All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
chaseracer
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 15:46
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by chaseracer »

<Big Brother voice>

"Day 9946 of the M6 roadworks through the West Midlands and Staffordshire..."

</Big Brother voice>

:D
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by jackal »

ABB125 wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 17:58
jackal wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 13:44 Here's my suggestion for M6 J7-9:


M5 M6 - Copy.jpg


C/D lanes connect J7 to J8 and J8 to J9. J7 and J9 can only directly access the M5. However, you also have a new pair of slip roads connecting the two branches of the M5, with the right turn going under the viaducts at Ray Hall. This allows J7 and J9 to access the M6 via the M5 branches.

It's a bit of a BOGOF as you deal with the J7-8 issues as well as J8-9. Effectively you have a fully grade separated bypass for local traffic between J7 and J9. The only slips on the M6 would be to/from the M5, removing all weaving issues. Local movements are relocated to the M5 branches, which can better cope with them, and as they have hard shoulders they could be ALRed if necessary.
I like that, it's very innovative. So of course it'll never happen!
Sadly not.

You could also combine it with Truvelo's braiding, allowing some traffic direct access from M6 to J7 and J9, and relieving the M5 branches:

M5 M6 ultimate - Copy.jpg

The advantages of doing this rather than braiding all four slips at J7 and J9 are (1) that it doesn't require demolition of buildings adjacent to the J7 and J9 onlsips and (2) it doesn't create weaving between the two sets of braids on the M6 mainline.
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by A303Chris »

Chris5156 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 13:40
Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:59M1 Junction 10-13 2023-24 - M1 J10-13 is a major problem being DHSR between two sections of D4 either ALR or conventional D4M, this should have been resolved years ago so good.
Bit of a shame this scheme won’t start sooner, because it’s arguably one of the most urgent to convert to ALR on safety grounds, but I guess the timing is about phasing the work to start after the J13-16 ALR scheme finishes.
Soon this is done the better, not only is it sandwiched between long sections of D4 as said the whole layout is confusing with ALR 1/2 mile before, through and after junctions and DHSR in between. No wonder there have been several fatal accidents with people stopped on the hard shoulder when DHSR is not in use, to be hit in the rear, especially in the wet. You have to have your wits about you.
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Chris5156 »

A303Chris wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 13:36
Chris5156 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 13:40 Bit of a shame this scheme won’t start sooner, because it’s arguably one of the most urgent to convert to ALR on safety grounds, but I guess the timing is about phasing the work to start after the J13-16 ALR scheme finishes.
Soon this is done the better, not only is it sandwiched between long sections of D4 as said the whole layout is confusing with ALR 1/2 mile before, through and after junctions and DHSR in between. No wonder there have been several fatal accidents with people stopped on the hard shoulder when DHSR is not in use, to be hit in the rear, especially in the wet. You have to have your wits about you.
Agreed. There’s a lot of heat and light about ALR motorways at the moment but this section of DHSR is worse than any of them. I find it a very stressful drive. The ALR sections of M1 are very calm in comparison.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Bryn666 »

Chris5156 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 14:15
A303Chris wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 13:36
Chris5156 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 13:40 Bit of a shame this scheme won’t start sooner, because it’s arguably one of the most urgent to convert to ALR on safety grounds, but I guess the timing is about phasing the work to start after the J13-16 ALR scheme finishes.
Soon this is done the better, not only is it sandwiched between long sections of D4 as said the whole layout is confusing with ALR 1/2 mile before, through and after junctions and DHSR in between. No wonder there have been several fatal accidents with people stopped on the hard shoulder when DHSR is not in use, to be hit in the rear, especially in the wet. You have to have your wits about you.
Agreed. There’s a lot of heat and light about ALR motorways at the moment but this section of DHSR is worse than any of them. I find it a very stressful drive. The ALR sections of M1 are very calm in comparison.
Bit academic now but this is why I have said from day 1 they should have used red X and green arrows as per any other lane control scheme. The ridiculous notion that "signals off = normal" has caused no end of problems.

In fact I'd even go as far as saying ALR should be using green arrows as well. This is what is done here in Seattle: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 9302494305
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Peter Freeman »

Australian practise is that Smart Motorway lane-control signals should never be off. If they are off due to a fault, then the restrictions in force continue.

