|
BBC radio news just been reporting that there may be a new toll motorway between Manchester and Birmingham, an extension of the M6 toll. Nowt on the website yet, but apprently a ministerial statement is due tomorrow.
|
|
Where do I sign up? Let's have more of them.
|
|
|
Had a report on the 10 o'clock news tonight;
M6 toll to be extended up to Manchester, with the new lanes running eitherside of the "old" M6.
However, I think there will be heavy criticism as is usually the case with such plans ... to quote the BBC reporter "...when I mentioned it to environmentalist group there was a sharp intake of breath..."
Perhaps this is the future of UK M'ways?
Chad.
|
|
My sharp intake of breath was caused by the implicit suggestion that anyone escaping from Brum would want to go to Manchester, or vice versa ;-)
|
|
|
|
On Midlands Today (BBC local news) they said plans were for a two lane motorway. Why bother if thats the case, it should really be at least 4.
|
two lanes each side of the current motorway, making the M6, in effect a 5 lane motorway, which is 1 more lane than the previously proposed sideways expansion.
I would use it, especially as Stoke to Manchester on a friday evening is the journey from hell, which i've avoided for over 3 years now.
|
|
|
>>>On Midlands Today (BBC local news) they said plans were for a two lane motorway. Why bother if thats the case, it should really be at least 4. <<<
Why would it need to be four? I have used the M6 Toll on four occasions, rush hour Thursday's, a mid morning Friday and a Sunday afternoon. On every occasion it was virtually deserted. In fact it is bizarre to watch all the traffic peeling off to the left to continue on to the "old" M6 heading south, despite overhead gantries warning of congestion in the usual places. It is quite obvious that most drivers will not pay to use toll roads, so the need to make them so wide is not necessary IMHO. Toll roads have a use but it is about striking a balance. At the current price, I am not sure I would fork out the money to use it every day. Surely the lack of use on the M6 Toll would suggest that the balance isn't right and the fact that the prices are going up will only discourage drivers from using it.
Driving abroad the experience of toll routes is broadly similar, that is virtually empty. I have had the Beeline Expressway out of Orlando Airport to myself and that is half the price of the M6. I have also observed many an empty toll road in places such as Turkey and Cyprus.
All in all toll roads do have a use but the lack of traffic using them and the reluctance of drivers to pay out, renders them redundant. The amount of traffic I have seen joining the M6 toll must be a miniscule amount of that continuing on the old road. Therefore it can hardly be considered a success, can it?
|
When the first toll motorway was proposed, the only way a private firm would accept the risk was if it was allowed to set its own tolls . The government agreed ( although I am not sure if they will be put under statutory control at some point in the future ).
One of the reasons the (remember it was Major's )government was keen to get a toll motorway was to get HGV traffic off the M^.
However as the operator was given freedom to fix tolls, and relaised how much damage HGVs inflict on the road surface vs, cars, put the HGV charge to a deterrent level .
So the consequence is that virtually all HGV traffic stays on the public roads ,ie we all pay the cost of them being there thru congestion and the cost of road repairs.
It reminds me of the days of Railtrack when if an engine needed to go to York to be serviced , the operator would have to pay railtrack a fee to go across the network , which led to engines being put on lorries and driven to York .
We seem to have nonone with the vision or courage to have a proper ,joined-up transport policy
|
I think I saw on one programme that an hgv does the same amount of damage as 2000 cars in the impact that it has on the roads. I think there are roughly 450,000 hgvs running around. How much of an economic benefit does an hgv allow and does it cover the cost of repairing the roads along with any taxation that is incurred?
I think it would better to add a lane to the existing m6 as this would have the least environmental impact as some expansion in capacity is necessary. No amount of stick will get people out of their cars. Governments may as well face the fact that most people do not like public transport and would rather be independent. When you do use public transport, particularly train journeys, you usually have to drive to the station in the first place which rather negates some of the benefit. The environmental impact of someone driving to the train station and then getting on the train (trains are more polluting per seat than cars currently) could be greater than someone doing the entire journey by car.
Making public transport more like personal transport is the only way I can see that you can persuade people out of their cars. Perhaps some kind of guided/self drive tram/bus network that goes absolutely everywhere and people program their route in advance so it picks them up from their front door and takes them to their destination would be reasonably appealing?
