CONGESTION on motorways around Greater Manchester has plummeted - due to the credit crunch and soaring fuel prices.
New figures show journey times have fallen by as much as 5.1 per cent in 12 months.
The data emerged as the region prepares for a referendum on whether to introduce a peak-hour congestion charge inside the M60, in return for £3bn of cash for public transport.
Transport chiefs claim increasingly-jammed roads could cost the local economy tens of thousands of new jobs.
But the new figures, based on readings from 7,500 roadside sensors and prepared by RAC and Trafficmaster, show motorway traffic has been moving more freely this year than last.
The average journey time on the M6 from Staffordshire (Junction 11) to Warrington (Junction 11 of the M62) has dropped five per cent to 1 hour 6 minutes. The same journey the other way takes 1hr 7mins - down 1.6 per cent on last year.
Trips from Junction 11 of the M6 to junction 3 of the M56 near Wythenshawe now take an average 1hr 7mins, down 4.2 per cent on last year. Journeys the other way take 1hr 8mins, or 1.6 per cent less.
And getting from the east of Liverpool to the west of Manchester takes 27mins on average, 3.5 per cent quicker.
The data also shows huge differences between the speed of traffic in different directions on certain motorways. While westbound drivers on the M602 move at 74mph - faster than the official speed limit - those eastbound average just 56mph.
The figures are much closer on the M60, where clockwise traffic averages 66mph and anti-clockwise 67mph.
Across the motorway network, the drop in journey time averaged 12 per cent.But average speeds slowed, from 63.3mph to 62.2mph, as motorists tried to save fuel.
Georgina Read at Trafficmaster said: "Our monitoring shows the start of a change in driving patterns and behaviour.
"Average motorway speeds have reduced, as well as congestion, which indicates a reduction in the volume of vehicles, especially lorries.
"One explanation is that rising fuel prices and economic concerns are making people think about how they drive."
Sheila Rainger, of the RAC Foundation, said: "The fall in congestion is good news in an otherwise bleak picture.
"But this altered pattern of demand can only be a breathing space for policymakers, and does not remove the case for investment in congestion-busting measures."
Click here to view an interactive timeline following the congestion charge story.
Click here to see an interactive map of the congestion charge bands.
And click here to read David Ottewell's politics blog.
What do you think? Have your say.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
(wetsocks), Manchester (26/08/2008 at 07:22)
"But this altered pattern of demand can only be a breathing space for policymakers, and does not remove the case for investment in congestion-busting measures."
So we're going to be taxed to work regardless of the supposed "need".
dessie, manchester (26/08/2008 at 07:46)
Barney Gumball (26/08/2008 at 08:46)
Jay B, oldham (26/08/2008 at 08:58)
its been mentioned many times on here.
thats why we are worried that because of the fall in congestion without a charge being introduced. if the con charge goes ahead, what happens when there is a shortfall in revenue collected. who pays then? what extra things do they have to introduce to cover the repayments? they dont mention anything about that.
what we're getting is mearly a loan. which manchester doesnt need. we still have to pay it back in the end no matter what. manchester will be in debt for years to come.
Chris, Irlam (26/08/2008 at 09:19)
Congestion is self-regulating....if it costs people too much time or money to use their car they will find an alternative - this news proves that fact.
Just think how much clearer the roads would be if the authorities made an effort to remove all of the illegaly-used vehicles off the road, instead of targeting law-abiding motorists all the time!
Rammylad (26/08/2008 at 10:01)
Munkey Boy (26/08/2008 at 11:59)
Edina Clouds, GREAT Manchester (26/08/2008 at 12:20)
Do the same test in three weeks time and then publish the results
Alan Kelly (26/08/2008 at 12:37)
At no stage have I or any others stated that the one month’s wage you want paying to GMPTA would not affect congestion. In fact, many of the arguments have been that if it does reduce congestion how will the loan be paid. Every time I make this point you state that traffic and congestion are separate issues. Remember or do you, conveniently, forget? If it didn’t reduce congestion then what is the point of sitting on a bus in the congestion you require to pay back the loan?
My argument is that there are other less intrusive and less financially damaging to consider such as bus lanes, clearways, red routes, choke points, etc, etc, etc. The proposals are to have £2 billion public transport investment and £1 billion surveillance equipment and administration. Forget the TIF loan and we can get 80% of the public transport proposals in any event.
Black Flag (26/08/2008 at 12:52)
It doesn't look like it, as the story says the comparison was with 12 months earlier.
It looks like the driving force is the price of fuel, which adds weight to the argument that the 2p fuel duty rise, which was postponed when prices were rising, should now be introduced.
Chris, Irlam (26/08/2008 at 13:07)
Try again Munkey Boy.