They normally display the current full or reduced speed limit to signify "open for use". The red circle surrounding the number flashes while the limit is below normal.

If not displaying a speed limit, then the same matrix can display -
(a) a red X for closed ("get out of this lane or stop"), or
(b) a downwards diagonal white arrow for "move-over-by-one lane", either left or right, or
(c) a slowly-flashing orange circle showing it's about to change. Not quite sure whether I've got this option right - I haven't seen one for a while. Its meaning is not obvious.

Green arrows are used in some tunnels.
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by JRN »

jervi wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 15:16 I'll be glad to see the back of the DHSR SMs and these upgrades being compliant to the newest ALR standards.

By the looks of it, those years are the completion year (April-March), not start of construction. DHSR -> ALR entails nearly as much work as Conventional -> ALR, so can't see these schemes being much quicker. The M23 ALR scheme which is 11 miles took nearly 2 years to complete, so the 15 mile M1 DHSR -> ALR scheme may take roughly the same time period (hopefully less though), which would mean it would start construction between April 2021 & March 2022 - so that's pretty imminent.

Also someone needs to tell whoever produced this consultation document that M1 J10a is not a thing no more - it appears on the illustration map.
I would guess the completion times for some of these schemes might be a bit shorter dependent on the existing standard of the road.

For instance, the M62 j25-20 scheme:
a) Already ALR j25-26, both directions, including through the services, and also WB only j29-30.
b) Already has concrete central reservation barrier along most of its length, apart from j28-29, which is conventional D4M.
c) The above D4M section won't need anything doing to it I suppose
d) ERAs are frequent
e) Junctions are frequent, and are all lane drops anyway, so there's usable HS within the junctions.

The M42 section also has v. frequent ERAs due to being built to the original 800m standard, but OTOH it has metal central reservation barrier.
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by JRN »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:59 M62 Junction 25-30 2022-23 - this one will be easy, and 25-26 has been ALR since day 1 so not like there's no precedent here.

M6 Junction 4-5 2022-23 - easy.

M1 Junction 10-13 2023-24 - M1 J10-13 is a major problem being DHSR between two sections of D4 either ALR or conventional D4M, this should have been resolved years ago so good.

M4/M5 Interchange 2023-24 - this is a complete disaster at the moment so solving this is overdue.

M6 Junction 5-8 2024-25 - the viaducts are going to be a nightmare to provide any kind of ERAs along, indeed the only two between 5 and 6 are conveniently placed where a railway line passes under at a skew at Bromford. This is going to be a frequent trouble site with stopped vehicles causing mayhem, be intrigued how they're going to manage this one.

M6 Junction 8-10a 2024-25 - same issues as 5-8

M42 Junction 3a-7 2024-25 - easy, and they'll have had 19 years out of this one so not too bad a hit rate I guess. That's quite a scary thought that it's nearly two decades since ATM was first introduced...
With the central M6 section through Birmingham being the most difficult section to do, and the most likely to cause problems in service due to limited ERAs, it's a shame the govt. doesn't seem to be considering the alternative of nationalising the M6 toll.
The M6 through Birmingham could then be restored to D3M (with traffic management). With it then being used mostly by local traffic, j6 could probably be re-lined to D2M in both directions.
Could still do j4-5 though, and fix the bizarre sliproad markings at j5.
User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7517
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Big L »

JRN wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 13:07 ...nationalising the M6 toll...
No thank you, not until something is done where the southbound M6Toll and M42 merge. Big queues almost every morning rush hour.
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Bryn666 »

Big L wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 16:17
JRN wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 13:07 ...nationalising the M6 toll...
No thank you, not until something is done where the southbound M6Toll and M42 merge. Big queues almost every morning rush hour.
Won't happen but the easiest fix is to retain the 3 lanes from M6T to M6 as a distinct carriageway - turn Gilson Road into a dead end serving only the houses and use the space gained alongside the M42 to create a new 4 lane southbound carriageway for the M42 which removes the 7 into 4 squeeze under the slip road to the M6 northbound. Job done.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Chris5156 »

JRN wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 13:07 With the central M6 section through Birmingham being the most difficult section to do, and the most likely to cause problems in service due to limited ERAs, it's a shame the govt. doesn't seem to be considering the alternative of nationalising the M6 toll.
The M6 through Birmingham could then be restored to D3M (with traffic management). With it then being used mostly by local traffic, j6 could probably be re-lined to D2M in both directions.
Could still do j4-5 though, and fix the bizarre sliproad markings at j5.
That might be less effective than you think - the M6 through the West Midlands is already mostly used by local traffic.