I have no idea what the economic cost/benefit analysis would be in a change of plan and a removal of the desire to push people onto trains and buses. Telling people to get off the buses and into their own cars might have the reverse affect as I am sure the british public is contrary :-)
teabelly
|
|
|
|
|
M6 toll to be extended up to Manchester, with the new lanes running eitherside of the "old" M6.
Surely that's a terrible idea? Every single junction on that stretch will have to be remodelled to allow the slip roads to pass over/under the new road. It'll be bedlam.
|
The bridges over existing roads will either have to be widened or supplementary bridges will need to be built to carry the new motorway. Adding two lanes either side is also going to blight quite a few housing estates and villages nearby as they won't know how close to the new motorway they are going to end up.Places that are just far enough away and near to new junctions will rocket in value as they become easier to commute from. I was going to move myself but I think I am going to wait and see where the route is going to be before deciding!
I suspect once labour have their third term the idea will be dropped like a hot potato as they're likely only to be doing this to win back the motorist for long enough to get through the next election.
I wonder how much congestion would be reduced by if illegal drivers were removed from the roads? The real story program last night suggested that up to 20% of the driving population were either untaxed, uninsured, unlicenced or were driving unroadworthy vehicles. They are also involved in a disproportionate number of accidents.Remove them all and I am sure traffic would flow more freely and more importantly road casualites would reduce significantly.
teabelly
|
|
|
Surely that's a terrible idea? Every single junction on that stretch will have to be remodelled to allow the slip roads to pass over/under the new road. It'll be bedlam.
Well that's what they are doing with the M60, between junctions 5 and 8, and it's not caused too many problems with the traffic, even tho they are putting in new bridges, slips and even constructing a roundabout under the current motorway.
One interesting thing (to me at least) is that they are using massive polystrene blocks as the foundation to the slip at the Altrincham/Carrington junction. There is an article here tinyurl.com/34qjb about it. Vandals set them on fire last month, causing the motorway to be closed due to the toxic smoke cloud released.
It's quite an interesting works actually, as they are having to remodel all the slips. The main carriage way will be made into 3 lanes, and there will be two lanes running parallel which allow you to access the slips.
www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/motorways/m60/j...m
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that's getting me about this toll road idea is that business leaders in the area are suggesting that the charge for lorries should be halved.
Now, maybe I'm missing the point of this road, but surely you pay your money, and away you go. Lower chance of getting caught up in traffic. It's a fact that lorries travel slower than most cars on the motorways, and when they start overtaking each other with 0.5MPH speed difference, the motorway then becomes 1 lane for a short distance, thus slowing the traffic down - cause most people seem incapable of letting cars in if there is a blockage in the lane to their left, meaning a slowed down car then pulls into a faster lane, and the dance of the magic brake lights commence all the way down the motorway.
My point, which as I seem to be rabbling I should say now, (it's still early!) is isn't the point of the toll to limit traffic. I seriously hope that lorries do not get this reduced toll.
|
It's yet another example of New Labour spin - soften up the public first to accept the basics of an idea (i.e. pay yet again for using a road or, in this case, toll motorways) and then create yet another tax raising enterprise.
It's rapidly coming to the stage whereby income tax will be scrapped - every employee will merely hand over his/her wages direct to Gordon Brown's department and then accept the crumbs begrudgingly given in return.
Much more simple and less time consuming for the Treasury...:-)
But just why do we put up with the spin and the brainwashing with little more than a whimper?
All motorists know they are taxed to the hilt (and that goes for smokers and drinkers as well) both by New Labour and by local councils anxious to get their share of the rich cake through parking restrictions and pay to park schemes.
Yet, astonishingly, millions of people continue to actually vote Yes for more of the same. No wonder so many others are or have gone to live abroad and TV is full of programmes outling just how to do so...
|
Has the current toll road made such a big difference that it could be called a success?
I've heard all the hullabaloo when it opened and when they put road cones out but nothing about whether it's improved traffic/journey times.
JaB
|
In my book, as one who is using it a lot lately, the M6 (toll) is heaven well worth 4 quid a day
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, let's surmise that we greatly reduce or abolish the taxes on motoring, booze and fags. Would you like to enlighten us to which other taxes would be increased to comensate or which areas of government spending should be scrapped?
|
For a start government spending can be reduced - a lot of it is completely wasted because of the sheer size and inefficiency of the organisation.
