Memorandum by the Secretary of State for
Transport (RP 21)
M6 TOLL ROAD AND PROPOSED EXPRESSWAY BETWEEN
JUNCTIONS 11A AND 19 ON THE M6
1. In July 2004, the Department launched
the consultation "M6: giving motorists a choice" and
published the "M6 Toll Traffic Monitoring Study" looking
at the impact of the M6 Toll Road since its opening in December
2003.
2. Because of rising traffic, leading to
increasing congestion on the M6, the Government announced on 10
December 2002 support for the need to widen the M6 between Birmingham
and Manchester. With the consultation "M6: giving motorists
a choice", the Government is seeking views on a possible
alternative to traditional widening of the existing M6 by the
construction of a new Expressway (a toll road) alongside the existing
M6 between junctions 11a and 19.
3. The "M6 Toll Traffic Monitoring
Study" represents an assessment of impacts of the M6 Toll
in the first full three months to end of March 2004 since the
road opened in the week commencing 8 December 2003. The study
compares traffic conditions in November 2003 prior to opening
of the M6 Toll with traffic conditions in February/March 2004
(depending on data availability) after opening. Of course it is
too early to identify the full and long-term impact of the M6
Toll on the existing M6 and other roads. But the initial findings
are important. A detailed one-year "after" report was
to be produced to provide greater information on the impact of
the M6 Toll; this will now be deferred until Spring 2005 to take
account of ongoing roadworks on the existing M6 which will have
a significant impact.
How effective has the existing M6 Toll road been
in tackling congestion on the M6, on the new toll road itself
and on the surrounding area?
4. The Monitoring Study reports that journey
time delays experienced in peak hour periods on the existing M6
through the West Midlands conurbation on week days have reduced
since the opening of the M6 Toll; with the more noticeable effect
being during the evening peak period.
5. Prior to the opening of the M6 Toll,
the existing M6 on Fridays showed an extended afternoon peak period
of significant congestion (created by a mix of commuter traffic
and longer distance traffic movements). Since the opening of the
M6 Toll, this extended afternoon peak is significantly reduced,
with delays reduced by up to one hour for northbound traffic and
a shortened two hour peak period of traffic delay for southbound
movements.
6. Sunday journey time delays on the M6
southbound for returning weekend traffic are not experienced since
the opening of the M6 Toll. The transfer of a proportion of traffic
to the M6 Toll provides sufficient relief, such that journey times
are also improved for M6 traffic. There is now little difference
in journey times for traffic using the existing M6 or M6 Toll
on Sundays.
7. These reduced journey times for through
movements provide significant benefits for both northbound and
southbound movements on both the existing M6 and the M6 Toll.
Weekday journey timesavings are on average 12 minutes northbound
and seven minutes southbound, with maximum timesavings of around
30 minutes during midweek peak hours and up to 70 minutes on Fridays.
On Sundays, southbound journey times are up to 30 minutes faster
than the same journey before the M6 Toll opened.
8. The M6 Toll has removed a significant
amount of traffic away from the M6, such that the M6 itself has
improved operating conditions and journey times. This reduction
in traffic has meant that through journey times on the M6 have
also improved. Weekday journey timesavings are up to 16 minutes
and up to an hour on Fridays.
9. However, the Monitoring Study does suggest
that the changing operating conditions indicates that traffic
on the M6 is oscillating, and that the following pattern may be
currently happening:
(a) the M6 is heavily congested—the
M6 Toll opens-traffic decides it is worth paying a toll to save
time, achieve reliability etc and diverts to the M6 Toll;
(b) conditions on the M6 improve;
(c) it becomes known by those using the M6
Toll that the M6 is free-flowing and thus they start diverting
back to the M6—resulting in a return to some congestion
and delays on the M6; and
(d) this process then oscillates until equilibrium
is achieved.
10. The Monitoring Study shows that, in
the short term, a net 10% reduction in traffic has been achieved
on the M6 with significant improvements in operating conditions
since the opening of the M6 Toll. As traffic volumes oscillate,
it is not clear at present how much of a switch back from the
M6 Toll to the M6 would cause major congestion on the M6.
