House of Commons - Transport - Written Evidence

Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence

Memorandum by Friends of the Earth (RP 10)

M6 TOLL ROAD

Friends of the Earth welcomes the Transport Committee's inquiry into the proposed M6 Toll Road and is very pleased to respond to the request for evidence.

Friends of the Earth supports much of the evidence submitted to the Transport Committee by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). This evidence does not seek to duplicate points made by CPRE, but to add to them.

Some of this evidence draws on analysis for Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000 by the consultants Urban & Regional Policy. Their report "Comments on the proposal for a tolled Expressway parallel to the M6" will be submitted to the Committee as a background document.

Please note that in this evidence we refer to the current road between junctions 4 and 11 of the M6 as the M6 Toll, and the proposed new road between junctions 11a and 19 of the M6 as the M6 Expressway.

How effective has the existing M6 Toll been in tackling congestion on the M6, on the new toll road and in the surrounding area?

What impact has the M6 Toll had on traffic levels?

It is too early to say how effective the M6 Toll has been in tackling congestion on the M6. The one study done so far (the Highways Agency report "M6 Toll Traffic monitoring study") covers only three months. This paints a positive picture with rising traffic levels on the M6 Toll, traffic reductions on the M6 and time savings on through journeys. However analysis shows that the picture is much less encouraging than is presented: benefits to users of the M6 have been slight and are already being eroded by traffic growth.[5] There has also been some release of suppressed demand from within the conurbation.

It should also be pointed out that since June both the M6 in the West Midlands and the A38M have been severely affected by roadworks, affecting traffic flows in the region and making it much harder to derive a solid body of evidence on which to base assessments.

Is the new "Expressway" preferable to widening the existing road?

We respectfully suggest that, by positing a choice between the M6 Expressway and widening the existing M6, the Committee is asking the wrong question. Friends of the Earth believes that the real issue is whether new capacity, either through widening the existing M6 or building the M6 Expressway, is preferable to no extra capacity.

The Government's consultation places great emphasis on choice. The consultation document is titled "M6: giving motorists a choice" and states that "a new expressway would provide road users with a choice either to use the existing M6 or to pay to use an M6 expressway for a faster, more reliable journey".[6] However the only choice will be between two roads, and will be a choice only for those who can afford it. The M6 Expressway would not benefit the 29% of households in the West Midlands and 32% of households in the North West[7] that do not own cars. Real choice for all, and in particular for households without cars, would be provided by improving public transport in the corridor, both between Birmingham and Manchester and within and between other towns and cities in the corridor. When the West Coast Main Line upgrade is completed, there will be a twice-hourly rail service between Manchester and Birmingham. This will provide real choice for travellers in the corridor. The Trent Valley section of the West Coast Main Line follows a similar course to the M6, yet there is a poor train service between Stafford and Rugby. There is no direct train service between Cannock and Lichfield and or Tamworth. There are also very poor bus services within this corridor. Improving public transport should be a priority.

Additional capacity of any kind, whether tolled or not, will do little or nothing to solve transport problems where they originate—in the towns and cities in the corridor. Indeed encouraging greater car dependency and encouraging traffic growth will aggravate problems in towns and cities such as Congleton, Crewe, Knutsford, Sandbach, Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent.

The Regional Spatial Strategies for the West Midlands and the North West both support the ongoing regeneration of the major urban areas within the regions and not further displacement of population, which we believe will be the result of further road capacity. As the Urban & Regional Policy report states, the M6 Expressway "is likely to stoke damaging trends towards more dispersed patterns of economic activity and housing choice".[8]

We therefore believe that extra capacity in this corridor is not a preferable option. The West Midlands to North West Multi-Modal Study (MIDMAN) rejected adding two lanes in each direction to the M6 and said "there was inevitably a degree of subjective judgement"[9] whether the option involving widening to dual four lanes was preferable to no widening at all.

Friends of the Earth supports the principle of nationwide road-user charging as part of an overall policy of traffic reduction. However we believe that this should be based on the existing road network rather than on toll roads. We believe that the M6 Expressway proposal takes road-user charging in the wrong direction. This would be exacerbated if, as Friends of the Earth fears, the M6 Expressway proposal is the tip of an iceberg. If it is approved, there could be pressure for similar tolled expressways alongside other motorways. As the Urban & Regional Policy report says "it would be extremely unfortunate if a side-effect was to create a precedent that tolls would only ever apply to additional road space".[10]

Is this the most cost effective and environmentally effective solution?