I can't find the statistics right now, but it's been discussed before on SABRE that the M6 Toll already captures a surprisingly large proportion of the traffic between M6 J4a and 11a - the reason it's still relatively lightly used is that most of the congestion on the M6 between those points is made up of vehicles that are starting or finishing their journey within the West Midlands conurbation.
User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 19170
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Steven »

Chris5156 wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 19:43 I can't find the statistics right now, but it's been discussed before on SABRE that the M6 Toll already captures a surprisingly large proportion of the traffic between M6 J4a and 11a - the reason it's still relatively lightly used is that most of the congestion on the M6 between those points is made up of vehicles that are starting or finishing their journey within the West Midlands conurbation.
Plus of course long-distance traffic traversing the area from M54 and M5. However, fundamentally the point is correct - the majority of traffic on the M6 between J4A and J11A has its origin or destination somewhere in Birmingham, Wolverhampton or the Black Country, for which the M6 Toll isn't particularly useful especially when you consider the eastbound queues on the M6 Toll at the M42 end.

Clearly there's an element of toll avoidance going on as well, which skews things somewhat; though more conurbation traffic to and from the likes of Sutton Coldfield and the northern and eastern sides of Walsall would no doubt use a free M6 Toll in preference to M6.
Steven
Motorway Historian

Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

User avatar
Gav
Member
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 17:44

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Gav »

looking at the M6 Toll M42 junction layouts on a map after driving through it. it is a bad junction indeed, a road layout that is trying to do too many things and not really achieving it.

If it were to be redesigned then I would be looking to segregate the traffic flows M42 heading south should really be kept as its own distinct motorway. The land around the road is tight though and trying to expand or provide the required room to segregate it is a challenge. Id be interested in achieving segregation, and having the M6 toll run through unimpeded by the M42. It only needs one interface to allow an exchange and that could be easily achieved.

The section is crying out for more capacity as shown by the queuing that occurs on the road.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by RichardA35 »

Chris5156 wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 19:43
JRN wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 13:07 With the central M6 section through Birmingham being the most difficult section to do, and the most likely to cause problems in service due to limited ERAs, it's a shame the govt. doesn't seem to be considering the alternative of nationalising the M6 toll.
The M6 through Birmingham could then be restored to D3M (with traffic management). With it then being used mostly by local traffic, j6 could probably be re-lined to D2M in both directions.
Could still do j4-5 though, and fix the bizarre sliproad markings at j5.
That might be less effective than you think - the M6 through the West Midlands is already mostly used by local traffic.

I can't find the statistics right now, but it's been discussed before on SABRE that the M6 Toll already captures a surprisingly large proportion of the traffic between M6 J4a and 11a - the reason it's still relatively lightly used is that most of the congestion on the M6 between those points is made up of vehicles that are starting or finishing their journey within the West Midlands conurbation.
This was discussed here with the figures on M6 either side being >120,000 and M6Toll being ~35,000 which is in the range of forecasts when the scheme was planned but way under what the investors assumed they could attract..
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37011
User avatar
Ruperts Trooper
Member
Posts: 12031
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 13:43
Location: Huntingdonshire originally, but now Staffordshire

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Ruperts Trooper »

Gav wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:12 looking at the M6 Toll M42 junction layouts on a map after driving through it. it is a bad junction indeed, a road layout that is trying to do too many things and not really achieving it.

If it were to be redesigned then I would be looking to segregate the traffic flows M42 heading south should really be kept as its own distinct motorway. The land around the road is tight though and trying to expand or provide the required room to segregate it is a challenge. Id be interested in achieving segregation, and having the M6 toll run through unimpeded by the M42. It only needs one interface to allow an exchange and that could be easily achieved.