Most people will tell you, despite New Labour's claims that the health service is better, that this just isn't so - and I've friends and family who work for the NHS who back up such facts.
In fact some of the tales they tell would horrify you and thousands of others.
There comes a point where the smoker, drinker and motorist will finally cry enough is enough and rebel - in fact it's happened at least once in the case of the fuel protesters.
Final note. A Goverment is a "business" that is the ultimate monopoly - it don't actually produce or manufacture anything, rarely offers something anyone wants, can charge what it wants and put up prices (i.e. taxes) to its "customers" whenever it wants and with little comeback, except possible dismissal every five years or so.
Nice work and an extremely comfortable lifestyle for those involved at the very heart of the business - even those who profess to caring so much about the poor and needy. Must be difficult though to really know all the facts, when you are sitting in the back of a chauffeur-driven car and seriously out of touch with reality..:-)
Local councils are rapidly getting in on the same act; councillors' expense allowances in my area are higher than many people actually earn doing a full week's work.
Oh, and in case you think I some kind of disillusioned Socialist, I've voted Conservative all my life. Sorry for the rant..:-)
|
|
|
Er, health foods, running shoes, gym membership, bus fares, vitamin pills etc.
Why shoud us degenerate slobs have to subsidise everyone?
|
|
|
|
"create yet another tax raising enterprise"
"why do we put up with the spin and the brainwashing ?".
Come on, Stuart - we are all (I assume) drivers, and therefore contribute to traffic and congestion. Solving T and C problems (to say nothing of pollution etc) costs a lot of money. So it's reasonable that the creators of the problem pay for the solution (assuming one can be found). Paying usually hurts, especially if it seems you get little for your money. But it seems fair to me.
|
"create yet another tax raising enterprise" "why do we put up with the spin and the brainwashing ?". Come on, Stuart - we are all (I assume) drivers, and therefore contribute to traffic and congestion. Solving T and C problems (to say nothing of pollution etc) costs a lot of money. So it's reasonable that the creators of the problem pay for the solution (assuming one can be found). Paying usually hurts, especially if it seems you get little for your money. But it seems fair to me.
And your attitude is why we get fleeced.
We do pay and we pay through the teeth for the privilidge (sp?) of using our cars.
Most of us I'm sure have no problem with paying up, I'm willing to bet that most of us have a problem with value for money we don't get tho'
JaB
|
|
|
Actually no, I don't contribute to traffic and congestion - or at least very, very rarely in my part of the UK.
I'm at the age where I have a car (and pay for through the nose running cost wise), which is mainly used for transportation for my better half on hospital appointments and shopping trips; she has not enjoyed good health for the past 11 years and her bus pass is of little value for appointments situated in not easy to reach areas of Liverpool, some 20 miles away.
Overall my annual mileage now is only approximately 5k but, in both time saving and convenience it is invaluable.
I also enjoy the use of a free bus, train and ferry pass covering the whole of Merseyside right across to Chester, and this is used to prevent solo occupation of the car for comparatively short distances.
On top of that I do about 12-15 miles a week taking the dog out for his daily walk.
Not exactly planet threatening...:-) In any case, if you read the real statistics, you will learn that cars account for only a tiny percentage of the world's overall pollution levels.
Modern cars emit only a fraction of the pollution of five, 10 or more years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that's getting me about this toll road idea is that business leaders in the area are suggesting that the charge for lorries should be halved.
How about a different suggestion? Allow lorries on the toll section to travel at 65 or 70. They will fit in easier with the rest of the traffic so minimise delays but as traffic levels will be less it will be safer to do this.
I'm told motorways were originally built for the benefit of freight movement so why not encourage freight on to these toll roads? The time saving may be enough to keep them off back roads or keep enough off the normal motorways to help ease traffic flow there as well.
|
Another suggestion would be to cut the times that lorries can use these roads. In works in other countries, why not here?
Another solution would be to use the rail for what it was originally developed for - to move the frieght around. That would cut the number of lorries off the road, and might help speed up the development of the railways.
|
"It works in other countries, why not here?"
Many different things work in other countries. "Why not here?" is not a rhetorical question.
|
|
|
You can load as many trains as you like with freight (make sure that the goods are not perishable or don't have to be delivered to many different places during the day) and try and fit them in between the passenger services as best you can.
