MOTORISTS will be able to use the hard shoulder on the M6 and the M62 under plans to tackle congestion, the government has announced.
The scheme is set to be adopted following a trial on the M42 motorway near Birmingham, where the hard shoulder was used as an extra lane, and the speed limit reduced to 50mph, when traffic levels built up.
Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly said the scheme will be extended to a number of motorways in England, including the M6, M62, M1, M27, M4, M5 and motorways which feed into the M25 such as the M20 and M3.
Drivers who break down when the hard shoulder is in use will have to steer their cars into emergency refuges. Those on the M42 are spaced at 500m intervals.
The minister, who is MP for Bolton West, also announced that she is looking at options such as having a motorway lane which cannot be used by cars with only one person inside.
The idea of a 'car share' lane has been successfully introduced in other countries, said the Department for Transport.
Another idea is to charge drivers who have no passengers to use these lanes, although officials stressed that no decisions have been taken.
David Frost, director general of the
British Chambers of Commerce
, said: "Capacity problems across the UK's road network have created serious difficulties for businesses reliant on the roads to transport and receive goods.
"Opening up the hard shoulder is an innovative way to immediately help reduce congestion. However, much more still needs to be done to address the wider issue of a lack of capacity across all of the UK's transport infrastructure.
"Unless further investment is put into increasing capacity, the country will simply grind to a halt."
Hard shoulder driving is well established in some European countries, including Germany and the Netherlands.
Scrap plans
Business leaders also welcomed reports that the government has decided to scrap plans to use satellite technology to track cars and force their owners to pay for driving by the mile in an attempt to ease congestion.
Chris Glen, of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: "Small businesses are firmly opposed to road pricing where there are no toll-free alternatives. We are pleased that the government has listened to our concerns, giving small businesses more choice and expanding capacity.
"This is a good first step, but we still need a better road network and a more integrated transport system to safeguard UK competitiveness."
Friends of the Earth Transport Campaigner, Tony Bosworth, said the plan would lead to more traffic.
He said: "Ruth Kelly's plans for extra motorway lanes are not the answer to Britain's transport problems.
"The additional capacity will encourage more traffic, which may lead to more climate-changing pollution."
The government has already earmarked parts of the M6 and M62, which it says should be considered a priority for anti-congestion measures including hard shoulder running.
The parts of the M6 include Junctions 15 to 19, between Stoke-on-Trent and Knutsford, and Junctions 21A to 24, between the Croft interchange and Ashton-in-Makerfield.
M62 sections included in the plan include Junctions 10 to 12, between the Croft interchange and Eccles, and Junctions 18 to 20, between Middleton and Rochdale.
YOU can listen to an audio report on this story below.
Tweet
M-way plan confirmed
March 04, 2008

Showing comments 1 to 19 and replies | View All
alvinlwh (04/03/2008 at 17:10)
I welcome that too!
Cllr Shelmerdine (Hulme Ward) (04/03/2008 at 17:26)
808Mate (04/03/2008 at 17:31)
ace, manchester (04/03/2008 at 18:23)
Timberman, MANCHESTER (04/03/2008 at 18:50)
Julian Dale (04/03/2008 at 18:57)
Rugbygirl, Urmston (04/03/2008 at 22:02)
Uncle Buck, Burnage (04/03/2008 at 22:04)
Ed_Prestwich, Manchester (04/03/2008 at 22:16)
LookingForLogic, Stockport (05/03/2008 at 01:17)
The hard shoulder is there for a reason. It's an emergency lane, be that a break down, a sudden swerve lane or access for an emergency vehicle.
While the plan might (temporarily) reduce the risk of accidents in some areas, in many others the accidents will be worse because there will be nowhere to move over to if there's an accident ahead, on top of that there will be considerable delays in emergency services being able to access any accidents. And if anyone breaks down the traffic would get even heavier with the added danger of motorists doing 50+ mph suddenly encountering a broken down car in their path, while the owner is trying to push it to the nearest refuge, [every 500meters], I couldn't physically push my car the 250 meters to the nearest one on my own, unfortunately my jobs to varied to consider car share. It might make it a bit safer if we had lower 'inner' lane speeds. But that still wouldn't fix the long term problem of better transport.
The Bobelesque, MANCHESTER (05/03/2008 at 08:39)
Cllr Shelmerdine (Hulme Ward)
Your posts are as illiterate as ace's.
mark-r, Stockport (05/03/2008 at 10:19)
alvinlwh (05/03/2008 at 10:27)
Timberman, MANCHESTER (05/03/2008 at 19:57)
If the powers that be get their way and the c-charge comes in, then it's just a matter of time before other councils are forced to implement the same system.
Next Liverpool, Sheffield,
Derby etc etc, from there it's not rocket science to link one area to another without satellite. No that couldn't happen with an open and honest government, could it?
Call me Dave, Manchester (05/03/2008 at 22:48)
Of that 25%, car Co2 emissions are one of the only sectors where levels are falling. The 25% myth is one of the biggest examples of greenwash propaganda out there.
Engine technology has improved massively over the last 30 years and will continue to do so. The Governments predictions are based on current engine technology and do not take into account the massive improvements in the pipeline
Chess Piece Face, Manchester (05/03/2008 at 23:20)
There are two ways to tackle congestion - increase supply by building more roads, or decrease demand by providing alternative methods of transport and reducing the need to travel.
The problem with the former is that increased supply leads to increased demand, and the road space is soon filled to capacity again and you're back where you started (only with even more vehicles on the road and even higher emissions).
The only sustainable solution in the long-term is to manage demand, by investing in alternative modes of transport, incentivising higher vehicle occupancies, encouraging flexible working hours, planning development to reduce the need to travel, charging more to travel at the busiest times, and (as Ace rightly suggests) moving freight off the roads and onto rail, to name but a few...
mark-r, Stockport (06/03/2008 at 09:50)
Road transport emissions (m tonnes CO2)
2000 116.0
2001 116.0
2002 118.4
2003 118.2
2004 119.4
2005 119.5
2010 120.6 (DfT projection)
2015 123.6 (DfT projection)
source: DfT transport statistics.
Which bit of increasing are you struggling with?
Mark Spencer, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire. (06/03/2008 at 10:07)
Call me Dave, Manchester (06/03/2008 at 11:24)
2002 72.7 2003 71.0 2004 71.0 2005 69.9
You also have to reckon in the fact that total vehicle kms have risen meaning a light for like comparison shows an even steeper decline
My point was that the figure for road transport is deliberately used to attack car drivers when the actual figures from the private car are falling. This is deliberately missleading.