The section is crying out for more capacity as shown by the queuing that occurs on the road.
The problem with that junction is the amount of weaving traffic in a short distance - southbound M42 and southbound M6T both have a choice of M42 southbound or M6 southbound plus M42 southbound going M6 northbound - as well as local traffic joining at Junction 9.
Lifelong motorhead
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by jackal »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 16:24
Big L wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 16:17
JRN wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 13:07 ...nationalising the M6 toll...
No thank you, not until something is done where the southbound M6Toll and M42 merge. Big queues almost every morning rush hour.
Won't happen but the easiest fix is to retain the 3 lanes from M6T to M6 as a distinct carriageway - turn Gilson Road into a dead end serving only the houses and use the space gained alongside the M42 to create a new 4 lane southbound carriageway for the M42 which removes the 7 into 4 squeeze under the slip road to the M6 northbound. Job done.
The sliproad to the M6 northbound would then become an offside exit (not good). Also you've not said how your new carriageway connects back up with the M6T. The easy option (and I guess what you had in mind) is that it just merges back in after the bridge for the M6. But in that case you've created an ultra tight 600m weaving space to the M6/M42 diverge. You could put in some braiding but it's then not such an easy fix.

The best thing is probably to keep the merges and diverges where there are but improve the lane allocations. I honestly think it would be a big improvement just to get the concessionaire to agree to have the M6T reduced to two lanes prior to the merge. So you would go from the current situation:

- 2.5 lanes from M6T+1.5 lanes from M42=4 lanes

to:

- 1.5 lanes from M6T+2.5 lanes from M42=4 lanes

Or better still, widen to D5ALR so you can have:

- 2 lanes from M6T+3 lanes from M42=5 lanes

It's absolutely ridiculous the mayhem that is created on the M42 and M6 from the M6T having it's completely unnecessary 3 lanes at the merges. I know there are purists that will say the concessionaire shouldn't get a penny from the taxpayer, but I'm sure for £xM they'd agree to reduce all the merges (and the M42 diverge while we're at it) down to two lanes, which would be a big benefit at a fraction of the cost of building new carriageways etc.

PS - I'm assuming the concessionaire has a contractual right to the three lanes. If that's not the case HE should have reduced it to two already.
PPS - Of course buying out the M6T concession (with the necessary widening at the M42 merge and diverge) would be the best option.
User avatar
Gav
Member
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 17:44

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by Gav »

Again going back and looking at it.

I wonder if they built a link road at the M42 link to the M6 that would allow them to seperate the flows on the south bound side. Keep the M42 sweperated from the M6(T).

Its the north bound side that would require some significant rework to achieve seperation - there is enough space at either side of the M6 link but there is the issue of that junction to deal with.
002.jpg
M19
Member
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2001 05:00
Location: Rothwell, Northants

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by M19 »

Chris5156 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 14:15
A303Chris wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 13:36
Chris5156 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 13:40 Bit of a shame this scheme won’t start sooner, because it’s arguably one of the most urgent to convert to ALR on safety grounds, but I guess the timing is about phasing the work to start after the J13-16 ALR scheme finishes.
Soon this is done the better, not only is it sandwiched between long sections of D4 as said the whole layout is confusing with ALR 1/2 mile before, through and after junctions and DHSR in between. No wonder there have been several fatal accidents with people stopped on the hard shoulder when DHSR is not in use, to be hit in the rear, especially in the wet. You have to have your wits about you.
Agreed. There’s a lot of heat and light about ALR motorways at the moment but this section of DHSR is worse than any of them. I find it a very stressful drive. The ALR sections of M1 are very calm in comparison.
If it’s anything by like the time it’s taking to do J13-J16, it will probably take about 37 years to complete.
M19
JRN
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 20:11

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by JRN »

Chris5156 wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 19:43
JRN wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 13:07 With the central M6 section through Birmingham being the most difficult section to do, and the most likely to cause problems in service due to limited ERAs, it's a shame the govt. doesn't seem to be considering the alternative of nationalising the M6 toll.
The M6 through Birmingham could then be restored to D3M (with traffic management). With it then being used mostly by local traffic, j6 could probably be re-lined to D2M in both directions.
Could still do j4-5 though, and fix the bizarre sliproad markings at j5.
That might be less effective than you think - the M6 through the West Midlands is already mostly used by local traffic.