11. The Monitoring Study concludes that
it is beneficial to all parties for through traffic to use the
M6 Toll, so that the M6 does not revert back to serious congestion
and unreliable journey times.
What impact has the M6 Toll had on traffic levels?
12. At the time of the Monitoring Study,
daily traffic volumes of up to 37,000 vehicles per day (vpd) are
shown on the M6 Toll. The Study shows a significant month on month
increase on all days and all of the three sections of the M6 Toll
for which data is available. These increases have continued since
the formal Study and the Concessionaire, Midland Expressway Limited
(MEL) is reporting average daily figures for August of over 55,000
vpd.
13. The Study shows there have been significant
reductions in traffic on the M6 through the conurbation between
junctions 4 and 11; a reduction of approximately 10% of traffic
on weekdays on the M6; increasing to over 15% on Saturdays and
over 20% on Sundays. The reductions in traffic volumes in the
peak hours are significantly less.
14. There are increases in traffic volumes
of approximately 5% on the M6 at either end of the M6 Toll, and
on the M42 approaching the M6 Toll.
15. The reductions are almost entirely due
to reductions in the number of light vehicles, with no change
to the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) on the M6. The M6
Toll Concessionaire, in seeking to encourage hauliers to use the
new road, has recently introduced a significant discount for HGVs
for an extended trial period until 31 December 2004.
16. On individual roads within the scope
of the Study, significant changes are shown reflecting complex
changes in traffic patterns. For example, the A50 at Stoke-on-Trent
shows a reduction in daily traffic volumes of approximately 18
%. There have also been reductions in weekday traffic volumes
on many other roads in the conurbation totalling about 17,000
vpd (figures exclude the M6). There has, however, been some traffic
growth to the south of the M6 Toll tie-in junction during AM and
PM peak periods.
Is a new "Expressway" preferable to
widening the existing road?
17. It is the purpose of the current consultation
exercise to seek views, including those of the Committee, on this
issue before the Government decides whether to commission a more
detailed feasibility study into the Expressway concept. The consultation
document "M6: giving motorists a choice" states that,
for road users, there could be many potential advantages in constructing
the new tolled Expressway linking Birmingham and Manchester including:
— Drivers would have the choice of
using the M6 or paying for a quicker trip, as is the case with
the M6 Toll. Those drivers benefiting from the faster toll road
also improve conditions for those choosing the original road.
By opting for the Expressway, these drivers free up space on the
existing road, contributing to more reliable journeys for everyone.
— The Expressway could be constructed
mainly without affecting traffic on the existing road. But it
should be recognised that it would have to connect to M6 at either
end and that this would most likely require some part of the Expressway
to cross over M6 in at least two locations. However, widening
the existing M6 would involve significantly more disruption and
additional congestion during construction work. An M6 Expressway
is unlikely to reach a start of works until 2012, but because
far less work would affect the existing M6 traffic, compared to
the conventional widening option, it would be expected to be constructed
faster, possibly of saving to two years off the required six year
construction period for conventional widening, and be completed
around the same 2016 date as a traditional widening option. In
both cases, Government will do everything in its power to complete
ahead of 2016.
— The Expressway could be designed
to cater more for long distance journeys, benefiting a high proportion
of current users. For example, about 40% of users travel between
junction 19 and junction 11a. A road with fewer and more strategic
junctions would give improved traffic flow conditions and hence
greater reliability.
18. A further consideration is that a widened
M6 would continue to suffer incident related congestion and its
effects, albeit that a wider carriageway could allow earlier re-opening
in some circumstances. However, an Expressway solution would support
incident management by: (a) reducing the impact of such incidents
on overall traffic and (b) providing added flexibility to manage
those incidents, owing to the provision of a ready-made alternative
for traffic approaching a blocked section of motorway.
Is this the most cost effective and environmentally
effective solution?
19. A parallel Expressway, providing two
lanes in each direction, would provide more reliable traffic conditions
at a lower cost than adding two lanes to the existing road. To
widen the existing M6 could cost around £40 million per mile;
overall this could be around 10% more than building a new dual
two lane Expressway. Widening schemes must allow for rebuilding
much wider bridges and for complex traffic management during construction.