It still doesn't hide the fact that, as a percentage of the goods carried by lorries on our roads, it would barely scratch the surface; even if such rail freight services were completed, there would still almost certainly be a requirement to load and unload them using road vehicles.
The UK is just not big enough, nor has sufficient suitable cross-country rail routes, to warrant carrying all but a small percentage of freight by train. That's why rail freight operators always lost money in the past.
In any case, by the time a train has been loaded up with freight, commenced its journey and finally arrived at the terminus, most lorry drivers and their vehicles would have been half-way round the country, dropped off orders and been back home in time to prepare for the next trip - they could even have set off on the follow-up deliveries...:-)
|
That's why rail freight operators always lost money in the past.
Sorry, Stuartli, but you can't know a thing about railways to make a statement like that. Freight was always the money-maker on the rails and until very recently on all but a few flows was given priority over passenger work. The rails may carry less than they used to but still carry a significant amount, especially of bulk freight although not as much as they probably should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how this will mesh with other proposals for universal tolls.
The M6 contract runs for 50 years. If a universal tolling system comes in will drivers pay the universal toll plus a local toll?
Would an automated system be disabled on a privately tolled road?
Or will the government have to buy out the local toll company?
The existence of a couple of local toll could scupper the universal toll idea.
|
The new Mersey Tunnels Bill has decreed that toll monies raised can now be used for different purposes and also rise by the rate of inflation.
When the original tunnel was built, tolls were to be raised for at least 30 years to pay off the cost and interest...:-)
|
The Dartford tolls should have finished a couple of years ago.
I had some correspondence with the powers that be and the real reason for retention is to discourage use of the M25.
Certainly works from my point of view, although less than half an hour from the crossing on a good day, the congestion at the booths and the cost means I never go to Kent unless going on holiday.
|
Increasing costs for lorries always seems to get a round of applause, whether by increasing their toll charges or restricting their permitted journey times etc.
I wonder how people imagine all those nice consumer goods they are eager to buy from the shops actually arrive there in the first place? Not by bus, thats for sure. And the trucking firms that didn't go bust because of increased costs would pass the increased delivery costs onto their clients, who would in turn pass those costs onto their clients (us, in other words).
None of the trucks you see on the roads are there because their drivers fancied going out for a spin. All are working and contributing to the economy. We get in their way, not the other way round.
|
|
|
|
If you travel from anywhere in the South of England or South Wales, to anywhere in the North-West of England, or the Central belt of Scotland the obvious route is via Birmingham, Stafford and Stoke. Surely the answer is to build some new roads to take traffic away from the M6. I would suggest:-
1. A Birmigham western by-pass from say, Worcester, via Telford and Whitchurch to Warrington.
2. An M1 - M6 link from Leicester via Derby to Manchester.
Both of these would take traffic away from the M6, not add to it.
|
Depends on which bit of "down south" you are coming from.
A better route is M1 to J24, A50 (or is it 52?) to A500, A500 to M6 J16
The A50 became a dual carriage way about 7 years ago, and is still very quiet. Takes just about 25 mins to get from M1 to M6 that way.
|
Abolish all motoring taxes and slap the lot on to fuel tax, making it unevadeable. Instate fixed annual appointments for MOT, making them unavoidable. Make them expensive to deter people from owning too many cars. Miss it and you're illegal - London-style number-plate recognition will point Plod your way. Confiscate cars from uninsured drivers and sell them, putting the cash into the Treasury.
Build more roads where congestion is bad - we simply don't have enough of them. They won't just fill up - people are not going to make extra journeys just because the road is there (especially if fuel is very expensive - see above).
Problem solved. Someone just has to take the bull by the horns.
--
Mattster
Boycott shoddy build and reliability.
|
Mattster - I suspect your post was t-i-c, but just in case it wasn't:
"Build more roads where congestion is bad - we simply don't have enough of them. They won't just fill up - people are not going to make extra journeys" - why won't they? they have done until now. The M25 may be the most famous example - the planners were surprised when drivers started to use it for 'local' journeys.
|
The M25 may be the most famous example - the planners were surprised when drivers started to use it for 'local' journeys.
So, the logic is:
We build a road.
Lots of people are grateful and start to use it.