I can't find the statistics right now, but it's been discussed before on SABRE that the M6 Toll already captures a surprisingly large proportion of the traffic between M6 J4a and 11a - the reason it's still relatively lightly used is that most of the congestion on the M6 between those points is made up of vehicles that are starting or finishing their journey within the West Midlands conurbation.
OK fair enough, I may have been underestimating the percentage of local traffic. Still the M6 toll carries only ~50k AADT, and I just have to believe that being pretty much the only easily avoidable tolled road in the UK doesn't significantly depress that figure below what it otherwise would be. A lot of people just don't like paying.
Whereas the M6 carries ~ 135k AADT at a single point between j5 and j6:
https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/36023
(circa 2018)
It wouldn't necessarily in this scenario have to follow from nationalisation that the "new" M6 would carry more traffic than the "old" M6, just that enough traffic would transfer to the long distance route to allow the old viaduct through Birmingham to be restored to D3M.
Also the v. low percentage of HGV traffic that currently uses the M6 toll. That traffic is probably disproportionately long-distance relative to the total, but most hauliers currently won't pay the tolls.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: All Lane Running upgrades: Statutory Instrument consultation (ending the use of Dynamic Hard Shoulders)

Post by RichardA35 »

JRN wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 23:04
Chris5156 wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 19:43
JRN wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 13:07 With the central M6 section through Birmingham being the most difficult section to do, and the most likely to cause problems in service due to limited ERAs, it's a shame the govt. doesn't seem to be considering the alternative of nationalising the M6 toll.
The M6 through Birmingham could then be restored to D3M (with traffic management). With it then being used mostly by local traffic, j6 could probably be re-lined to D2M in both directions.
Could still do j4-5 though, and fix the bizarre sliproad markings at j5.
That might be less effective than you think - the M6 through the West Midlands is already mostly used by local traffic.

I can't find the statistics right now, but it's been discussed before on SABRE that the M6 Toll already captures a surprisingly large proportion of the traffic between M6 J4a and 11a - the reason it's still relatively lightly used is that most of the congestion on the M6 between those points is made up of vehicles that are starting or finishing their journey within the West Midlands conurbation.
OK fair enough, I may have been underestimating the percentage of local traffic. Still the M6 toll carries only ~50k AADT, and I just have to believe that being pretty much the only easily avoidable tolled road in the UK doesn't significantly depress that figure below what it otherwise would be. A lot of people just don't like paying.
Whereas the M6 carries ~ 135k AADT at a single point between j5 and j6:
https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/36023
(circa 2018)
It wouldn't necessarily in this scenario have to follow from nationalisation that the "new" M6 would carry more traffic than the "old" M6, just that enough traffic would transfer to the long distance route to allow the old viaduct through Birmingham to be restored to D3M.
Also the v. low percentage of HGV traffic that currently uses the M6 toll. That traffic is probably disproportionately long-distance relative to the total, but most hauliers currently won't pay the tolls.
But, even if what is above is true and the through hgv traffic is there to move to the M6 Toll and it, say, doubles or triples to ~3000 vehicles per day that is only 2000 vehicles displaced from the M6 leaving a traffic figure of 133k rather than 135k based on the figures quoted.

We have to remember that ~90% of traffic is non-hgv - of these it is the car driver avoiding the M6Toll that would have to be the target to give the greatest effect.
However the M6Toll is approximately at its forecast as noted previously so I think it is unlikely that this mythical through traffic will ever be found and so be able to transfer and relieve the M6.

As discussed most of the traffic starts or terminates away from the M6Toll. The pandemic, general post-EU economic decline and changes in commuting patterns will do more to change travel patterns and reduce traffic on the M6 (and M6Toll) than any transfer. The 2020 forecast figure for M6Toll is <20,000 with the M6 figure reduced from 135k to 118k. It starts to make the £500M+ price tag for the major debt of the M6Toll look very, very expensive.
Post Reply