working for the Department of Transport, published an Environmental Statement which gave just one route for the roadthe Blue route. This line was stated as having received most support from the public in the earlier consultation exercise. The adoption of this route, because of the location of its eastern termination, effectively ruled out motorway status. Indeed the non-technical summary of the Statement referred to the route as the A5225 Wigan, Hindley and Westhoughton Bypass. Its nice to see that, with the addition of the prefix 5 to satisfy the national zone-of-origin system of road numbering, the old Road Plan route number has survived for over fifty years even if the route is substantially different. A Public Inquiry took place between October 1994 and February 1995 and the Secretary of State accepted the Inspectors recommendation.



In 1996, however, the scheme was removed from the trunk road programme, the route was protected and the responsibility for the scheme was passed to the local authorities with a request from the Secretary of State that they look at other sources of funding for the road. One, perhaps, may be excused for thinking that it had taken the Department of Transport a long time to pluck up the courage to do what they have long appeared to want to do. They now show signs of wishing to divest themselves of the line protection responsibilities which currently require them to acquire and manage property blighted by the line. The responsibility for future of the road now lies with the metropolitan boroughs of Wigan and Bolton, primarily with the former as the greater length lies within Wigans boundaries. As far as anything is certain in this life, it looks as though the road, if built, will not be a motorway; it might even not rate dual-carriageways. It therefore passes outside the scope of the Motorway Archive and becomes one of those footnotes detailing what might have been.
"

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 16:44

Posted by: tonker (24559) 

Again (and read it!) ……

“junction 5 of M61 with junction 28 of the M6.”

Repeat, in case you missed it …..

“ junction 5 of M61 with junction 28 of the M6.”

Pay particular attention to the bit what says ……

‘ junction 28 of the M6.”!


“Leyland, gromit”?

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 18:09
Last edited by tonker: 14th Jan 2022 at 18:11:02

Posted by: Tommy Two Stroke (8629)

Raaaaaaaaaaaight laaaaaaaaaaaaake

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 18:15

Posted by: tonker (24559) 

It’s either a wrong M6 junction number on gaffer’s link, or it’s nothing to do with the M58 extension?

Replied: 14th Jan 2022 at 18:19

Posted by: Jim Latham (98)

The Bolton Evening News said the new road will join the M6 at Junction 28. This should read J26, the M6/M58 interchange.
J28 is Leyland.

Replied: 15th Jan 2022 at 10:51

Posted by: tonker (24559) 

So. Where does Wigan fit into the equation?

Replied: 15th Jan 2022 at 16:22

Posted by: Tommy Two Stroke (8629)

All this argument over a typig error.

Replied: 15th Jan 2022 at 16:30

Posted by: Stardelta (8822)

Looks like someone forgot the word borough again.................and it looks like someone else cant contain his excitement as a result.......again!

Replied: 15th Jan 2022 at 16:39

Posted by: tonker (24559) 

Several newspapers etc. say the new road will join the M6 at Junction 28. So it’s not just a one-off typo error.

And no, I meant Wigan, because that’s what the reports say, “Bolton to Wigan”. But, in the real world, it’s not!

Replied: 15th Jan 2022 at 20:02

Posted by: Stardelta (8822)

"Several newspapers etc. say the new road will join the M6 at Junction 28. So it’s not just a one-off typo error"

So its not the newspapers that are wrong........its the source of the story

And if you think about it there isn't even a need for a direct link from jct 28 to the M61
You can go up to 29, turn right onto the M65 and right again straight onto the M61.....and all in a few minutes/miles


"And no, I meant Wigan, because that’s what the reports say, “Bolton to Wigan”. But, in the real world, it’s not!"

Yeah........and in the `real world` everyone knows what is being inferred and no one else seems to have problem with it

Replied: 15th Jan 2022 at 20:50

Posted by: First Mate (462)

Blame this man, Chris Gee and the proof readers He wrote the story which appeared in 3 different newspapers.

Replied: 15th Jan 2022 at 20:56
Last edited by First Mate: 15th Jan 2022 at 20:57:13

Posted by: tomplum (8237) 

and the camouflage is ripped in the trolls quarter

Replied: 15th Jan 2022 at 21:11

Posted by: Stardelta (8822)

Talking of trolls Tom………do you know what happened to the Lisa Nandy thread

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 08:44

Posted by: lectriclegs (4497)

Probably got removed because of that offensive link Tom put on,SD

That, and it being in poor taste in the first place.

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 11:07

Posted by: Stardelta (8822)

Trolls eh?

Tsk tsk tsk!

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 11:48

Posted by: Platty (675)

Well, well, well, who do we have here?
Obssessed with me, is it painful? "What happened to the Lisa Nandy thread". Why not troll under that instead of skulking in here, hiding, are you fricky?

You should change your name to "Star Troll".

Btw, where's your mate Baz? Haven't seen him for a while. Hope he's okay.

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 16:35

Posted by: lectriclegs (4497)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Could someone translate that for me please?

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 17:14

Posted by: Stardelta (8822)

I think he is a bit miffed at something



Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 17:51

Posted by: lectriclegs (4497)

Maybe, but if he could articulate himself a little better we may be able to find out what.

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 17:56

Posted by: tonker (24559) 

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 19:16

Posted by: Platty (675)

I hope you two bullies have not upset Baz, he's a good egg.

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 20:53

Posted by: First Mate (462)

Platty Who is bullying Baz on this thread

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 21:23
Last edited by First Mate: 16th Jan 2022 at 21:26:28

Posted by: tomplum (8237) 

ok let me explain for the hard of thinking,

Baz is a good guy, he has seen the light and now come over to the good side so, trolls are dwingling and LL's has brought in his alta ego , first mate, to make up the numbers,
hey and if you think its safe to get back in the water, check out 'guest book' your other alta ego from another Wigan site has been in touch, The real Andy from Rainhill is asking WPc Liptrot, WTF is using his good name to troll.

Ha Ha Ha you could not make this up,,

stay tuned in because it gets better,

coming soon,,,,,,,,,wigan troll prosecuted and had to pay compo to tomplum,

Ha Ha Ha ,

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 21:48
Last edited by tomplum: 16th Jan 2022 at 22:01:08

Posted by: Platty (675)

1st Mate, you are not the history. Baz has disappeared. Star Troll is fricky of me and came on here to troll and try to build a gang, even though I haven't been part of the thread. Ha ha. Lectriclegs is joined at the hip to Star Troll and where he leads, Leccy is always behind, (not saying he's a shirt lifter or anything). Don't join in, it's infantile.
I am concerned for Baz, he's a good guy.

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 21:57

Posted by: First Mate (462)


Posted by: Platty (675)
1st Mate, you are not the history. Baz has disappeared. Star Troll is fricky of me and came on here to troll and try to build a gang, even though I haven't been part of the thread. Ha ha. Lectriclegs is joined at the hip to Star Troll and where he leads, Leccy is always behind, (not saying he's a shirt lifter or anything). Don't join in, it's infantile.
I am concerned for Baz, he's a good guy.

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 21:57

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 21:57

Replied: 16th Jan 2022 at 23:08
Last edited by First Mate: 16th Jan 2022 at 23:25:34

Posted by: Stardelta (8822)

He must have been on the Sanatogen again!

Replied: 17th Jan 2022 at 12:43

 

Note: You must login to use this feature.

If you haven't registered, why not join now?. Registration is free.