So you support pricing those that can least afford it off the roads and onto inadequate public transport do you?
There you have it - Munkey Boy supports roads for the rich - a true Tory Boy!
citycentre, manchester (26/08/2008 at 13:16)
Edina, the atricle says twice that traffic has fallen over the last 12 months, so it seems possible that like is being compared with like
Congestion is self-regulating
well it may well be, but does that mean city planners should do nothing 'till gridlock forces people out of jobs or businesses to move to less congested areas?
the survey was of speeds and journey times rather than traffic volume, is it not possible that people are just driving slower rather than less; maybe the increase in speed cameras or some of the work done redesigning junctions are also having an effect?
Black Flag (26/08/2008 at 13:35)
So Chris, as well as saying that increasing the cost of driving will make people find alternatives, you are also saying that a congestion charge will be progressive, as only the rich will be paying it.
You are doing a really good job of selling the scheme. I'm almost beginning to come round to supporting it.
Bean B4, manchester (26/08/2008 at 13:57)
Jay B, oldham (26/08/2008 at 14:17)
Council tax rises? extra zones to catch more motorists? increases in fares on public transport?
its got to come from somewhere? and we will all be effected.
yet the council will not confirm any of this if it goes wrong.
with that uncertainty in mind how can anyone vote yes?
we dont want to be put in debt to the government for many years to come!
we already pay them enough!
Munkey Boy (26/08/2008 at 14:46)
All the amateur economists in here make me laugh too, how do you know revenue will fall short? Less traffic isn't no traffic.
I'm not usualy in favour of generalisations, but how many people paying the full charge are that badly off anyway? In order to do so they have to be living outside the M60, working in Manchester city centre, work normal shift patterns and own and drive a car!
The fact is, a greatly improved public transport system is far more beneficial to those less financially well off than anything you do on the roads.
(You know saying that, I don't do bad for myself, and yet I use public transport regularly. Is that a paradox to you Alan/Chris/Simon et al?)
we deserve better (26/08/2008 at 14:48)
Perhaps if the city planners had been doing a better job in the first place, we wouldn't be in this position, so maybe they should stop.
Unfortunately, due to their incompetence, we're now being railroaded into paying through the nose.
It gets better though, we're now expected to give these very same incompetents an extra £1billion to fritter away…seems about right.
Chris, Irlam (26/08/2008 at 15:00)
Have you seen who is at the helm of the RAC thesedays citycentre?
None other than Professor Stephen Glaister:
http://www.racfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=545&Itemid=35
They can hardly be held as some sort of 'motorists organisation' by any but the most naive.
And Black Flag, we all know you support the Toll Tax anyway so no point even debating your snide comment is there?
Yawn.
Munkey Boy (26/08/2008 at 15:07)
Alan Kelly (26/08/2008 at 15:23)
Munkey….The most amateur economist would baulk at the proposal to set up a congestion charge by means of a loan which requires the congestion to be present in order to pay the loan back. You are extremely naïve.
To generalise that most people are not badly off is offensive. My financial situation is my own. The fact is that there is no precedent which entitles a local council to force me to pay a month’s salary to their coffers just so I can get to work. It is offensive for you to infer that I should do it because I am “well off”. How typically Labour, and selfish.
Again you misrepresent the facts just like all the other pro charge supporters. No-one is against public transport improvements. They are against the imposition of a charge which will apply to 10% of the working population and will mean them paying a month of their salary to GMPTA.
Now where is the paradox??
Black Flag (26/08/2008 at 15:36)
If you know that, then give me one example of when I've said I support the congestion charge. You'll struggle, because I've continually said that I think we should be using fuel duty rather than congestion charging to manage road use.
we deserve better (26/08/2008 at 15:37)
I do take responsibility for my own actions, it’s just a shame the TIF bid doesn’t recognise that fact.
Sorry, I’ll blame the pixies and the hob goblins next time as the planners are obviously not to blame.
lol? Nice to see you're entertained by my misfortune.
Trumpetman21, Irlam (26/08/2008 at 15:38)
They are incompetent, therefore they will be blamed. Capeesh?
citycentre, manchester (26/08/2008 at 15:39)
I hadnt, and dont know who that is, maybe an unwise assumption on my part; i will check, thanks
we deserve better
odd, the planners (at least GMPTE anyway) say comgestion is bad so we need better public transport and some road charges to encourage people to use it
some of those against the charge say congestion isnt that bad and no measure need to be take (except stopping people who arn't them using the roads usually), so the planners must be doing ok
(wetsocks), Manchester (26/08/2008 at 15:54)
The quote was taken from the article as an example of how just about anything will be laced with a pro-tram tax spin.