20. A parallel Expressway would involve
greater land take than widening the existing road. Preliminary
work suggests the minimum difference might be around 10 metres
in width, 35 to 40 metres being needed as opposed to 25 to 30
metres needed for traditional widening assuming the Expressway
were built adjacent to the existing motorway. However, the Expressway
could move away from running immediately alongside the existing
motorway. This could happen where there are distinct advantages
and benefits in doing so, that outweigh the environmental impacts
of either affecting more land or proposing a new road in a location
away from the existing M6, or where there are significant geometric
or cost disbenefits for example, to avoid having to demolish some
existing bridges over the M6.
21. Careful consideration would be given
to the extent to which constructing a new route—close but
not necessarily adjoining the M6—could provide opportunities
for mitigating environmental impact, compared with the constraints
of widening the existing route. Opportunities open to investigation
could involve: Building sections of Expressway at a lower level
than the adjoining M6; introducing modern screening techniques
such as mounded areas of new planting; considering where benefit
could arise through avoiding established vegetation and habitats
by moving Expressway away from the existing M6; and introducing
new screening alongside the existing M6 as part of the overall
scheme.
22. The wider environmental implications,
including visual intrusion and the effect on landscape, biodiversity,
cultural heritage, local air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
would be explored in any feasibility study. There would also be
an assessment of what construction of the Expressway might mean
for traffic levels overall and in the surrounding area. The investigation
would include looking at the scope for high quality measures to
combat adverse effects.
23. If a decision is taken, following the
consultation exercise, to carry out a detailed feasibility study,
the full range of potential social, economic and environmental
impacts of an Expressway will be assessed—including assessing
the scope for minimising any adverse impacts, as well as maximising
the benefits. No final decision would be taken on whether to widen
the existing motorway or construct an Expressway until a fuller
assessment of the Expressway proposal has been completed.
Have there been any unforeseen impacts of the
existing M6 Toll?
24. It is worthwhile noting the following
issues, which are not necessarily related:
— It was always recognised that diversions
of traffic from the existing M6 to the M6 Toll would hide a complex
set of changing traffic patterns. Hence a diversion of through
traffic, which represents about one third of M6 traffic, would
release capacity on the existing M6 which could then be used by
local traffic within the West Midlands, providing significant
relief to many local roads within the conurbation. The Monitoring
Study shows that the since opening of the M6 Toll, there has been
a significant net reduction in traffic using the M6 (around 10%
weekdays, over 15% Saturdays and over 20% Sundays).
— The Monitoring Study also shows that
since the opening of the M6 Toll, there have already been significant
changes to traffic patterns to many local roads. However, this
initial impact must be tempered with awareness of the oscillation
effects referred to in paragraph 9 above. In addition the monitoring
results so far obtained are still very short term—and will
be affected by, say, the current roadworks. Hence a longer-term
view is necessary to verify substantive changes to traffic flow
patterns.
— The M6 Toll Concessionaire is actively
targeting all users and particularly freight to take up the option
of utilising their TAG system to improve efficiency at the Toll
Booths.
— There has been some criticism of
the amount of freedom allowed to the M6 Toll Concessionaire in
setting toll levels. Under the provisions of the legislation governing
tolling at the M6 Toll (the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991),
the Concessionaire is responsible for all aspects of the operation
of the M6 Toll, including the level of tolls. The view at the
time of the making of the legislation being that such undertakings
would be wholly privately financed, therefore, it was right that
a Concessionaire should be able to recoup their costs through
setting toll levels, just as any commercial company sets the price
for its products.
— The criticisms about lack of state
control of toll levels particularly arose from the haulage industry
in response to the toll charges announced for HGVs. As a result
of those initial toll levels, hauliers have been averse to use
the M6 Toll which means, as stated in paragraph 15 above, that
reductions on the M6 are almost entirely due to reductions in
the number of light vehicles, with no change to the number of
HGVs. However, this same lack of state control has allowed the
Concessionaire to respond quickly after discussions with hauliers
and others in introducing a significant discount for HGVs for
an extended trial period.
25. If the decision is to taken carry out
a detailed feasibility study into the Expressway concept then
consideration would be given as part of this exercise whether
it would be appropriate to go down the private finance/concession
route and what, if any, level of state control should be placed
on toll charges.
September 2004
| 