Presumably this is because they prefer it to that which was there before.
This is a bad thing.
Err?
|
I don't think we are in disagreement, patently. The objection seems to be that a new road is only a short-term solution, because its effect is to make journeys easier, thus increasing traffic, thus increasing congestion somewhere else, thus ..
For me perhaps the great benefit of a new road is the improvement it makes to the old one. Motorways - avoid 'em if there is a sensible way to do it.
|
|
|
|
The M25 may be the most famous example - the planners were surprised when drivers started to use it for 'local' journeys.
>>
To be fair to the traffic planners this is not strictly true. The planners did predict that the M25 would lead to increase in overall traffic volumes, and wanted to make the whole road 4 lanes each way from the outset. However, this was overulled by the politicians on cost grounds.
|
|
|
"The M25 may be the most famous example - the planners were surprised when drivers started to use it for 'local' journeys"
The M25 is a typical example of muddled planning.
The planners failed to make the basic decision as to whether it was a long-distance hub or a local facility.
IMHO the M25 should be long-distance and at present it has double the number of junctions that should be there.
Local traffic should be on the Circular roads.
A lot of the local traffic on the northern part of the M25 would be on the North Circular if it was upgraded to a decent standard by sorting out the junctions on the north and north west parts.
The South Circular is a joke, basically a number of B category roads through shopping centres, residential areas and goodness knows what else, never again will I try to use it as a through route!
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that the emphasis is on building new motorways to relieve the congestion on existing ones. I think the money would be better spent on upgrading trunk dual carriageways to motorways. This would involvbe relatively little impact on the environment - perhaps a bit of widening, realignment and rebuilding. This is what has been done to sections of the A1.
I'm thinking of roads like the A34 or the A12. In fact a decent 'M34' might draw south coast to midlands and north traffic away from the M3/M25/M40 or M1, even.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
The A1 needs to be upgraded to Motorway along its entire length IMO.
As for the M6 toll road, yes I use it, it makes a job from London to Telford possible in 2.5 hours, also when going to Manchester area it seems actually quicker than using M1 J24 / A50 / M6 J16. Now if only they could build one from London to Leeds....
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I know some on the forum like tolls, but there is a group (National Alliance Against Tolls) that is opposed to them.
A group is planning a Boycott of all existing tolled roads on Wednesday 8th September.
You can see a bit more about it at:- www.notolls.org.uk/
|
Since I posted last message we have been inundated with further stories on tolls, coupled with either government denials or vague statements that it will be 20 to 30 years before anything much will happen. What that tranaslates into is "We know this is a daft unfair idea, but given a bit of time we think that we can bring you round".
In case you need any reminders, the company that own the M6 toll that opened in December, today announced that the car toll would go up from £2 to £3 in August. They also announced that the toll for lorries would be coming down. Lorries have of course been boycotting the road. Now is there a moral here????????
John
National Alliance Against Tolls
|
Will this new M6 toll road be separate to the current one? So it'll be two fees for two roads?
Incidentally, the local papers here are full of stuff about how wrong and disgusting it is, but it's pretty much all the usual NOMBY rubbish.
|
It may not go ahead but the plan is that it will start where the current one ends at junction 11 / 11a Cannock and go up to junction 19 Knutsford.
It would be about twice the length of the existing tolled stretch so that would make the toll for cars about £6, or £9 for the 2 stretches.
Presumably the operator of the new road would be subject to tender, so it may not be the Antipodeans who run the current stretch, and there would then be 2 tolls.
John
|
Toll roads are a good idea (give us more), they are about choice, if you are rich or your journey is important and want to pay, use it if not don't. If it wasn't privately funded and tolled everyone would pay more in taxes to build it. If it wasn't funded by the taxman (and it prolly wouldn't be) there would be more congestion on the m6. I like seeing rich drivers peel off onto the m6 toll leaving more room on the old road for poor people like me.
The new seperate two lane extension is a better idea than widening the old m6 as chronic congestion is mainly caused by accidents and rubbernecking. I hate sitting in traffic jams caused by accidents, I want and welcome the option and CHOICE to pay more for an alternative if I feel it is warranted.
|
|
Of course that assumes that the toll raod will be a successful venture, and don't end up being baled out in a few years by the taxpayers money they were supposed to not be using.
|
|
|
|