The consultation document does not make any reference to potential funding mechanisms but in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State said that "in regard to the new road, the Government hope that it will be privately financed".[11]

As we have stated above, we believe that the priority is to improve public transport within the M6 corridor. If the M6 Expressway is privately financed, then any revenue will go to the shareholders of the company that builds and operates it, rather than being ring-fenced for investment in providing alternatives to car use, as we believe should be the case for road-user charging.

We do not believe that the M6 Expressway proposal represents the most environmentally effective solution. Other organisations have addressed the problems of local environmental impact—we will not duplicate these, and will restrict our comments to climate change.

The MIDMAN study considered three "combination scenarios" of options for the corridor. It concluded that "only CS1 was compatible with the Government's target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions".[12] The CS1 scenario was based on the enhancement of public transport, significant highway restraint, and tolling on the M6 which remained at dual three lanes.[13] The Transport Committee has already made clear its concern about the impact of Government decisions on Multi Modal Studies on climate change targets.[14]

The Transport White Paper affirmed that "climate change is the most important challenge we face as a community".[15] Road transport is responsible for over one-fifth of UK emissions of carbon dioxide.[16] We believe that a proposal which will increase road capacity, increase car dependency and make it easier and more attractive for people to travel further (for example living outside the West Midlands and Greater Manchester conurbations and commuting into them), will lead to an increase in emissions. This is the wrong direction in which to be heading, particularly given that the Department for Transport now has joint responsibility for delivery of the Government's Public Service Agreement on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Have there been any unforeseen impacts of the existing M6 Toll?

The M6 Toll was promoted to people in the West Midlands as a transport solution that would benefit the region. However since its opening, more people have come to realise that the M6 Toll mainly enables people to pass through the region more easily, and does not bring any benefit to the region itself.

The M6 Toll has attracted a disproportionate number of high-performance cars travelling well above the speed limit.

Although Friends of the Earth believes that another privately financed road is not the answer, we believe that lessons can be learned from the M6 Toll which should be applied if the Government does decide to proceed with a privately-financed M6 Expressway:

— The secrecy surrounding the concession agreement should not be repeated.

— The Government should have retained some control over toll levels and differentials to ensure that the toll operator does not set prices to discourage vehicles which will damage the surface of the road in order to reduce maintenance costs.

— The Government should have retained powers to be able to use the M6 Toll as a relief road if the M6 itself has to be shut for maintenance or following crashes.

Although the M6 Toll was privately financed and revenue goes to the shareholders of the operators, a great amount of public money was spent bringing the scheme to fruition. This includes the costs of:

— Public consultation and the public inquiry

— The compulsory purchase of the land

— Clearing the land and preparing the land for MEL to build the M6 Toll

— Associated road works on the existing road network to accommodate the M6 Toll

— Highways Agency staff time through the planning and design phases of the M6 Toll

The public purse continues to bear the cost of policing the road.

We believe that this money could have been better spent in other ways to deliver a more integrated and socially inclusive solution to the real transport problems of the region.

While it is recognised that some or all of these costs may be captured back through the rental charged to the concessionaire, the details of this agreement are not in the public domain. This is due to the secrecy surrounding the concession agreement, which does not work in the public interest. This form of agreement should not be repeated in the future, and should be replaced by a much more open and transparent process.

There are now also real concerns that the M6 Toll is acting as a magnet for new traffic-generating development. According to the concessionaires MEL, "time and again the M6 Toll is quoted by developers and companies as the deciding factor in their decision to invest in the region. It is clear the motorway is playing a major part in attracting substantial investment which is helping regenerate communities and creating new jobs".[17] A brochure produced last year claimed that "it is not often that 1,000 acres of prime development land are opened up in an established area with easy access to a motorway grade road".[18] This identified 27 sites, many "within 10 minutes' drive time of a motorway junction". Only in two cases was there reference to rail access, and the majority were greenfield sites which by their nature would act as traffic generators, adding more traffic to the already overburdened local road network.

September 2004