£5 to use the M6 toll.....
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
domd1979
Veteran
- Location
- Staffordshire
The M6 only has a finite capacity though...
When the M6 Toll opened, traffic levels dropped on the M6. Then (unsurprisingly) M6 returned to pre-toll levels of traffic. M6(T) carries 40,000ish vehicles a day, so there's a fair bit of additional traffic that's been generated.
One thing that MEL haven't done is to increase the toll at intermediate junctions which I think is set at £3.80 for cars. Quite handy if you live in Lichfield or Burntwood.
Over The Hill
Guru
- Location
- Ridden off into the sunset
What is the problem? At least you have the choice. Most of us are stuck with just one motorway or a load of rubbish "A" roads as an alternative. If you want to use it then do, if not dont!
mr_cellophane
Legendary Member
- Location
- Essex
I used it once, when I wasn't paying. It was nearly empty so managed a nice respectable speed 
Most of the time when I head north I go up the M54 so the toll road is no use anyway.
Most of the time when I head north I go up the M54 so the toll road is no use anyway.
domd1979
Veteran
- Location
- Staffordshire
mr_cellophane said:
A460...
domd1979
Veteran
- Location
- Staffordshire
Regardless of toll the M6 would have filled up again anyway. It isn't all longer distance traffic on the M6. Active Traffic Management ain't far off on the M6, which will create more capacity. Which will probably fill up....
jonesy
Guru
domd1979 said:
Yup, back in 1994/5(?) I went to the public inquiry with one of the local campaign groups opposing it. The evidence was clear in all the data: the Birmingham Northern Relief Road as it was known then would, at best, reduce traffic levels on the existing M6 by less than 5% (can't remember the exact figure). It wasn't enough to make any significant difference to journey times on the M6, which was largely congested with traffic travelling no more than two junctions, so would never divert to the relief road, which wasn't therefore ever going to provide any relief. We also said the BNRR would generate traffic and encourage longer travel distances in Staffordshire, and pointed out that very little freight was going to use it because of the tolls. Indeed, given the disproportionate level of damage done to road surfaces by heavy vehicles, the toll operator had a clear commercial interest in pricing lorries off the road thereby making enormous savings in maintenance. This was of course all scoffed at by the suitably pompous barrister representing the government, but that's what has happened. The suppressed demand on roads like the M6 so vastly exceeds anything that can be done to increase capacity that demand management is the only workable way to deal with it, but politicians won't admit that.
upsidedown
Waiting for the great leap forward
- Location
- The middle bit
domd1979 said:
I ride over the M42 junction 4 every day. Active traffic management is always on, and the hard shoulder's open, doesn't seem to do much good.
Rhythm Thief
Veteran
That was never going to work for long though, was it? The M6 was built to relieve the dual carriageway A roads, which were dualled to increase their capacity from single carriageway A roads, which were built to relieve the turnpikes, which were built to get traffic away from the lanes ...
And of course, profit was always going to get in the way, since that's why the toll road was built. In fact, I'd go further and say that the traffic is getting in the way of the main purpose of the M6 Toll, which is to bring in a healthy profit for its owners.
mr_cellophane
Legendary Member
- Location
- Essex
That's the trouble with many of the motorways in the UK, too many junctions encouraging short journeys. Take my local section of the M25 - J28 (A12), J29 (A127), J30 & 31 (A13). J29 is not needed. If you are in east London you either take the M11 or A13, if you are in Essex you join at J28 or J30. All it does is encourage one junction hops. Similarly J24 & 26, they turn the M25 into a Potters Bar by-pass and Waltham Abbey by-pass.
Going back to the M6 (Toll), does anyone know why they didn't join it up to the M54 which looks the sensible option ?
Going back to the M6 (Toll), does anyone know why they didn't join it up to the M54 which looks the sensible option ?
domd1979
Veteran
- Location
- Staffordshire
mr_cellophane said:
I believe the Highways Agency are desirous of doing exactly that.
Rhythm Thief
Veteran
jonesy said:
Absolutely true.
I still think about the best thing they could have done - and I suppose they could still do this - to relieve congestion on the old M6 is to allow HGVs to use the outside two lanes. In my experience, much of the congestion is caused by traffic trying to get as far up the relatively uncongested outside lanes as possible before cutting into the exit lane in the last few hundred yards. As much of the heavy goods traffic is through traffic, it seems to me to make sense to keep it away from the junctions. But I suppose the main thing to remember when talking about controlling the traffic is that there's just too much of it.
Rhythm Thief
Veteran
domd1979 said:
Are they still on about building the Western Orbital through the nice bits to the West of Wolverhampton?
mr_cellophane
Legendary Member
- Location
- Essex
Rhythm Thief said:
That will never work. I used to travel to Bracknell M4-A329(M) traffic turning off for Bracknell used to queue about half a mile along the M4. That never stopped cars driving as far along the M4 as they could until they saw a car length gap in the queue which they could push into. If they didn't manage to get a gap, they would go as far as the split between the way to Reading and Bracknell and then force their way in.
Rhythm Thief
Veteran
Well, perhaps you're right. I certainly see an awful lot of that sort of behaviour. As with so many things, you can blame the "MeMeMe society" for this.
