More M6 tolls ruled out
Government will widen the M6 instead
M6 Toll to remain unique?
The Highways Agency has carried out a detailed review of the option of building a new Expressway to run broadly parallel with the M6 between junctions 11a and 19, as an alternative to widening the existing M6 by one lane in each direction.
The Expressway option would be more difficult to construct than initially believed and cannot be built more quickly than the widening, which the Highways Agency's work shows could be delivered by 2017. The Expressway would require 50 per cent more land than the widening option, would cost some £3.5billion (15 per cent more), and its construction would introduce significant disruption to the existing M6.
Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman said: "Having considered all the options, I am clear that the right way forward is for the Highways Agency to focus on delivering one extra lane in each direction on the M6. We have carried out detailed analysis and the extra works and land required and the costs involved do not support further work on the Expressway.
"I am clear that the widening would need to be accompanied by demand management measures to ensure that the benefits of the additional capacity are locked-in, and not lost through increased traffic levels. I have therefore asked the Highways Agency to press ahead with the preparation of detailed proposals.
"It is absolutely right that we investigate the options thoroughly when considering investment on this scale. The decision will be welcomed by many local residents and environmental campaigners who prefer the widening option."
Wouldn't it be better to stop and think (yes, I know they're politicians) that in 10 years time an extra lane will be of no use as the people disrupted by the widening work will have all rotted in their cars in one almighty 10-year-long traffic jam.
Therefore why not add an extra 3 lanes instead of 1 and then you've got capacity for at least the next 50 years. 3 lanes will not necessarily cause any more disruption as it will still only require the hard shoulder and lane 1 to be coned off anyway.
It won't matter if it costs three times as much due to the fact that everything the government does costs three times as much in the end anyway.
Bizarrely enough not an unreasonable suggestion.
Although you may find that rare creature, the TVR driver, also making use of the lower deck, due to it's 'acoustic properties', and their aversion to sunlight (from spending so long UNDER their cars working on them!!!
)He's taken all this time to work out that widening a road is less of a hassle than building a complete new one? Don't think so - more like he's realised ALL roads will be tolled by the time it'd be ready.
What, like herding all the lentilists up and stampeding them with a bunch of TVRs and Lotuses?!?
(Actually: Bentley GT's and M5's...need something with some heft behind it that won't bend when it hits!!!)
Heh. Not quite. They just hate it the least out of the two options. I'm pretty sure local residents and environmental campaigners would only welcome no expansion at all.
Quickly translate all the verbose political speak that Mr Ladyman (from Bangkok?)comes out with and hes trying to justify the fact that your average 2-year old could have told him the conclusion,without wasting taxpayers money
The lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum
"I am clear that the widening would need to be accompanied by demand management measures to ensure that the benefits of the additional capacity are locked-in, and not lost through increased traffic levels."
....Eh???
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff