Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers
South Midlands Route Strategy Evidence Report April 2014
An executive agency of the Department for Transport South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Document History
South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Highways Agency
This document has been issued and amended as follows:
Version Date Description Author Approved by
1 February Draft for comment Sarah Garland Victoria Lazenby 2014 2 April 2014 Final version Sarah Garland Andrew Butterfield
i South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... ii
Tables ...... iii
1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 The scope of the stage 1 RBS evidence report ...... 2 1.3 Route description ...... 2
2 Route capability, condition and constraints ...... 6 2.1 Route performance ...... 6 2.2 Road safety ...... 15 2.3 Asset condition ...... 19 2.4 Route operation ...... 20 2.5 Technology ...... 22 2.6 Vulnerable road users ...... 23 2.7 Environment ...... 24
3 Future considerations...... 28 3.1 Overview ...... 28 3.2 Economic development and surrounding environment ...... 31 3.3 Network improvements and operational changes...... 34 3.4 Wider transport networks ...... 35
4 Key challenges and opportunities ...... 37 4.1 Introduction...... 37 4.2 Operational challenges and opportunities ...... 38 4.3 Asset condition challenges and opportunities...... 38 4.4 Capacity challenges and opportunities ...... 39 4.5 Safety challenges and opportunities ...... 41 4.6 Social and environmental challenges and opportunities ...... 41 4.7 Conclusion...... 49
Appendix A Route map ...... 54
Appendix B Glossary ...... 56
Appendix C Stakeholder involvement ...... 57
ii South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Tables
Table 2.1 Ten busiest sections on the route 6 Table 2.2 Ten least reliable journey-time locations on the route 7 Table 3.1 Key housing and economic growth proposals 31 Table 3.2 Committed SRN enhancement schemes 34 Table 3.3 Declared pipeline schemes 35 Table 3.4 Committed local transport network enhancement schemes 35 Table 4.1 Schedule of challenges and opportunities 43
iii South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 The Highways Agency is responsible for planning the long term future and development of the strategic road network (SRN). 1.1.2 Route-based strategies (RBS) represent a fresh approach to identifying investment needs on the SRN. Through adopting the RBS approach, we aim to identify network needs relating to operations, maintenance and where appropriate, improvements to proactively facilitate economic growth. 1.1.3 The development of RBS is based on one of the recommendations included in Alan Cook’s report A Fresh Start for the SRN, published in November 2011. He recommended that the Highways Agency, working with local authorities (LAs) and local enterprise partnerships (LEPs), should initiate and develop route-based strategies for the SRN. 1.1.4 The then Secretary of State accepted the recommendation in the Government’s response (May 2012), stating that it would enable a smarter approach to investment planning and support greater participation in planning for the SRN from local and regional stakeholders. 1.1.5 The Highways Agency completed the following three pilot strategies which have been published on the Highways Agency website: • A1 West of Newcastle; • A12 from the M25 to Harwich (including the A120 to Harwich); and • M62 between Leeds and Manchester. 1.1.6 Building on the learning from those pilot strategies, we have divided the SRN into 18 routes. A map illustrating the routes is provided in Appendix A. The South Midlands route is one of that number. 1.1.7 RBS are being delivered in two stages. Stage 1 establishes the necessary evidence base to help identify performance issues on routes and anticipated future challenges, takes account of asset condition and operational requirements, whilst gaining a better understanding of the local growth priorities. 1.1.8 In the second stage we will use the evidence to take forward a programme of work to identify possible solutions for a prioritised set of challenges and opportunities. It is only then that potential interventions are likely to come forward, covering operation, maintenance and if appropriate, road improvement schemes. 1.1.9 The RBS process will be used to bring together national and local priorities to inform what is needed for a route, while delivering the outcomes in the performance specification. 1.1.10 Using the evidence base and solutions identification studies, we will establish outline operational and investment priorities for all routes in
1 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
the SRN for the period April 2015 – March 2021. This will in turn feed into the Roads Investment Strategy, announced by the Department for Transport in Action for Roads.
1.2 The scope of the stage 1 RBS evidence report
1.2.1 During the first stage of RBS, information from both within the Highways Agency and from our partners and stakeholders outside the Highways Agency has been collected to gain an understanding of the key operational, maintenance and capacity challenges for the route. These challenges take account of the possible changes that likely local growth aspirations, or wider transport network alterations will have on the routes. 1.2.2 The evidence reports: • Describe the capability, condition and constraints along the route; • Identify local growth aspirations; • Identify planned network improvements and operational changes; • Describe the key challenges and opportunities facing the route over the five year period; and • Give a forward view to challenges and opportunities that might arise beyond the five year period. 1.2.3 The 18 evidence reports across the SRN will be used to: • Inform the selection of priority challenges and opportunities for further investigation during stage 2 of route-based strategies; and • Inform the development of future performance specifications for the Highways Agency. 1.2.4 A selection of the issues and opportunities identified across the route are contained within this report, with a more comprehensive list provided within the technical annex. This is for presentational reasons and is not intended to suggest a weighting or view on the priority of the issues. 1.2.5 The evidence reports do not suggest or promote solutions, or guarantee further investigation or future investment.
1.3 Route description
1.3.1 The South Midlands route covers 440 carriageway miles (both directions) and provides the strategic link between the East and West Midlands as shown on figure 1, through the following roads: • A38 from Lichfield to Derby (including the A5148); • M42 from Birmingham to the M1 via the A42; • A46/M69 from the M5 near Ashchurch to the M1 at Leicester; • A449/A5 from the junction with the M54 to the A5 junction with the M1 at junction 18; and
2 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
• M45 and A45 from Coventry to the M1. 1.3.2 The route is mainly dual carriageway all purpose trunk road although there are significant sections of single carriageway on the A5 and A46. There are three motorway sections, the M45 (M1 to A46) M42 (junctions 9 to 11) these are two lane motorways, while the M69 (M6 junction 2 to M1 junction 21) has three lanes. 1.3.3 The M6 Toll is considered as part of this route as it connects the M6 junction 4 near Coleshill to junction 11A north of Wolverhampton, paralleling predominantly the A5 and M42 within the South Midlands route. However, the toll road construction is funded, operated and maintained, by Midland Expressway Limited which has a government commission to do so until 2054. 1.3.4 The route serves the major towns and cities surrounding the south east of Birmingham to the East Midlands, through Coventry, Tamworth, Lichfield, Nuneaton, Hinckley, Rugby, Leicester, and towards the south of the Midlands linking the major towns of Warwick and Stratford on Avon. 1.3.5 The route links the East and West Midlands and provides access to a number of significant traffic generators, including the National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham and the Donington Park Motor Racing Circuit. Coventry and East Midlands Airports are within the route and it links these major international hubs with the M1 and M6. The A5 is part of the Trans European Network. 1.3.6 On average, the route carries over 7 million vehicles miles per day. There is a wide variety of typical use of the route due to the variances in the rural and urban nature, major trunk roads and motorway compared with rural and single carriageway sections. A high proportion of commercial traffic uses the route for east-west movements between Birmingham and Coventry to the M1, with the A5 acting as a local distributor. 1.3.7 Variations in the type and level of traffic due to different times of the year can occur on the route, especially at the southern end where the route serves the historic towns of Warwick and Stratford on Avon where tourism is key part of the local economy. The traffic generators described above often hold major events throughout the year, for example Donington Park Motor Racing Circuit. 1.3.8 This route connects with a number of other routes for which RBS are also being developed. These are: • Birmingham to Exeter (the A46 to the south west of this route connects with the M5); • London to Scotland West (the A46 crosses the M40 near Warwick, connects at junction 7 of the M42, and crosses the M6 at junction 12); • Midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire (after crossing the M6 the route connects with the M54 at junction 2 with the A449);
3 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
• Felixstowe to Midlands (connects with the M6 at junction 2 near Coventry); • London to Scotland East (connects with this route three times along the M1); and • North and East Midlands (connects where the A38 meets the A50 near Derby).
4 Figure 1 South Midlands Route-based strategy overview map
Newcastle upon Tyne
Liverpool Manchester
Norwich Birmingham
London
Exeter
South Midlands route Port Airport Junction number © Crown copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100030649 – N130328 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
2 Route capability, condition and constraints
2.1 Route performance
2.1.1 The SRN comprises only three per cent of England’s road network, but it carries one-third of all traffic. Around 80 per cent of all goods travel by road, with two-thirds of large goods vehicle traffic transported on our network. 2.1.2 The M42 and M6 Toll around the West Midlands conurbation are the busiest motorway sections of the route. This is likely to be due to the available capacity on these sections which are either three or four lane motorways. Incident management clear up capability is key to keeping these roads moving. With the exception of M6 Toll, a high proportion of freight is common along the entire route, but is particularly concentrated on the M42, A42 and A5. The link with highest proportion of freight traffic is the A42 between M42 junction 11 and A511, which is 36% with 18% heavy good vehicles (HGVs) 2.1.3 The busiest trunk road on the route is the A46 south of Coventry (between A452 and A45). This link is near Coventry Airport and where the A45 and A46 meet known as Tollbar. 2.1.4 The ten most trafficked sections of this route are presented in Table 2.1. This is for the reporting period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.
Table 2.1 Ten busiest sections on the route (1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013)
Rank SRN section Annual Average National Rank Daily Traffic (AADT)
1 M42 between M42 J7 and M42 J7a 64,694 109 2 M6 Toll between M42 J8 and M6 Toll T1 63,958 117 3 M42 between M42 J8 and M42 J9S 63,958 117 4 M42 between M42 J7a and M42 J7 50,125 361 5 M6 Toll between M6 Toll T1 and M42 J8 46,350 430 6 M42 between M42 J9 and M42 J8 46,350 430 7 M42 between M42 J9S and M42 J9 34,139 769 8 M42 between M42 J10 and M42 J9 33, 794 786 9 M42 between M42 J9 and M42 J10 33,712 793 10 A46 between A452 and A45 30,279 885
2.1.5 However, busy roads in themselves don’t necessarily represent an issue – our customers’ experience of driving on the network is important to us. The Strategic Road Network performance specification 2013-15, sets us high level performance outcomes and outputs under the banner of an efficiently and effectively operated SRN. We currently measure how reliable the network is based on whether the ‘journey’ time taken to
6 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
travel between adjacent junctions is within a set reference time for that period, ie ‘on time’. 2.1.6 Table 2.2 below shows that the sections of the route that suffer the greatest unreliability in terms of journey-time are in the main the all purpose trunk roads. The A5 between Hinckley and Nuneaton (eastbound) is the most unreliable and is ranked the 15th least reliable link nationally. This poor performance is directly related to the capacity issues at the Dodwells and Longshoot junctions. These junctions are at grade and will be improved as part of the Pinch Point scheme to be completed by 2015.
Table 2.2 Ten least reliable journey-time locations on the route (1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013)
Rank Location On-time reliability National Rank measure
1 A5 between A47 and A47 (east bound) 51.7% 15 2 A45 between A452 and M42 J6 57.8% 44 3 M6 Toll between M6 Toll T1 and M6 Toll T2 58.4% 55 4 A46 between A4184 and A44 60.0% 75 5 A38 between A5 and A5148 60.8% 97 6 A5148 between A5 and A38 61.2% 109 7 A5 between A47 and A47 (west bound) 61.3% 113 8 A5 between A5148 and A38 61.3% 115 9 A45 between M42 J6 and A452 61.9% 126 10 A5148 between A38 and A5 61.9% 129
2.1.7 The A45 near junction 6 of the M42 can be the subject of poor reliability during the winter particularly if the weather is severe, analysis shows the least reliable journey-times are during the winter months. 2.1.8 For the M6 Toll sections, the contributing factor to poor performance in terms of reliability is queuing at the junctions rather than on the M6 Toll links. 2.1.9 The A46 to the south east of the Evesham bypass, is displaying a lower than expected reliability measure. This is due to a local developer scheme on this section which was undertaken during the 2012/13 monitoring period. With the scheme now complete it is expected the reliability will improve 2.1.10 A number of the links in the table above relate to the journey-time reliability on the links between the A38, A5 and A5148 near Lichfield. This is a significant link between the north of Birmingham and major towns to the north and east, and used in the main by commuter based local trips. Due to the complex nature of the section with multiple vehicle movements, congestion can occur around the junctions and on the links leading to issues with reliability.
7 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
2.1.11 The route performs well in that the sections discussed in Table 2.1, the busiest links on the route, do not feature in the table above setting out the least reliable locations on the route. Whilst these sections, of the M42 are busy they do not suffer the same level of congestion as seen on the trunk road sections. 2.1.12 Figure 2.1 illustrates the average speeds during weekday peak periods between 1 April 2012 and 31 March 2013. The peak periods are generally the busiest periods on the network and help us to understand the impact of the worst congestion on customers’ journey-times. Figure 2.1 also shows any known performance or capacity issues where the local road network interfaces with the route. 2.1.13 The A46 southbound near its junction with the M5 at junction 9 operates at an average speed for traffic of between 20mph and 30mph. This is in part due to the section being single carriageway with a speed limit of 40mph, but additionally queuing on this link is because of poor junction performance at M5 junction 9, resulting in traffic queuing back along the A46. There are also a number of local accesses and a concentration of employment along the A46 just to the east of junction 9. A number of issues associated with this junction will be addressed through a Pinch Point scheme. 2.1.14 Traffic travelling southbound on the A46 towards the Tollbar junction at the A45 experience peak hour speeds of 30 to 40mph slower than the speed limit of 60mph. 2.1.15 On the A5 between its junctions with the M69 and M42, the average speed at peak times is between 21 and 30mph. This section is generally single carriageway with a speed limit of either 40 or 50mph. The exception is towards the junction with the M69 where the average speed drops a further 10mph at peak times and where the speed limit is 40mph. 2.1.16 The M42 performs well in terms of reliability compared to other roads on this route. A four mile HGV overtaking ban is in place, from 7am to 7pm, on an uphill section between junctions 10 and 11. This has contributed towards a positive impact on reliability.
8 South Midlands – Route-based strategy – Map 1 of 2 AA50 3 5 8 5 0 3 AA66 MM11 4 AA38 AA453 Figure 2.1 Network performance 2012/13
Peak period speeds EEastast MMidlandsidlands
MM6 6 8 3 LoughboroughLoughborough 2 AA38 4 AA42
CannockCannock
6 4 AA55 LichfieldLichfield AA46
11 MM1
9 1
4 2
4 4
AA449 MM42 LeicesterLeicester MM5454 TamworthTamworth MM66 TTolloll
WolverhamptonWolverhampton 2 MM6 4 HinckleyHinckley 9 6 MM42 6 Average speed at peak times (mph) AA55 MM69 (April 2012 – March 2013) Peak times are Monday to Friday 7–10am and 4 –7pm 9 Less than 20mph 5 NuneatonNuneaton 21 – 30mph MM5
31 – 40mph 9 BirminghamBirmingham 6 41 – 50mph MM66 MM69
51 – 60mph BBirminghamirmingham 61 – 70mph InternationalInternational
No data available CoventryCoventry Key junction capacity issue AA1414 RugbyRugby 2 4 Illustrative MM42 CCoventryoventry (see Map 2) AA55MM11 (see Map 2) HA media services, m130521 South Midlands (see Map 1) (see Map 1) (see Map 1) (see Map 1) South Midlands – Route-based strategy – Map 2 of 2 AA5 MM55 5 MM11 MM66 9 Figure 2.1 6 BirminghamBirmingham MM69 Network performance 2012/13 AA452 BBirminghamirmingham 4 5 Peak period speeds InternationalInternational 2 MM66 2 AA4545 CoventryCoventry
2 AA1414 4 MM42
RugbyRugby AA5 5 AA45 4 MM4242 5 Average speed at peak times (mph) CCoventryoventry (April 2012 – March 2013) Peak times are Monday to Friday 7–10am and 4 –7pm RedditchRedditch MM4545 17 Less than 20mph
21 – 30mph 31 – 40mph 15 WarwickWarwick 41 – 50mph MM1 1 51 – 60mph MM5 61 – 70mph 5 AA4646 No data available
Key junction capacity issue MM40 4 0 Stratford-Stratford- upon-Avonupon-Avon
MM5050
9 Illustrative MM55 MM4040
HA media services, m130521 South Midlands South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
2.1.17 The SRN is key in promoting growth of the UK economy, and alleviating congestion can realise economic benefits. 2.1.18 Figure 2.2 shows the delay on our network compared with a theoretical free-flowing network.
11 South Midlands – Route-based strategy – Map 1 of 2 AA50 3 5 8 5 0 3 AA66 MM11 4 AA38 AA453 Figure 2.2 Network performance 2012/13
Delay EEastast MMidlandsidlands
MM6 6 8 3 LoughboroughLoughborough 2 AA38 4 AA42
CannockCannock
6 4 AA55 LichfieldLichfield AA46
11 MM1
9 1
4 2
4 4
AA449 MM42 LeicesterLeicester MM5454 TamworthTamworth MM66 TTolloll
WolverhamptonWolverhampton 2 Vehicle Hours Delay MM6 4 HinckleyHinckley 9 6 MM42 6 (April 2012 – March 2013) AA55 MM69 Vehicle Hours Delay is an estimate of the total travel time experienced by all road users over and above the expected theoretical free-flow travel time. 9 NuneatonNuneaton Top 10% 5 MM5 Next 10% 9 Next 20% 6 BirminghamBirmingham MM66 MM69 Next 20%
Next 20% BBirminghamirmingham InternationalInternational Bottom 20% No data available CoventryCoventry Explanation of data can be found in the Technical Annex. AA1414 RugbyRugby 2 4 Illustrative MM42 CCoventryoventry (see Map 2) AA55MM11 (see Map 2) HA media services, m130521 South Midlands (see Map 1) (see Map 1) (see Map 1) South Midlands – Route-based strategy – Map 2 of 2 AA5 M5 5 MM11 MM66 9 Figure 2.2 6 BirminghamBirmingham MM69
Network performance 2012/13 AA452 4 BBirminghamirmingham 5 2 Delay InternationalInternational MM66 2 AA4545 CoventryCoventry
2 AA1414 4 MM42
RugbyRugby AA5 5 AA45 4 MM4242 5 CCoventryoventry 17 RedditchRedditch MM4545
WarwickWarwick
15 MM1 1 MM5 5 AA4646 Vehicle Hours Delay WorcesterWorcester (April 2012 – March 2013) MM40 Vehicle Hours Delay is an estimate of the total travel 4 time experienced by all road users over and above the 0 expected theoretical free-flow travel time. Stratford-Stratford- upon-Avonupon-Avon Top 10% Next 10% Next 20%
Next 20% Next 20%
Bottom 20% No data available Explanation of data can be found in the Technical Annex. MM5050
9 Illustrative MM55 MM4040
HA media services, m130521 South Midlands South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
2.1.19 The majority of the poor performing sections within the South Midlands route, compared with other parts of the SRN, are on the trunk road sections of the route around major towns and cities such as Coventry, Nuneaton, Lichfield and Tamworth. These are mainly single carriageway sections with lower speed limits. 2.1.20 The M42 between junctions 7 to 11, is a major strategic section of the route linking Birmingham and the M6 with the M1 via the A42 which, experiences delays and is the busiest section of the route. However, it does perform relatively well in terms of reliability compared to the rest of the route. Accessibility to East Midlands Airport is important, particularly for their freight and cargo distributions. There are in the region of 500 heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the airport on a typical week day where reliability of the A42 is key to delivering cargo on time for its next journey. The vast majority of these trips take place late at night (normally after 9pm) and early in the morning (between 2am and 5am), with shift patterns for most of the employees on this site, there is no “normal” peak. 2.1.21 Some sections of the route have poor performance for a number of reasons; the A46 at the Tollbar junction with the A45 is such a junction that impacts on the reliability of the surrounding links and the average speed at peak times. A major improvement scheme is due to start here in spring 2014 to address these issues. 2.1.22 The A5 between the M69 and M42 experiences delays and average speeds are significantly lower than the speed limit. There is a speed limit of 40 or 50mph along this section most of which is made up of single lane carriageway. The proportion of freight is high compared to the rest of the route which means that overtaking, often slower, heavy goods vehicles can be difficult. There is an issue with consistency of design standards on this route as there are a variety of speed limits, movement between single and dual carriageway sections and many accesses onto the trunk road. 2.1.23 The A5 to the north east of the route, from the A449 to M42, is predominantly urban in nature and the majority of traffic made up of locally based trips. There is a significant amount of traffic travelling from the north of Birmingham to the major towns of Cannock, Lichfield and Tamworth; these north-south movements on the local network interact with the east-west movement on the SRN at junctions resulting in queuing both ways. 2.1.24 The sections of the route that perform well are generally the motorway sections, which in comparison with most of the trunk road sections have consistent design standards with at grade junctions. We can see from above that whilst they carry the most traffic on the route they perform well in terms of journey-time reliability. In particular, the M69 performs well on all of the measures discussed above, apart from where the M69 meets the M1 northbound where there is peak time congestion. The junction with the M1 at junction 21 is identified as a junction with capacity issues.
14 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
2.1.25 The A46, at the southern end of the route from Coventry to the M5 is the best performing trunk road on the route. It is more rural in nature compared to the trunk roads in the north of the route, such as the A5.
2.2 Road safety
2.2.1 As a responsible network operator and through the Strategic Road Network performance specification 2013-15, the Highways Agency works to ensure the safe operation of the network. 2.2.2 By 2020, The strategic framework for road safety 2011 forecasts the potential for a 40% reduction of the numbers killed or seriously injured on the roads compared with 2005-2009. We are working toward this aspirational goal. 2.2.3 Figure 2.3 illustrates the rates of injury accidents and the top 250 casualty locations on the SRN between 2009 and 2011. Injury accidents are collisions where people were injured and their injuries were slight, serious or fatal. Damage only incidents have not been included. The top 250 casualty locations have been calculated nationally, and are based on the number of casualties which occurred within a distance of 100m. Locations with the same number of casualties have been given a “joint” ranking and therefore, there may be some locations with the same rank number. 2.2.4 Between 2008 and 2012 there were 2326 collisions on the route. The number per year has ranged from 438 to 514 over this 5 year period, and there is a downward trend. 2.2.5 Of the 2326 collisions recorded 60 (3%) included fatalities, 294 (13%) included serious injuries and the remaining 1972 (85%) included only slight injuries. The number of fatalities appears to remain steady across the 5 year period, with between 10 and 13 each year. 2.2.6 Within the 2326 collisions there 3412 casualties, at a rate of 1.47 casualties per collision. 2.2.7 In terms of vehicles/road users involved in the collisions: • 80% involved more than one vehicle; • 19% of vehicles involved were HGVs; • Where the age of drivers was known 5% were young drivers (aged 16-19); and • 10% were older drivers (aged 60 or over). 2.2.8 The causation factors for accidents indicate that in the main driver error or behaviour were the main causes. A summary of the main factors are as follows: • 34% occurred where the driver ‘failed to look properly’; • 26% occurred where the driver ‘failed to judge other person's path or speed’; • 15% involved ‘loss of control’;
15 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
• 14% involved ‘Poor turn or manoeuvre’ • 13% were ‘travelling too close’; • 13% cited ‘careless, reckless or in a hurry’ • 11% involved ‘sudden braking’; • 9% cited ‘slippery road’; and • 8% were ‘travelling too fast for conditions’; 2.2.9 Motorways have generally have been constructed to a higher and more consistent safety standard, whereas trunk roads have varied design standards and speed limits, with a greater mix of traffic including non motorised users. 2.2.10 The A5 has four locations within the top 250 casualty locations nationally. These are near Hinckley, Atherstone, the junction with the A38 and another near the junction with the A461 Walsall Road. Stakeholders also raised concerns about the A5 and where it has single carriageway, poor junction performance and a lack of viable alternative routes. 2.2.11 Similarly, other all purpose trunk road sections were more likely to have collision locations within the top 250 across the SRN or within the top 10% of sections with total casualties per billion vehicle miles. The A46 around Coventry and Stratford on Avon and the A449 and A38 experienced safety performance issues in comparison with the rest of the SRN. 2.2.12 Despite the overall decline in injury accidents, local police have ongoing concerns over safety on the A42. The lack of a hard shoulder reduces access to accidents for emergency services and leaves broken down vehicles at a greater risk of collision. Further concerns are raised as the road is perceived as a motorway, with a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles, but lacks the same design standards as the M42. However, these concerns are not reflected in the rates of injuries and accidents. 2.2.13 A safety concern was raised by stakeholders on the A46 at Warwick, where queuing traffic backs onto the main carriageway due to capacity issues at Stanks junction. The evidence on the safety performance along this section shows no casualty locations in the top 250 sites across the country and the links have performed well compared to the rest of the SRN. 2.2.14 Various partners are contributing to reducing road casualties and improving road safety in the region. Partners relevant to this route have specific campaigns targeting motorcyclists and young drivers, cyclists and older drivers. 2.2.15 While we aim to reduce the numbers killed or seriously injured using and working on the SRN, we will always identify more safety interventions than our budget allows us to implement. We use a prioritisation process to help us and we review this regularly to ensure we are targeting the locations with the greatest opportunity to save lives and reduce the severity of injury.
16 A50 A6 M1 A38 A453 South Midlands – Route-based strategy – Map 1 of 2
Figure 2.3 Safety on the network East Midlands
M6 Loughborough A42 81 Cannock 123 123 202 A5 Lichfield A46
11 M1
A449 M42 Leicester M54 Tamworth M6 Toll 158
Wolverhampton
M6 M42 Total casualties per billion 158 A5 M69 vehicle miles (2009 – 2011) 9 Top 10% Nuneaton Next 15% M5 Next 20% 41 Next 25% Birmingham M6 M69 Bottom 30% Birmingham No data available International 186 Top 250 collision location (with national ranking) Note: Collisions shown include all fatal, Coventry serious and slight injuries. A14 Rugby
Illustrative M42 Coventry (see Map 2) A5M1 (see Map 2) HA media services, m130521 South Midlands (see Map 1) (see Map 1) (see Map 1)
AA5 MM55 5 MM11 MM66 18 9 South Midlands – Route-based strategy – Map 2 of 2 6 BirminghamBirmingham MM69
AA452 4 BBirminghamirmingham 5 Figure 2.3 2 InternationalInternational MM66 2 Safety on the network AA4545 CoventryCoventry
2 21 AA1414 4 MM42
RugbyRugby AA5 5 AA45 4 MM4242 5 CCoventryoventry RedditchRedditch MM4545 WarwickWarwick
202 15 MM1 1 MM5 5 AA4646 WorcesterWorcester MM40 Total casualties per billion 4 0 vehicle miles (2009 – 2011)
Stratford-Stratford- Top 10% upon-Avonupon-Avon Next 15%
Next 20% Next 25%
Bottom 30% No data available
186 Top 250 collision location (with national ranking) MM5050 Note: Collisions shown include all fatal, serious and slight injuries.
9 Illustrative MM55 MM4040
HA media services, m130521 South Midlands South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
2.3 Asset condition
2.3.1 We carry out routine maintenance and renewal of roads, structures and technology to keep the network safe, serviceable and reliable. We also ensure that our contractors deliver a high level of service on the SRN to support operational performance and the long-term integrity of the asset. 2.3.2 From new, assets have an operational ‘life’ which, under normal conditions and maintenance, the risk of failure is expected to be low. Beyond this period, the risk of asset failure is expected to increase, although for many types of asset the risk of failure remains low and we do not routinely replace assets solely on the basis that they are older than their expected operational life. We use a combination of more regular maintenance and inspection along with a risk-based approach to ensure that assets remain safe while achieving value for money from our maintenance and renewal activities. 2.3.3 We maintain a National Asset Management Plan as an annual summary of the Highways Agency’s network asset inventory and condition. It is aimed at ensuring there is sight of future issues affecting the asset and enabling strategic decision making.
Carriageway Surface 2.3.4 The road surface on the SRN is primarily surfaced with two types of flexible bituminous materials, namely Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA) which has an approximate design life of 25 years and Thin Surface Course System (TSCS) with a lower construction cost and shorter design life of 10-15 years. Large tranches of HRA were laid in the 1990s and TSCS tranches laid in the 2000s resulting in a significant proportion of the network reaching the end of its design life by 2020. 2.3.5 It should be noted that, although carriageway surfacing may be identified as reaching or exceeding its design life, the surfacing will not necessarily require treatment at this point. Carriageway surfacing that is beyond its design life is at a higher risk of failure, with such risks increasing the longer the surfacing exceeds its design life. The increasing age of the surfacing could manifest in an increased frequency of maintenance interventions which, if a renewals scheme are not funded, may result in a higher cost both financially and in terms of disruption to road users to maintain the asset in a safe and serviceable condition. 2.3.6 Key routes which will reach the end of their design life by 2021 are the A5 between the M42 and A38, the A46 from M6 to the lower county boundary of Warwickshire, the M42/A42 and the A38 from Lichfield to Burton-upon-Trent. 2.3.7 There has been an increase in rutting towards the eastern section of the route between 2010/11 and present. Deep ruts are indicative of a surface or whole foundation structure reaching the end of its serviceable life. Deterioration of road markings is also considered to be an issue.
19 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
2.3.8 Surface condition to the west of the South Midlands route is generally in line with the national average. The area is performing better in reducing below standard skid resistance, rutting and other defects in comparison to the national average. 2.3.9 There is concrete road surface material on some sections but this is only a very small proportion when compared to the length of flexible road surfaces. The amount of concrete road surface is also reducing as it is replaced by flexible material at the end of its serviceable life. Concrete is not a material we now use in new carriageway construction on any of the motorway and trunk road network. 2.3.10 Within this route there is a significant section of concrete along the M42 near Birmingham. This section is generally in good condition and it is anticipated that it will not require replacement by 2021.
Structures 2.3.11 Generally the structures along this route are not in the same scale as other routes and currently no significant maintenance interventions are currently anticipated. We will continue to monitor and manage these structures through routine maintenance activities.
Other key asset issues for routes 2.3.12 The percentage of high or severe risks for the geotechnical asset is slightly worse along parts of the route than the national average. This is particularly focused on a number of high risk areas in the south of the region, predominantly the M45. The M45 was built in the 1950’s and the incline of the embankment and the composite materials would not be to today’s standard. We continue to manage and monitor this section. 2.3.13 The A5 has a combination of segregated and unsegregated cycleways along the route as well as areas without provision. The condition varies along the route and is poor in some areas. Some areas contain York Stove paving, which can be more difficult to maintain and is frequently parked on by traffic, causing obstructions. 2.3.14 The A42 serves East Midlands Airport where the vast majority of freight vehicle movements take place late at night (normally after 9pm) and early in the morning (between 2am and 5am). Also the peak season for airport travel for passengers is in the summer and for the movement of goods in the run up to the Christmas holiday. Therefore, consideration is needed for how road works are undertaken on the M42/A42 corridor.
2.4 Route operation
Incident Management 2.4.1 We work hard to deliver a reliable service to customers and to reduce the number and impacts of incidents on road users. 2.4.2 Across the whole network, the Highways Agency Traffic Officer Service responds to around 20,000 incidents each month. We measure how
20 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
effective we are at managing incidents by looking at the time incidents affect the running lanes. 2.4.3 The motorway links on this route are covered by the Highways Agency’s Traffic Officer Service providing dedicated or partial on-road incident management response. The service operates from two regional control centres (East and West Midlands) on this route. 2.4.4 The route’s all purpose trunk roads do not have dedicated Traffic Officer Service patrols and the service only provides an on road response in exceptional circumstances. Identifying and verifying accidents on these sections can be difficult due to the limited technology on these routes and we rely on our partners for intelligence when they occur. The exception to this is the A42 on which a dedicated incident management response is provided, as an extension of the dedicated patrols on the M42. 2.4.5 We have a good understanding of the types of incidents which are quick to clear up and those which take longer. In general, there are far more incidents which don’t affect the running lanes for very long, and mostly these are caused by breakdowns in the live lanes, debris or damage only collisions. The longest duration incidents are mostly caused by infrastructure issues, such as road surface repairs, bridge strikes, barrier collisions and spillages. 2.4.6 We continue to work with our partners in the emergency services to reduce the impacts on our network from serious collisions and long- duration incidents. 2.4.7 The three motorways on this route: M45, M42 and M69 perform relatively well in terms of average incident durations compared to the rest of the strategic network. Information on average incident impact for the all purpose trunk road sections of the South Midlands route is not available at this time. 2.4.8 Due to the nature of the West Midlands SRN with major arterial routes, the priority of the Traffic Officer Service is the motorway network. This is due to a combination of limited roadside technology, both in terms of information gathering and dissemination, and the lack of trunk road resource capability. 2.4.9 The quality and suitability of emergency diversion routes on this route vary significantly. Stakeholders raised concerns over the use of the A5 between the M1 and the M6 as an emergency diversion route for strategic traffic from the M6, which can cause congestion and major disruption in the local area. The low railway bridge between Dodwells and the M69 on the A5 provides a constraint for high sided vehicles, a particular issue with the A5 if used as a diversion route. Suitability of the A38, for similar to reasons mentioned above for the A5, were also raised by stakeholders.
Flooding 2.4.10 We have a responsibility to reduce flooding. Flooding of the Highways Agency’s network impacts upon network performance and the safety of
21 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
road users. Flooding off the network has an impact on third parties living adjacent to the network. 2.4.11 Based on recorded flooding incidents, we have identified those parts of the network that are at high risk of repeated flooding. 2.4.12 Many drainage systems are aging and were built to the design standards of the time they were constructed. Due to changes to land use in the area and deterioration over time there are issues with removing water effectively from the road surface. This can lead to saturated surface layers and increased water in and around structures particularly during the winter season. 2.4.13 The A38 near Burton-upon-Trent has the most significant cluster of sites with a flooding risk. Stakeholders also raised their concerns in relation to the suitability of the A38 as a diversion route as it is susceptible to flooding. 2.4.14 The A46, M69 and M45 pass through or alongside a total of 72 water bodies (these can be a creek, pond, river or a lake), from which arise a number of flooding hotspots.
Severe Weather 2.4.15 The Highways Agency aims to minimise where possible the impacts of severe weather, i.e. strong winds and snow, on network performance and the safety of road users. 2.4.16 Certain roads along this route have become more susceptible to severe weather than others. Sensitive areas are along the A46 in particular Festival to Stoneleigh Islands (near the south of Coventry), which can be susceptible to fogging and misting conditions due to surrounding water bodies. The A46 north bound (between M40 junction 15 to the A4177) can be vulnerable to surface water in the event of large rain fall.
2.5 Technology
2.5.1 The Highways Agency works hard to deliver a reliable service to customers through effective traffic management and the provision of accurate and timely information. We provide information to our customers before and during their journeys. 2.5.2 We monitor key parts of our network using CCTV and use sensors in the road to monitor traffic conditions. These are used by our National Traffic Operations Centre and seven Regional Control Centres to provide information to customers before their journeys, eg on the Traffic England website or through the hands-free traffic app for smartphones. Whilst on the network, we also inform our customers using variable message signs (VMS). 2.5.3 Technologies such as overhead gantries, lane specific signals and driver information signs also forms part of how we can operate our network efficiently. In some locations we have controlled motorways, which is where we can use variable mandatory speed limits to help keep traffic moving. Smart motorways use both variable mandatory speed
22 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
limits and the hard shoulder as an additional live traffic lane during periods of congestion. Ramp metering manages traffic accessing the network via slip roads during busy periods to help avoid merging and mainline traffic from bunching together and disrupting mainline traffic flow. 2.5.4 Whilst there is some technology on the motorway sections of these routes, there are significant gaps. Stakeholders raised the M69 could benefit from greater strategic signing due to providing a link to the M1 and M6, and as a major diversion route for M1 junction 19 (Catthorpe). There is a technology Pinch Point scheme planned that will increase variable message sign provision on the M69. 2.5.5 There are gaps in the provision of technology on the trunk roads within the route, which coincides with poor journey-time reliability and lack of dedicated traffic officer resource for incident management. In particular, the A5 between Hinckley and Nuneaton is the least reliable section of this route and has little technology along its stretch from the M1 at junction 18 to Atherstone. 2.5.6 On the other trunk roads, the A449 and the A46 have very limited or no technology. This coincides with some poor performing sections on the A449 and the A46 around Coventry, Warwick and Evesham. 2.5.7 As opposed to other trunk roads on the route, the A42 has a good provision of technology, including queue protection (MIDAS), CCTV and message signs. This is because of its strategic importance in providing an east-west link between the M6 and M1. 2.5.8 The M42 has a comprehensive technology provision, including variable speed limits supporting queue protection, CCTV coverage, ramp metering and signs and signals. 2.5.9 The Burton Box is made up of 17 signs along the A38, M42, M69, A5 (Atherstone to the M6) and A50 and enables traffic to be strategically redirected. However, a lack of CCTV coverage along these routes means the RCC are limited in utilising the signs to inform road users of incidents and congestion.
2.6 Vulnerable road users
2.6.1 For the purposes of the document, vulnerable road users are defined as pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. 2.6.2 On the motorway and high standard dual carriageways of the route there is restricted access for vulnerable users. The main concern is to facilitate safe crossing at junctions and designated crossing points. 2.6.3 On the rest of the trunk road network of the route, vulnerable users have unlimited access and here the focus is on ensuring they can do so safely. This is most relevant to the A5 and A46 where there are many communities that are adjacent to the SRN. 2.6.4 Some stakeholders consider the fact the A5 straddles the boundary between Leicestershire and Warwickshire means that there is a perceived barrier between communities on either side of the road, for
23 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
example between Hinckley and Nuneaton. Stakeholders also felt that this had a disproportionate impact on non-vehicle users, and particularly pedestrians crossing the A5. 2.6.5 Stakeholders were keen to promote cycling and concerns were raised regarding the mix of types of traffic that all use the route, for example heavy goods vehicles and cyclists. It was felt the promotion of cycle and HGV education awareness would help address this issue. 2.6.6 The Highways Agency, working in partnership with Sustrans has considered numerous locations to improve the connectivity, accessibility and safety of cyclists on the SRN. On this route, a scheme being taken forward is on the A46/A435 south of Alcester. 2.6.7 Stakeholders raised concerns regarding the crossing points on the A46 in Coventry, but did acknowledge that the planned major scheme at Toll bar will improve the current situation for cyclists. Also in relation to the A46, but around Stratford-upon-Avon, there was a call for greater segregation of cyclists with traffic and to review the pedestrian and cycle crossings in the area. 2.6.8 Recent correspondence to the Highways Agency has highlighted pedestrians’ concerns on crossing over the A46 around Evesham and cycling facilities along this section. Also in this area, Sustrans highlighted they were looking to develop a major leisure route from Worcester to Oxford via the Cotswolds which would need support from the SRN. Further concerns have been raised about the suitability of cycling and pedestrian facilities at the southern end of this route where the A46 meets the M5. 2.6.9 Major employers around M1 junction 24, such as East Midlands Airport, are trying to increase the numbers of staff travelling to work on foot and bicycle as part of their Sustainable Travel Plans. These employers have expressed a desire to improve facilities for vulnerable road users to help achieve their Travel Plan targets.
2.7 Environment
2.7.1 As a responsible network operator and through the Strategic Road Network performance specification 2013-15, the Highways Agency works to enhance the road user experience whilst minimising the impacts of the SRN on local communities and both the natural and built environment.
Air quality 2.7.2 We recognise that vehicles using our road network are a source of air pollution which can have an effect on human health and the environment. We also appreciate that construction activities on our road network can lead to short-term air quality effects which we also need to manage. 2.7.3 The Highways Agency is committed to delivering the most effective solutions to minimise the air quality impacts resulting from traffic using our network. We will operate and develop our network in a way that
24 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
works toward compliance with statutory air quality limits as part of our broader Environmental Strategy. 2.7.4 A simple indicator of poor air quality is where a LA has declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). An AQMA is a location – a whole, or a part of a LA - where air quality strategy objectives have been exceeded. Nitrogen dioxide, and to a lesser extent, particulates, are the main concerns for this route. 2.7.5 Within the South Midlands route there are a number of AQMAs, which the route passes through or close to. 2.7.6 There are AQMAs throughout the urban area of Rugby, up to the southern boundary with Daventry District Council. This includes A5, M6, A45 and M45. 2.7.7 Further AQMAs around Nuneaton are centred on the Leicester Road Gyratory system and incorporating sections of the Leicester Old Hinckley and Weddington Roads. This is most relevant to the A5 but also, from stakeholder feedback, the impact on the local road network if there is significant congestion on the A5. 2.7.8 Within Staffordshire, an AQMA has been designated around Bridgtown near Cannock, which is relevant to the A5. The reason for this was the high percentage of heavy goods vehicles along this section and the close proximity of properties to the carriageway. Further AQMAs affecting the A5 in Staffordshire are at Wedges Mills and Muckley Corner.
Cultural heritage 2.7.9 The Highways Agency is committed to respecting the environment across all its activities and to minimising the impact of the trunk road on both the natural and built environment. Wherever possible, balanced against other factors, Agency schemes are designed to avoid impacts on cultural heritage assets. These are described as a range of geographical components of the historic environment which have been positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. 2.7.10 The A42 was completed in the late 1980s, included here are sections of Roman roads crossing beneath the modern route, unregistered parks and elements of industrial heritage such as canals and railways. 2.7.11 The A5 originated as Roman Watling Street, and became a medieval and post medieval coaching route. Characterised by Roman towns and roadside remains, medieval settlements and field systems. 2.7.12 There are many heritage assets along this route including a listed grade II structure Dow Bridge Watling Street, and Manduessedum, a Roman Villa and settlement. 2.7.13 The Trent and Mersey Canal, which is a conservation area, runs along the A38 from Wychnor northward. The canal corridor contains listed assets such as mileposts and hump back bridges, some of which are in close proximity to the slip roads. Like the A5, the A38 corridor has
25 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
archaeological importance and significance as a Roman road, known as Ryknild Street.
Ecology 2.7.14 The Highways Agency’s activities, including road construction projects and maintenance schemes, have the potential to impact on protected sites, habitats and species. We aim to minimise the impact of our activities on the surrounding ecology and wherever possible contribute to the creation of coherent and resilient ecological networks by maximising opportunities for protecting, promoting, conserving and enhancing our diverse natural environment. 2.7.15 The A42 has the River Mease as a Special Area of Conservation which runs beneath the carriageway. 2.7.16 Burbage Wood and Aston Firs as Sites of Special Scientific Interest near to the M69 highway boundary. On the A46 at Salford Priors between Alcester and Evesham there is a former site compound that is now a nature reserve that the Highways Agency has enhanced over several years and continues to maintain. 2.7.17 The Cannock Extension Canal Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is located near the A5. The canal route has a junction with the A5 at Norton Canes.
Landscape 2.7.18 Roads and other transport routes have been an integral part of the English landscape for centuries. However, due to large increases in traffic, combined with modern highway requirements, they can be in conflict with their surroundings. We are committed, wherever possible, to minimise the effect of our road network on the landscape. 2.7.19 The A5 and A42 have a number of registered parks, scheduled monuments and World heritage sites that are of landscape sensitivity. These include on the A5 near Bitteswell village, Munduessedum roman villa near Mancetter, and the Roman towns of High cross and Claybrooke. On the A42 Coalville there is Coleorton hall and Stauton Harold hall at Ashby.
Noise 2.7.20 Traffic noise arising from the Highways Agency’s network has been recognised as a major source of noise pollution. 2.7.21 We take practical steps to minimise noise and disturbance arising from the road network. This includes providing appropriate highway designs and making more use of noise reducing technologies. 2.7.22 In 2012, Defra completed the first round of noise mapping and action planning which identified the top one per cent of noisiest locations adjacent to major roads. These were based on the conditions in 2006. The locations in this top one per cent are known as Important Areas (IAs)
26 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
2.7.23 The action plans require those IAs with ‘First Priority Locations’ (FPLs) to be investigated as a priority. FPLs are those IAs which have locations with road traffic noise levels in excess of 76 decibels according to the results of Defra’s strategic noise maps. 2.7.24 The following FPLs are present along this route on the A5, Atherstone, Hungry Hill, Harpers Hill and Nicolas Park, and on the A42 Ashby-de-la- Zouch and Measham. 2.7.25 The cause of noise can be the result of a number of factors including, high flows of traffic, type of road surface in place, and variable landscaping. The Highways Agency considers all these factors when designing and managing its roads.
Water pollution risk 2.7.26 We have a duty not to pollute water courses and ground water. We have identified those highway discharge locations across our network where there is an existing potential water pollution risk. 2.7.27 Generally on the route, there are limited sites where there are potential water pollution risks. To prevent the pollution of water bodies and spread of pollution during times of flooding there have been five pollution control stations implemented along the A46, M69 and M45. 2.7.28 The identification and control of areas of potential pollution are essential, when a spillage incident or flooding takes place across the network, it is necessary to ensure pollution controls are in place. The Highways Agency has pollution control tools in place across its network these include spill pod kits located at strategic areas of the network, and valve control over many of its balancing ponds. As further resilience the Highways Agency’s Traffic officers now carry spill kits within their vehicles as additional resilience for such incidents.
27 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
3 Future considerations
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 There is already a lot known about the planned changes to and around the route. LAs and the development community are already pushing forward the delivery of their housing and economic growth aspirations, as set out in their local plans. The Highways Agency has a large programme of schemes it has to deliver, plus an even larger programme of pipeline measures that could come forward after the general election. LAs, together with airport operators, are progressing measures to improve the operation and performance of their transport networks and facilities. 3.1.2 All of these issues have the potential to directly influence the ongoing performance and operation of the route. Figure 3 summarises the anticipated key future issues and the following sections summarise those issues in more detail.
28 Derby, Derbyshire,AA50 Nottingham 3 South Midlands – Route-based strategy – Map 1 of 2 5 8 5 0 3 AA66 MM11 4 & Nottinghamshire AA38 AA453 79000 Figure 3 177000 Key future considerations for the route EEastast MMidlandsidlands
Stoke-on-Trent & Staffordshire A42 J13 MM6 6 42000 Developer funded scheme 8 3 LoughboroughLoughborough 2 AA38 4 101000 AA42
A5 Churchbridge, Cannock Island 13 Leicester & Leicestershire Pinch point scheme CCannockannock 39000 6 LichfieldLichfield A5 / A5148 Wall Island Widening 4 AA55 AA46 Pinch point scheme 43000 M42 J10 Improvement MM1 11 Pinch point scheme
9 1
4 2
4 4
AA449 MM42 A5 Redgate to Higham On The Hill Developer funded scheme LeicesterLeicester MM5454 TamworthTamworth
MM66 TTolloll A5 Lowbridge Warning Signs Hinckley Technology pinch point scheme WolverhamptonWolverhampton 2 MM6 4 HinckleyHinckley 9 6 MM42 6 AA55 MM69 Black Country 9 40000 NuneatonNuneaton 5 MM5 37000 A5 / A47 Dodwells / Longshoot Pinch point scheme 9 6 BirminghamBirmingham MM66 MM69
BBirminghamirmingham InternationalInternational
CoventryCoventry AA1414 RugbyRugby 2 4 Illustrative MM42 CCoventryoventry (see Map 2) AA55MM11 (see Map 2) HA media services, m130521_Fig3 (see( Map 1) (see Map 1) (see Map 1) (see Map 1)
South Midlands – Route-based strategy AA5 – Map 2 of 2 MM5 5 MM11 MM66 9 6 Figure 3 BirminghamBirmingham MM69
AA452 4 BBirminghamirmingham 5 Key future considerations for 2 InternationalInternational MM66 2 the route AA4545 CoventryCoventry
2 AA1414 4 Greater Birmingham & Solihull MM42
RugbyRugby AA5
55000 5 AA45 4 155000 MM4242 5 CCoventryoventry 17 RedditchRedditch A45 / A46 Tollbar End MM4545 WarwickWarwick Major scheme A5 Drift 3 Developer funded scheme
Northamptonshire 15 MM1 38000 1 MM5
5 47500 AA4646 Coventry & Warwickshire WorcesterWorcester 29000 MM40 4 800000 Stratford-Stratford- upon-Avonupon-Avon Worcestershire 32500
49000 New homes New jobs A46 Ashchurch and M5 J9 Pinch point scheme Contains regional centre
Contains Priority Areas for MM5050 Gloucestershire Regeneration
33500 Planned Improvements
9 44000 City Deal Illustrative Enterprise Zone MM55 M40
HA media services, m130521_Fig3 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
3.2 Economic development and surrounding environment
3.2.1 A key aspect of managing the route effectively will be ensuring that it is capable of supporting future local housing and economic growth aspirations. This will involve preparing the route through effective management and public investment to be in the best possible position to cater for the planned demands placed upon it, whilst ensuring that the developments themselves effectively mitigate their local impacts. 3.2.2 Figure 3 summarises the known key housing and economic growth aspirations that would impact on the route, with Table 3.1 below providing more context about some of those key developments the nature, scale and timing of the proposals.
Table 3.1 Key housing and economic growth proposals
Anticipated growth Anticipated Location of Development Location of Development Type Impact on Route 2011 – 2015 To 2021 To 2031
Etwall strategic rail Housing and 6000 jobs A38 (near junction freight interchange commercial with A50) (SRFI), near Derby
MIRA, Hinckley (EZ) Commercial 200 jobs 400 jobs 700 jobs A5
I54 (EZ), Commerical 1400 jobs 2900 jobs 3466 jobs A449 Wolverhampton Four Ashes SRFI, Commercial 1145 jobs 2291 jobs A449 South Staffordshire
South East Housing 3000 A42 Coalville SUE dwellings
Barwell SUE, Housing 2500 A5 Hinckley dwellings Earl Shilton SUE, Housing 1400 A5 Hinckley dwellings
Twin Rivers Housing and 7500 A5 and A38 development, commercial dwellings Lichfield Prologis Ryton Housing 605 A45 Sites A and B dwellings (former Peugeot site), Coventry Daventry Commercial 9000 jobs and A5 International Rail 731,000m2 of Freight Terminal distribution (DIRFT 3) land
Rugby SUE Housing and 1725 2375 A5 commercial dwellings dwellings and and 3290 1659 jobs jobs
31 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Kingswood Commercial 1200 jobs A5 Lakeside employment park, Cannock Vale Industrial Commercial 1507 jobs 1696 jobs A46 Park, Evesham
Birmingham Housing and 6000 M42 J9 development plan, commercial dwellings and Sutton Coldfield 6133 jobs South of Branston, Commerical 4830 jobs 660 dwellings A38 Burton-upon-Trent Branston Locks, Housing and 833 1667 A38 Burton-upon-Trent commercial dwellings dwellings and and 1294 2588 jobs jobs East Midlands Commercial 6.7million A42 Airport passengers per year (2030), 618,000 tons of cargo per year (by 2035) Tewsbury Housing 2720 Unclear A46 (near M5 J9) Developments, Dwellings between20000 Ashchurch and 35000 to plan for for the 3 strategy areas Tewkesbury Cheltenham and Gloucester
3.2.3 Within this route, there are nine LEPs, two of which have designated Enterprise Zones (EZs) affecting the route, and these are shown in Table 3.1 above. 3.2.4 There are four areas with approval for City Deals along the route. Greater Birmingham area was in the first wave of city deals which focused on the eight core cities. City deals for Coventry and Warwickshire, Leicester and Leicestershire, Stoke and Staffordshire are currently subject to negotiation. 3.2.5 Towards Stratford, there are two employment sites (18 hectares each) planned on the A46 in the vicinity of Stratford on Avon. The A46 at this location is single carriageway and could quickly become under pressure from future similar developments. Modelling of the preferred growth strategy predicts a growth of 2% to 6% on key road junctions, with the biggest impact on the A46 Stratford Northern Bypass. The biggest contributions to this increase would be the Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath new settlement, and South East Stratford Sustainable Urban Extension, although some mitigation as part of the proposals is expected. 3.2.6 The A46 will also be affected by future growth. Approximately 24,000 houses are proposed in the Coventry area, with the current SRN already under pressure. The TGI and Walsgrave roundabouts east of
32 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Coventry are the only at grade junctions remaining along the corridor and are therefore Pinch Points along this section. The improvement to the A45 and Tollbar junction will increase pressure on these junctions. 3.2.7 It was noted that the Prologis Ryton Sites A and B south east of Coventry will generate a significant amount of traffic, which will increase congestion on the A45 link. 3.2.8 Further south, 7,000 new homes and 3 schools are planned for the Rugby 'Radio Mast' development as part of DIRFT 3 and Rugby SUE. This is likely to increase current capacity issues on the A5, M1 and M45, which are in close proximity. 3.2.9 A key development along the route is at the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) site, scheduled to be constructed in phases over the next 10 years. It is located in the Hinckley and Bosworth district, adjacent to the A5, with traffic generated by the development likely to impact on the A5. 3.2.10 Stakeholders identified the Sustainable Urban Extensions at Barwell and Earl Shilton potentially adding pressure to the A5. The route is considered to be at capacity already, which is reflected in the evidence provided in chapter 2. 3.2.11 Capacity problems at the A5/A449 Gailey junction were highlighted by stakeholders as having the potential to constrain economic growth. Significant development near junction 2 of M54 (junction with A449), particularly with the i54 EZ (part of the Black Country EZ) will put further pressure on this section for traffic wanting to travel north to the M6 and M6 Toll. 3.2.12 The M42 will be central to a large proportion of future development in the area, in particular HS2 and development proposals in the immediate proximity. The A46 will have a role in relieving the M42 it is acknowledged this section is already under pressure itself. At junction 9 on the M42 a significant development is planned to develop land around Sutton Coldfield. 3.2.13 Stakeholders identified the Twin Rivers development alongside the A38 in Lichfield and East Staffordshire as a key site which will provide 7,500 new homes and major employment opportunities. This site will potentially impact on an already congested link, with knock-on effects to junctions with the A5 and towards Derby. Further sites for development are identified in and around Lichfield, with anticipated growth in the region of 5150 dwellings and over 5000 jobs up to 2031. This is likely to put pressure on the A38, in particular the junctions at Wall Street, Streethay and Fradley, and Muckley Corner junction on the A5. The two sites around Burton-upon-Trent (Branston) will put further pressure on this route. 3.2.14 This route serves Birmingham International Airport (and HS2 station), Coventry Airport, East Midlands Airport, East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, and Daventry International Rail Freight Interchange. Details of these are covered in Section 3.4.
33 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
3.3 Network improvements and operational changes
3.3.1 The Highways Agency is already delivering a large capital programme of enhancement schemes nationally. This includes Major Schemes greater than £10m in value, plus smaller enhancement schemes including the current Pinch Point Programme. Table 3.2 below summarises the current committed enhancement schemes proposed along the route, which have also been represented on Figure 3.
Table 3.2 Committed SRN enhancement schemes
Completion Location Scheme Type Anticipated Benefits Year
A46 Ashchurch / Pinch Point scheme. 2015 Reduce congestion by realigning M5 J9 junctions and installing traffic signals A45/A456 Tollbar Major scheme. Junction 2017 Reduce congestion and improve End improvement capacity at Tollbar End roundabout and on A45 Stonebridge Highway A5 Hinckley Technology Pinch Point Completed Enhance driver information and scheme. Low bridge warning (2014) improve safety on the local road signs approach to the A5 junctions nearest the bridge, warning of low bridge height A5 /A5148 Wall Pinch Point scheme. 2014 Installation of traffic signals and Island Junction improvements widening of the junction approaches A5 Churchbridge Pinch Point scheme 2015 Reduce congestion through improving Cannock Island the junction and approach A5/A47 Dodwells Pinch Point scheme. 2015 Improve congestion through and Longshoot Junction improvement signalising Dodwells roundabout and pedestrian crossing at Longshoot junction A5 DIRFT 3 Developer funded scheme. 2014 Improve emergency access to DIRFT Access improvements 2 A5 Redgate to Developer funded scheme. 2015 Capacity improvements to Higham on the Hill Junction improvements accommodate additional traffic from the MIRA expansion A42 J13 Developer funded scheme. 2015 Increase capacity and introduce traffic Access improvements signals to reduce congestion M42 J9 Pinch Point scheme. Completed Reducing congestion by increasing Junction improvement (2014) capacity at the roundabout M42 J10, Pinch Point scheme. 2014 Increasing capacity and introducing Tamworth Junction improvement traffic signals to reduce congestion M69 J1 Technology Pinch Point Completed Improve driver information through scheme. (2014) additional strategic message signs
3.3.2 The 2013 Spending Review and subsequent report from HM Treasury Investing in Britain’s Future referenced a series of potential new pipeline schemes for the SRN. Table 3.3 below provides a summary of the pipeline improvement schemes that would impact this route, subject to value for money and deliverability.
34 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Table 3.3 Declared pipeline schemes
Location Scheme Description
M54 to M6 Toll Link Road New link road improving access from the M54 to the M6.
3.4 Wider transport networks
3.4.1 The June 2013 report from HM Treasury Investing in Britain’s Future also listed the local transport schemes either completed, under construction or due to start before May 2015. Table 3.4 below lists the schemes from that report that will influence the ongoing operation of this route, plus any other funded local network commitments that will be delivered before 2021.
Table 3.4 Committed local transport network enhancement schemes
Completion Project Scheme Type Anticipated Impacts on the Route Year
Coventry A45 transport corridor Road 2019 Improve delays on both the A45 and efficiency scheme local roads through improving accessibility to businesses along the corridor and efficiency of public transport movements
3.4.2 The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT), located next to the M1/A5 junction east of Rugby, is undergoing major expansion and further development is currently going through the planning process. Phase 2 is anticipated to deliver 2,000 jobs once complete and a further 9,000 jobs are expected by the end of phase 3, subject to planning permission. 3.4.3 East Midlands Airport is located near junction 14 of the A42, south of Derby and Nottingham. In 2013, the airport handled around 4.3 million passengers and 300,000 tonnes of cargo. The draft Sustainable Transport Plan (March 2014), forecasts the airport could achieve throughput of 10 million passengers a year (by 2030) and handle 618,000 tonnes of freight a year (by 2035). The airport is the largest employment site in Leicestershire outside the City of Leicester. Nearly 7,000 employees are based on the airport site and with the increase in throughput it is reasonable to anticipate employment numbers on the airport site will grow by 2030. 3.4.4 There is also the proposal for the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, which would be developed adjacent to the airport. While the proposals are at an early stage, it is expected that there will be rail served warehousing and up to 6,000 jobs created, with subsequent impacts on the M1, A42 and the local road network.
35 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
3.4.5 Birmingham International Airport is located close to junction 6 of the M42 and lies just outside the area of this strategy. However, any growth plans will impact on the South Midlands route. The airport forecasts to grow from 11.5 million passengers per year (2010 figures) to 15.3 million passengers per year by 2015, and to 27.2 million by 2030.
36 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
4 Key challenges and opportunities
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This chapter summarises the key challenges and opportunities as identified by our internal and external stakeholders and supported by evidence. It is not possible to show all the challenges and opportunities identified however a full list is provided in the Technical Annex. 4.1.2 Figure 4 summarises the key challenges and opportunities that the route will experience during the 5 years from 2015, with the following sections and Table 4.1 explaining these issues and challenges in more detail.
Timescales
4.1.3 To understand the timescales of when the key challenges identified become critical and when opportunities on the route could be realised, the following definitions have been made in Table 4.1: • Short Term: current • Medium Term: before March 2021 • Long Term: not before 2021 4.1.4 These timescale categories provide a guide for informing when a future intervention may be required to meet the anticipated future operational performance needs, or when interventions may be needed to help facilitate local housing and economic growth aspirations.
Local Stakeholder Priorities 4.1.5 Input from stakeholder and road user groups linked to the route has been used to inform the development of this evidence report. This included getting views on their “top priorities” locally. 4.1.6 Table 4.1 presents a summary of whether the challenges and opportunities identified were a priority for our stakeholders in their particular area. This exercise does not seek to prioritise the challenges and opportunities along the length of the route by trying to compare one issue against another, but reports the feedback from local discussions. 4.1.7 This picture of stakeholder priorities is subjective and has been informed by discussions regarding the top priorities locally at the stakeholder events, and in conversations with stakeholders who couldn’t attend the events. 4.1.8 We recognise that the picture we build through this categorisation will be influenced by the representatives and organisations we have engaged with and that consequently we may not have achieved a statistically balanced view. We will be conscious of these limitations in the reporting of stakeholder priorities as we move into the second stage of RBS.
37 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
4.2 Operational challenges and opportunities
4.2.1 The level of operational coverage across this route varies. The trunk road sections, with the exception of the A42, have no dedicated Traffic Officer Service patrols and limited technology to support incident management. This coincides with sections of the network that are performing poorly, compared to the rest of the route, in terms of delay, journey-time reliability and safety. However, there is opportunity to obtain further data to understand the impact of incidents on these sections. 4.2.2 There are opportunities to improve our ability to identify real time traffic information to then inform road users on this route. Stakeholders identified the M69 as a particular section where road users would benefit from greater strategic information however this was not identified as a high priority for the route. There is also a technology scheme on the M69 near junction 1 to install variable message signs. 4.2.3 A challenge for the route is where the SRN is used as a diversion for the main arterial routes of the M6 and M1 in the Midlands. These sections have current issues in terms of their performance and stakeholders questioned the suitability of these sections to take significant additional strategic traffic.
4.3 Asset condition challenges and opportunities
4.3.1 The asset within this route is in relatively good condition with recent and upcoming maintenance schemes being delivered to address current issues. Ongoing deterioration is anticipated with a number of assets reaching the end of their design life over the route based strategy period. The main assets of concern within this route are the condition of the pavement. This is particularly the case along the A5 between the M42 and A38, the A46 from M6 to the lower county boundary of Warwickshire, the M42/A42 and the A38 from Lichfield to Burton-upon- Trent. Managing the impact of maintenance schemes on road users and road neighbours will be a key challenge, especially along the single carriageway sections (such as the A5 and A46). 4.3.2 There are also geotechnical concerns along the M45 as slippage of the embankments has been observed in some areas. Schemes have already been delivered in such locations and we are continuing to bring forward schemes to provide permanent solutions to the on-going issues. It is likely that this will continue to be a challenge for the route. 4.3.3 The priority and number of concerns raised by stakeholders on the condition of the assets within the route were low. There were greater concerns regarding the capacity on the route, especially in and around towns and cities and single carriageway sections, and so where significant maintenance is required here, there is a challenge to manage the impact of road works.
38 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
4.4 Capacity challenges and opportunities
4.4.1 The route generally performs well in comparison to other parts of the SRN in terms of journey-time reliability, average speeds and average delays. However there are some capacity challenges at key locations which are predominantly around the larger settlements, where the route is single carriageway and has at grade junctions. Here, the route carries a wide variety of different road users and has local, commuters and strategic traffic. These include existing issues as well as those anticipated as a result of planned economic growth. 4.4.2 The A5 within this route (from the M1 to the M6) was a high priority for stakeholders and within the Leicestershire and Coventry and Warwickshire strategic economic plans. In particular, two sections of the A5 were highlighted through the congestion data as currently experiencing high delays and were also raised by stakeholders. These were the sections between the M6 / A449 and A38 and between the M42 and M69. 4.4.3 The A5 between the M6 / A449 and A38 serves the towns around the north of Birmingham including Cannock and Lichfield. There are capacity concerns at a number of the junctions along this section, particularly those that are at grade. Significant developments are planned within these urban areas and the traffic generated by these is expected to impact on the A5. There are Pinch Point schemes planned in the area. These will be delivered by Spring 2015 and will alleviate some existing issues as well as support economic development over the short term. 4.4.4 The evidence also shows that there are performance issues with the A449 in this area. This is also linked to capacity concerns about the M54 that are noted in the Midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire RBS. These sections carry northbound traffic as it leaves the M54 at junction 2 and travels along the A449 to reach the M6. This route is taken as there isn’t a direct northbound connection between the M54 and the M6. There are significant development plans in and around junction 2 of the M54. It is expected that the traffic generated from these developments will exacerbate these existing capacity issues. This includes the EZ at i54 which has a dedicated access from M54 junction 2. 4.4.5 There is a scheme in the pipeline to provide a new road linking the M54 to the northbound M6 and M6 Toll. It is expected that such a scheme could resolve these capacity issues over the medium to long term. 4.4.6 At the stakeholder event, concerns about this section of the A449 and A5 were raised but were not given a high priority. However, stakeholders raised concerns that the M6 Toll is currently underutilised and they suggested that the performance of other routes, such as the A449 and A5, could be improved if the M6 Toll was to be made more attractive to traffic. Stakeholders identified this as one of the highest priorities for this route. The challenge will be how to increase utilisation given that the M6 Toll is a privately operated toll road on a 50 year concession that is not due to expire until 2054.
39 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
4.4.7 The A5 between the M69 and M42 experiences delays and average speeds are lower than the speed limit. Stakeholders attributed a high priority to this section near Hinckley and Nuneaton including the A5 / A47 Dodwells and Longshoot junctions. The link between these junctions is one of the least reliable sections on the route. There is significant economic development planned which will impact of these sections including the MIRA EZ. A Pinch Point scheme is being delivered at these junctions and it is anticipated that this will address some of the capacity issues over the medium term. However, the schemes are not addressing capacity of the A5 between the junctions and therefore the challenge for the strategy period will be to ensure that capacity issues here do not constrain economic growth. 4.4.8 The A46 and A45 around Coventry were identified as a key priority for stakeholders at the workshops. These parts of the route support locally based trips in and around Coventry and serves Coventry Airport. Approximately 22,000 houses are planned for the Coventry area. There is a major scheme at the A46 / A45 Tollbar junction which will solve existing and anticipated medium-term performance challenges. However stakeholders raised concerns about the subsequent impact of the scheme and traffic growth on other junctions along the A46 and A45. 4.4.9 The capacity of the M42 in this route was raised as a medium priority by stakeholders but one where interventions may be required in the short– term. Existing performance issues are noted in the evidence along the M42 between junctions 7 and 11 and these are expected to be exacerbated by development pressures including those related to HS2 and around Junction 9. Pinch Point schemes are to be delivered at junctions 9 and 10 by 2015. These are expected to support economic development over the short – medium term. Therefore the challenge for the RBS period will be to monitor the affect of these improvements to see if other interventions may be required at these locations and to identify any complementary measures that may be required to address capacity constraints along the remaining section of the M42 within this route. 4.4.10 A42 Junction 13 was raised as a concern by stakeholders for the medium to long term to support development. Whilst there are no existing capacity issues identified within the data presented in this report it is understood that future development will result in interventions being required here. However, depending on the build-out rates of these developments, such improvements may not be required until the later part of the RBS period. 4.4.11 A number of stakeholders also raised concerns about the performance of the A46 through Worcestershire although these were identified as low priorities at the workshop. This included the A46 junctions around Evesham and the section between Stratford-upon-Avon and Alcester. The evidence compiled in this report does not highlight a significant concern in these locations currently. However there is an opportunity to work with developers and the LAs to understand in more detail the impact of development proposals on the A46 in these areas.
40 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
4.4.12 In summary, the key locations where we anticipate that capacity improvements may be required by 2021 are as follows: • A449 and A5 (in conjunction with the M54 from junctions 3 to 2) However, if a new northbound link between the M54 and M6 was to be provided, capacity improvements on the A449 and A5 may not be required; • A5 between A47 Longshoot and Dodwells junctions; • A45 / A46 around Coventry; • M42 between junctions 7 and 11 (including mainline and junctions); and • A42 Junction 13. 4.4.13 There is an opportunity to work with developers, LEPs and LAs to secure funding for the delivery of capacity improvements that may be necessary to support economic development.
4.5 Safety challenges and opportunities
4.5.1 The overall safety performance of this route is variable with the highest casualty rates recorded on the A5 and A449. These are mostly single- carriageway roads with numerous at grade junctions and direct accesses. The highest casualty collision sites of this route were also found along the A46, one at the A45 Tollbar junction and the other where it meets with the M6 at Junction 2 north of Coventry 4.5.2 Safety along the A5 at the A47 Longshoot and Dodwells junctions was raised as a medium priority by stakeholders. This was the highest priority assigned to a safety concern. 4.5.3 There are a number of improvements planned along these parts of the route including a major improvement at Tollbar and a number of Pinch Point schemes including those at the A5 / A47 junctions. Whilst the focus of these is on providing capacity enhancements, safety issues have also been considered as part of the scheme designs. Therefore the challenge for this RBS period will be to monitor the impact of these schemes on safety and to identify any further opportunities at these, or other locations along the route, to reduce collisions and casualties.
4.6 Social and environmental challenges and opportunities
4.6.1 This route has a number of trunk roads which pass directly through a number of settlements and communities. Facilities for vulnerable road users are therefore particularly important along these sections of the route. A number of concerns were raised at the stakeholder workshops about facilities for vulnerable users. These included concerns about provision for cyclists along the A38 between Lichfield and Burton and the A46 around Stratford. Concern over the provision of safe crossing points for pedestrians was also raised in relation to the A46 around Evesham and the A5 especially near Hinckley and Nuneaton. Providing appropriate facilities for these users will be a key challenge for this RBS.
41 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
4.6.2 The route passes through an air quality management area (AQMA) at Rugby. Stakeholders also raised concerns about the air quality in Hinckley and Nuneaton where AQMAs have also been designated. Whilst the route doesn’t directly pass through these AQMA areas, stakeholders commented that when there is significant congestion on the A5 more traffic goes through the town centres which can exacerbate the air quality issues. Air quality will present a particular challenge during this period as particular care will be required when developing any improvements to ensure that they do not adversely affect air quality in these areas. There may also be an opportunity to develop interventions that may improve air quality through these existing locations.
42 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Table 4.1 Schedule of challenges and opportunities
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through
Location Description supporting stakeholder
evidence? - term engagemen - term - term
t? Low High Medium Long Short Medium
M69 Inadequate strategic signing. No X ✓ ✓
Stakeholders (outside of workshop) highlighted No concerns over the use of the A5 as a strategic A5 Diversion route X X Network diversion route for the M6 and the impact on the Operation local road network Lack of incident data and duration, opportunity to Yes Route-wide increase this on the route through stakeholder X X partnership and utilising technology The A46 has quickly developing potholes which Yes cause problems for all road users
A46 HA data demonstrates that the large proportions of X X ✓ ✓ the pavement will reach the end of its expected design life by 2021 (around Coventry and Stratford- upon-Avon) Asset Large proportion of pavement (non-concrete Yes A42/M42 X X Condition surface) will reach the end of its design life by 2021 Large proportion of pavement will reach the end of Yes A5 its design life by 2021 X X Condition of the cycleways is poor Large proportion of pavement will reach the end of Yes A38 Burton-upon-Trent X X its design life by 2021
43 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through
Location Description supporting stakeholder
evidence? - term engagemen - term - term
t? Low High Medium Long Short Medium Geotechnical challenges on this section. Built in Yes M45 X X X X 1950s and designed to the standards of the time. Emerging as a key economical route which is Yes already operating at capacity, and will be even A5 more so from future development. A large amount X ✓ of new development is planned along the corridor with direct access onto the A5. This section is highlighted by both Leicester and Yes Leicestershire and Coventry and Warwickshire LEPs as a key priority. Development pressures along this section of the A5, including the EZ at A5 junctions with the M69 to MIRA. X X X ✓ ✓ Capacity M42 Current Pinch Point scheme at Dodwells and Longshoot but stakeholders view was that further improvements were required to manage current and future traffic Growth plans will put a considerable strain on this Partial section of the SRN (SRN). Requires a study similar A46 Coventry to the A5. Approx. 21-22,000 houses proposed in X X X ✓ ✓ the Coventry area.
44 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through
Location Description supporting stakeholder
evidence? - term engagemen - term - term
t? Low High Medium Long Short Medium Major capacity issues on M42. HS2 and the big Yes allocation of development in the future close by will put greater pressure on this already struggling road. A46 will have a role in relieving the M42 but is under pressure itself. M42 J7-11 X ✓ ✓ Centro’s west midland freight strategy highlights some issues on these sections. Potential development near junction 9 and to the west, in and around Curdworth will cause congestion at this junction. Effect on transport of growth at Cannock Chase Yes A5 / M6 Toll Cannock (needs 5,300 dwellings). Churchbridge scheme has X X ✓ ✓ lifespan until 2020 - need to consider long term The TGI and Walsgrave islands around Coventry Yes could undermine the existing investment that’s being made on A46 improvements. They are the A45 / A46 junctions only at grade junctions remaining along the corridor X ✓ ✓ and are therefore Pinch Points on the network. They were not put forward for Pinch Point funding due to enormous costs. There is a change in lane widths between Alcester Partial and Stratford, the carriageway reduces to a single lane. The single carriageway causes problems for A46 Stratford X ✓ ✓ drivers who get stuck behind large HGVs. Need a traffic management on the A46 such as the use of traffic lights at peak times
45 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through
Location Description supporting stakeholder
evidence? - term engagemen - term - term
t? Low High Medium Long Short Medium The nearby A511 is a growth corridor which would Yes increase congestion at this junction. Strategic A42 J13 improvements are required to alleviate this X X ✓ ✓ pressure. A strategy to secure developer contributions is needed. A46, capacity issues, especially junctions around Partial A46 X ✓ ✓ Evesham, impacted by development growth Underutilised but the alternative SRN (particularly Yes the M42, M6 & M54) is generally operating over capacity. Although the toll road is not under the Highways Agency’s remit, if M6 Toll was priced to attract more traffic it would alleviate a lot of the M6 Toll problems the Highways Agency face on the SRN, X ✓ ✓ therefore affecting future HA strategies and spend. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council looking into the M6 Toll issue and its one of the joint LEP priorities. Lack of technology provision coincides with poor Yes A449 X X performance on this section in terms of delay The A46 is only two lanes and carries a lot of traffic No A46 Stratford to Alcester X ✓ ✓ - not really suitable as SRN. Lack of technology provision on this section Yes A46 coincides with poor performance in the Coventry, X X Warwick and Evesham areas Lack of technology provision on this section Yes A5 X X coincides with poor performance along the A5
46 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through
Location Description supporting stakeholder
evidence? - term engagemen - term - term
t? Low High Medium Long Short Medium (Capacity and) safety issues along this stretch of Yes the A5. As above Pinch Points not necessarily going to fix the problem. Dualling is needed to A5 Longshoot and Dodwells increase capacity and improve safety. X ✓ ✓ Ranked 158th nationally for casualty locations across the SRN Safety Safety performance across the A5 from Rugby to Yes A449. Variable design standards and at grade A5 X ✓ ✓ junctions contribute and sites in the top 250 casualty locations along the A5 Section is in the top 10% casualties per billion Yes A449 vehicle miles. Rural dual carriageway section which X X carries traffic from M54 to the M6 northbound More segregation for cyclists required to improve Yes safety. A46 Stratford X ✓ ✓ Pedestrian and cycle crossings near Stratford are an issue. Good off road cycle route but very stop-start in Yes nature. Cyclists are poorly catered for at junctions Social and so cyclists tend to go along the A38 which presents A38 Burton-Lichfield X ✓ ✓ environment a safety issue and can reduce traffic speeds. Cycle network needs to be better coordinated and less disruptive. Lack of safe crossing point at Bengeworth No (Evesham) prevents Sustrans from developing A46 Evesham X ✓ ✓ major tourism / leisure route from Worcester to Oxford via the Cotswolds
47 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through
Location Description supporting stakeholder
evidence? - term engagemen - term - term
t? Low High Medium Long Short Medium Severance for Pedestrian and cyclists trying to No cross the corridor. Particular problem for A5 pedestrians. X ✓ ✓ Desire locally to cycle Hinckley to Nuneaton to Atherstone Other
.
48 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
4.7 Conclusion
4.7.1 The South Midlands route includes mostly trunk roads with just three motorways, the M42, M69 and M45. It provides the strategic link between the East and West Midlands, between the M6 and Birmingham Box and the M1. The route is mainly dual carriageway all purpose trunk road although there are significant sections of single carriageway on the A5 and A46. 4.7.2 The evidence has shown that there are some capacity challenges at key locations along the route, predominantly around the larger settlements. These include existing issues as well as those anticipated as a result of planned economic growth. For example, the M42 around Birmingham Airport and Tamworth, the A5 and A449 in North Staffordshire and along the A5 near Hinckley and Nuneaton. 4.7.3 There is already some investment planned to improve the capacity of this route. This includes 8 Pinch Point schemes that will all be delivered by March 2015 and one major junction improvement at the A45 / A46 Tollbar Interchange. There is also a scheme in the pipeline looking at options for a link road between the M54 and the M6 and M6 Toll. These schemes are expected to address a number of existing capacity issues as well as facilitate development planned over the short and medium term. 4.7.4 Currently there are no other improvements planned for other locations where capacity has been identified as a current and future concern, including those identified as a high priority by stakeholders. These are summarised under 4.7.15 below. Stakeholders attending the workshops highlighted the A5 Junctions with the M69 to the M42 as a high priority. Some stakeholders also expressed views concerning the M6 toll being underutilised and what this means for the M42, M6 and M54. 4.7.5 Elsewhere the route tends to currently perform relatively well when looking at the capacity metrics and only limited development is planned in these locations. Whilst it could be argued that development would be more suitable in such areas due to capacity on our network, there are wider planning considerations which mean that significant development in these areas may not be appropriate. 4.7.6 The safety challenges along the route are particularly focused along the A5 and A449 where the highest casualty rates have been recorded. The highest casualty collision sites of this route were also found along the A46 at the A45 Tollbar junction and it’s junction with the M6. Stakeholders also identified the A5 junctions with the A47 at Longshoot and Dodwells as the highest priority in relation to safety concerns. There are a number of improvements planned along these parts of the route including a major improvement at Tollbar and a number of Pinch Point schemes including those at the A5 / A47 junctions. Whilst the focus of these is on providing capacity enhancements, safety issues have also been considered as part of the scheme designs. Therefore the challenge for this RBS period will be to monitor the impact of these
49 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
schemes on safety and to identify any further opportunities at these, or other locations along the route, to reduce collisions and casualties. 4.7.7 From an operational perspective, there is varied coverage for this route with no dedicated Traffic Officer Service patrols for the trunk road sections, except for the A42. There is an opportunity to obtain more data to understand the impact of incidents on these sections. There were also opportunities identified to improve our ability to inform road users on this route with the M69 being identified by stakeholders as a key section which would benefit from greater strategic information. 4.7.8 A key operational challenge for the route is where the SRN is used as a diversion for the main arterial routes of the M6 and M1 in the Midlands. These sections have current issues in terms of their performance and stakeholders questioned the suitability of these sections to take significant additional strategic traffic. 4.7.9 The assets along the route are in reasonable condition however deterioration can be expected over the route-based strategy period. This is particularly the case for the pavement in key areas as significant sections are expected to reach the end of their design life by 2021. These areas include along the A5 between the M42 and A38, the A46 from M6 to the lower county boundary of Warwickshire, the M42/A42 and the A38 from Lichfield to Burton-upon-Trent. Managing the impact of maintenance schemes on road users and neighbours will be a key challenge. This will be particularly difficult in the single carriageway sections such as the A5 and A46. 4.7.10 There are also geotechnical concerns along the M45 as slippage of the embankments has been observed in some areas. Schemes have already been delivered in such locations and we are continuing to bring forward schemes to provide permanent solutions to the on-going issues. It is likely that this will continue to be a challenge for this route. 4.7.11 A number of social and environmental issues have also been identified. The trunk road routes, in particular the single carriageway sections, are often used for local journeys by vulnerable users. Ensuring appropriate provision for such users, especially cyclists, will be a key challenge. However, there could be the opportunity of improving such facilitates at the same time as addressing other concerns. 4.7.12 Concerns over air quality were noted around the A5 at Rugby and on local routes close to the A5 in Hinckley and Nuneaton. There could also be opportunities to address the air quality issues at the same time as improving the capacity or safety of locations. However, air quality could also be a constraint as care will need to be taken to ensure that improvements do not result in breaches of the European air quality limits. 4.7.13 This route interacts with the following other route based strategies: • Birmingham to Exeter (the A46 to the south west of this route connects with the M5 at Junction 9 for Tewkesbury);
50 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
• London to Scotland West (the A46 connects to the M40 at junction 15 near Warwick, the M6 Toll connects to the M42 at junction 7 and the M6 at junction 11, and the A5 connects to the M6 at junction 12); • Midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire (after crossing the M6 the route connects with the M54 at junction 2 with the A449); • Felixstowe to Midlands (the A46 connects with the M6 at junction 2 near Coventry); • London to Scotland East (the route connects with this route three times along the M1); and • North and East Midlands (connects where the A38 meets the A50 near Derby). 4.7.14 The South Midlands route includes roads of varying standards. The opportunities and challenges evidenced within the report are consistent with those expected for such a broad spectrum of road standards. A key pattern that has emerged is that the locations where capacity and often safety issues occur tend to be around key urban settlements. These are also the locations that have more notable economic development plans which are likely to generate additional traffic. Safety issues are also particularly noted on the lower standard roads within the route. 4.7.15 This report has identified a number of key challenges and opportunities. It has shown that capacity, safety and sometimes environmental issues often occur in similar locations. Of particular note within this report, and expected to require consideration over the RBS period (by 2021), are as follows: • A449 and A5 (in conjunction with the M54 from junctions 3 to 2); • A5 between its junctions with the M69 and M42; • A45 / A46 around Coventry; • M42 between junctions 7 and 11 (including mainline and junctions); and • A42 Junction 13. 4.7.16 Stakeholders expressed a number of views specifically concerning the above in relation to capacity and environmental concerns.
51 South Midlands – AA50 3 5 8 5 Route-based strategy – Map 1 of 2 0 3 AA66 MM11 4 AA38 AA453 Figure 4
Key opportunities and A38 Burton-upon-Trent large sections of pavement surface will reach end challenges for the route of design life by 2021 EEastast MMidlandsidlands
MM6 6 8 3 LoughboroughLoughborough 2 AA38 4 AA42 Large sections of M42 and A42 pavement surface will reach A5, A449 - A38 many At end of design life by 2021 Suitability of A5 as Grade Junctions with CannockCannock Junction 3 M42 strategic diversion for M6 conflicting traffic movements capacity issues from future growth 6 4 AA55 LichfieldLichfield AA46
11 MM1
9 1
4 2
4 4
AA449 MM42 LeicesterLeicester MM5454 TamworthTamworth MM66 TTolloll A5 M42 - M69 Congestion issues caused by variable design standards. There are WolverhamptonWolverhampton also two SUEs and one EZ at this location
Whole of A5 pavement surface will 2 reach end of design life by 2021. 4 9 MM42 HinckleyHinckley 6 Condition of cycleways is poor. AA55 MM69 9 Current issues with M69 Key strategic link. Opportunity congestion and growth 5 NuneatonNuneaton to improve strategic information to around Birmingham MM5 road users and M42 J9 9 BirminghamBirmingham 6 Operation MM66 MM69 A5 Wood Lane Junction, Safety vehicles joining A5 - BBirminghamirmingham safety issues InternationalInternational Asset condition Challenge for vulnerable road users to cross A5 between Capacity Hinckley and Nuneaton Social and environment CoventryCoventry AA1414 RugbyRugby 2 4 Illustrative MM42 CCoventryoventry (see Map 2) AA55MM11 (see Map 2) HA media services, m130521 Fig4 (see Map 1) (see Map 1) (see Map 1) (see Map 1) South Midlands – AA5 Route-based strategy – Map 2 of 2 MM55 5 MM11 MM66 9 6 Figure 4 BirminghamBirmingham MM69
AA452 4 Key opportunities and BBirminghamirmingham 5 2 InternationalInternational MM66 challenges for the route 2 AA4545 CoventryCoventry
2 AA1414 4 MM42 A45 / A46 current performance issues. At grade junctions on Operation this section cause congestion. RugbyRugby AA5 5 AA45 Safety 4 MM4242 5 Asset condition CCoventryoventry Capacity 17 RedditchRedditch MM4545 Social and environment WarwickWarwick
15 M45 Geotechnical issues MM1 1 MM5 5 AA4646 WorcesterWorcester MM40 4 0 Stratford-Stratford- upon-Avonupon-Avon
A46 Evesham - Lack of crossing points for vulnerable road users
MM5050
9 Illustrative MM55 MM4040
HA media services, m130521 Fig4 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Appendix A Route map
54 London to Scotland East London Orbital and M23 to Gatwick London to Scotland West London to Wales Felixstowe to Midlands Solent to Midlands Route-based M25 to Solent (A3 and M3) Kent Corridor to M25 (M2 and M20) strategies South Coast Central Birmingham to Exeter The division of routes for the programme South West Peninsula A1 of route-based strategies on the London to Leeds (East) Strategic Road Network East of England South Pennines
A19 A69 North Pennines NNewcastleewcastle uuponpon TTyneyne Midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire CCarlislearlisle A1 SunderlandSunderland North and East Midlands M6 A1(M) South Midlands A66 MiddlesbroughMiddlesbrough A595 A174 A66 Information correct at A19 19 March 2014 A590 A1
A64
A585 M6 YYoor k LeedsLeeds IrishIrish SSeaea M1 M55 M65 M606 M621 KingstonKingston uponupon HullHull M62 A63 PrestonPreston A56 M62 A1 M61 NorthNorth SeaSea A180 M58 M1 GGrimsbyrimsby A628 M18 ManchesterManchester M180 LLiverpooliverpool A616 ( ) M57 A1 M M62 M60 SheffieldSheffield M53 A556 M56 A46 LincolnLincoln M6 A1 A55
A500 M1 Stoke-on-TrentStoke-on-Trent A38 NNottinghamottingham A52 DerbyDerby A50 A453 A483 A5 A38 A42 A46 NorwichNorwich M54 A47 A47 A458 A5 M42 LLeicestereicester M6 Toll A1 A12 M6 M69 PeterboroughPeterborough M6 BirminghamBirmingham A5 A1(M) A11 A14 M5 M42 CCoventryoventry
A14 M45 M1 A45 A14 A49 A428 CCambridgeambridge WWorcesterorcester A5 A46 A421 A11 IIpswichpswich A1 M40 A14 A12 M50 A43 MiltonMilton KeynesKeynes A120 A40 M1 A1(M) A120 A5 A417 A40 GloucesterGloucester OOxfordxford M11 M25 M5 A34 M40 A12 M48 A419 SwindonSwindon SSouthend-on-Seaouthend-on-Sea M4 M4 A404 A13 M4 ReadingReading LLondonondon BBristolristol M32 A46 M4 M2 A249
A34 M26 A2 A36 M25 M5 A303 M3 M20 M23 A3 CCrawleyrawley A20 A21 A36 FFolkestoneolkestone A303 A23 A259 A31 YYeovileovil M27 A3(M) A27 A27 A259 ExeterExeter BBrightonrighton A30 A30 PortsmouthPortsmouth A35
TorquayTorquay PlymouthPlymouth A38 A30 EnglishEnglish ChannelChannel 0 kilometres 60
0 miles 40
© Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey 100030649 Highways Agency media services MCR N130206 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Appendix B Glossary
Abbreviation Description
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AQMA Air Quality Management Area CCTV Closed circuit television Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DfT Department for Transport EZ Enterprise Zone FPL First Priority Location HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HRA Hot Rolled Asphalt IA Important Area LAs Local Authorities LEPs Local Enterprise Partnerships MIDAS Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NTOC National Traffic Operations Centre RBS Route-based strategies RCC Regional Control Centre SACs Special Areas of Conservation SPA Special Protection Area SRN SRN SSSI Sites of Specific Scientific Interest TEN-T Trans European Transport Network TSCS Thin Surface Course Treatment TOS Traffic Officer Service VMS Variable Message Signs
56 South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Appendix C Stakeholder involvement
Further information on those stakeholders who were involved in the stakeholder events can be found within part B of the North and East Midlands Technical Annex.
57 If you need help using this or any other Highways Agency information, please call 0300 123 5000* and we will assist you.
© Crown copyright 2014. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence: visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].
This document is also available on our website at www.highways.gov.uk
If you have any enquiries about this document email [email protected] or call 0300 123 5000*. Please quote the Highways Agency publications code PR158/13
* Calls to 03 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 num ber and must count towards any inclusive min utes in the same way as 01 and 02 calls. These rules apply to calls from any type of line including mobile, BT, other fi xed line or payphone. Calls may be recorded or monitored.
Highways Agency media services Birmingham Job number M130521 Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers
South Midlands Route Strategy Evidence Report Technical Annex April 2014
An executive agency of the Department for Transport South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Document History
Technical annex to South Midlands route-based strategy evidence report
Highways Agency
This document has been issued and amended as follows:
Version Date Description Author Approved by
1 February Draft for comment Sarah Garland Victoria Lazenby 2014 2 April 2014 Final version Sarah Garland Andrew Butterfield
1 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Table of Contents
Document History ...... 1
Table of Contents ...... 2
Part A Supporting evidence ...... 4
A1 Introduction ...... 5 A1.3 Route description ...... 5
A2 Route capability, condition and constraints ...... 6 A2.1 Route performance ...... 6 A2.2 Road Safety ...... 12 A2.3 Asset Condition ...... 14 A2.4 Route Operation ...... 14 A2.5 Technology ...... 14 A2.6 Vulnerable Road Users ...... 15 A2.7 Environment ...... 16
A3 Future considerations ...... 17 A3.2 Economic development and surrounding environment ...... 17 A3.3 Network improvements and operational changes ...... 23 A3.4 Wider transport networks ...... 23
A4 Key challenges and opportunities ...... 24 A4.2 Timescales ...... 24 A4.3 Stakeholder priorities ...... 24 A4.4 Operational challenges and opportunities ...... 24 A4.5 Asset condition challenges and opportunities ...... 24 A4.6 Capacity challenges and opportunities ...... 24 A4.7 Safety challenges and opportunities ...... 24 A4.8 Social and environmental challenges and opportunities ...... 24
Part B Stakeholder engagement ...... 36
B1 Stakeholder workshops ...... 37 B1.1 Engagement events ...... 37 B2.1 Stakeholder event invitees ...... 38 B3.1 Stakeholder event attendees ...... 46 B4.1 Note taker sheets from stakeholder events ...... 51
2 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Part C Bibliography ...... 194
C1 Bibliography ...... 196 C1.1 Chapter 2 ...... 196 C1.2 Chapter 3 ...... 196 C1.3 Evidence from stakeholders ...... 198
Tables
Table A4.1 Schedule of challenges and opportunities 25
3 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Part A Supporting evidence
4 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A1 Introduction
A1.3 Route description
This section is intentionally blank
5 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A2 Route capability, condition and constraints
A2.1 Route performance
50 busiest sections on the route
AADF National Rank (out of 2475 AADF vehicles road links -rank 1 is RoadLinkDescription per day the busiest) M42 between M42 J7 and M42 J7a (LM512A) 64,694 109 M6 Toll between M42 J8 and M6 Toll T1 (LM1052A) 63,958 117 M42 between M42 J8 and M42 J9S (LM518A) 63,958 117 M42 between M42 J7a and M42 J7 (LM511A) 50,125 361 M6 Toll between M6 Toll T1 and M42 J8 (LM1053A) 46,350 430 M42 between M42 J9 and M42 J8 (LM517) 46,350 430 M42 between M42 J9S and M42 J9 (LM1518) 34,139 769 M42 between M42 J10 and M42 J9 (LM515) 33,794 786 M42 between M42 J9 and M42 J10 (LM516) 33,712 793 A46 between A452 and A45 (AL2698) 30,279 885 A46 between A45 and A452 (AL2699) 29,987 907 A46 between A452 and A429 (AL140B) 28,852 956 A46 between A429 and A452 (AL137B) 28,821 958 M42 between M42 J11 and M42 J10 (LM493) 28,298 982 M42 between M42 J10 and M42 J11 (LM494) 27,883 995 A45 between A46 and A46 (AL2701) 27,499 1,013 M69 between M69 J3 and M69 J2 (LM920) 27,357 1,019 M69 between M69 J2 and M69 J3 (LM921) 27,063 1,029 A38 between A5121 and A5132 (AL1270) 27,015 1,032 A45 between A46 and A46 (AL1661) 26,973 1,037 A42 between M42 J11 and A511 (AL2586) 26,684 1,050 M69 between M6 J2 and M69 J1 (LM917) 26,404 1,063 A42 between A511 and M42 J11 (AL1012) 26,069 1,078 M69 between M69 J1 and M6 J2 (LM916) 25,984 1,082 A38 between A5132 and A5121 (AL1269) 25,901 1,089 A46 between A4177 and A429 (AL135) 25,211 1,118 A46 between A429 and A4177 (AL2738) 25,183 1,121 A42 between A511 and A453 (AL2983) 24,726 1,147 A38 between A5121 and A513 (AL1007) 24,584 1,155 A38 between A50 and A5132 (AL2079) 24,387 1,164 A38 between A5192 and A5206 (AL994A) 24,376 1,166 A38 between A5132 and A50 (AL2078) 24,325 1,169 A42 between A453 and A511 (AL1016) 24,079 1,194 M69 between M69 J1 and M69 J2 (LM919) 23,965 1,200
6 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M69 between M69 J2 and M69 J1 (LM918) 23,603 1,225 A38 between A5206 and A5192 (AL996A) 23,567 1,227 A46 between M40 J15 and A4177 (AL2740) 23,532 1,235 A42 between A453 NEbound and A453 NEbound (AL1287) 23,442 1,239 A38 between A5127 and A513 (AL1001) 23,115 1,261 A38 between A513 and A5127 (AL1000) 23,092 1,265 A42 between A453 SWbound and A453 SWbound (AL1286) 22,971 1,270 A46 between A4177 and M40 J15 (AL2739) 22,699 1,287 A46 between A428 and M6 J2 (AL2713) 22,596 1,297 A38 between A513 and A5121 (AL1004) 22,360 1,313 A46 between M6 J2 and A428 (AL2710) 22,341 1,314 A46 between A428 and A45 (AL2706) 21,951 1,340 A46 between A45 and A428 (AL2705) 21,667 1,353 A45 between A452 and M42 J6 (AL2671) 21,629 1,358 A5 between A51 and M42 J10 (AL153B) 21,613 1,360 A5 between M42 J10 and A51 (AL154B) 21,510 1,372
7 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
50 links with highest proportion of freight on the route
Goods Goods Vehicle Rank Flow_Bin2 Flow_Bin3 vehicles (out of 1977 Flow_Bin1 vehicles vehicles ( Flow_Bin4 (>5.2m road links - vehicles (5.2m to 6.6m to vehicles long) as a rank 1 has (<5.2m 6.6m long) 11.6m long) (>11.6m proportion highest long) as a as a as a long) as a of all Goods traffic proportion proportion proportion proportion RoadLinkDescription traffic proportion) of all traffic of all traffic of all traffic of all traffic A42 between M42 J11 and A511 (AL2586) 36% 49 64% 18% 7% 11% A42 between A511 and M42 J11 (AL1012) 35% 55 65% 16% 7% 11% A5 between A426 and A4303 (AL3243) 27% 198 73% 4% 6% 18% A5 between M42 J10 and A444 (AL3254) 26% 224 74% 13% 5% 8% M42 between M42 J10 and M42 J9 (LM515) 26% 247 74% 9% 6% 11% M42 between M42 J9 and M42 J10 (LM516) 26% 261 74% 9% 6% 10% A5 between A4303 and A426 (AL3242) 26% 268 74% 4% 5% 17% A5 between A5 and A426 (AL3238) 25% 271 75% 4% 6% 15% A5 between A426 and A5 (AL3239) 25% 292 75% 4% 5% 15% A46 between M6 J2 and A428 (AL2710) 25% 300 75% 13% 6% 7% A5 between A444 and M42 J10 (AL3253) 25% 302 75% 12% 5% 8% A42 between A511 and A453 (AL2983) 24% 328 76% 6% 6% 11% A42 between A453 NEbound and A453 NEbound (AL1287) 23% 352 77% 6% 6% 11% A38 between A5192 and A5127 (AL997) 23% 358 77% 6% 6% 12% A38 between A5127 and A5192 (AL998) 23% 374 77% 5% 6% 12% A42 between A453 and A511 (AL1016) 23% 388 77% 5% 6% 11% M6 Toll between M6 J3A and M42 J7a (LM1050A) 22% 402 78% 5% 4% 13% A5 between A4303 and M69 J1 (AL3247) 22% 404 78% 5% 6% 11% M69 between M69 J3 and M69 J2 (LM920) 22% 407 78% 10% 6% 6% A42 between A453 SWbound and A453 SWbound (AL1286) 22% 409 78% 5% 6% 11% M69 between M69 J2 and M69 J3 (LM921) 22% 443 78% 10% 5% 6%
8 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A38 between A5192 and A5206 (AL994A) 21% 452 79% 5% 6% 11% A38 between A5121 and A511 (AL1277A) 21% 459 79% 6% 5% 10% A38 between A511 and A5121 (AL1277B) 21% 459 79% 6% 5% 10% A38 between A511 and A5121 (AL1276A) 21% 465 79% 6% 6% 10% A38 between A5121 and A511 (AL1276B) 21% 465 79% 6% 6% 10% A38 between A5206 and A5192 (AL996A) 21% 495 79% 5% 5% 11% A5148 between A5 and A38 (AL1638A) 21% 504 79% 6% 6% 9% A5 between M69 J1 and A47 (AL3249) 21% 514 79% 5% 6% 9% A5148 between A38 and A5 (AL1639A) 21% 518 79% 6% 6% 9% M42 between M42 J9S and M42 J9 (LM1518) 20% 524 80% 5% 5% 10% A5 between M6TollT7 and A5148 (AL2569) 20% 539 80% 7% 6% 8% A5 between M69 J1 and A4303 (AL3248) 20% 566 80% 4% 6% 10% M69 between M69 J2 and M69 J1 (LM918) 20% 578 80% 7% 6% 7% A5 between A5148 and M6TollT7 (AL2570) 20% 583 80% 6% 5% 8% A38 between A513 and A5127 (AL1000) 20% 600 80% 5% 5% 9% A5 between A47 and M69 J1 (AL3245) 20% 601 80% 5% 6% 8% A38 between A5132 and A50 (AL2078) 20% 603 80% 5% 5% 9% A38 between A50 and A5132 (AL2079) 19% 611 81% 5% 5% 9% A38 between A5127 and A513 (AL1001) 19% 630 81% 5% 5% 9% A5 between A444 and A47 (AL3252) 18% 703 82% 5% 5% 8% A38 between A5121 and A513 (AL1007) 18% 704 82% 5% 5% 8% M45 between M1 J17 and M45 J1 (LM521) 18% 709 82% 4% 5% 9% A46 between A4184 and A435 (AL2653) 18% 724 82% 6% 5% 7% M45 between A45 and M45 J1 (LM520) 18% 750 82% 5% 5% 8% M69 between M69 J1 and M69 J2 (LM919) 18% 752 82% 6% 5% 7% A5 between A47 and A444 (AL3251) 18% 766 82% 5% 5% 8% M45 between M45 J1 and M1 J17 (LM522) 18% 777 82% 5% 4% 9% A38 between A5148 and A5 (AL1359) 17% 780 83% 4% 4% 9% A38 between A5 and A5148 (AL1358) 17% 784 83% 4% 4% 9%
9 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Table 2.2 – 50 least reliable journey-time locations on the route 2012/13
On Time Reliability On Time National Rank Reliability - (out of 2497 Percentage road links - rank Vehicle Miles On 1 has lowest RoadLinkDescription Time OTRM score)
A5 between A47 and A47 (AL3246) 51.7% 15
A45 between A452 and M42 J6 (AL2671) 57.8% 44
M6 Toll between M6 Toll T1 and M6 Toll T2 (LM1047A) 58.4% 55
A46 between A4184 and A44 (AL3723) 60.0% 75
A38 between A5 and A5148 (AL1358) 60.8% 97
A5148 between A5 and A38 (AL1638A) 61.2% 109
A5 between A47 and A47 (AL3250) 61.3% 113
A5 between A5148 and A38 (AL2571) 61.3% 115
A45 between M42 J6 and A452 (AL2670) 61.9% 126
A5148 between A38 and A5 (AL1639A) 61.9% 129
A38 between A5192 and A5206 (AL994A) 62.5% 142
A45 between A423 and A46 (AL142) 62.8% 149
M42 between M42 J9S and M42 J9 (LM1518) 63.0% 163
A46 between A44 and A4184 (AL3724) 63.6% 191
M6 Toll between M6 Toll T7 and M6 Toll T8 (LM1034A) 63.8% 198
A38 between A5121 and A5132 (AL1270) 64.1% 211
M6 Toll between M6 Toll T8 and M6 Toll T7 (LM1032A) 64.1% 212
A452 between A446 and A45 (AL140A) 64.3% 224
A5 between A51 and M42 J10 (AL153B) 64.4% 227
A452 between A45 and A446 (AL137A) 64.5% 238
A5 between M6 J12 and A449 (AL3268) 64.5% 240
A45 between A46 and A46 (AL2701) 64.7% 247
A38 between A5132 and A50 (AL2078) 64.8% 254
A38 between A5206 and A5192 (AL996A) 64.8% 255
10 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M42 between M42 J9 and M42 J8 (LM517) 65.2% 265
A45 between A46 and A423 (AL2702) 65.2% 266
A45 between A471 and M45 J1 (AL2729) 65.4% 280
A46 between A422 and A3400 (AL3715) 65.7% 297
A46 between M6 J2 and A428 (AL2710) 65.7% 304
A5 between A449 and M6 J12 (AL3267) 65.8% 308
A5 between M69 J1 and A47 (AL3249) 66.0% 323
A5 between M6TollT7 and A5148 (AL2569) 66.2% 344
A38 between A5127 and A5192 (AL998) 66.7% 370
A5 between A51 and A453 (AL159) 67.0% 399
A446 between A446 and M6 J4 (AL3272) 67.1% 411
A449 between A5 and M54 J2 (AL2597) 67.5% 448
A449 between M54 J2 and A5 (AL2598) 67.6% 457
A38 between A50 and A5132 (AL2079) 67.7% 464
A38 between A5192 and A5127 (AL997) 67.8% 474
A38 between A513 and A5121 (AL1004) 68.1% 499
A5 between A453 and A51 (AL158) 68.1% 501
A46 between A429 and A4177 (AL2738) 68.1% 504
A5 between A5148 and M6TollT7 (AL2570) 68.2% 511
A46 between M40 J15 and A4177 (AL2740) 68.3% 515
A38 between A5127 and A513 (AL1001) 68.4% 531
A45 between A445 and A423 (AL2721) 68.6% 550
A46 between M5 J9 and A435 (AL3718) 68.7% 559
A5 between A47 and M69 J1 (AL3245) 68.7% 567
A446 between M6 J4 and A446 (AL2667) 68.9% 583
A46 between A439 and M40 J15 (AL2733) 68.9% 584
11 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A2.2 Road Safety
Collision rates (per 100 million vehicle-miles) in the RBS Collision Rates % Diff Route 05-09 to 05-09 Average 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 average Baseline A38* 23.3 30.6 27.1 30.6 25.7 25.5 25.2 20.1 20.3 18.9 18.8 -19% A42 9.3 12.7 10.1 8.6 13.0 9.2 7.2 9.7 7.6 8.0 4.6 -51% A449 37.3 81.8 49.8 65.5 50.7 36.9 32.0 22.3 45.2 24.9 31.4 -16% A45 18.1 22.0 20.4 21.9 23.2 19.9 16.3 17.0 14.1 14.2 13.1 -28% A452 29.1 20.0 0.0 38.6 38.6 9.5 51.7 26.0 18.2 0.0 56.5 94% A46* 23.7 28.4 26.1 21.3 23.8 26.4 24.8 21.9 21.9 16.5 16.6 -30% A5* 28.4 36.4 36.1 33.0 32.9 29.6 29.5 24.5 25.7 28.2 23.3 -18% M42* 6.9 12.4 9.1 11.1 7.7 6.2 6.9 7.8 5.8 6.0 6.5 -6% M45 5.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 14.2 3.0 6.1 3.0 9.2 9.1 54% M69 10.3 15.9 13.4 15.9 12.8 10.0 11.3 10.3 7.1 10.6 7.8 -24% *Rate for entire road length, which extends beyond this RBS. KSI casualty rates (per 100 million vehicle-miles) in the RBS KSI Casualty Rates % Diff Route 05-09 to 05-09 Average 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 average Baseline A38* 2.6 4.6 3.2 5.7 2.6 3.4 3.0 1.6 2.3 2.4 1.7 -35% A42 2.3 2.7 2.3 0.8 3.5 4.4 0.8 2.0 1.1 1.9 1.1 -51% A449 2.0 13.3 0.0 6.3 4.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 4.1 6.2 2.1 2% A45 3.9 3.2 5.1 5.3 5.7 3.1 3.1 4.5 3.1 3.9 3.6 -7% A452 14.5 10.0 0.0 9.6 48.3 0.0 8.6 8.7 9.1 0.0 28.2 94% A46* 4.7 7.5 7.5 4.5 5.1 5.3 4.8 4.5 3.8 2.2 3.5 -26% A5* 5.2 9.2 8.3 7.8 7.6 5.1 4.7 3.6 5.0 4.6 4.4 -15% M42* 1.1 2.9 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 -44% M45 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 9.2 3.0 157% M69 1.3 2.7 3.2 2.7 0.6 2.9 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.2 -8% *Rate for entire road length, which extends beyond this RBS. Road user group analysis of casualties A449 A452 M45 User Group Difference Difference Difference Casualties Casualties Casualties from base from base from base
Car occupants 9 -27% 17 136% 2 -9%
Goods vehicle occupants 0 -100% 0 -100% 1 67%
12 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Powered two wheeler riders 1 67% 1 25% 0 0% & passengers
Pedal cyclists 1 400% 0 -100% 0 0%
Pedestrians 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 0%
Child network users (Aged 0 -100% 0 0% 0 0% 1-15) Young network users (aged 1 -55% 3 400% 0 0% 16-19) Elderly network users 0 -100% 1 400% 0 -100% (aged 70+) Baseline is an average of casualty figures from 2009 to 2011. Cluster sites
Location Type Action/Comment
A5 High Cross PJ Scheme Identification Study 2013/14 A42 Measham PJ Scheme Identification Study 2013/16 A45 Great Doddington to Earls Barton KSI Scheme Identification Study 2013/22 A45 Higham Ferriers Roundabout PJ Scheme Identification Study 2013/17 A45 Stanwick to Higham Ferriers KSI Scheme Identification Study 2013/24 A45/A46 Tollbar U Major scheme starts 2013/14 A5 at Hobby Fish PJ Scheme Identification Study 2013/20 A5 Hinckley KSI Scheme Identification Study 2013/23 A5 Old Stratford PJ Scheme Identification Study 2013/21 A5 Paulerspury PJ Scheme Identification Study 2013/19 A5 Penn Lane/Woodway Lane PJ Scheme Identification Study 2013/15 A5 Station Road PJ Scheme Identification Study 2013/18 A5/A5148 Wall Northern Roundabout U PPP 2 scheme design starts April 2013 A5/A5148 Wall Southern Roundabout U PPP scheme design starts April 2014 & LNMS M42 J9 U PPP scheme 2013 to 2015 M42 J10 U PPP scheme 2013 to 2015 Note: Problem Junction (PJ), KSI from Area 7. Unspecified (U) from Area 9. LNMS schemes 2012/13 onwards Scheme Proposed Route Project Title PIC KSI Cost completion Comments 0.6 PIC / A45 A45 A5076 Great Billing 14 3 £129,612 2013 year - 40 £3,237,3 1.46 PIC A45 A45 Wilby Way 17 3 03 2015 /year - 84 A45 EB&WB MP 180/8-180/7 Earls Barton A45 Junction Environmental 0 0 £4,500 2016 0 A5 A5 Towcester Car Park 0 0 £86,820 2013 0 M45 M45 WB Barby OSP (MP6/3) Environmental 0 0 £38,983 2013 0 M69 Enderby (MP124/2-125/0) M69 Environmental 0 0 £88,363 2013 0 PIC / year M69 M69 J1 RaB (MP110/1-110/3) Environmental 0 0 £48,897 2014 0 Primary partners in road safety
13 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Cyclists
Tire safety
Olderdrivers
Motorcyclists
Youngdrivers
Car Occupants Car
Pedestrians(all)
Driving Work for
Pedestrians(Child) Agricultural Vehicles
West Midlands Road Safety Partnership Y Y Y Y Y Y Safety Roads Partnership in Warwickshire and West Mercia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Staffordshire Safer Roads Partnership Y Y Y Y Y Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Road Safety Partnership Y Y Y
A2.3 Asset Condition
This section is intentionally blank
A2.4 Route Operation
This section is intentionally blank
A2.5 Technology
Section of route Asset Type Asset Count From Juc To Juc Distance in KM Assets per KM A5 (First asset Midas loop arrays 0 0.00 starts at Dodwells Message Signs 0 0.00 Road (A47 Jct with M1 Jct the A5) southern Signals 0 A5/A47 18 MP 28.4 0.00 boundary of area 7 126/6 Ramp Metering 0 0.00 to junction with M1 Jct 18 MP 126/6) CCTV 0 0.00 M6 MP A5 (from junction 18 Midas loop arrays 0 0.00 134/7 of the M1 MP 126/6 Message Signs 0 0.00 between to junction with M6 A5/M1 Jct Signals 0 M1 Jct 6.4 0.00 MP 134/7 between 18 19 and M1 Jct 19 and M6 Ramp Metering 0 0.00 M6 Jct Jct 1) CCTV 0 1) 0.00 Midas loop arrays 8 0.38 A38 (junction with Message Signs 8 0.38 A5 first asset starts from the A38/A5121 Signals 0 A38/A5 A50 21 0.00 Jct Derby Road to Ramp Metering 0 0.00 A50) CCTV 1 0.05 Midas loop arrays 18 1.50 M42/A42 Jct 11 M1 Jct M42/A42 Appleby to the M1 Message Signs 7 23A MP 12 0.58 Jct 11 Jct 23A MP 182/7) 182/7 Signals 2 0.17
14 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Ramp Metering 0 0.00 CCTV 17 1.42 Midas loop arrays 14 1.00 Message Signs 4 0.29 M69 (from M1 Jct M69/M1 M69/A5 21 MP 155/2 to Signals 22 Jct 21 MP 14 1.57 Jct 1 M69/A5 Jct 1) 155/2 Ramp Metering 0 0.00 CCTV 0 0.00 Midas loop arrays 10 0.50 M45 (from the M1 Message Signs 0 M45/A45 0.00 M45/M1 Jct 17 MP 123/7 to Jct Signals 12 Jct 17 MP 20 0.60 M45/A45 Jct Coventry 123/7 Coventry Road) Ramp Metering 0 Road 0.00 CCTV 3 0.15 Midas Out Stations 0 Message Signs 5 Signals 0 Due to referencing system on A roads Geog addresses A5 Ramp Metering 0 are not available to calculate asset count per KM or road Phones 15 CCTV 1 Midas Out Stations 106 3.8 Message Signs 66 2.3 Signals 112 4.0 M42 Juc 7 to Juc 11 6459 6741 28.2 Ramp Metering 1 0.0 Phones 65 2.3 CCTV 24 0.9 Midas Out Stations 0 Message Signs 0 Signals 0 Due to referencing system on A roads Geog addresses A449 Ramp Metering 0 are not available to calculate asset count per KM or road Phones 2 CCTV 0 Midas Out Stations 2 Message Signs 2 Signals 0 Due to referencing system on A roads Geog addresses A46 Ramp Metering 0 are not available to calculate asset count per KM or road Phones 20 CCTV 1
A2.6 Vulnerable Road Users
This section is intentionally blank
15 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A2.7 Environment
This section is intentionally blank
16 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A3 Future considerations
A3.2 Economic development and surrounding environment
The source for this information is referenced in the Bibliography within Part C.
Development Anticipated Location of Impact on LEP Scale by 2021 Type Route
Derby, Derbyshire, Housing 78,830 dwellings A38 between Rolleston and A50 only Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Economic 176,509 jobs Leicester and Housing 38,949 dwellings A42, northern section of M69. A5 borders Leicestershire two districts only. Economic 42,678 jobs Greater Birmingham and Housing 55,096 dwellings M6T passes on the border of Solihull + Birmingham, and through the southern Economic 154,819 jobs section of Lichfield and Cannock Chase. A38 passes through Lichfield, and A5 through Tamworth. Only small stubs of M42 is in Solihull. Coventry and Housing 28,702 dwellings A46, A45 and M45. A5 borders many Warwickshire districts, and passes through North Economic 80,285 jobs Warwickshire. M42 and M69 pass on edges of 2 districts South East Midlands Housing 98,674 dwellings Small section of A5 and M45 in north of Daventry District. Economic 134,756 jobs+ Stoke-on-Trent and Housing 42,373 dwellings A38, A5 and M6T western section, A449, Staffordshire Economic 100,975 jobs Black Country Housing 39,997 dwellings Very small section of A5 and M6T pass alongside border of Walsall Economic 36,699 jobs Worcestershire Housing 32,540 dwellings Southern section of A46 Economic 48,783 jobs Gloucestershire Housing 33,245 dwellings Small section of A46 along northern border of Tewkesbury district. Economic 43,907 jobs Northamptonshire Housing 38,190 dwellings Small section of A5 and M45 in north of Daventry District. Economic 47,500 jobs Note: All economic growth figures are for the entire Core Strategy/Local Plan period. + Figure excludes Solihull/Luton (figure unknown) D2N2 Location of Development Scale by 2012 Scale by 2021 Scale by 2031 development type Ashfield Residential 825 units 9127 units 1301 units Commercial 100ha over plan period Gedling Residential 1082 units 3484 units 1794 units
17 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Commercial 10ha over plan period Bassetlaw Residential 704 units 2112 units 2464 units Commercial 79.5-82.5ha over plan period Broxtowe Residential 553 units 2584 units 2448 units Commercial 15ha over plan period Erewash Residential 921 units 2469 units 2448 units Commercial 20ha (approx) over plan period Nottingham City Residential 1800 units 6300 units 8275 units Commercial 12ha over plan period Newark and Sherwood Residential 1235 units 6940 units 4087 units Commercial 22.3ha 5.08ha 52.7ha Mansfield Residential 1150 units 3900 units 3000 units Commercial 74ha over plan period Rushcliffe Residential 1625 units 4475 units 3300 units Commercial 57000sqm office, 20ha industrial Bolsover Residential 578 units 1949 units 3206 units Commercial 50.94ha over plan period Chesterfield Residential 1058 units 2394 units 4037 units Commercial 79ha over plan period Amber Valley Residential 955 units 2387 units 1638 units Commercial 75ha over plan period Derbyshire Dales Residential 988 units 1048 units 877 units Commercial 16ha over plan period High Peak Residential 4090 up to 2021 Commercial 35ha over plan period South Derbyshire Residential 962units 2476 units 1428 units Commercial 69ha over plan period Derby City Residential 1063 units 5585 units 2759 units Commercial 185ha over plan period North East Derbyshire Residential 524 units 1572 units 2620 units
18 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Commercial 50ha over plan period
Leicester and Leicestershire Location of Development Scale by 2012 Scale by 2021 Scale by 2031 development type North West Residential 693 units 3914 units 4295 units Leicestershire Commercial 164ha over plan period Harborough Residential 681 units 2499 units 1880 units Commercial 4200 jobs over plan period Hinckley and Bosworth Residential 776 units 3023 units 2648 units Commercial 40-45ha over plan period Blaby Residential 1027 units 3069 units 3011 units Commercial 68ha over plan period Charnwood Residential 1341 units 5957 units 4976 units Commercial 13400 jobs over plan period Leicester City Council Residential 3021 units 8585 units 6903 units Commercial 10ha over plan period Melton Residential 1924 units 1086 units Commercial 1300 over plan period
Greater Birmingham and Solihull Location of Development Scale by 2012 Scale by 2021 Scale by 2031 development type Birmingham Residential 20200 units Commercial 50ha (to 2021) Lichfield Residential 5655 units (by 2021) Commercial 9000 jobs over plan period Solihull Residential 6500 units Commercial Unspecified Cannock Chase Residential 4543 units Commercial 86ha (to 2021)
19 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Tamworth Residential 3175 units Commercial 38ha over plan period Redditch Residential 3684 units Commercial 55ha over plan period Bromsgrove Residential 3684 units Commercial 28ha over plan period Wyre Forest Residential 3000 units Commercial 44ha over plan period
Coventry and Warwickshire Location of Development Scale by 2012 Scale by 2021 Scale by 2031 development type Rugby Residential 676 units 4039 units 3083 units Commercial 67ha over plan period Warwick Residential 780 units 3370 units 6725 units Commercial 66ha over plan period Stratford-upon-Avon Residential 899 units 2000 units 600 units Commercial 80ha over plan period Coventry Residential 2365 units 7720 units 3120 units Commercial 200ha over plan period North Warwickshire Residential 345 units 1680 units 1010 units Commercial 48.5ha over plan period Nuneaton and Residential 4828 units Bedworth Commercial 75ha over plan period
Northamptonshire Location of Development Scale by 2012 Scale by 2021 Scale by 2031 development type Corby Residential 1150 units 4700 units Commercial 8898 jobs over plan period East Northants Residential 1102 units 3043 units Commercial 5188 jobs over
20 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
plan period Kettering Residential 1195 units 2415 units Commercial 8858 jobs over plan period Wellingborough Residential 635 units 3327 units Commercial 5556 jobs over plan period Daventry Residential 685 units 4480 units 3510 units Commercial 19000 jobs across WN over plan period South Northampton Residential 810 units 3984 units 2535 units Commercial 19000 jobs across WN over plan period Northampton Residential 1883 units 8203 units 5695 units Commercial 19000 jobs across WN over plan period
Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Location of Development Scale by 2012 Scale by 2021 Scale by 2031 development type East Staffordshire Residential 302 dwellings 4,679 dwellings 5,217 dwellings Commercial 30ha over plan period Staffordshire Residential 490 dwellings 1,888 dwellings 1,720 dwellings Moorlands Commercial 18ha over plan period Newcastle-under- Residential 601 dwellings 1752 dwellings 1293 dwellings Lyme Commercial Newcastle-under- Residential 6257/13500 Lyme and Stoke-on- dwellings Commercial Trent joint 112/220 (over plan period) South Staffordshire Residential 3850 dwellings Commercial 14 ha (both over plan period) Stafford Residential 11523 dwellings Commercial 25ha (both over plan period)
21 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Black Country Location of Development Scale by 2012 Scale by 2021 Scale by 2031 development type Wolverhampton City Residential 1020 units None identified Council Commercial 5931 jobs 2501 jobs Dudley Metropolitan Residential 666 units None identified Borough Council Commercial 3063 jobs 3829 jobs Walsall Council Residential None identified None identified Commercial 2223 jobs 2779 jobs Sandwell Metropolitan Residential 1305 units None identified Borough Council Commercial 7277 jobs 9096 jobs
Worcestershire Location of Development Scale by 2012 Scale by 2021 Scale by 2031 development type Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Commercial
Gloucestershire Local Planning Authority 2021 provision 2031 provision
Residential Commercial Residential Commercial
Gloucester/Tewkesbury 11835 1953 24985 4123 /Cheltenham District Total dwellings jobs dwellings jobs Cotswold District Total 3051 dwellings 599 jobs 4746 dwellings 931 jobs Stroud Total 2571 dwellings 3921 jobs 4000 dwellings 6100 jobs Forest of Dean District Total 2323 dwellings 2751 jobs 3613 dwellings 4279 jobs Gloucestershire TOTAL 19780 dwellings 9224 jobs 37344 dwellings 15433 jobs
22 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A3.3 Network improvements and operational changes
This section is intentionally blank
A3.4 Wider transport networks
This section is intentionally blank
23 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A4 Key challenges and opportunities
A4.2 Timescales
This section is intentionally blank
A4.3 Stakeholder priorities
This section is intentionally blank
A4.4 Operational challenges and opportunities
This section is intentionally blank
A4.5 Asset condition challenges and opportunities
This section is intentionally blank
A4.6 Capacity challenges and opportunities
This section is intentionally blank
A4.7 Safety challenges and opportunities
This section is intentionally blank
A4.8 Social and environmental challenges and opportunities
This section is intentionally blank
24 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Table A4.1 Schedule of challenges and opportunities
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium Network No M69 Inadequate strategic signing. X Operation ✓ ✓ Stakeholders (outside of workshop) highlighted No concerns over the use of the A5 as a strategic A5 Diversion route X diversion route for the M6 and the impact on the X local road network Low railway bridge - HGV's hit the bridge, causing No problems on the network and railway. A5 Hinckley X ✓ ✓ Technology pinch point scheme will be implemented providing low bridge warning signs Lack of incident data and duration, opportunity to Yes Route-wide increase this on the route through stakeholder X X partnership and utilising technology The A46 has quickly developing potholes which Yes cause problems for all road users Asset A46 X X Condition HA data demonstrates that the large proportions of ✓ ✓ the pavement will reach the end of its expected design life by 2021 Pavement is reaching the end of its design life – Yes there is a need to coordinate maintenance works All X with improvement schemes both in region and ✓ ✓ between regions.
25 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium Large proportion of pavement (non-concrete Yes A42/M42 X surface) will reach the end of its design life by 2021 X Large proportion of pavement will reach the end of Yes A5 its design life by 2021 X X Condition of the cycleways is poor Large proportion of pavement will reach the end of Yes A38 Burton upon Trent X its design life by 2021 X Geotechnical challenges on this section. Built in Yes M45 X X X 1950s and designed to the standards of the time. X Emerging as a key economical route which is Yes already operating at capacity, and will be even more so from future development. A large amount Capacity A5 of new development is planned along the corridor X ✓ ✓ with direct access onto the A5. The pinch point scheme to be delivered by 2015 will only provide enough capacity for 2-3 years. Growth plans will put a considerable strain on this Yes section of the strategic road network (SRN). A46 Requires a study similar to the A5. Approx. 21- ✓ 24,000 houses proposed in the Coventry area. A46 is a strategic cross country route that’s X X X inadequate for the load it’s currently taking. ✓ Particular issues exist between Alcester and A46 Stratford due to a lack of capacity. ✓ M69 improvements have linkages to key development priorities.
26 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium Major capacity issues on M42. HS2 and the big Yes allocation of development in the future close by will M42 put greater pressure on this already struggling X ✓ ✓ road. A46 will have a role in relieving the M42 but is under pressure itself. Lots of development is proposed at Rugby Radio Yes station and Rugby Gateway. These are highlighted on the RBS maps but the figures are too low at the A5 Rugby X X Rugby Radio station site (6,200 homes and 31 ✓ ✓ hectares of employment land are proposed for this site). This will put further pressure on the link. 3000 new homes are being built to the North of Yes Nuneaton. They are not included on the development map. This development will have a A5 Nuneaton and Bedworth X significant impact on the A5. There are 7900 ✓ ✓ homes planned within Nuneaton and Bedworth by 2028 There has been a lack of investment on this link Yes and there is large variation in the standard of the link. For example, from Hinckley to Tamworth the A5 Hinckley to Tamworth link suffers from congestion issues which are likely X X X ✓ ✓ to be exacerbated (with development growth) in the future. The potential impact of the MIRA upgrade is a concern. Effect on transport of growth at Cannock Chase Yes A5 / M6 Toll Cannock (needs 5,380 houses). Churchbridge scheme has X X ✓ ✓ lifespan until 2020 - need to consider long term
27 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium Development growth – Prologis Ryton Site A and Yes Site B (south west of Coventry) are missing from A45 Coventry X X the growth plans; development traffic from these ✓ ✓ sites will exacerbate congestion on the A45 link. The TGI and Walsgrave islands around Coventry Yes could undermine the existing investment that’s being made on A46 improvements. They are the A45 / A46 junctions only at-grade junctions remaining along the corridor X ✓ ✓ and are therefore pinch points on the network. They were not put forward for pinch point funding due to enormous costs. There is a change in lane widths between Alcester Yes and Stratford, the carriageway reduces to a single lane. The single carriageway causes problems for A46 Stratford X drivers who get stuck behind large HGV's. Need a ✓ ✓ traffic management on the A46 such as the use of traffic lights at peak times Leiciester County Council (LCC) does not think that Yes Pinch Point measures are sufficient in the long term. A long term strategy for improvement is A5 Longshoot and Dodwells X X X needed as it is crucial to growth in Hinckley and ✓ ✓ Nuneaton. Need to maximise ability to secure developer funds. Centro’s west midland freight strategy highlights Yes M42 J7-11 X some issues on these sections. ✓ ✓ Potential development near this junction and to the Yes M42 J9 west, in and around Curdworth will cause X X ✓ ✓ congestion at this junction.
28 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium The nearby A511 is a growth corridor which would Yes increase congestion at this junction. Strategic A42 J13 improvements are required to alleviate this X X ✓ ✓ pressure. A strategy to secure developer contributions is needed. Projects (pre-planning application) include: Yes - A38: Twin Rivers development in Lichfield and East Staffordshire, 7,500 homes and major A38 Lichfield employment opportunities – need an integrated ✓ ✓ transport solution for this. Developments will place pressure on Park and Ride sites Junction will become a problem once Toll Bar is No A46 / A428 X sorted out ✓ ✓ Starting to queue back onto the main carriageway No A46 Stanks junction of the A46, will get worse with further X ✓ ✓ developments. Dodwells Bridge. Development pressures from No A47 / A5 sustainable urban extensions at Barwell and Earl X X ✓ ✓ Shilton. MIRA major development will cause increased No A5 / MIRA Redgate junction X problems. ✓ ✓ A46, capacity issues, especially junctions around No A46 X Evesham, impacted by development growth ✓ ✓
29 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium Underutilised but the alternative SRN (particularly Yes the M42, M6 & M54) is generally operating over capacity. Although the toll road is not under the HA remit, if M6 Toll was priced to attract more traffic it would alleviate a lot of the problems the HA face on M6 Toll the SRN, therefore affecting future HA strategies X ✓ ✓ and spend. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council looking into the M6 Toll issue and its one of the joint LEP priorities. The A5 is needed for freight vehicles as it is a Yes major route. If congestion was eased along the A5 A5 it would allow freight to make deliveries quicker, X ✓ ✓ would also reduce environmental impact due to queuing freight vehicles A42 is used like a motorway but is not motorway No standard. Difficult to use by the emergency services, also the addition of development in the A42 X X area. 2 lanes bring the associated constraints; The ✓ ✓ Police have had ongoing concerns over safety on the A42. Existing employers such as Jaguar Land Rover Yes and JCB will provide the most significant growth in All jobs. The RBS needs to cover existing employers X X ✓ ✓* particularly those that use/rely on the strategic network for access to their supply chain.
30 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium Employment is needed ASAP, so the SRN Yes shouldn’t constrain anticipated growth. Growth All X more regionally outside of this region needs to be ✓ ✓ accounted for as they will impact on this route. Lack of technology provision coincides with poor Yes A449 X performance on this section in terms of delay X Lack of technology provision on this section Yes A46 coincides with poor performance in the Coventry, X X Warwick and Evesham areas Lack of technology provision on this section Yes A5 X coincides with poor performance along the A5 X (Capacity and) safety issues along this stretch of Yes the A5. As above Pinch Points not necessarily Safety A5 Longshoot and Dodwells X going to fix the problem. Dualling is needed to ✓ ✓* increase capacity and improve safety.
A5 Cannock Need to address safety issues here. Yes X ✓ ✓
More segregation for cyclists required to improve Yes safety. A46 Stratford X ✓ ✓ Pedestrian and cycle crossings near Stratford are an issue. Good off road cycle route but very stop-start in Yes nature. Cyclists are poorly catered for at junctions so cyclists tend to go along the A38 which presents A38 Burton-Lichfield X a safety issue and can reduce traffic speeds. Cycle ✓ ✓ network needs to be better coordinated and less disruptive.
31 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium
A38 Fradley Inadequate substandard junction at Fradley Village Yes X ✓ ✓
A38 accident records – captured in the Karl Yes Freshman report. Needs traffic management A38 X proposals. Lack of slip roads contribute to high ✓ ✓ accident rates. Connections to A45 WB and Local concerns about the prevalence of HGV’s on No M45 WB from A5 around M1 the LRN, due to the poor accessibility of the M45 X ✓ ✓ J18 WB. Concerns about the roundabout’s safety, which No Roundabout on A46 SW of was built as part of the J15 Improvements. The X M40 J15. roundabout is too small, badly aligned and ✓ ✓ dangerous. The A46 is only two lanes and carries a lot of traffic No A46 Stratford to Alcester X - not really suitable as Strategic Road Network. ✓ ✓ Severance for Pedestrian and cyclists trying to No A5 cross the corridor. Particular problem for X ✓ ✓ pedestrians. Low railway bridge - HGV's hit the bridge, causing No A5 Hinckley X problems on the network and railway. ✓ ✓ There are issues on the A45 and A46 for cyclists. No The current Toucan crossings on the A46 in Coventry cause delays for cyclists and are not safe A45/ A46 - Tollbar End X as motorists ignore the red lights. The Tollbar End ✓ ✓ junction improvement scheme should improve safety for cyclists
32 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium A38 Fradley. HGVs queuing Capacity Issues at junction with Fradley – HGVs No X on to carriageway queuing on to carriageway ✓ ✓ Lack of safe crossing point at Bengeworth No (Evesham) prevents Sustrans from developing A46 Evesham X major tourism / leisure route from Worcester to ✓ ✓ Oxford via the Cotswolds The issues could have been resolved by the No A5 AQMA Bridgetown proposed HA pinchpoint scheme, but it was not X X X (Cannock) ✓ ✓ taken forward. AQMA concerns remain There are issues relating to water quality; most of Yes the water issues/ flooding come from the carriageway, not from flooding of surrounding rural area. Issues with drainage and ditches on Social and A46 highways. X environment ✓ ✓ Maintenance is very poor, with no treatment of water, not even primary treatment, leading to the quality and quantity of water coming off the carriageways being sub standard.
Water pollution – Outfalls of non permitted No All discharge not included on HA maps but can be a Evidence not X X X ✓ ✓ risk depending on what water bodies they flow into. yet received Hinckley to Nuneaton to Desire locally to cycle Hinckley to Nuneaton to No X Atherstone Atherstone ✓ ✓
North of Nuneaton There is an Air Quality Management Area in place No X ✓ ✓
33 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium Lorry parking and the location and availability of Partial lay-bys is becoming an increasing issue. Lay-bys on the SRN are being used increasingly by HGV drivers to take rest breaks which they are required All X to take by law. However the HGV’s often become a ✓ ✓ target of anti-social behaviour. Recent expansion of parks on A5; similar facilities are required in other areas. The road acts as a barrier and a ‘Berlin Wall’ No between the Leicestershire and Warwickshire A5 X border. The route presents a number of difficulties ✓ ✓ for non-motorised users to use and cross.
A5 near Dordon Floods during sharp rainfall intensity periods. No X ✓ ✓
Flood risk map shows flooding issues to be a lot Yes less extensive than the Environment Agency have ascertained. Need to improve forward planning of maintenance to address environmental damage All caused by flooding at bridges and culverts. Night X X X ✓ ✓ maintenance has improved network performance. Need to consider Water Framework Directive when planning new roads. Possible need for new drainage technology
34 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder Timescales Was this Priorities Identified
Is there
through Location Description supporting
stakeholder
evidence? term
- term
term engagemen -
- t?
Low
High
Medium
Long
Short Medium Need alignment with Emerging Strategic Economic No Plans (showing priorities for growth up to 2021) currently being produced by LEPs? In addition, Area Action Plans in Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Other All Solihull and for the Stratford Road. These are X X X ✓ ✓ based on the LDFs, update key areas of development. In East Staffordshire new developments plans are being added/approved in the near future. Spreading strategic traffic more evenly between the No existing routes and the M6 Toll would improve the M6 Toll operability and congestion on A5/M6. X ✓ Suggestion is ‘De-toll’ it to encourage better use
35 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Part B Stakeholder engagement
36 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
B1 Stakeholder workshops
B1.1 Engagement events
Stakeholder engagement events for the route based strategies were undertaken on a geographical (LEP area) rather than route basis. Therefore, there were three stakeholder events held by the Agency relating to the South Midlands route; Derby and Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire (D2N2) and Greater Lincolnshire, on 16 September 2013, at Crowne Plaza, Nottingham The Marches and Worcestershire areas, on Thursday 19 September 2013, at Sixways Stadium, Worcester Coventry and Warwickshire and Leicester and Leicestershire, on 24 September 2013 at Warwick University Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Stoke and Staffordshire and Black Country, on 20 September 2013, at Maple House, Birmingham Gloucestershire, on 27 September 2013 at Merchants’ Meeting Rooms, Gloucester South East Midlands (SEM) and Northamptonshire areas, on 8 October at the Kettering Conference Centre, Northamptonshire
37 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
B2.1 Stakeholder event invitees
B2.1.1 D2N2 and Greater Lincolnshire
Stakeholder group Invitees Organisation
LEP David Ralph D2N2 LEP
Ursula Lidbetter Greater Lincolnshire LEP
John Whyld Boots enterprise zone
Local Government David Pick Nottinghamshire County Council David Jones Nottinghamshire City Council
Geoff Blisset Derbyshire County Council
Steve Hunt Nottingham City Council
Peter Goode Nottinghamshire County Council Nigel Brien Derby City Council
Andrew Pritchard East Midlands Councils
Warren Peppard Lincolnshire County Council
Local authorities Mark Sturgess West Lindsey District Council
John Latham Lincoln City Council
Semantha Neal East Lindsey District Council
Andrew McDonough North Kesteven District Council Steve Lumb Boston Borough Council
Ian Yates South Kesteven District Council
Michael Braithwaite Central Lincolnshire Joint Planning Unit
South Holland Jason Longhurst North Lincolnshire District council Marcus Asquith North East Lincolnshire
38 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Andrew Gibbard Derby City Council Nicola Sworowski South Derbyshire
Steve Birkinshaw Erewash Borough Council
Derek Stafford Amber Valley Borough Council James Arnold North East Derbyshire District Council Richard Bryant Chesterfield Borough Council
David Bishop Nottingham City Council
David Rowen Bassetlaw District Council
Colin Walker Newark and Sherwood District Council
Martyn Saxton Mansfield District Counil
Peter Baguley Gedling Borough Council
Steve Dance Broxtowe Borough Council
Julie Clayton Ashfield Borough Council
Susan Harley Rushcliffe Borough Council
James Arnold Bolsover District Council
Dai Larner High Peak Borough Council
Paul Wilson Derbyshire Dales District Council Strategic Traffic generators Rachel Wilson Lincolnshire Strategic Transport Board Martin Szakal Grimsby & Immingham Port
Ms Colleen Hempson East Midlands Airport
Passenger Transport David Astill Nottingham City Transport groups
Chris Deas Nottingham Express Transit
Rik Thomas RAC Foundation
Keith Shayshutt Trent and Barton
Local Freight Groups Frank Taylor Road Haulage Association - Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire
39 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Sally Gilson FTA - Leicestershire
Local Chamber of George Cowcher Derbyshire and Commerce Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce Simon Beardsley Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce Emergency Services Nottinghamshire Police Heidi Duffy Derby and Derbyshire Road Matt Pickard Safety Partnership Chief Superintendent Russ Hardy Lincolnshire Police
Countryside/Environmental Nigel Lee Nottingham Friends of the Groups Earth Dorothy Skrytek Derby Friends of the Earth
John Lomas Peak District National Park Authority Jane Scott, RABO East Midlands British Horse Society
Vulnerable Road User Bettina Lange EMTAR Groups Ian Alexander CTC Derby and Burton
Tim Newbery CTC Lincolnshire
Hugh McClintock Pedals
Terry Scott Nottinghamshire branch of the Cyclists' Touring Club Matt Easter Sustrans East Midlands
Motorway Service Areas Matthew Stringfellow Trowell (M1)
Sarah Pilling Tibshelf (M1)
Other government Joshua Fox Department for Transport departments Fiona Keates Environment Agency
Maria Hallam Department for Business Innovation and Skills
B2.1.2 Coventry and Warwickshire and Leicester and Leicestershire
40 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Stakeholder group Invitees Organisation LEP Andy Rose Leicester & Leicestershire LEP
Alan Cockburn Coventry & Warwickshire LEP
Local Authorities Adrian Hart Warwickshire County Council Mike Waters Coventry City Council
Robert Weeks Stratford on Avon District Council Dorothy Barratt North Warwickshire Borough Council Karen McCulloch Rugby Borough Council
Dave Barber Warwick District Council
Ashley Baldwin Nuneaton and Bedworth Council Sarah Hines Nuneaton and Bedworth Council Paul Sheard Leicester County Council
Bill Cullen Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council/A5 Forum Rob Back Blaby District Council
Beverley Jolly Harborough District Council
Mark Wills Leicester City Council
Christine Marshall Melton Borough Council
David Hughes North West Leicestershire
Ben Wilson Oadby and Wigston Borough Council Richard Bennett Charnwood Borough Council
Alan Franks Nuneaton and Bedworth Council Passenger Transport Kenneth Treadaway RAC Foundation groups Chris Hodder The British Motorcylist Federation Marie-Pilar Machancoses Centro Area Manager Coventry and Solihull Local Freight Groups Sally Gilson LLTG Freight Transport Association
Ann Morris Road Haulage Association - Warwickshire Strategic traffic generators Trevor Barnsley Coventry Airport
41 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Colleen Hempson East Midlands Airport
Adrian Young Fosse Park
Brian Reid Mira Technology
Chris Lewis Prologis
Local Chamber of Angela Tellyn Coventry & Warwickshire Commerce Chamber of Commerce
Martin Traynor Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce John Merison North West Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce Emergency Services Phil Moore Warwickshire and West Mercia Police Safer Partnership Group Adrian Sharp West Midlands Fire Service
Andy Hickmott Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service Graham Compton Leicestershire Police Headquarters Countryside/Environmental Tim Atkinson Coventry Friends of the Earth Groups Terrry Kirby FOE
John Fenlon South Warwickshire Environmental Association Gerard Kells Warks CPRE
Jane Scott, RABO East Midlands British Horse Society
Vulnerable Road User George Riches Coventry Cyclists' Touring Club Groups Edward Healey Sustrans West Midlands
Motorway Service Areas David Blackmore Corley (M6)
Saied Faghiri Warwick (M40)
Other government Ian Smith Department for Business departments Innovation and Skills Joshua Fox Department for Transport
Fiona Keates Environment Agency
B2.1.3 Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Stoke and Staffordshire and Black Country
Stakeholder group Invitees Organisation
42 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
LEP Andy Street Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP Craig Jordan GBSLEP Planning/Lichfield DC Stewart Towe Black Country LEP
Peter Davenport LEP Partnership Manager
Ron Dougan Stoke on Trent & Staffordshire LEP Local Authorities Stephen Hughes Birmingham City Council
Ann Osola Birmingham City Council
Stephen Brown Cannock Chase District Council
Andy O'Brien East Staffordshire Borough Council Diane Tilley Lichfield District Council
Mark Rogers Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Matthew Bowers Tamworth Borough Council
Laura Shoaf Black Country Director of Transport Mark Corbins Walsall Council
Richard Banner Walsall Council
Paul Sheehan Walsall Council
Jan Britton Sandwell Council
Simon Warren Wolverhampton City Council
John Polychronakis Dudley Metropolitan Council
Jonathan Dale LTB Vice Chair
John Sellgren Newcastle under Lyme - Chief Executive Michael Dunphy Bromsgrove District Council
Steve Winterflood South Staffordshire Council
Nick Bell Staffordshire County Council
43 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
John van de Laarschot Stoke on Trent City Council
Peter Price Stoke on Trent City Council Passenger Transport Rik Thomas RAC Foundation groups Maria-Pilar Machancoses Centro Area Manager Coventry and Solihull Local Freight Groups Sally Gilson, Policy Manager – Freight Transport Association Midlands FTA
Nick Payne, Midlands and West Road Haulage Association
Local Chamber of Jerry Blackett Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Commerce Chris Plant Chase Chamber of Commerce
Marilyn Castree Lichfield and Tamworth Chamber of Commerce Margaret Corneby Black Country Chamber
Sara Williams / Jane Gratton North Staffordshire Chamber of ACEO Commerce and Industry
Chris Plant Solihull Chamber of Commerce
Colin Bell GVA Planning, Development and Regeneration Emergency services Inspector Derek Roberts Central Motorway Police Group
Countryside/Environmental Gerard Kells CPRE Groups Adam McCusker Foe
Edward Healey Sustrans
Jane Scott, RABO East Midlands British Horse Society
Kevin Chapman West Midlands Campaign for Better Transport Strategic transport groups Michelle Thurgood Birmingham Airport
Janis Homer NEC Group
James Hodson Director Midlands Expressway Limited Ian Chambers Network Rail
44 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Other government Joshua Fox Department for Transport departments
Fiona Keates Environment Agency
Andrea Whitworth Department for Business Innovation and Skill
45 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
B3.1 Stakeholder event attendees
D2N2 and Greater Lincolnshire
Break out group Delegates name Initials Organisation Blue Jim Seymour JS D2N2 LEP Blue Steve Hunt SH Nottingham City Council Blue Andrew Mutter AM Newark and Sherwood District Council East Midlands Transport Activists Blue Bettina Lange BL Roundtable (EMTAR) Blue Kam Khokhar KK Highways Agency Blue Dan Bent Facilitator Blue Jonny Browning Note-taker Green Peter Goode PG Nottinghamshire County Council Green Jamie Douglas JD Representing Andrew Bingham MP Green Richard Groves RG South Derbyshire Green David Hoskins DH Environment Agency Green Toni Rios TR Highways Agency Green Graham Powell Facilitator Green Tom McNamara Note-taker Orange David Jones DJ Nottinghamshire County Council Orange Keith Shayshutt KS Trent and Barton Orange Joelle Davis JD Bassetlaw District Council Orange Peter Briggs PB Pedal Orange Maria Hallam MH BIS Orange Cyril Day CD Highways Agency Orange Sravani Vuppala Facilitator Orange Mia-Jade Thornton Note-taker Red Richard Wills RAW Greater Lincolnshire LEP Red Nigel Lee NL Nottingham Friends of the Earth Red David Pick DP Nottinghamshire County Council Red Julie Clayton JC Ashfield District Council Red Joshua Fox JF DfT Red Ian Bates IB Nottingham Chamber of Commerce Red Adrian Slack AS Highways Agency Red Graham Fry Facilitator Red Abigail Finch Note-taker Yellow Andrew Pritchard AP East Midlands Councils Yellow Geoff Blisset GB Derbyshire County Council Yellow Stephen Bray SB Gedling Borough Council Yellow James Lowe JL Sustrans Yellow Scott Nicholas SM Chesterfield Borough Council Yellow Rik Thomas RT RAC foundation Yellow Dave Lynch DL Highways Agency Yellow Tim McCann Facilitator Yellow Amie Coleman Note-taker
46 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
The Marches and Worcestershire Break out group Delegates name Initials Organisation Red Peter Hardy Facilitator Red Jan Gondzio Note-taker Red Jeremy Callard JC Herefordshire County Council Red Sally Gilson SG Freight Transport Association Red Stephen Harrison SH Worcester County Council Red John Pattison JP Wychavon District Council Red Peter Pawsey PP Worcestershire LEP Red Kevin Postones KP BIS Red Serena Howell SH Highways Agency Orange Lee White Facilitator Orange Anthony Hogan Note-taker Orange Emma Baker EB Redditch Borough Council Orange Michael Dunphy MD Bromsgrove District Council Orange Nick Payne NP Road Haulage Association Orange Anthony Werren AW BIS Orange Henry Harbord HH Sustrans Orange Jan Cooke JC Shropshire County Council Orange Patrick Thomas PT Highways Agency
Coventry and Warwickshire and Leicester and Leicestershire Break out group Delegates name Initials Organisation Blue Mike Waters MW Coventry City Council Blue Ken Treadaway KT RAC foundation Vectos - on behalf of Fosse Park Blue Chris Slack CS Shopping Centre A5 Partnership and Hinckley and Blue Bill Cullen BC Bosworth District Council Blue Fiona Keates FK Environment Agency Blue Sarah Garland SG Highways Agency Blue Jenny Oakes Facilitator Blue Abigail Finch Note-taker Green Paul Sheard PS Leicestershire County Council Green Chris Lewis CL Prologis Green Ross Middleton RM Rugby Borough Council Green Vicky Allen VA British Horse Society Green Paul Tebbitt PT Charnwood Borough Council Green Ian Smith IS BIS Green Dave Lynch DL Highways Agency Green Graham Fry Facilitator Green Darren Abberley Note-taker Orange Adrian Hart AH Warwickshire County Council Orange Martyn Traynor MT Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce
47 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Orange Graham Compton GC Leicestershire Police Orange Terry Kirby TK Friends of the Earth Orange Tim Andrews TA Environment Agency Orange James Sharma JS MIRA Ltd Orange Neil Hansen NH Highways Agency Red Paul Harris PH Stratford-upon-Avon District Council Red Rhys Williams RW Road Haulage Association Red Sarah Hines SH Nuneaton and Bedworth Council Red George Riches GR Coventry CTC Red Adrian Johnson AJ Highways Agency Warwickshire and West Midlands Red Phil Moore PM Police Graham Red Stevenson Facilitator Red Amie Coleman Note-taker
Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Stoke and Staffordshire and Black Country
Break out group Delegates name Initials Organisation Orange Richard Banner RB Black Country representative Orange Philip Somerfield PS East Staffordshire Borough Council Maria-Pilar Orange Machancoses MPM Centro Orange James Hodson JH Midlands Expressway Ltd Orange Paul Leighton PL Walsall Council Orange Orminder Bharj OB Highways Agency Orange Peter Hardy Facilitator Orange Andrew Rattan Note-taker Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP Blue Ann Osola AO and Birmingham City Council Newcastle under Lyme Borough Blue Guy Benson GB Council Blue Sally Gilson SG Freight Transport Association Blue Bhanu Dhir BD Black Country Chamber of Commerce Blue Andrea Whitworth AW BIS Blue Patrick Walker PW South Staffordshire Council Blue Adrian Slack AS Highways Agency Blue Alan Bain Facilitator Blue Jan Gondzio Note-taker Red Peter Davenport PD Staff & Stoke LEP Red Austin Knott AK Stoke-on-trent City Council Red Gerard Kells GK Campaign for Rural England Red Gary Masters GM NEC group Red Lisa Maric LM Highways Agency Red Elizabeth Boden EB Lichfield District Council Red Danny Lamb Facilitator
48 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Red Oliver McLaughlin Note-taker Yellow Mark Corbin MC Walsall Council Yellow Adam McCusker AMC Friends of the Earth Yellow Ann Morris AM Road Haulage Association Yellow Will Spencer WS Staffordshire County Council Yellow Rosemary Williams RW Bromsgrove District Council Yellow Andy Butterfield AB Highways Agency Yellow Sarah Loynes Facilitator Yellow Derek Jones Note-taker Green John Morgan JM Cannock Chase District Council Green Amrik Manku AM Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Green Laura Shoaf LS Black Country Director of Transport Green Colin Bell CB GVA Green Will Heyes WH Birmingham Airport Green Fiona Keates FK Environment Agency Green Matt Taylor MT Highways Agency Green Lee White Facilitator Green Anthony Hogan Note-taker
Gloucestershire Break out group Delegates name Initials Organisation One Heddwyn Owen HO Caravan Club One Jason Keates JK Gloucestershire Constabulary One Mally Findlater MF Local Enterprise Partnership
One Ian Gallagher IG Freight Transport Association One John Cordwell JC Wotton-under-Edge MP One Jeremy Williamson JW Cheltenham Borough Council One Patsy Dray PD Highways Agency One Ian Parsons IP Facilitator One Joanna Mole JM Note taker Two Pete O’Brien POB British Motorcycling Federation Two John Franklin JF Gloucestershire Council Two Ed Halford EH Highways Agency Two Christine Shine CS Campaign for Better Transport Gloucestershire Local Transport Two James Llewellyn JL Board Two Rupert Crosbee RC Sustrans Two Christine Fowler CF Facilitator Two Peter Triplow PT Note taker Amanda Lawson- Three Smith ALS Gloucestershire Council Three Holly Jones HJ Tewkesbury Borough Council Three Nigel Robbins NR Cirencester Beeches MP Three Louise Follet LF Gloucester City Council
49 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Three Steve Hellier SH Facilitator Three Vicky Edge VE Note taker
SEM and Northamptonshire
Name Organisation Group Andrew Longley North Northamptonshire Yellow Paul Woods North Northamptonshire Yellow Caroline Wardle North Northamptonshire Development Company Yellow Simon Richardson Kettering Borough Council Yellow Helen Russell-Emmerson Northamptonshire County Council Yellow S Bateman Wellingborough Borough Council Yellow Karen Britton (CEO) East Northamptonshire Yellow Peter Orban Sustrans Red Ben Gadsby Amey Red Brian Hayward Bedford Borough Council Red Geraldine Davies Central Bedfordshire Council Red Manouchehr Nahvi Central Bedfordshire Council Red Ade Yule Bedfordshire & Luton Fire and Rescue Service Red Ishwer Gohil Milton Keynes Council Green Keith Dove Luton Borough Council Green Mark Lawman Luton Airport Green Dorian Holloway Open University Milton Keynes Green Sue Dawson Stadium MK (MK Dons) Green Hilary Chipping SEMLEP Green Neil Biggs Thames Valley Police Green David Grindley Northamptonshire County Council Blue Richard Palmer Northampton Borough Council Blue David Allen South Northamptonshire Blue Simon Bowers Daventry Blue Chris Lewis Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal Blue Lee Sambrook Department for Transport Blue Will Moorlidge Department for Business Skills and Innovation Blue
50 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex B4.1 Note taker sheets from stakeholder events Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name D2N2 Greater Lincolnshire Date: 16/9/13 Breakout Group Blue
Group Facilitator Dan Bent Note-taker Jonny Browning
Location Description of challenge Type of When does Is the If not, what challenge this issue evidence for evidence is Promises to provide Capacity / become this challenge there to supporting evidence by
Safety / Asset critical? shown on our show this (name, org)
Condition / maps? is/will 21 become a
Operational / -
Society & challenge?
Environment 2018
Alreadyis
After 2021After
aisedby
R Number of sticky dots received
AM Newark There are three major growth points, highlighted in the core strategy Capacity / Y Developments to the south of Newark. Planning consents have been given for Operational shown on significant development for the next 15+ years, 8-9,000 dwellings, ‘Anticipated 40ha of employment land. The largest site (‘Land south of Newark’? Growth’ D2N2 – JB), 2nd site planning application expected by end of the year. NE map. Opportunity exists for investment and contribution to infrastructure. Congestion / Current pinch points exist; 3 key roundabouts on A46 bypass E of delay visible Newark. No obvious solution: duelling would be near impossible due around to geographic constraints. Flow on A1 Whinthorpe junction very high, Newark, excl 4 expensive solution proposed in past, but seems to have gone quiet. A46 (no data Junction needs to be looked at for Newark to function properly. available). Farndon/Cattlemarket/Brownhills (A1) roundabouts all inter- dependent, need to be looked at together.
KK
SH, 5 General The location of other key growth areas / employment sites / growth N/A Y Key sites points needs to be identified and captured. Assessment needs to be identified on AM made on how quickly they can be brought on stream. Employment is ‘Anticipated needed ASAP. Need to also take into account growth areas outside Growth’ maps of this workshop, as they impact on the region, eg Sheffield, Birmingham. Strong links between Chesterfield and Sheffield constrained by M1
3
51
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
KK M1 Jct 26-25 Stretch is at a standstill during AM peak, affects the A52 into Capacity / Y Can be seen AM: evidence base for A52 (S-bound) Nottingham too. J26 (A610) has huge congestion issues as well. 4 Operational on congestion congestion on lanes into 3 causes bottleneck. maps – delay Newark&Sherwood DC website, 1 (mins) can provide if required
M1 J23a-J25 pipeline scheme, ATM will be key also.
BL 3 General Evidence of ‘Peak Car’ traffic has been declining since before the N/A Y recession. Need to challenge assumption of link between economic development and traffic. DfT predictions out of date: Assume 40% growth over 20 years.
Model assumptions do account for some local variations and local adjustments. Older datasets show unrealistic growth
DB
BL Impacts of Nottingham tram lines 2+3 will have an impact on the trunk road Capacity / Y public network. Operational transport Plans for improvement to Lincoln-Newark-Nottingham-Derby rail line will reduce road demand for E-W trips. Scheduled improvements to AM 2 signalling will improve line performance and connectivity.
Further connectivity to Birmingham will improve the situation also. SH
JS Access to Bulk of jobs / residents are in Derby / Nottingham, therefore is a key Operational Y Derby / issue. Better planning required to aid business. Key issue is Nottingham reliability and resilience: Can plan and accept reliable congestion, but unexpected / variable issues will discourage investment in area. Can no longer depend on the strategic network. Poor planning of greater issues. The Derby / Nottingham agglomeration should have better connectivity to allow settlements to feed off each other: can’t currently interact to extent they should. Versatility in accessibility will help spread the congestion thinner, instead of concentrating at existing pinch points. 4
Upgrade of A453 will hopefully reduce congestion on A52 and improve access/links. However, it delivers more traffic into sensitive Environment areas. Balance needed. Furthermore, more traffic just channelled map. onto Nottingham ring road, which already has issues.
SH
BL
52
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
AM East-West Much of Nottingham-Leicester traffic now using A46 due to Capacity / Y links very improvements. Added pressure on Eastern section of A52. Operational poor Highlights lack of E-W options. EW more important locally, but neglected. Improvements will reduce local traffic on M1, thus reducing issues there and re-affirming it’s role as a strategic, not local link. BL Conflict between strategic and local trips, eg manufacturing. Goods to market and supply chain Nottingham / Derby important, but distribution is nationwide. New trips for Curries national distribution 0 based near Newark has lead to increased movements from Grimsby ports and E-W movements whereas other distributors are based AM closer to M1 and require better N-S links.
Piecemeal improvements can add challenges – eg Mansfield bypass was improved so more E-W traffic encouraged along it, but A617 towards Newark is dreadful, and worsening due to improvements elsewhere.
AM
KK Role of Lots of development E of J25 on A52; new journeys will treat the A52 Operational Y strategic as local distributor rather than strategic link. network 3 Cities (Nottingham / Derby / OD data required – how do people actually use the network? It may Leicester) + Eastern Delivery of BL technically be strategic, but locals will consider it a standard link. Sustainable Transport System reports show most movements A453 – what is it’s function? Is there a way to influence passenger 11 choice to improve efficiency of network? are self-contained not around wider corridors. M1 multi-modal People don’t trust the strategic network, eg those who use it once a study showed most trips were JS month will avoid a section with a bad reputation and increase local - BL pressures on local roads. The network overall has poor resilience
and reliability.
AM Physical Difficult to provide new links due to geography, eg major rivers such Environment Y Geography as Trent. Anything radical will require new bridges. EM councils looking at economic Development should be planned to account for trip generation and data beyond land use, with 0 access without requiring major new investment – use the current Nottingham Trent Business BL
network more efficiently. School – Will Rossiter
KK Derby – A38 Key N-S movement with major congestion. Grade separation is Capacity Y to Toyota, planned in addition to pinch point schemes. Will unlock a lot of J28 development land. 7 Impacts on local land planning issues. Pattern of development around Derby will change significantly if problem junctions are solved. JS
53
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
JS / Traffic Better instant management of incidents – not closing the whole road Operational / Y management or majority of lanes so readily, and better setup and knowledge of Safety AM diversion routes. Improve communication of delays so alternate arrangements can be made further in advance.
Improved diversions of non-trunk roads will avoid problems backing AM up onto strategic network, eg A617 closures due to flooding. Similar system to motorway diversion signs required. Not enough VMS on A1 – too much focus on M1. Diversions could be more flexible, and could tell people further away, or before their journey commences.
KK 4 N.B. One dot placed on the network itself; on A46 between Newark and Lincoln.
54 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name D2N2 Greater Lincolnshire Date: 16/9/13 Breakout Group Blue
Group Facilitator Dan Bent Note-taker Jonny Browning
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to Capture any solutions that are Location other priorities? proposed and ensure people Capacity / Safety / feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a consensus about the Why? Are there any trade- offs? discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from any of Operational / Society priorities, but to discuss their views. Include initials of the delegates priorities. & Environment so that we can follow up if necessary the groups – not limited to the ones raised by this group Prompt if the same Nb In this session we most types are raised to interested in how they decide Solution Type (& additional consider whether they what should be a priority rather notes) are viewed as a higher than what the priorities are. Maintenance & renewals / priority than other The sticky dot session will help Operational / Junction types show what the group think the improvement / Adding priorities should be. capacity / New road / other
Network Management: Operational SH – Is a quick win, relying on very little investment. If people are More VSM, for example on Smarter management, route informed, better decisions can be made. A1. information, incident AM – Lack of strategic route resilience has a huge impact on local information, better use of roads, both during the incident, and increased flows on local roads as Possibilities for using big data: current network. Resilience the user cannot ‘trust’ the reliability of the strategic network. AM has contact with O2, who planning – solve issues in AM – Improve relationship/planning with public transport. For own datasets of anonymous distribution of traffic when example, there is no point in widening a road just as a new public travel patterns from Wi- something goes wrong. Mainly transport link/scheme is coming online. Fi/Bluetooth user data. M1/A1 and related diversion Distribution companies will routes. JS – Clarify/influence role of the M1. Should be used as a national link instead of for local journeys. have real freight routes AM – Nottingham/Derby have regular, predictable congestion, whereas around Newark after an incident on M1/A1 there are huge problems which aren’t predictable. A real cost can be attributed to congestion, not just irritation
Employment Sites / Growth N/A AM - Use forward projection instead of backwards to identify issues Points / Economic Growth: before they cripple the network. How to optimise employment SH – How to assess priorities; use business case approach instead to quickly, and what identify investment opportunities and to support areas. infrastructure is required. How BL – Reducing need to travel by encouraging development where jobs to assess issues. Area wide. are needed/skills are located.
55 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Network Development: Capacity / Operational SH, BL, AM – E-W corridor needs improving to help support area Links with network Improving the network and development and reduce strain on N-S, nationally important links. management connectivity at a regional level JS – A52/M1 cross is focal point for the area, key for access into to improve performance Nottingham and Derby, E-W links, HS2, Airport. AM – Very poor links to Manchester / Birmingham – E-W links need to extend beyond D2N2 boundaries. AM – A15 very poor quality route, lots of freight – difficult to overtake
Better Dialogue: N/A AM - Level crossing in Newark regularly creates queues that back up Links with network Communicate better with onto the strategic network. A solution can be found when working management developers, other alongside Network Rail to suit both parties. organisations, councils to All – communication with local authorities and developers to integrate ensure everyone knows what new development with improved infrastructure, to best use the existing is going on, more efficient network, and ensure problems are solved before they arise and plans can be made. cripple the network.
56 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 1: What are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name: Route Based Strategies Nottingham Workshop: Derby, Date: 16/09/13 Breakout Group: Peter Goode (PG) – Notts County Council Derbyshire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire and Greater GREEN Jamie Douglas (JD) – Andrew Bingham MP’s Office Lincolnshire. Richard Groves (RG) – South Derbyshire District Council Group Facilitator: Note-taker: David Hoskins (DH) – Environment Agency Graham Powell Tom McNamara Toni Rios – Highways Agency
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by / Asset Condition / Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
A1 Incident duration. Feedback from Operational/Safety No Feedback from Councillors? PG 1 councillors. Perception is that /Capacity A1+ incident logs incidents on the A1 seem to have more impact than on M1 and elsewhere. There is a need to develop evidence for the impact and duration of incidents - full
closure/one lane closure etc.
x
A1 Police periodically close the A1 and Operational No A1+ incident logs PG do not tell anyone, so these closures are not reflected in HA
evidence.
x
A1 When trunk roads are affected by Capacity/Operatio No A1+ incident logs JD 1 incidents, they often have to fully nal
close, pushing traffic elsewhere.
x
Overall Total Casualties map does not Safety No Accident stats and stats 19 data PG
show severity.
x
A6 Spur Surprised A6 Spur is a hotspot for Safety Yes RG 1 casualties given that it is a new
road.
x
57 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A52 Lots of accidents, but at slower Safety/Operational No Accident stats and stats 19 data PG speeds. Maybe they are less severe – Feels like this should be reflected, but isn’t with the current
absolute accident figures.
x
M1 Perception that many accidents on Safety No Accident stats and stats 19 data DH 3 (Junc 27-29) here are weather related (snow/rain/fog). At present the maps are not addressing the
causes of the accidents.
x
Overall Maybe accident figures are skewed Safety / No A1+ Closure/Incident data? JD as in poor weather conditions some Operational roads are closed, pushing
traffic/accidents onto other roads.
x
M1, South Heavy traffic on the network Capacity No Will be shown on adjacent area RG 2 of the area leading into the D2N2 area. maps. covered by the
workshop
x
A52 Large residential development will Capacity Yes PG 1 SE of contribute to even larger peak
Nottingham traffic levels. How will the existing
network cope?
x x PG 1 A52 Less flexibility in East Nottingham Operational / Yes SE of to accommodate traffic/road users Capacity Nottingham than West Nottingham as fewer road links. West is better served by the vision of trying to improve Transport (has the tram etc). EAST
is the CHALLENGE, but there are
opportunities to develop the East.
x x x
M62 and 2 trans-Pennine routes. Capacity Yes JD 6 A628 M62 – already RED (delays map) Operational A628 – Completely unsuitable for Safety / the traffic (Freight/HGVs) – it is not Environment suitable to be a trunk road and traffic levels are only getting higher
on here.
x
58 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
South Large amount of development is Capacity Yes RG 7 Derby A50 going to impact on these routes M1 J24 and junctions
A38 Derby
Juncts.
x x
Overall Is 3 hour peak time, averaged by Capacity/Operatio No Review journey time data and show JD / direction, reasonable and truly nal it more relevantly. PG representative? Suggest HA show information for narrower peak (i.e. 8-9 and 5-6) and by direction. Also, the peak hr delays, not just speeds. DELAY and to how many vehicles
is the KEY, not speed
x
A38/A50 Background traffic growth, Capacity No It is in the planning stage, but will be RG 2 Junc particularly with the introduction of available somewhere Strategic Rail Freight Interchange –
speculate 3,000 – 6,000 more jobs.
x
M1 J25 HS2 station between Derby and Capacity ? Information should be or become JD / Nottingham. Obvious traffic available – planning applications etc PG increase. Trunk road will become a local distributor. Opportunity for development in the area alongside the introduction of HS2, maybe take the Tram further out of Nottingham. HS2 line forms a barrier, possibly creating pinch point of traffic
crossing from east to west.
x
Overall Think about the purpose of trunk Capacity / Not really PG 2 roads. Often they act as local Operational distributors as well as forming the
strategic network. Need for a
Balance. LOCAL vs STRATEGIC
x x x
59 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M180 Isle of EA have identified an area of flood Environment No EA research. Not published fully on website DH 4 Axholme risk that is not on maps – from EA yet. enquires@enviroment- strategy in the area. agency.gov.uk Big opportunity to ensure when Isle of Axholme information – Flood highways are modified to adhere to Risk Management Strategy. new drainage standards and not refurbish in line with existing (old) standards. If not done, it may bring the EA into conflict with the Water Framework
Directive (WFD).
x
A38, Derby Surprised that the A38 isn’t worse Capacity Yes – but RG 2 on delay map. The perception is questioning it. that at peak times it is very badly
affected.
x
A50 South The introduction of more residential Environment Some RG 3 Derby development will impact on the developments are
road capacity. Noise impact areas. shown
x
A1 North of Flood areas Environment No Comparison with EA flood risk DH 2
Newark. prediction maps - EA website.
x
Overall Trunk roads might degrade more Asset Condition Not properly - Show actual pavement condition JD quickly if the road is used as an Questioning it from surveys – AOne+ alternative to motorways, by goods vehicles etc. Road use has changed, have the design of roads? Does end of ‘design life’ necessarily mean it needs replacing? The pavement condition map isn’t actually showing that at
the moment, its showing end of
design life which isn’t the same.
x x
Overall Better planning is needed, to Asset Condition Yes PG
ensure roads don’t all come to end
of design life at same time.
x x x JD A1 Parts of the A1 are most probably Asset Condition No – That is the Show actual pavement condition in better condition than reflected on issue. from surveys – AOne+ maps, given the change in use of some sections i.e. the introduction
of grade-separated junctions.
x
Overall Don’t consider road improvements 2 in isolation, consider as a
‘package’
60 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A1/A46 Delay, people avoid Newark. Capacity Not properly PG 2
Newark Adverse impact on trade and
Triangle – business
x x x
M1 J25 Concern about delays, due to Capacity Yes (delay maps) PG 3
insufficient capacity.
x
Tintwistle – Houses 4 feet from the road. Safety Maps (delay, ave JD 2 A628 Peoples front doors opening onto Environment speed, casualties the traffic, HGVs, commuter traffic. and operation)
It’s not safe, and A628 is not fit for Capacity
this purpose.
x x
Glossop Terrible delay problems. Peak Capacity Maps (delay, ave JD 1 A628 – begins at 615am, takes 90mins+ to Safety speed, casualties get 4 miles to the motorway. and operation) 2 Lanes converge to one, choking traffic. Impacts on commuters, businesses, students/parents,
everyone essentially.
A628 not suitable for this traffic.
x x
61 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 2: What should the priorities be?
Workshop Name: Route Based Strategies Nottingham Workshop: Date: 16/09/13 Breakout Group: Peter Goode (PG) – Notts County Council Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire GREEN Jamie Douglas (JD) – Andrew Bingham MP’s Office and Greater Lincolnshire. Richard Groves (RG) – South Derbyshire District Council Group Facilitator: Note-taker: David Hoskins (DH) – Environment Agency Graham Powell Tom McNamara
Description of challenge Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are priority? proposed and ensure people / Location Capacity / Safety / Why? Are there any trade-offs? feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from Operational / Nb. We are not asking the group to Nb In this session we most interested in how they decide what priorities. Society & reach a consensus about the any of the groups – not should be a priority rather than what the priorities are. The limited to the ones raised Environment priorities, but to discuss their views. sticky dot session will help show what the group think the by this group Prompt if the same Include initials of the delegates so priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional that we can follow up if necessary notes) types are raised to consider whether Maintenance & renewals / they are viewed as a Operational / Junction higher priority than improvement / Adding capacity other types / New road / other
Raisedby Overall economic benefit to the area Conflict with local priorities. One area might be detrimentally PG Reduce overall delay on Capacity / the network. Reducing the Operational as a whole. affected for the ‘greater good’. Issues might be caused as a ‘cost of delay’ is KEY – Considering as a whole will hopefully knock on effect when dealing with, arguably, a worse problem M1, A628, A50, A38 ensure ‘fairness’. elsewhere.
Might cause local economic disadvantages, could displace trade and/or business. Allegedly Newark suffers from this ‘too much traffic getting into Newark let’s just go to Notts instead’ – anecdotal.
Planning Growth. Address 1.Capacity RG planned and future growth 2.Asset Condition in order to best serve it – Overall
The perceived detrimental All Adverse impact on trade on feeder PG effect of improving the routes to improved roads strategic network and reducing the ‘cost of delay’ has on local feeder roads/areas – particularly business/high streets. –
62 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Overall
A1/A46 Newark Triangle All Adverse impact on trade PG – Delay, people avoid Newark.
Don’t consider roads in ALL ALL isolation, consider as a ‘package’
Improving a trunk road Capacity could suck in traffic and affect the local network. – Overall
Glossop A628 – Terrible Capacity Impacts on commuters, businesses, High priority for the area. The trade-off might be, by increasing JD students/parents, everyone capacity you encourage more traffic, which will in turn delays. Peak begins at Safety 6.15am, takes 90mins+ to essentially. encourage business in the area. (possibly from other local get 4 miles to the economies) motorway. A628 not suitable for this traffic. 2 Lanes converge to one, choking traffic.
Overall – New standards Asset Condition 1. If the WFD is not adhered to it Trade off is the increased initial outlay, given the finite Consider holistic look at road DH used in all drainage will become a legal issue for the resources of the Highways Agency. But a look at the bigger improvement, which include associated with not only Environment Agency. picture might give this increased speeding more justification. new drainage standards for new but 2. The footprint of these higher larger footprint highways. renovated/maintained capacity roads is going to be roads. higher, so drainage infrastructure needs to align to this. 3. If it is considered alongside improvements, not as a separate task, savings can be made. This will take collaboration between departments, i.e. environment/transport. Congestion, very busy at Capacity Housing developments planned. RG peak times. A50 - South Growth in both residential use and Derby, M1 J24 commuters from these developments, negative impact on capacity.
Tintwistle – A628 Safety It’s not safe, and A628 is not fit for An A628 Bypass. Taking most JD this purpose. heavy freight traffic away from Houses 4 feet from the Environment these towns along the A628 road. Peoples front doors Capacity opening onto the traffic, HGVs, commuter traffic.
63 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Nottingham near the Safety (perception Link up the cycle routes to PG University. The cycle maybe) better serve the University and network is not continuous, South Nottingham. there is a break in it – discourages cyclists.
D2 Roads. Currently 1 Capacity They cause severe delays, being Seek European evidence. HGV ban in the outside lane. DH stuck behind a speed limited HGV. there is a pilot scheme 2 Operational banning HGVs from travelling in the outside lane of trunk roads at peak times on some roads. Maybe this could be rolled out across more D2 roads.
Glossop A628. Capacity JD Improvements are needed ahead of growth. There is no room for more traffic on the network, so developments are opposed by residents.
A52 West of Nottingham Asset Condition Consensus it was a priority. ALL cycle route. Must Operational consider non-motorised road users.
64 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Midlands D2N2Lincs Date: 16/09/13 Breakout Group Orange
Group Facilitator Sravani Vuppala Note-taker Mia-Jade Thornton
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide / Asset Condition become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by / Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
65 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A52 Congestion issues – the A52 Capacity Yes 13 Nottingham between Priory Island and QMC is between a major bottleneck which has not Priory Island been solved by the HA. There is a and QMC constant increase in journey times due to the congestion and buses
are getting slower and slower yshutt (KS)/ Peter which in turn makes the bus less attractive as an alternative to the
car. The congestion levels result in the bus experience ruined between the University & QMC. It doesn’t
feel right that there is no bus
priority. There is no evidence of it
getting better despite some extra lanes in places and traffic lights on
the roundabout (which I personally feel make the congestion worse – PB). This is a major problem that
X
KS Keith Sha
goes back a long time.
KS
A52 between Congestion issues here also. There Capacity Yes Bingham is a constant increase in journey and times due to the congestion and Gamston buses are getting slower and
slower which in turn makes the bus
less attractive as an alternative to the car. Increased housing in the area will only add to the problem – increased demand will bring more
problems and delay. 8
Briggs(PB)
66 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A57 around District wide transport assessment Capacity District wide transport assessment Joelle Davis (JD), Bassetlaw 11
Worksop identifies specific pinch points at by WYG. District Council
X
roundabouts along the A57 and
A1 around Worksop. Improvements needed along the stretch back to the A1 although the specific problem is the
Worksop area. Capacity District wide transport assessment Joelle Davis, Bassetlaw District
by WYG. Council. JD also stated that she A1 at There are specific junctions X would send through more work Harworth around Harworth that have been on detailed specific 11 Bircotes identified as pinch points within development sites that has not the district wide transport yet been published. assessment. 80 hectares of
employment is planned within the
core strategy near these junctions
and this needs bearing in mind
Radcliffe going forward Roundabout Capacity Yes
The Radcliffe roundabout is a (also known pinch point and slows everything X as Gamston down. Extra development is only roundabout – going to make things worse too as A52/Radcliffe increased housing will increase Road) demand and car use!
Capacity X X X Network X X Core strategies include very large wide (with residential and employment reference to developments which will impact on A52 and the road network and there needs A453) to be careful thought about how the HA will deal with issues. For example there are very large
residential and employment David Jones (DJ) / PB KS JD JD JD JD KS PB / Jones (DJ) David developments which will impact on the A52/A453 corridor South of
Nottingham. 4
67 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A38 Little The Little Eaton roundabout is a Capacity Yes Eaton and massive problem island which
A38 causes major delays due to Markeaton congestion and queuing. The Roundabout Markeaton roundabout is also a major pinch point with congestion being particularly awful coming out of the city (there is not an issue going into the city).
Junction 28 has been recently
M1 Junction X X improved and the motorway is now Capacity Yes
28 great, but there is a massive issue with congestion in the area
surrounding the junction particularly on A38 which needs to
be dealt with.
Nottingham An absolute pinch point within Capacity Bridges Nottingham are the bridges – cause major problems and I hope
that in the future there will be a new bridge.
Network Significant issue with the speed
Wide limits on roads within the D2N2 Operational X X
area, Sections of roads have less
and less logical speed limits and it KS DJ PB PB is a challenge for the HA to have a clearer strategy to let motorists know the speeds of roads easily.
68 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A47 Along the A47, supermarket lorries Safety X
go 40mph along a 60mph road
which has the consequence of massive queues for cars on the network, which leads to cars overtaking the supermarket lorries.
There is a challenge of how lorries X Network will be in the future – will the size Operational X Wide of lorries change and become heavier and longer? How will these lorries effect traffic flow and
infrastructure requirements as HGVs damage roads, and with
more Distribution Centres opening 2
within the area this could be a
major challenge. M1 either When the M1 goes down to 3
Capacity X Yes side of lanes coming into Nottingham city widened the traffic comes to an absolute section standstill. There are the same (J25-28) congestion issues coming out of
the city too, with traffic coming to a standstill as soon as the M1 goes back to 3 lanes.
The M1 is not far off capacity now M1 Capacity never mind in the future – it won’t
be fit for purpose in 10 years KS PB DJ PB
unless improved
69
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
4 X A52 The development of the Enterprise Capacity X Evidence of the modelling will be (Enterprise Zone (Boots) directly loads onto available soon, and there will be
Zone) the A52 and modelling shows planning applications soon too.
massive impacts on the A52 which would need addressing. This also
results in access issues for the
Nottingham Boots Enterprise Zone.
Previously each council/LEP were Operational Network isolated and now interested in the
Wide interaction between both LEPs (Strategies) and HA in terms of stimulating economic development. It is
necessary to link HA 8 improvements to LEPs – HA
should keep D2N2 and Greater Lincs informed and vice versa.
Strategies need to be joined up in order to ensure strategic economic development is aligned.
Significant report on the latest Recent report on Derby Road
Derby Road X X Derby Road development Society &
suggested increasing the width of Environment pavements for pedestrians and improving cycling in the congested
areas around University and / DJ (MH) Hallam DJ Maria PB Wollaton Park. This raised with the HA the problem of balancing traffic flow with those who travel in other ways and help to reduce traffic flow yet the document was ignored 3 by the HA – more bothered about cars, discourages different modes
of travel.
70 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Network Cyclists cannot avoid cycling on Operational wide HA roads at some point. There
(advanced needs to be more clarity on when stop lines) advanced stop lines will be used
as they are not implemented everywhere and so the HA needs a more organised and proactive
approach to how and when they will be used. For example, the council refused to put advanced
stop lines in where Beeston Tesco is. They should also be coloured
as this makes them more visible
and accessible, and there needs to be more consistency on how they
are enforced. Asset Condition The A38 is reaching the end of its A38 life and therefore needs Yes
maintaining/replacing. Important to note that any issue on route diversion due to maintenance etc
is a major issues for buses.
A52 Dunkirk There is a current noise issue Society & Yes around Dunkirk which needs Environment addressing.
Motorbike noise disturbs me A52 Beeston Society & constantly by the A52 Beeston. Environment
Disturbance by motorbike noise JD KS/JD PB KS/JD JD often occurs along the major arterial routes in/out of Nottingham
X X X X X X X
PB
5
71
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
East of There is a general problem with Capacity Nottingham accessing any of the East Coast
from Nottingham.
The construction of HS2 will cause Network Capacity Wide major disruption and issues for the
road network around the area.
DJ
X X DJ
72 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Midlands D2N2Lincs Date: 16/09/13 Breakout Group Orange
Group Facilitator Sravani Vuppala Note-taker Mia-Jade Thornton
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are Location Why? Are there any trade-offs? proposed and ensure people Capacity / Safety / feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from any of Operational / Society consensus about the priorities, but to Nb In this session we most interested in how they priorities. & Environment discuss their views. Include initials of the the groups – not limited to the decide what should be a priority rather than what the ones raised by this group Prompt if the same delegates so that we can follow up if priorities are. The sticky dot session will help show what types are raised to necessary the group think the priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional notes) consider whether they are viewed as a higher Maintenance & renewals / priority than other types Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
73 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A52 Derby Road Capacity The congestion is a major issue and Adding Capacity (although it is journey times are getting longer and longer. stated that respondents are Bus lanes should be implemented but not not sure if this could happen sure what we can do as the road sort of and how to tackle this issue). queues and works unofficially as 2 lanes Another solution could be already and there is still this issue. This improving the J24/A453 section needs revisiting by the HA. junction as this is a real pinch (DJ/KS/PB) point and if improved this
could lead to a shift of traffic away from the A52 (KS).
Access to the Boots Enterprise Operational Zone Access to the Enterprise Zone is a key priority which needs to be argued strongly on the economic development of the site. (DJ)
Network wide – infrastructure Capacity to support Core Strategies The impacts on the road network of
proposed developments have not been looked at from one Core Strategy to
another and this could lead to issues – there therefore needs to be a link to LEPs
and HA infrastructure improvements and also between the LEPs as it is crucial to have infrastructure in place to support the
growth set out within each Core Strategy. Safety (DJ) Accidents on A1 near Worksop
Accident map shows a section of the A1 near Worksop in red indicating a large number of accidents – it is therefore a priority to address the cause of the accidents, as there is also a knock on impact if roads are closed due to accidents on the flow of traffic on other roads in the network (e.g. Elkesley). (JD)
74 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Network wide maintenance of Asset Condition The maintenance of the roads on the HA There is a trade off between maintaining the current roads on the HA Network network is a key priority both in the short roads and building new roads. term and long term as it is necessary to ensure the network is of good quality and runs as efficiently as possible. (DJ)
Congestion management Capacity issues in the D2N2 area Congestion is a major issue and it is
therefore necessary to manage congestion as efficiently as possible. There has been a HA pinch point bid for a system for D2N2
and HA to collaboratively work together and divert traffic along LA roads/HA roads when there are accidents/diversions and vice
versa. A strategic Congestion Management Scheme would not only involve incident
response but also daily demand management and planned maintenance.(DJ)
HGV distribution on the network (with reference to Operational/ Asset The main cause of wear and tear on the Harworth) Condition network is lorries and so the heavier they get the worse the roads get. Within the Harworth area employment development includes distribution centres so HGV distribution should be a priority to ensure the condition of the roads is maintained at a good standard (KS/JD) Funding for infrastructure Asset Condition (network wide) There is a potential concern as to where the funding is coming from for local infrastructure projects (JD). It is in all our interests that there is more certainty relating to HA funding to enable adequate planning (PB).
75 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location specific infrastructure Asset Condition It is important to ensure that the road How is it justified spending money on a junction where improvements - funding network performs efficiently not only on a congestion might be an issue in the future after strategic level but also a local level. We have development against a junction where congestion is noted that it is important to also plan ahead. already an issue? Trade off between dealing with In order to plan ahead we must spend present problems and future problems, but necessary money on junctions that might become pinch to ensure infrastructure is in place before development. points due to development, but how can we More detailed trajectories should be able to provide justify this? We also need to note the relative better figures of build up so it should be easier to development and impacts on the road identify areas where pressure will develop in the future. network. (JD)
Network wide – non-motorised Society & Environment users It is vital that non-motorised users are adequately considered on the HA network to ensure that the HA does not discourage non- motorised forms of transport (PB).
76 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name D2N2 & Greater Lincolnshire Date: 16/09/13 Breakout Group Red Team
Group Facilitator Graham Fry Note-taker A. Finch Page 1
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide / Asset Condition become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by
/ Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
J26-28 M1 & Junctions operating at capacity at Capacity X Partly - Vehicle N/A N/A JC 14 A38 trunk peak times. Northbound hours delay shows road carriageway particularly a problem up on M1and A38 connection and junction 28 / A38 suffering from mainline but no congestion. information on the M1 J25-28 widening has resolved local network at MI the capacity issue on the M1 but junctions which junction capacity issues remain. also have problems.
Newark A46 A46 is vital to the prosperity of Capacity X X Yes – Delay and N/A N/A RAW 8 Lincolnshire. Lack of penetration speed maps makes linking pinch points indicate a problem important to Greater Lincolnshire but delay problem LEP (GL LEP). Newark is appears worse on constrained by single carriageway. A46 (A1- Lincoln) Currently A46 junctions at Newark which is dual are under pressure although the carriageway. This road link appears to cope. Future appears development will put it all under erroneous. pressure.
A52 south Considerable stress on A52 now Capacity X Yes – Delay map - - DP 7 and east of with problems on the trunk road show problems, Nottingham spilling onto local roads. Clifton particularly on Bridge (A453) to Bingham (A46) – A52 Gamston to number of junction capacity issues. A46. Likely to worsen as considerable development proposed in the area.
77 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Junction 25 If HS2 station located here more Capacity X Yes – Delay map Not an issue at present as some N/A JF 1 M1 pressure could be put on the shows problems uncertainty over future of HS2 – so junctions. Impact on SRN of on the A52 in time for evidence to be gathered. reactive development following vicinity of HS2 stations. proposed HS2 station.
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide / Asset Condition become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by
/ Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received NL 2 A453/A52 Air quality in Nottingham is poor Society & X Yes - Data available from the City’s - due to traffic congestion. 2 Air Environment Environment Map environmental department. quality management areas; one at shows air quality Dunkirk close to A543/A52. issues in Duelling of the A453 will bring Nottingham, further reduction in air quality. including A52.
Grantham Provision of a new GS junction on Connectivity/ X N/A N/A N/A RAW Southern the A1 is hard to achieve for a Facilitating Relief Road developer and this challenge can Development discourages business investment.
General Maintenance – Need to ensure that Asset Condition X Yes N/A N/A All 9 the SRN is properly maintained.
A1 Previous improvements to A1 have Capacity X Yes – some N/A N/A RAW 1 done their job in the area but problems Delay capacity problems still exist to the Map in Doncaster/ north of the region which could Pontefract area. become problematic.
78 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M180 / M18 Access to Humber ports need Capacity X No significant - - RAW 2 improvement (planned for 2015). issues evident at Immingham - capacity ok but there present on Delay is an enterprise zone around it Map. which could be putting pressure on the SRN. Rail network can’t take the freight so any new container traffic will have to go on the SRN. Possible future problem for the M180/M18 routes.
South Severance to cyclists and Safety, Society & X - - - DP 3 Nottingham pedestrians where urban area Environment meets SRN.
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by / Asset Condition ky dots
/ Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of stic received
A52 (Derby Surplus to requirements as part of Operational X N/A - - DP to the SRN? De-trucking could be Nottingham) welcomed by the Councils. Road is a higher priority locally than strategically but not managed locally.
A38 through Safety issues. Safety X Yes. N/A N/A NL Derby
Markham Connectivity issue at the moment. Connectivity / X No. See their RGF bid available online. N/A JF 1 Vale Could be a capacity issue later on if Capacity Enterprise enterprise zone is successful. Zone
SRFI Road access could be difficult and Connectivity/ X Yes. Through engagement with Proposals delay proposals being implemented Facilitating developers. at M1 J24 and A38/A50 areas. development
79 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
East-West Very few choices of route E-W and Capacity & Route X Yes (A52 only E- - - RAW 3 low total capacity. Some meeting choice. W route) and at points between E-W and N-S M1 J28, M1 J25 movements don’t work efficiently. and M1 J24.
80 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name D2N2 Date: 16/09/13 Breakout Group Red Table
Group Facilitator Graham Fry Note-taker A Finch Page 4
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are Location Why? Are there any trade-offs? proposed and ensure people Capacity / Safety / feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from any of Operational / Society consensus about the priorities, but to Nb In this session we most interested in how they priorities. the groups – not limited to the & Environment discuss their views. Include initials of the decide what should be a priority rather than what the delegates so that we can follow up if ones raised by this group Prompt if the same priorities are. The sticky dot session will help show what types are raised to necessary the group think the priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional notes) consider whether they are viewed as a higher Maintenance & renewals / priority than other types Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
Poor surfaces/ No specific Maintenance Need to maintain what you have before Key Priority location identified investing in the new.
National > Sub-regional Capacity Certain roads of national significance M1 & If HA can get key routes sorted there will be more A1 so should be top-priority. Constraints to winners economically than if priority is given to the hierarchy. national network have knock on effects smaller trunk roads. However, working on this principal M1 - A38/M1 J28, elsewhere. means routes on the periphery won’t get support. A1 – north of D2N2 Sub Regional: Priority should be by route function. National/periphery trade-off. A52 – numerous junctions (A543-A46) A46 Newark M180 Other M1 junctions
Opportunity Value - Markham Connectivity/ Facilitating Make improvements/connections to key Supporting Development V Operational V Capacity – Vale Enterprise Zone, Newark Development areas/ strategic employment sites to bring Increase priority for facilitating strategic developments. A46 and Grantham A1. about future opportunity.
East to West linkages - M180 Capacity / Operational Food economy is important to D2N2 area. “20% of food manufacturing is done in SE Balancing capacity & Lincolnshire so distribution and journey reliability time reliability is key” (RAW)
Supporting transport hubs Capacity / Connectivity Economic importance of transport hubs e.g. Supporting Development V Operational V Capacity – SRFI’s, airports and ports. Therefore HA Increase priority for facilitating strategic developments.
81 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Balancing capacity & need to prioritise the linkages to the SRN reliability for these sites – Proposed SRFIs, Immingham Port and EMA.
82 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Nottingham Workshop Date: 16/09/13 Breakout Group Yellow Group
Group Facilitator Tim McCann Note-taker Amie Coleman
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does this Is the evidence for this If not, what evidence Promises to provide issue become challenge shown on our is there to show this supporting evidence
critical? maps? is/will become a by (name, org)
challenge? Raisedby
Capacity / Safety / Asset 21
Condition / Operational / - dots received dots
Society & Environment
2018
Number of sticky of Number
Alreadyis After 2021After Grimsby to This is a key freight route. The A46 Capacity and safety Not part of HA network None provided AP 1 Lincoln corridor and A15 are not trunk roads but they are key routes. There are particular issues on the A15 as it is not suitable for fright vehicles. There are also plans for growth around Lincoln, will lead to more congestion A38 3 Junctions This project has already been put Capacity HA already have the No additional evidence GB 9 project through forward to the HA but has been evidence/ study provided Derby delayed M1 East to A study was conducted on the Capacity, Safety, HA already has evidence in No additional evidence AP 2 West movement of traffic from North to Operational the form of multi-modal provided movements South on the M1. It was found that a study large majority of the problems were caused by East to West movements. These East to West movements should be considered as part of the RBS study A6211 to A612 A new route which has been Society Not part of HA network None provided SB 7 East Of developed to accommodate growth in Nottingham the area. Will allow 1900 new homes to be built. A key site for development, will allow growth in the area. Will provide an additional crossing over the river Trent. Waiting on approval from Nottinghamshire County Council. Link to the A46 An Eastern bypass would relieve Capacity/ Operational Yes – low average speed, None provided SB 1 around Lincoln congestion in the area – preliminary high casualties, poor discussion have been started with the pavement and high vehicle Council delay hours
83 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex South of Derby Opportunities for development – Society No None provided GB 0 houses, industrial estates ect A50/M1 Is the A50 at capacity? There are not Capacity/ Safety Yes - high vehicle hours None provided SB, 5 Junction 24 many junctions along the A50; there delay shown on maps GB are issues with linking up to it. There and JL are issues at M1 Junction 24 for cyclists - accidents have occurred. There is a lot of development planned for Leicester which will affect the A50. There is a freight terminal planned for the area. The bypass is part of these plans. The airport has minimal impact on junction 24 in terms of passengers having to use the junction. M1 Key issues: 1) Service-ability of the Asset condition/ Yes - poor pavement None provided GB 0 M1 for essential and routine Operational conditions on some maintenance causes problems 2) sections of M1 The current management of disruption when the M1 is closed due to an accident M1 Use of M1 for short trips around Capacity Yes - vehicle hours delay None provided SB 1 Nottingham - used as an outer ring road M1 Junction 2000 new homes are planned for the Society/ Capacity Yes - vehicle hours delay None provided SM 5 (on 29A area - this will put more pressure on two the junction post it notes) M1 Junction 28 A multi-module study has shown that Capacity HA already has evidence in No additional evidence GB 5 a grade separated junction is required form of multi-modal study provided at M1 Junction 28 M1 ramp Ramp metering on the M1 causes No – other junctions not on None provided GB 1 metering problems for local junctions – The HA’s network blocking back etc M1 Junction 24 Congestion Capacity Yes - low average speed at None provided SB 0 the junction, high vehicle hours delay A38 Derby Key issue for cyclists - more Safety Yes - High number of None provided JL 8 crossings are needed in the area. casualties in the area There is the start of a good cycle network around the airport, this needs adding to. There is the potential to link into Derby as well
84 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Lincoln - The train service along this route Capacity/ Operational Yes - high vehicle delay None provided AP 1 Newark on should be improved to reduce some hours Trent - of the pressure on the road network. Nottingham Quicker/ more frequent trains should be introduced. Freight could then travel by train rather than by road A453 The work on the A453 will alleviate Capacity Yes - low average speed, None provided SB 0 some of the problems on the A52 high vehicle hours delay from the motorway A1 - Grantham There have been a series of Safety/ Operational Yes - medium number of None provided AP 0 accidents on the A1 near Grantham casualties which have caused issues due to the re-routing of traffic onto other roads in the area. The re-routing strategies need to be improved. Accidents need to be dealt with quicker A52/ A1 - The A52 is de-trunked before the A1. Safety/ Operational/ No None provided AP 0 Grantham HGV's pass through small towns capacity which is unsafe. The HGV's frequently hit the 2 low railway bridges (A607 and A52). Causes problems on roads and railway line. Also unsafe for cyclists who use the route. Grantham - The infrastructure which links to the Operational/ asset No – off the HA network None provided AP 0 Newark and trunk road needs improving condition Lincoln infrastructure
The whole The impact of housing development Society No None GB 0 network on key routes (local and strategic roads)
The whole There should be more scope to Capacity/ Operational No None GB 0 network address pinch points
85 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex The whole Various other studies have already NA NA GB 0 network been conducted into these issues. Route management strategies for North Derbyshire seem to have been forgotten about.
The HA need to look at the previous evidence which has been gathered on the existing issues on the network. The previous studies should be SM acknowledged when looking at the Route Based Strategies (RBS)
Lincoln Lincoln has grown and will carry on Capacity/ Operational No None provided AP 0 growing over the next few years. Introducing more trains on the rail network will alleviate some of the problems on the roads in the area. It would also take some of the HGV’s off the routes
The whole Capacity Issues: Capacity No None provided GB 0 network - The network functions reasonable well in the region in terms of capacity - The main issues are with junctions - Need to improve the capacity of the junctions A number of sites have introduced Ramp Metering, this causes issues at surrounding junctions Cycle Schemes Cycling schemes/ routes should be Safety/ Social and No None provided JL 0 built into the routes based strategy Environment scheme as they do not cost much in comparison to the cost of the overall scheme
86 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Nottingham Workshop Date: 16/09/13 Breakout Group Yellow Group
Group Facilitator Tim McCann Note-taker Amie Coleman
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are Capacity / Safety / priority? priorities? Why? Are there any trade- proposed and ensure people feel Asset Condition / offs? heard, but re-focus on discussing their Operational / Society & views on the priorities. Environment Nb. these could be from any of the groups – Prompt if the same Nb. We are not asking the group to Nb In this session we most interested in Solution Type (& additional notes) not limited to the ones raised by this group types are raised to reach a consensus about the how they decide what should be a priority Maintenance & renewals / Operational *Not in order of priority consider whether they priorities, but to discuss their views. rather than what the priorities are. The / Junction improvement / Adding are viewed as a higher Include initials of the delegates so sticky dot session will help show what the capacity / New road / other priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary group think the priorities should be. Transport to support growth - Local Society Help the economy to grow Very important priority New roads will facilitate growth/ authorities need time to gather evidence on houses/ industrial estates/ jobs how improving infrastructure will support growth in the area Prioritize schemes which deliver jobs Society Help the economy to grow Very important priority effectively and sustainable A38 Derby Junctions Scheme (including Capacity Issues with congestion in the area. Important because this area has been a cycle infrastructure) There were plans to improve the 3 problem for a long time junctions, these have been put on hold due to the process which the HA follows (AP) M1 Junction 24 - A453 Capacity/ safety Issues with congestion at this Important because the congestion causes junction. There is a lack of safe the issue. Cyclist could be injured/ killed if cycle routes - needs improving (JL safe routes are not provided and SB) Build cycle improvements into all schemes Society/ Safety Cycle schemes can be delivered Improve safety for cyclists, encourage relatively easily in comparison to more people to cycle, reduce issues on road schemes (JL) the road network A15 Capacity/ Operational Should be made a major route, used Should be improved so as to reduce the by freight to deliver food (AP and number of vehicles using other, less SB) suitable routes A1 Safety/ Capacity Used by freight, particularly bad Safety issues - should be improved to crossing points in terms of safety prevent injuries/ deaths (AP). It could be used as an access to London if it was improved, would alleviate traffic on other roads (SB) A60 Operational No longer a strategic trunk road, should be reverted back to one (SB)
87 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex More transparency in terms of how Local authorities need to understand Important priority for local authorities transport schemes are prioritised and what the process is for getting funded (including RBS process) schemes passed so they can lobby the right people (SM) Role of the HA - do not become insular DaSTS reports already shows evidence for Capacity Issues already raised should take the issues in particular areas priority
88 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Marches & Worcestershire Date: 19th September 2013 Breakout Group Orange
Group Facilitator Lee White Note-taker Anthony Hogan
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does this issue become Is the evidence for If not, what evidence
critical? this challenge is there to show this dots
shown on our maps? is/will become a
Capacity / Safety / 21 Promises to provide -
Asset Condition / challenge? supporting evidence received
Raised by Raised Number of of Number Operational / Society by (name, org) sticky
& Environment 2018
Already is Already
After 2021 After
Redditch Planned development with affect local and strategic routes to the Capacity x No Warwickshire EB north of Redditch County Council - Alan Law / Adrian Hart, Redditch Strategic Transport Assessment Redditch / Congestion at M42 J3, M42 J1, M5 J5, M5 J4 and M5 J3. Pressure Capacity x Yes Gravity model for MD 21 Bromsgrove on the SRN result in knock on problems for A38 problems – HA, ancedotal, particularly serious in Bromsgrove. “Every week, Bromsgrove is Longbridge gridlocked” regeneration, VISSIM models (Birmingham CC, Worcestershire CC) Redditch / 30,000 houses deficit for Birmingham will have to be built to north or Capacity x No MD 21 Bromsgrove south. IF south this will be Bromsgrove/Redditch
Network-wide More housing equals more home deliveries through internet buying Capacity x No NP 4 and creates further congestion concerns Shrewsbury 25% more housing expected and Oswestry bypass is congested Capacity x x Yes Online planning JC 1 Travelling from Shrewsbury to south-east is difficult without using documents, models M54 towards centre of Birmingham from Las, HA studies, infrastructure
delivery plans
Network-wide Lack of truckstops / laybys - HGVs stop on SRN for scheduled Safety x No Closures of existing NP 4 breaks stops A5 Shopshire A5 Shrewsbury east to west Midlands - should be upgraded to Capacity x Yes - safety Emails with JC / AW 2 motorway netowrk to attract inward investment evidence to support from JC
Shrewsbury Housing growth is increasing congestion, need a Shrewsbury bypass Capacity No JC 2
A5 / A483 A5 / A483 exhibit general poor performance. With development Capacity / Safety x Yes JC, NP, 5 growth between Ostwestry and Wrexham there is a need for AW additional capacity. A483 has a bad safety record
89
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A49 Dorrington / Accessibility is limited due to single carriageways through Dorrington Operational x Yes - congestion / NP, JC 2 Bayston Hill and Bayston Hill. Vehicles get stuck behind lorries on single- delay carriageways, leading to unreliable travel times and slow journey
times speeds.
A49 Road is not HGV friendly. With planned growth, more people equals Capacity x No JC more HGVs to supply goods. Development to east of A49 Shropshire - Hereford - Shrewsbury corridor is not a suitable route for HGVs. Capacity x No JC Worcester Require a strategic route from Shropshire to Worcestershire A49/B4368 Craven Development around Craven Arms, creates new employment, Capacity x No JC, NP Arms junction is required to accommodate growth Network-wide Access on to SRN is difficult because of traffic growth and causes Capacity x Yes NP 3 additional HGV delay M54 / M6 toll Slow journey times between M54 and M6 Toll, needs motorway Capacity x Yes MD, EB 5 standard link Network-wide People use SRN because they cannot easily get across it. The Society x No Living Streets, Documents to be HH 4 severance is constraining economic growth. This is network-wide social equity, provided by
with specific issues on A46 around Evesham and links to Worcester passive transport Sustrans
A46 Evesham Lack of safe crossing point at Bengeworth (Evesham) prevents Society x No HH 4 Sustrans from developing major tourism / leisure route from
Worcester to Oxford via the Cotswolds
Bridgnorth / Local road links on to SRN are not suitable Capacity x No Wyre Forest can JC, MD 1 Kidderminster provide evidence to support, but not present at the
engagement
The Marches Area-wide underdeveloped transport network - slow, unsafe, Capacity x No JC
unreliable journey times
A49 Dobbies Specific accident blackspot Safety x Yes JC 1 junction
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
90 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name Marches & Worcestershire Date: 19th September 2013 Breakout Group Orange
Group Facilitator Lee White Note-taker Anthony Hogan
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are Location Capacity / Safety / priorities? proposed and ensure people feel Asset Condition / heard, but re-focus on discussing Operational / their views on the priorities. Society & Solution Type (& additional notes) Environment Maintenance & renewals / Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
The historic trunk road network in Capacity Impacting upon issues in Birmingham - motorway High priority the area does not function exceeding capacity. Can some of this be drawn out of adequately for today's needs. Birmingham - JC Upgrade to existing roads, work to the west of Birmingham required Journeys from Shrewsbury to Capacity Poor connectivity, longer journeys Upgrade the A49 to resolve Worcester mean going into Travellers coming in from Wales add to the problem - JC Birmingham capacity and Birmingham provide western solution for Hereford Enterprise Zone connectivity The standard of A49 is barely Capacity A49 must be improved to enable the Hereford enterprise High priority Upgrade the A49 to resolve trunk road standard and should zone to flourish. Housing in Telford adds further to Birmingham capacity and be addressed. potential problems - JC / AW provide western solution for Potential demand may be Birmingham Box / M6 is fundamental to performance of Hereford Enterprise Zone supressed as road users avoid the area - JC connectivity the A49 in favour of motorway Current layout not conducive with future growth, evidence network, therefore increasing that development in the area will cause gridlock - JC congestion in Birmingham Connectivity from M54 to M6 Capacity Not possible to travel north from M54 to M6 without using local roads
Housing growth is increasing Capacity Deemed high priority by Shropshire Bypass congestion need A5 Shrewbury representative bypass Bromsgroves LDF considerations Capacity Bromsgrove representative direct employment sites away emphasised the priority set out in from Bromsgrove and into their LDF considerations Birmingham / Black Country
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
91 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name Marches & Worcestershire Date: 19/09/2013 Breakout Group Red
Group Facilitator Peter Hardy Note-taker Jan Gondzio
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
ber of sticky dots
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Num received
Enterprise Capacity of A49 is a challenge to Capacity X Yes JC 13 zone, development in Hereford Hereford
Hereford Lack of resilience with only one Capacity X Yes JC bridge crossing of the river Wye at Hereford. Has impact on M5/M6/M50 as other routes are used to avoid area SG A49 Cars overtaking HGVs on only link Safety X Yes - Safety Anecdotal from drivers of Freight Hereford to road North-South through Hereford Transport Association Shrewsbury
Barton Need to improve carriageway Asset condition X No JC Road/A49 maintenance Hereford
M42 J1 M42 at J1 air quality impacts more Environment X Yes - Environment Modelling done. Assessment of BDP SH 7 on WCC roads than on SRN. and R&P. Evidence shared with HA.
M5 J6 south Unreliable journey times due and Capacity X Yes - Delay SH 14 of Worcester congestion/delays on local roads in vicinity of M5J6
A46 A46, capacity issues, especially Capacity X No SH 5 junctions around Evesham, impacted by development growth
92 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M5 J7 Worcester Parkway rail station Capacity X SH 1 Worcester planned near M5 J7. This is an opportunity to enable mode shift to rail, but may also be a challenge as cars are attracted to Parkway station.
South and Significant development spread Operational X X JP 5 East of across S & E edges of Worcester Capacity Worcester city. Additional traffic will require area-wide investment in local/strategic transport infrastructure e.g. M5/A44
Whole region Need to increase/improve Society X JC promotion of behavioural change (e.g. through roadside advertising of alternative transport modes)
Whole region Package approach needed to Operational X X SH deliver modal shift and alleviate pressure on roads by providing sustainable transport alternatives
Whole region Need to join-up relationship and Operational X JP thinking, between those responsible for investment plans for the SRN and local transport network
Whole region Tension between SRN being used Social X JP as a corridor of movement and serving new development
Worcestershi Poor performance of SRN, X SH 2 re especially junctions (M5 J6 and J7), has adverse impact on WCC road network. Therefore schemes cannot be limited to SRN only – need a joined up approach.
M5/M6 Unreliable journey times due to Capacity X Yes - Delay Anecdotal from FTA SG interchange volume of traffic results in traffic (not in this always being slow region)
Whole region Need to consider challenge of Environment X X X JC reducing CO2 impacts across the network
93 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A49 in Delivery of LDF needs significant JC Hereford increase in capacity on A49 in Hereford
Bromsgrove Adverse impacts on local roads due Safety X SH area to “rat-running” near Bromsgrove to avoid M42/M5 congestion
94 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Marches & Worcestershire Date: 19/09/2013 Breakout Group Red
Group Facilitator Peter Hardy Note-taker Jan Gondzio
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that Location Why? Are there any trade-offs? are proposed and ensure Capacity / Safety / people feel heard, but re- Asset Condition / Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a focus on discussing their Nb. these could be from any of Operational / Society & consensus about the priorities, but to Nb In this session we most interested in how they views on the priorities. Environment discuss their views. Include initials of the the groups – not limited to the decide what should be a priority rather than what the ones raised by this group Prompt if the same delegates so that we can follow up if priorities are. The sticky dot session will help show what types are raised to necessary the group think the priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional notes) consider whether they are viewed as a higher Maintenance & renewals / priority than other types Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
General congestion, Capacity The group considered that transport is a The group discussion centred on establishing how There is an opportunity to transport priorities should be decided, rather than what insufficient capacity, poor Operational constraint to economic development and encourage behavioural reliability and resilience needs to be addressed. those priorities are. change (particularly through - M42 J1 the LSTF process) to encourage mode shift and - M5 J6 reduce congestion. - Hereford city This has to be done in partnership with the local businesses. Support for Hereford enterprise zone Specific places/issues were highlighted in the discussions and logged elsewhere in these notes. These are also identified in the current LTPs/LDFs and LEP proposals.
95 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Coventry and Warwickshire, Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Blue Team and Leicester and Leicestershire
Group Facilitator Jenny Oakes (JO) Note-taker A. Finch Page 1
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by
Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
A5 Emerging as a key economical Capacity X Yes – Vehicle The A5 Strategy, by the A5 Bill Cullen, HBBC BC 2 route which is already operating at The pinch point Hours Delay Partnership, provides a good capacity, and will be even more so scheme to be evidence base. This proved helpful from future development. A large delivered by 2015 with the Pinch Points work. amount of new development is will only provide DaSTS Study demonstrates the planned along the corridor with enough capacity corridors economic importance. direct access onto the A5. for 2-3 years. 11 A46 & M69 Growth plans will put a Running at X X X Yes – Vehicle Coventry Core Strategy? MW & for considerable strain on this section capacity Hours Delay Developments shown on HA maps A46 of the SRN. Requires a study underestimates amount of KT similar to the A5. Approx. 21- development planned around 22,000 houses proposed in the Coventry. 4 for Coventry area. M69 A46 is a strategic cross country route that’s inadequate for the load it’s currently taking. Particular issues exist between Alcester and Stratford due to a lack of capacity. M69 improvements have linkages to key development priorities.
96 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name Coventry and Warwickshire, Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Blue Team and Leicester and Leicestershire
Group Facilitator Jenny Oakes (JO) Note-taker A. Finch Page 2
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by
Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
The two The TGI and Walsgrave islands Capacity/ Safety X Yes – Vehicle MW A45/A46 around Coventry could undermine Hours Delay & junctions the existing investment that’s being Safety map made on A46 improvements. They are the only at-grade junctions remaining along the corridor and are therefore pinch points on the network. They were not put forward for pinch point funding due to enormous costs.
M42 corridor Major capacity issues on M42. HS2 Capacity. X Yes – Vehicle BC 11 and the big allocation of Hours Delay development in the future close by will put greater pressure on this already struggling road. A46 will have a role in relieving the M42 but is under pressure itself.
Gaydon J12 4,500 new houses proposed for Capacity X - Stratford Revised Core Strategy - KT M40 Gaydon which the road system will not be able to cope with.
M54 – Link required from M54 to M6 toll to Capacity X - - - MW linkages to reduce traffic on M54 and improve M6 Toll access to the underutilised M6 Toll but controversial with district authorities.
97 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name Coventry and Warwickshire, Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Blue Team and Leicester and Leicestershire
Group Facilitator Jenny Oakes (JO) Note-taker A. Finch Page 3
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by
Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
y
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedb Number of sticky dots received
M6 Toll Underutilised but the alternative Operational X Yes – Speed map Regional Logistics Study for West - BC & 5 SRN (particularly the M42, M6 & and Vehicle Hours Midlands has been commissioned MW M54) is generally operating over Delay map (2012) by a consortium of authorities capacity. Although the toll road is in the West Midlands. Possible not under the HA remit, if M6 Toll evidence base for issues on the SRN was priced to attract more traffic it in the area. would alleviate a lot of the problems the HA face on the SRN, therefore affecting future HA strategies and spend. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council looking into the M6 Toll issue and its one of the joint LEP priorities.
M1 J21 – Pinch Point delivery by March 2015 Capacity & Safety X Yes –Vehicle - - CS 4 J21a but won’t address all congestion Hours Delay map problems between J21 and J21a. Pinch Point scheme is a short term fix not long term solution. Safety hazard. Southbound traffic getting off onto M69 blocking back MW on M1. Signalisation has improved things but still issues remain. Also the link is short between 21-21a which results in significant weaving.
General Water pollution – Outfalls of non FK will provide Environmental FK permitted discharge not included on Agency maps showing the priority HA maps but can be a risk areas of non permitted discharge. depending on what water bodies they flow into.
98 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name Coventry and Warwickshire, Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Blue Team and Leicester and Leicestershire
Group Facilitator Jenny Oakes (JO) Note-taker A. Finch Page 4
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by
Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
ived
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots rece
A5 Dodwells Capacity and safety issues along Capacity & Safety X Yes –Vehicle - - BC 10 & Long this stretch of the A5. As above Hours Delay, Shoot Pinch Points not necessarily going Speed and Safety junctions to fix the problem. Dualling is map needed to increase capacity and improve safety.
A46 outside More segregation for cyclists Safety X Safety map See Stratford Core Strategy for - KT of Stratford required to improve safety. issues. Pedestrian and cycle crossings Well documented evidence in the near Stratford are an issue. Route Management Strategy (RMS). MW
A38 Burton Good off road cycle route but very Safety X Safety map - - FK to Lichfield stop-start in nature. Cyclists are poorly catered for at junctions so cyclists tend to go along the A38 mainline which presents a safety issue and can reduce traffic speeds. Cycle network needs to be better coordinated and less disruptive.
M6 Jnc 2-4 Heavy usage. Lots of local hopping Capacity X on and off. Also new engine plant for Jag/Land Rover near I54 will use M6 for delivering to Solihull.
99 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M1, M6, A5 Emergency Route Planning - When Operational X - - - BC 5 and A38 incidents occur on M1 & M6 they impact on the A5 and bring Hinckley to a grinding halt. Flooding of the Trent can result in the closure of several parts of the A38. Can alternative routes be planned?
Route-based strategies stakeholder events Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Coventry and Warwickshire, Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Blue Table and Leicester and Leicestershire
Group Facilitator Jenny Oakes (JO) Note-taker A Finch Page 5
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are Location Why? Are there any trade-offs? proposed and ensure people Capacity / Safety / feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from any of Operational / Society & consensus about the priorities, but to Nb In this session we most interested in how they priorities. Environment discuss their views. Include initials of the the groups – not limited to the decide what should be a priority rather than what the ones raised by this group Prompt if the same delegates so that we can follow up if priorities are. The sticky dot session will help show what types are raised to necessary the group think the priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional notes) consider whether they are viewed as a higher Maintenance & renewals / priority than other types Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
A5 Dodwells junction & Capacity Two key blockages on the A5 which should Emerging as a key route for supporting economic be priority following on from the Pinch Point growth. A5 - Atherstone to M42 improvements so that there is a seamless junction improvement to the whole route. Capacity / safety improvements (probably dualling) A string of logistics companies along the A5 who are required by 2018. being and will continue to be impacted on.
Environmental Agency to be Dodwells is also a priority for Environmental considered for any Agency as there are water quality issues improvements to the Dodwells around the area. A water body close by is junction. failing due to road run off. EA to be considered in any improvements to this junction.
TGI (Binley Junction) and Operating close to Top priority for Coventry City Council in Walsgrave Islands, A444 and order to deliver growth. Economic case for
100 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A428 capacity. this is from DaSTS study. Toll Bar scheme will move issues up to these junctions. Fixes required before 2021.
M1/M69 J21 Safety Safety hazard due to blocking back to mainline and weaving to J21a.
Stratford – Alcester A46/A435 Capacity and Safety Low priority. Lengthy route hence expensive solutions so low on single carriageway with safety priority list, as several of the other SRN issues could be and speed issues. addressed for the same money.
M6 Toll efficiency and link with Capacity Will make a big difference in alleviating Politically sensitive and the M6 Toll would have to be M54 problems on the SRN if more traffic used more financially attractive to traffic for a direct link from the toll road and link road provided with the the M54 to be beneficial. M54.
Need to focus priorities to Delivering growth. Safeguarding our economic outturn for the where job growth will take future. place and to parts of the economy that are doing well e.g. Mira Enterprise Zone on A5.
Priorities should also be . governed by housing growth areas. Accident areas tend to correlate well with these areas.
Emergency routing. Capacity Some emergency routes place increased Better communication between HA and LHA required. pressure on an already congested network which results in standstill.
101 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Cov/Warks and Leics/Leicestershire LEP’s Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Green
Group Facilitator Graham Fry Note-taker Darren Abberley
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Promises to provide Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a supporting evidence by Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? (name, org) Operational / critical? maps?
Society &
Environment
21
-
readyis
Al 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
SRN-wide Lorry parking and the location and Society and X No Lorry parks may not be attractive N/A CL 0 availability of lay-bys is becoming Environment economic investments but a truck an increasing issue. Lay-bys on the stops has recently been expanded SRN are being used increasingly on the A5 – this wouldn’t have been by HGV drivers to take rest breaks done if not worthwhile. Similar which they are required to take by facilities are required in other areas. law. However the HGV’s often Northampton lorry parking study become a target of anti-social provides evidence of the issue in that behaviour. County.
A5 The road acts as a barrier and a Safety/Society and X No Anecdotal evidence e.g. lack of N/A VA 3 ‘Berlin Wall’ between the Environment verges for horse riders. Leicestershire and Warwickshire border. The route presents a number of difficulties for non- motorised users to use and cross.
A5 Lots of development is proposed Capacity/ X X Yes (but figures Data provided in the ‘Rugby Radio Hard copy version of document RM 1 along this corridor. Especially at Operational inaccurate). Station Additional Information Guide’ provided at the workshop with
Rugby Radio station and Rugby document. further documentation to follow Gateway. These are highlighted on should it be available. the RBS maps but the figures are too low at the Rugby Radio station site (6,200 homes and 31 hectares of employment land are proposed for this site). This will put further
pressure on the link.
102
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A5 There has been a lack of Capacity/Asset X X X Yes Possible information available from N/A PS 1 investment on this link and there is Condition/ LCC – LLITM forecast year outputs. large variation in the standard of Operational the link. For example, from Hinckley to Tamworth the link suffers from congestion issues which are likely to be exacerbated (with development growth) in the future. PS 10 M1 J21- The M1 SB between M1 J21a and Capacity/Safety/ X Yes South West Leicester and N/A J21A J21 at peak times is a crucial Operational/ Leicestershire Study congestion hotspot. Long distance Society and traffic often avoids it and uses the Environment local road network which creates associated problems. The motorway is a link of national importance and its poor performance can have detrimental impacts upon the national and regional economy. J21’s poor performance also threatens Leicester’s ability to attract inward investment. Also issues associated
with noise and air quality.
M1 J23 Growth in Loughborough and Capacity/ X Yes N/A N/A PS X Shepshed will impact on M1 J23; Operational congestion will be experienced, particularly during university semesters
103 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M1 J24 M1 J24 is a nationally important Capacity/ X X X Yes N/A N/A PS 5 part of the M1 as it links to the A50 Operational and A453 routes. and with the airport and SRFI in close proximity. On top of this, it is an important gateway for Nottingham and Derby. However the junction suffers from congestion, it has not been improved and with a large amount of development proposed for the area, its performance will continue to deteriorate. A pinch point scheme is scheduled at this junction for Summer 2014. This will change the way traffic on the A50 EB enters the M1 SB. A new carriageway will be created through the junction. However Leicestershire County Council does not think that these measures are sufficient in the long term.
A45 Development growth – Prologis Capacity/ X X No Evidence provided by CL, a N/A CL 1 Ryton Site A and Site B (SW of Operational/ commercial developer from Prologis Coventry) are missing from the growth plans; development traffic from these sites will exacerbate congestion on the A45 link.
A5 The A5 at Hinckley currently suffers Capacity/ X X X No Evidence gathered by LCC through N/A PS 6 Longshoot from congestion. There is a plan in Operational the Leicester and Leicestershire and place for new traffic signals and a Integrated Transport Model (LLITM), Dodwells widening of the approaches at Transport Trends Report, NMP Dodwells roundabout as well as Congestion Plan 2026, DfT Transport changes to the Longshoot junction. Innovation Fund Congestion Study in However Leciester County Council the East Midlands. (LCC) does not think that these measures are sufficient in the long term. A long term strategy for improvement is needed as it is crucial to growth in Hinckley and Nuneaton. Need to maximise ability to secure developer funds.
104 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A453 Currently suffers from congestion. Capacity/ X X X No Modelling work for NWLDC Core N/A PS 0 There is a scheme planned to Operational Strategy and for the SRFI upgrade a section of the A453 between the M1 and A52 by widening the urban section and upgrading the rural section to become a dual carriageway. However LCC have concerns about the impacts this will have on Kegworth (and possibly other areas in NW Leicestershire).
Catthorpe Development pressures in this area Capacity/ X X Yes N/A N/A RM 0 Interchange will affect the performance of this Operational (M1, M6, junction – but should be resolved
A14) by the current major scheme.
M6 J1 Development pressures in this area Capacity/ X X X Yes N/A N/A RM 5 will affect the performance of this Operational junction.
M6 J2-4 Current congestion in this area Capacity/ X X X Yes N/A N/A IS 1 leads to instability, unreliable Operational journey times and traffic diverting onto the LRN, creating congestion
issues on the local road links.
M6 Toll Under-utilised and tolls discourage Operational X No Published traffic information for M6 N/A CL 7 use, exacerbating congestion on Toll.
the M6.
Connections Local concerns about the Safety/ X No N/A N/A CL 1 to A45 WB prevalence of HGV’s on the LRN, Asset Condition/ and M45 WB due to the poor accessibility of the Operational from A5 M45 WB. around M1 J18
105
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Roundabout Concerns about the roundabout’s Safety X No Anecdotal evidence N/A CL 5 on A46 SW safety, which was built as part of of M40 J15. the J15 Improvements. The roundabout is too small, badly aligned and dangerous.
M42 J6 The junction is in the heart of the Capacity/ X X X Yes N/A N/A IS 1 country so is nationally significant. Operational However it suffers from congestion and will continue to do so with the level of growth allocated for this area. This would make journey times unreliable and could have a negative impact on the economy.
M42 J9 Potential development near this Capacity/ X X No Birmingham City Council N/A CL 1 junction and to the west, in and Operational around Curdworth will cause congestion at this junction.
A42 J13 The nearby A511 is a growth Capacity/ X X Yes N/A N/A PS 1 corridor which would increase Operational congestion at this junction. Strategic improvements are required to alleviate this pressure. A strategy to secure developer contributions is needed.
Hobby Horse This roundabout has capacity Capacity/ X X X No N/A N/A PS 2 Roundabout issues which will be exacerbated by Operational/ development pressures. This could Society and also affect the performance of the Environment Leicester Outer Ring Road. Associated air quality issues. VA 10 General Vulnerable road users have Safety X No Anecdotal evidence N/A
difficulties crossing/using the SRN
106 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Cov/Warks and Leics/Leicestershire LEP’s Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Green
Group Facilitator Graham Fry Note-taker Darren Abberley
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are Location Why? Are there any trade-offs? proposed and ensure people Capacity / Safety / feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from any of Operational / Society & consensus about the priorities, but to Nb In this session we most interested in how they priorities. Environment discuss their views. Include initials of the the groups – not limited to the decide what should be a priority rather than what the ones raised by this group Prompt if the same delegates so that we can follow up if priorities are. The sticky dot session will help show what types are raised to necessary the group think the priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional notes) consider whether they are viewed as a higher Maintenance & renewals / priority than other types Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
M1-congestion in vicinity of M1 Capacity/Operational/ PS- It is a top priority due to the airport, SRFI, PS- Junction improvements may create other J21 and M1 J24 Safety three cities being in close proximity. It is a implications on the LRN, including accessibility issues to nationally important route; if journey times are the SRN. unreliable, this could have detrimental impacts on the economy. Also, if nothing is done, then the LRN will become a ‘rat run’ creating associated problems on this network.
General – viewing the network Capacity/Operational CL -Viewing the UK as a whole and PS – It is difficult to assign priorities as the network as a whole and not individual identifying what is needed for the SRN at a should be considered holistically. links/junctions nationwide level should be the starting point e.g. A46 v M42 routes. VA- Focusing on individual junctions/links can move the problems elsewhere, rather than eradicating them.
A46 Capacity/Operational CL- Strategic improvement to A46 could relieve the M42 and M5 which currently experience congestion.
107 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
General – vulnerable users Safety VA- Non-motorised vehicles have An increase in the number of crossing points could have VA- The Vulnerable Users have difficulties crossing/using difficulty/feel unsafe using the SRN. However, impacts on congestion on the SRN. Crossings Improvement the SRN in line with the agenda for more sustainable Programme from 2003 should modes of transport to be used, these road be revisited. users should be encouraged.
M6 Toll Capacity/Operational/ CL- Taking the M6 Toll back into public CL- This would relieve pressures on the M6 and make IS- This solution is unlikely to ownership. This would make it toll free and better use of the network. happen. thus more attractive to road users – helping to relieve M6 congestion and support economic growth in the Midlands region.
A5 Longshoot and Dodwells Capacity/Operational PS – Improving the performance of this PS- Need a long term strategy section of the SRN is crucial to securing for improvement and growth in Hinckley and Nuneaton. maximise ability to secure developer contributions.
M45- spare capacity Capacity/Operational CL- This link currently has spare capacity and Target employment growth so better use could be made of it which could around this area. help to alleviate pressures on other, more congested sections of the SRN.
General- timescales/lessons to Capacity/Operational VA- Getting schemes deliverable over the Schemes need to be delivered within the time frames be learnt next 5 years is the priority. otherwise promises will not be met. CL- the timescales are too short. A thorough, unbiased prioritisation of schemes cannot happen in the allocated timeframe. The priority should be to take time and make sure to get things right rather than being under pressure to deliver within the time period. Lessons should be learnt from M1 J19. The current junction was completed on an ad hoc basis and so still suffers from problems.
108 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name: Route based strategies Nottingham Workshop: Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group: Orange Leicester, Leicestershire, Coventry and Warwickshire. Group Facilitator: Note-taker: Sarah Guest Tom McNamara
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by Asset Condition / Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
x x Overall Flood risk map shows flooding Environment x Provided some Can and will provide more. Contact TA issues to be a lot less extensive evidence including the EA for more if needed. than the Environment Agency some for have ascertained. Nottingham
workshop
A5 around Shows red on the pavement life Asset condition x JS MIRA cycle map, but it has recently
been resurfaced.
Overall Most flooding is not water course Environment x TA related (i.e. flooding of river floods Asset condition carriageway) MAINLY run-off
from the highway network.
A46 Sheer amount of run-off is Safety x TA North of flooding the immediate area. In Environment cold weather this is freezing.
Warwick Asset condition
x x M1 J21 Major issue for the police and Safety x GC other emergency services, on the Capacity motorway and adjacent junctions. 5 to 6 miles of tail backs southbound and congestion accessing Leicester northbound.
109
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
x x M1 J21 Weaving on/off the M1 to access Safety (RTCs) x GC 3 the services causing safety Capacity
issues
x M1 J23/24 Lots of development proposed in Capacity x MT 6 Also J21/22 the wider area which will exacerbate already congested junctions. Business/enterprise park in Loughborough - growth
6000+ jobs
x x Overall Up to 2021, the focus should be x AH on existing problems that will only get worse beyond 2021 without intervention.
A5/A47 Junc Heavy congestion - there was talk Capacity TK of a flyover - something needs to Society be done as this congestion leads to ‘rat runs’ developing through Environment
towns e.g. Higham On The-Hill Safety
x
A5 MIRA / Dodwells developments Capacity GC Leicester/ introducing additional traffic.
Warwick
x M1 Undertaking maintenance without x GC causing traffic problems - when is the maintenance going to take place? At night? Seems like there is a lot to do in the next 3 to 4
years.
Bridges Electrification of the rail network Asset condition x MT throughout is going to take place in the Operational the network future. Are we/HA using this opportunity to change bridges which will have to undergo transformation for electrification?
Which Bridges need doing?
Bridges Highly problematic dealing with Asset condition x GC throughout Network Rail (got to get in early) the network Need to think about this now cont.
110
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A14 Market Harborough grinds to a Capacity x TK halt when there is ANY issue on Operational the A14. Safety Incidents seem to be frequent - is there a way to manage the effect on surrounding towns if there is a problem on the SRN? Keeping one lane operational
during incidents might help.
Overall MT asked about models, how Capacity x MT good they were now and is there AH cooperation between authorities. AH indicated that cross county council cooperation was used in the area to develop meaningful
accurate models
x A42 A42 is used like a motorway but Safety x GC 3 should be brought is not Capacity motorway standard. Difficult to use by the emergency services, Operational also the addition of development in the area. 2 lanes bring the associated constraints; The Police have had ongoing
concerns over safety on the A42.
A46 The A46 is only two lanes and Safety x AH 2 Stratford to carries a lot of traffic - not really Capacity suitable as Strategic Road Alcester Network.
M45 Very quiet, under used. Could Safety x AH lead to speeding due to low
vehicle numbers.
x AH M40 J12 Potential new settlement near to Capacity Stratford-Upon -Avon
111
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
x A46 LEP Priorities Capacity x AH Coventry and Warwickshire. East of Coventry A428 TGI Junc. Need to keep the existing network attractive to businesses – so need to keep the M40/M42/M6 moving. Avoid restricting movement from the East to the
rest of the Midlands.
M42 Corridor HS2 will bring further congestion Capacity x AH 3 on the M42 as will investment in Operational business along the corridor, is there the option to use another corridor on the SRN? Suggests using the A46/M69
down M5 as opposed to the M42.
M69 and Inadequate strategic signing. Operational x GC 1
Overall
All Lack of coordination between the Safety x TA 0 MT e.g. backing HA and Highway authority (mainly because up of the A46 schemes. Different operators? people speed up Doing their own little bits. after the Due to road works Nottingham is congestion) currently a no-go zone. Leicester Operation has different works all around the ring road causing congestion. Also UTILITES companies pitch
in with their works.
x All There doesn’t seem to be a Operation x AH shortage of money, so we can Capacity expect to see lots of work to improve the network, so these improvements need to be balanced with the pain of works on the network short term. Can’t be done over night, there need to be an acceptance and plan for a period of disruption.
112
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M1 J21 There was some coordination Operational x GC 0 Asda Island between HA and the Emergency Asset condition in Enderby services and other Highway Authorities. – picking up on point
raised earlier by TA and MT.
Environment x GC 1
M1 Corridor Developments are building right xx Loughboroug up to the M1. (Noise) xxx h The Noise from the motorway is Society an issue, despite people choosing
to live there.
A5 – along Severance for Pedestrian and Safety x AH 5 the whole cyclists trying to cross the Operational route corridor. Particular problem for Society
pedestrians.
Overall Has any though been given to Capacity x JS 1 Autonomous vehicle use in the Safety MT future? Sparked a debate on the length of time for road investment strategies. Length of a parliament vs. 50
years (China)
A46 Variable Message Signs (VMS) Operational x AH 1 North of need to be better utilised to Capacity Leicester reduce burden on nearby towns when there is an incident on the M1 J21 SRN. ‘No route onto the M69’ – not good enough when A46 closed There is an opportunity to use signs in conjunction with contingency plans when SRN is affected by incidents. Such contingency planning could help prevent the development of rat runs through small towns.
113
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M1 A46 Water quality Environment x Will try and find information in TA 1 Most of the water issues/ flooding specific areas where this has come from the carriageway, not taken place and been from flooding of surrounding rural documented. area. Issues with drainage and ditches on highways. The claim is that these are maintained, but in reality maintenance is very poor. No treatment of water, not even primary treatment, leading to the quality and quantity of water coming off the carriageways being sub standard. If HA are seen to be doing nothing to move forward and deal with this issue it can damage reputation but also if water quality diminishes it could have legal
implications.
A14 The ‘Diversion Route Plan’ needs Operational x GC 1 Market to be kept up to date. Otherwise Capacity Harborough towns like Market Harborough get swapped by traffic leaving the SRN. There is the consensus that spontaneous incidents will have this affect and that it is unavoidable, but for planned works it is considered
unacceptable.
Shepshed 2500 more houses, not 500 as Capacity x Maps don’t reflect MT
shown on the maps from core what MT claim M1 J23
strategy data.
x M1 J24 Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Capacity x Not on map MT South of is going to create 6000 jobs with (maybe because Derby and related car and freight journeys. not in area Notts Want reassurances this is being covered by this
considered. workshop
General Operational 4 Maintenance
114
South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A46 North of Temporary crossovers for Environment x TA 1 Leicester maintenance have led to Operational reduction in infiltration and therefore flood issues actually caused by ‘maintaining’ the
network
A46 / A428 Junction will become a problem Capacity x AH 4
once Toll Bar is sorted out
A46 Stanks Starting to queue back onto the Capacity x AH 3 Junc main carriageway of the A46, will get worse with further
developments.
A46 Leek Localised flooding caused by run- Environment x AH Wootton / off from adjacent fields. Safety
Kenilworth
x A47 / A5 Dodwells Bridge. Development Capacity x TK 4 pressures from sustainable urban Safety extensions at Barwell and Earl
Shilten.
A5 near Floods during sharp rainfall Safety x JS 2
Dordon intensity periods.
M6 Toll Spreading strategic traffic more x AH 5 evenly between the existing routes and the M6 Toll would improve the operability and congestion on A5/M6. Suggestion is ‘De-toll’ it to
encourage better use.
A5 / MIRA MIRA major development will Safety x TK 4 Redgate cause increased problems. Capacity junction
115 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name: Route based strategies Nottingham Workshop: Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group: Orange Leicester, Leicestershire, Coventry and Warwickshire.
Group Facilitator: Note-taker: Sarah Guest Tom McNamara
Description of challenge Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are / Location priority? Why? Are there any trade-offs? proposed and ensure people Capacity / Safety / feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from Operational / Nb. We are not asking the group to Nb In this session we most interested in how they decide what priorities. Society & reach a consensus about the any of the groups – not should be a priority rather than what the priorities are. The limited to the ones raised Environment priorities, but to discuss their views. sticky dot session will help show what the group think the by this group Prompt if the same Include initials of the delegates so priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional that we can follow up if necessary notes) types are raised to consider whether Maintenance & renewals / they are viewed as a Operational / Junction higher priority than improvement / Adding capacity other types / New road / other
Raisedby
A5 corridor. From Capacity TK Daventry to Tamworth Including the anticipated Rail Freight interchange.
What is the purpose of Operational A5 is important because it links Find out what the HA consider AH the A5? Not considered areas of economic growth in the the function of the A5 is. a strategic corridor. ‘local’ area. i.e. Coventry, Warwick Maybe devolve control of the and Leicester. Not the entire A5 from HA to local strategic road network. authorities? Economic development of area depends on the A5 functioning – it is a major employment area, MIRA etc. It has got to be made fit for purpose.
Trunk roads are the Operational Trunk roads are the priority as AH main problem in the Capacity Motorways are not considered to be a area. problem (with the exception of M42)
116 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M1 J21 Capacity Long term problem. Growth TK projections in the area are AH significant, thought needs to be given to considering this predicted growth.
M1 J23/24 Capacity This will need attention. It is going to GC be very important in opening up 24 – Airport Operational investment for the area and traffic/access attracting business. 23 – Equally as bad
M6 Toll Capacity The A5/WM conurbation is suffering Money. Presumably 100’s of Millions to acquire from the De-toll it. Government buy it. AH from capacity issues that could be private sector, given there is probably 30-35 year concession Empty because it is Operational eased by vehicles using the M6 Toll, left on it. overpriced. but pricing structure discourages Benefits for the A5, and cheaper than building a new one. most use. It is a Government issue though, not a HA one.
Leicester – Nuneaton – Operation This is the spine of the area, the back AH bone of the local/regional economy Coventry – Warwick – Capacity Stratford – Evesham and needs transport infrastructure to match.
A46 Capacity It is a priority to consider all of the AH developments together, because Toll Bar maybe cause a there is a danger of just pushing the problem north of it problem along the routes to the next Pushing problems along junction/pinch point. the network, not dealing with them
A46/A426 TGI Junction Capacity Will become an issue when A46 Toll TK Bar improvement is finished and traffic is unblocked and flows to this junction..
Stratford to Alcester Capacity Single winding carriageway not Duel Carriageway AH Road suitable for strategic road network. If Safety this road does become more frequently used with anticipated development growth (and as a link from M1 to M5, it needs to be made fit for that purpose.
Congestion at Junctions Safety Starting to see queuing onto the AH carriageway, which is a safety issue in Warwick area eg Capacity Stanks Junction too. HA vs County councils, there is a need for joined up thinking/cooperation.
117 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Maintenance Safety This problem was created by the TA actions taken to maintain the A46 North of Leicester Environment carriageway. investment should not Major resurfacing Asset condition be creating problems. resulting in the removal of the verge for cross overs. Rising flood risk (less infiltration)
Strategic Signage Operational This should be straight forward to Make better use of VMS GC implement, and because it is an easy way to improve capacity it should be prioritised. There is a plan in place for diversions – use VMS to implement it more readily/effectively? Could be used to help stop huge congestion issues in local towns.
A5 Capacity Perception that HA does not consider Devolve responsibility from the HA that the A5 has a strategic role, but it HA to local authorities. At least Been forgotten about Operational has a vital role to play in the make the HA declare what they because the suspicion local/regional economy - so this see what its function is. is that HA don’t see it as needs to be addressed. a strategic route.
118 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Warwick University Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Red Group
Group Facilitator Graham Stevenson Note-taker Amie Coleman
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does this Is the evidence for If not, what evidence Promises to provide issue become this challenge shown is there to show this supporting evidence
critical? on our maps? is/will become a by (name, org)
challenge?
Capacity / Safety /
Asset Condition / 21
Operational / Society & -
Environment
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of received dots sticky Nuneaton 3000 new homes are being built to Society and Capacity Yes - the A5 has High None provided SH 2 the North of Nuneaton. They are not Vehicle Delay hours included on the development map. and low average This development will have a speeds significant impact on the A5. There are 7900 homes planned within Nuneaton and Bedworth by 2028 Rugby 7000 new homes and 3 schools are Society and Capacity No - not within the area None provided PM 0 planned for Rugby 'Mast' of consideration at this development engagement event Gaydon 4000 dwellings planned adjacent to Society and Capacity No – but None provided PH 0 junction 12 of the M40, Gaydon. developments included Junction improvements planned for in development plan the area. Planned start date 2018, completion 2040. A5 Hinckley/ Problems with congestion which will Capacity and Operational Yes - this section of None provided RW 0 Nuneaton only get worse with future the A5 shows high section development. The A5 is impacted vehicle delay hours, due to many industrial areas, low average speed and supermarkets etc. Also if the M6/ M1 a high number of are closed all of the traffic is diverted casualties to the A5. Improvements are required from The Longshoot junction to the M69. Junction improvements are already planned for the area (SH)
119 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A5 The A5 is needed for freight vehicles Capacity, safety, Yes - sections of the None provided RW 0 as it is a major route. If congestion operational and A5 show high vehicle was eased along the A5 it would environment delay hours, low allow freight to make deliveries average speed, a high quicker, would also reduce number of casualties environmental impact due to and poor pavement queuing freight vehicles quality A5 Hickley Low railway bridge - HGV's hit the Safety and operational No None provided SH & 1 bridge, causing problems on the RW network and railway. Is there a possibility of lowering the road in the area as large freight vehicles currently have to go through villages to avoid the low bridge (RW)? There is currently a strategy in place to put more signs before the bridge to warn freight vehicles (AJ) A45/ A46 - There are issues on the A45 and Safety No None provided GR 2 Tollbar End A46 for cyclists. The current Toucan crossings on the A46 in Coventry cause delays for cyclists and are not safe as motorists ignore the red lights. The Tollbar End junction improvement scheme should improve safety for cyclists (PM) A46 Stratford- There have been a number of Safety No - would be useful to None provided PM 0 Upon-Avon accidents involving cyclists, signs show the number of have been introduced to raise casualties per cyclist awareness of cyclists on a separate map rather than total casualties per billion vehicle miles (GR) A46 Stratford- There is a change in lane widths Capacity and Operational Yes - a section of the None provided PH 0 Upon-Avon between Alcester and Stratford, the road shows high carriageway reduces to a single vehicle delay hours lane. The single carriageway causes and medium average problems for drivers who get stuck speeds behind large HGV's.
A46 Stratford- Two employment sites are planned No None provided PH 0 Upon-Avon on the A46 on the Northern edge of Stratford-upon-Avon. Two 18 hectare sites have been set aside for development. The planned start date for both sites is 2018, completion 2030
120 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A46 Stratford- Need a traffic management on the Capacity Yes - a section of the None provided PH 4 Upon-Avon A46 such as the use of traffic lights road shows high at peak times vehicle delay hours and medium average speeds A5 North of There are crossing issues for Safety No None provided GR 0 Coventry cyclists in this area. Need a segregated solution to keep cyclists safe M6 Junction 3 It costs the economy if HGV's have Safety, Operational and No None provided RW 2 to 4 to wait for incidents to be cleared. Capacity The M6 junctions 3 to 4 are a key issue area. Toll charges on the M6 should be lifted to enable it to be used as a diversion route after an incident has occurred A46 Stratford- Congestion issues especially during Capacity Yes - high number of None provided PH 2 upon-Avon the morning peak - improvements casualties at the and Alcester needed junction Junctions Coventry The airport could expand - will Capacity No None provided PM 0 airport cause problems on the network Ricoh Arena/ Large events cause issues on the Safety, Operational and No - one off events None provided PM & 0 other event network. Event organisers need to Capacity SH holders better plan for large events and how they may affect the SRN. There are plans to introduce a train station at the Ricoh arena to ease the traffic around the stadium (SH). The Ricoh blocks the SRN, A444 and Nuneaton Bypass. A46 The A46 has quickly developing Safety and asset Yes - some sections None provided PM 0 potholes which cause problems for condition show poor pavement all road users quality Hinckley to The potential impact of the MIRA Capacity, operational and Yes - the A5 has High None provided SH 1 Nuneaton upgrade is a concern. At peak times society Vehicle Delay hours the A5 is busy the busses get re- and low average routed and leave villages along the speeds A5 isolated Hinckley to Desire locally to cycle Hinckley to Society and environment No None provided SH 1 Nuneaton to Nuneaton to Atherstone Atherstone Junction 12 Issues with capacity, could Capacity No None provided PM 3 and 15 of the managed motorways be introduced? M40
121 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
North of There is an Air Quality Management Society and environment No None provided SH 3 Nuneaton Area in place Trunk roads Crossings across trunk roads cause Safety No None provided GR & 0 the most issues for cyclists (GR). PM Some roads are just not suitable for cyclists as they are too dangerous. Cyclists want to be on the road, need more safety implications. Want people to cycle but safety issues. The whole There needs to be more suitable Safety No None provided PM & 2 network - rest areas provided for HGV's. The RW specifically lay-bys are often overloaded, the A5 particularly on the A5. Magna Park between off the A5 uses clamping Rugby and enforcement which means that Dordon drivers park in the entrance to the park, this causes issues (RW) The whole If diversions are in place need to Safety and operational No None provided RW 2 network ensure that they are suitable for HGV's e.g. Height and weight restrictions The whole Safety cameras don't work. They Safety and Operational No None provided PM 1 network aren't affective if they aren't working. The signing for the cameras needs to be consistent The whole In some places the most direct route Safety and social No None provided GR 3 network for cyclists between trip generators is not along HA roads but the only right of way is along HA roads. So an alternative to improving cycling conditions on the HA roads would be the construction of a cyclist/ pedestrian road on a more direct route; would require the HA to “think outside the box”. The whole The HA need better incident Safety and Operational No None provided PM 2 network management procedures. Need the right resources in the right place. Need better planned diversion schemes. Currently it can take up to 1.5 hours to close a section of the motorway. Require the following: ISU’s, Screens, resources, information on diversions and de- briefs after an incident
122 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
The whole Need to promote road user Safety and Operational No None provided PM 2 network awareness. Need to explain to the public how to use systems such as managed motorways as there is evidence that motorists are using the hard-shoulder even when the scheme is not in place (signs switched off) The whole Cycle lane segregation will Capacity, safety, No None provided RW 6 network - encourage more people to travel by operational, society and specifically bike rather than using the car; it environment Nuneaton would also reduce congestion and improve air quality. There is currently an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) around Nuneaton. Reducing the number of cars using the network in this area would improve the air quality (SH). Just using a white line to segregate cyclists from vehicles does not make them safe. Wish to promote cycle and HGV awareness (RW) The whole Incidents on the network cause most Safety and Operational No None provided PM 1 network of the issues. Enforcement tries to prevent incidents. All lane running prevents police using the hard shoulder and so more platforms are required The whole There are concerns amongst the Safety No None provided PM 0 network Police about turning the lights off on the motorways Additional There has been good investment in Safety, Operational and PM - comments the infrastructure in the area, Capacity particularly the introduction of the managed motorways on the M6. Managed motorways improve safety and capacity. Additional Junction 15 of the M40 (Bridge Capacity PH - comments Island) has been improved greatly and reduced queues
123 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Warwick University Date: 24/09/13 Breakout Group Red Group
Group Facilitator Graham Stevenson Note-taker Amie Coleman
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are Capacity / Safety / priority? priorities? Why? Is there any trade- proposed and ensure people feel Asset Condition / offs? heard, but re-focus on discussing their Operational / Society & views on the priorities. Environment Nb. these could be from any of the groups – Prompt if the same Nb. We are not asking the group to Nb In this session we most interested in Solution Type (& additional notes) not limited to the ones raised by this group types are raised to reach a consensus about the how they decide what should be a priority Maintenance & renewals / Operational *Not in order of priority consider whether they priorities, but to discuss their views. rather than what the priorities are. The / Junction improvement / Adding are viewed as a higher Include initials of the delegates so sticky dot session will help show what the capacity / New road / other priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary group think the priorities should be. Wherever there is a major change to a Safety and society If a better cycle network is provided Important as it will improve safety for Could provide underpasses or bridges section of the network the HA need to then it will encourage more people cyclists for cyclists at nodes as these are the include segregated lanes for cyclists. For to use it as a mode of transport most difficult part of a route example at roundabouts cyclists currently have to use drop kerbs - not ideal (GR) The A5 corridor, particularly through the Capacity, Safety and There are a number of issues on the One of the most important priorities for the North of Nuneaton. Problems: Congestion, environment A5 which need to be resolved as group Safety, Air Quality Management (SH). they effect a large number of road When an incident occurs on the motorway users (commuters, freight and there is additional congestion on the A5 due cyclists) to traffic been diverted. The A5 is only 1 lane wide (per direction) in some areas and so it cannot cope with the additional traffic. The congestion often results in trucks sitting in queues which causes environmental issues (RW) Safety - need to continue to make roads Safety Important as better safety levels on One of the most important priorities for the safer as high impact accidents have a the network will reduce accidents group knock on effect on the rest of the network (diversions). Need to educate road users on signs, managed motorways etc. More safety cameras need to be introduced. Areas of particular concern: Capthorpe junction, M6 junction 2, M42/M6 Toll merge, M40 junction 15 (PM).
124 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A46 between Alcester and Stratford - single Capacity Need a method to ease congestion Important to ease congestion on the road Need a traffic management scheme on carriageway causes congestion. Do not on the A46 as current levels are not the A46 such as the use of traffic lights want to see it duelled from an acceptable at peak times environmental point of view (PH) however something needs to be done about the congestion. A46/ A3400 Bishopton Hill island - there is a Capacity Need a method to ease congestion Important - plans are already in place 5 lane roundabout planned to ease on the A46 as current levels are not congestion. This junction is critical to the acceptable function of Stratford-upon-Avon
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Birmingham Date: 20/09/2013 Breakout Group Blue
Group Facilitator Alan Bain Note-taker Jan Gondzio
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
M6 Getting on and off at junctions, Operational / X Yes - Peak hour GB 4 J15,16,17 especially A500(T) with M6 is Capacity speeds Stoke difficult, leading to a constraint on economic development around the A500
M6 J13-19 Delays to trade traffic Operational X Freight company journey times, e.g. SG 2 from DHL
A50 east of Unreliable journey times; delays on Operational X SG 1 Stoke, important trunk route towards M1
M5/M6 Unpredictable journey times and Capacity X SG, 4 interchange delays due to insufficient capacity AO, affect all users BD
125 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A500(T) Lack of safe and secure stopping Safety X SG, 2 points/lay-bys for HGVs / freight BD Trucks are stuck in traffic just before they are due a break.
M6 Sufficient capacity to allow Operational X X BCC: city mobility action plan – AO development around M6 March 2014 LEP models: economic (KPMG) and transport
M6 / M6 Toll M6 Toll empty while M6 congested Operational X BD 10
A5 to A38 Single carriageway on journey to Capacity X Yes - Delays BD BD 2 M1 causes delays (See Delay Map)
Black Poor accessibility to/from the SRN Operational X BD 1 Country across Black Country, e.g. journey time/distance to get onto M6 from Dudley
Black Business relocating outside Black Society X BD BD Country Country because of congestion i54, M6 Need to improve accessibility once Capacity X BD 11 North Jaguar Land Rover plant open
Featherstone Potential transport impact of Society Study ongoing PW 3 , M54-M6 strategic employment sites in the link vicinity
Whole Need to provide additional Safety X n/a SG network information to drivers to let them know where to stop if there is congestion up ahead on the network
Whole Need to ensure there is network Operational AO network resiliency and efficiency optimisation of the strategic/local routes. Incidents on the strategic network have knock-on effects elsewhere. The appropriate use of technology (e.g. VMS) could be provided
126 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
North Need to manage the impact on the Operational GB 2 Staffordshire local non-strategic road network and consequences of blockages in North Staffs/ South Cheshire
M6 J10a-6 Delays and unreliable journey times Operational BD 3 due to congestion and mix of traffic e.g. HGVs
Whole Need to manage general capacity Operational AO 2 network on motorways
A5 Concerns about safety record Safety GB 2
M6 J8 and Insufficient capacity at motorway Capacity SH 1 J7 to South junctions
General Impact of poorly maintained roads Asset condition BD on truck tyres
Whole Congestion creates delays for Operational BD network freight traffic and this creates problems for HGV drivers – they cannot drive longer than the legal times
M6 / M42 The LEPs’ Strategic Economic Plan Birmingham Mobility Action Plan AO will have a major impact on growth outputs / analysis and employment. This will require Birmingham Development Plan highway capacity, particularly on modelling / analysis the strategic routes/junctions Solihull MBC work on UK Central Key site is UK Central – the M42/Solihull corridor in the vicinity Birmingham Airport Surface Access of M42 J5 and J6 and M6 J4 work – SDG study Birmingham City Centre enterprise Work being undertaken for GBS LGF zone is major growth area and will investment packages affect traffic growth GBS LTB KPMG economic development work Cross-LEP strategic connectivity work
127 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Birmingham Date: 20/09/2013 Breakout Group Blue
Group Facilitator Alan Bain Note-taker Jan Gondzio
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are Location Why? Are there any trade-offs? proposed and ensure people Capacity / Safety / feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from any of Operational / Society & consensus about the priorities, but to Nb In this session we most interested in how they priorities. Environment discuss their views. Include initials of the the groups – not limited to the decide what should be a priority rather than what the ones raised by this group Prompt if the same delegates so that we can follow up if priorities are. The sticky dot session will help show what types are raised to necessary the group think the priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional notes) consider whether they are viewed as a higher Maintenance & renewals / priority than other types Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
Need to identify the appraisal All Need to consider what journey Challenge in the long term/trade off between criteria purposes/trips are high value and then what commuting and freight traffic. What should have trips to prioritise e.g. commuting vs freight priority? Do they have the same value?
traffic
Pinch-point schemes / quick wins need to keep future Need to identify strategic Operational strategic objectives in mind but can be a good start in movements improving delays. Local trips are easier to re-route while e.g. freight can’t be diverted Consider the interaction Is there a trade-off between short term solutions that between road and rail for long- tackle congestion and answering the long term distance travel structural problems of rising car-use for example.
Identify which issues are short- term (e.g. peak) vs those that are all-day
Timescale of priorities (which are short-term vs long-term on a scale up to 2030)
i54 / JLR / M54
128 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Integration/inter-connectivity across road and rail to get goods from train to shop via road
Short term priority (pre 2021)
Long term priority (post 2021)
Further comments raised in discussion:
Do accidents have large knock-on effect on development – should safety be put first?
Cost of traffic congestion estimated to cost economy £4.3 billion per year (CEBR?)
Highway management structure/processes to help economic growth
For business to operate, you need: - Freight movement - Business travel ease - Access to pools of people - Reliability of journey times
Need to assess delivery risk of projects
Need to consider how to prioritise for different timescales with available funds
129 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Greater Birmingham and Date: 20th September 2013 Breakout Group Red Solihull, Black Country, Stoke and Staffs
Group Facilitator Danny Lamb Note-taker Oliver McLaughlin
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by Operational / critical? maps? (name, org)
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
Network- Are the traffic growth forecasts Capacity x x GK wide accurate enough to inform future . strategies?
Network- Does the RBS process adequately Capacity x Yes More evidence can be provided by PD 5 wide (related understand the needs and locations LAs and LEPs e.g. Stoke City Deal to supply of current major employers? report chain)
Most of the future jobs growth will come from existing employers such x as Jaguar Land Rover and JCB. The RBS evidence needs to cover existing employers particularly those that use/rely on the strategic network for access to their supply chain.
Junction 15 Traffic can be delayed and create x PD (M6) unreliable journey times. Route Operational management should be more focused on problem areas. There is a need for VMS to tell people to avoid M6 J15 when there are problems
130 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A38 Lichfield Traffic delays create unreliability. x EB Burton There is a need for VMS/better Operational traffic information to inform people about problems on the A38 so they can avoid the area or choose an alternative route/time.
M6 Toll Under utilised due to prices. Capacity x Enquiry into M6 toll – reports being EB/ 5 Suggestion that casualties on the produced. AK/ Safety A5 may relate to HGVs not using PD the toll due to pricing Long term evidence already available.
A50/A500 The route carries circa 50% of Safety x Vulnerable users study (Stoke City AK North through traffic. Council/Sustrans) Society The route severs the Stoke conurbation, as there are limited crossing points and limited opportunities for sustainable modes
M42 J6 Runs at 98% capacity and is often Capacity x Anecdotal evidence from NEC; Arup GM 3 gridlocked. Not seasonal – remains study/gateway research constant. Concerns for future Solihull Gateway/Airport expansion.
Stafford Growth plans for 10,000 houses will Capacity x GK create additional transport demand. It is unlikely all the residents will work in Stafford so this will add pressure to the strategic network during peak periods for commuting traffic
Birmingham Need to address the impact that Society & x CPRE Studies; CPRE study GK high levels of transport movements Environment demonstrated level of light pollution, have on noise/air quality/ light this has not been updated for 8 years pollution
A5 Perception that poor highway Safety x PD standards create HGV accidents at junctions
131 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A38 Lack of slip roads can create safety Safety x Yes Local Authority accident data AK issues.
A50 Accidents caused by short slip Safety x Yes – accident AK roads. This creates traffic data displayed on delays/congestion as the incidents map/ are managed by local police, not HA traffic officers
Lichfield Potential for people to shift to Capacity x PD Trent Valley under-utilised rail mode. Better Station information could direct users to station.
A500 Congestion at peak times could be Capacity/Safety/O x North Staffs connectivity study PD 5 alleviated with better traffic perational information/VMS
M6 Junction Traffic is diverted onto the local Capacity x PD/ 6 6-10 highway network during the peak AK hours due to congestion on M6
Key routes There is a common challenge x M6, M6 Toll, across the network to provide M42, M54, more/better/reliable/real time A38, A50 information about incidents and delays on the strategic routes.
The consequences of congestion affect a wide range of issues including journey time reliability which has a knock on effect on business activity.
It also adversely affects air quality with vehicles stuck in traffic.
Opportunity to prioritise HGV movements.
132 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A38 Fradley. Capacity Issues at junction with Capacity x 2 HGVs Fradley – HGVs queuing on to queuing on carriageway to carriageway
General Adopted and emerging Core x Yes Strategies should be included in evidence base.
General HS2 may provide some KPMG HS2 report AK opportunities for mode shift in some places and this could alleviate pressure on the HA network. But some areas will be marginalised/disadvantaged.
133 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Greater Birmingham and Date: 20th September 2013 Breakout Group Red Solihull, Black Country, Stoke and Staffs
Group Facilitator Danny Lamb Note-taker Oliver McLaughlin
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are Location Why? Are there any trade-offs? proposed and ensure people Capacity / Safety / feel heard, but re-focus on Asset Condition / discussing their views on the Operational / Society & priorities. Environment
Better traffic management in Safety Access to jobs – current and future Priority is to deal with current issues to enable Controlling flow and Staffordshire/Stoke City Deal employment e.g. JCB. Everyone in businesses to support the economy increasing safety agreement locations This includes better Capacity information/VMS/incident management to reduce congestion and improve journey time reliability on A38/A500/A50
M42 Gateway/UK Central is Capacity Need for economic growth in area can be very important for supporting supported at NEC/Airport/Solihull. GM local economy, including M42 J6
Strategic road network through Maintenance Asset management neglected over long Birmingham period.
To reduce congestion and Operational Whole group agreed this is a priority – to keep improve reliability/resilience the routes running and reducing adverse there is a need for better impacts of congestion/delays incident management/reliable Safety real time traffic information/VMS and more traffic officers
134 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M6 Toll underutilisation Distribution of HGVs needs to be managed in Increasing the patronage of the M6 Toll will help Can toll for HGVs be order to increase safety/relieve congestion. alleviate many of the other issues detailed above. reduced? All in agreement
Need to encourage more Capacity Expansion of the strategic network will people to change travel encourage more road users. Mode shift will behaviour and mode shift off help to reduce congestion and pollution the strategic routes issues. GK
135 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Route-based strategies stakeholder events Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Birmingham Date: 20th September 2013 Breakout Group Yellow
Group Facilitator Sarah Loynes Note-taker Derek Jones
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge When does Is the evidence If not, what evidence is there to Capacity / Safety / this issue for this challenge show this is/will become a Promises to provide Asset Condition / become shown on our challenge? supporting evidence by critical? maps? (name, org) Operational /
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2018 2021After Raisedby Number of sticky dots received
A50 JCB Rocester junction is not adequate Capacity x x No Scheme funding report WS to provide scheme funding WS 8 Uttoxeter for future growth. Concern that report. and growth there is no strategy for A50. JCB can provide evidence on A50 Not all employment sites are shown corridor on HA map generally
A5 Single carriageway sections create Capacity x Yes A5 Strategy HA has this document (Ominder WS Staffordshire congestion Bharj) Area
Major RBS needs to take account of Capacity x x Yes - - WS employment future plans for economic growth sites; I54 in South Staffs, Alton Towers, JCB
Motorway Need to address the impact of Society & x No - - MC sections noise on local residents due to the Environment volume of traffic travelling on the motorway
M5 J1 & J2. Need to address the consequences Capacity x Yes Report re M6 Toll Free Lorry Trials Ann Morris – Road Haulage AM M6 J9 & J10 of congestion at these junctions Association
136 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A49 The A49 could provide an Capacity x No - - AM Improvement opportunity to relieve traffic issues Opportunity on M6
Black The area is already heavily Capacity x x x No - - AM 1 country route congested and future development approach to opportunities are likely to impact M6 J10 further on the road network
A50 To improve safety there is a need Safety x No - - AM to close lay-bys AM 10 All; and in Need to improve air quality, Society and x Yes - - particular the therefore need to reduce Environment C/M M6 congestion. Air quality needs C research and monitoring
M6 J10, J9, Traffic congestion and slow speeds Capacity and x x x Yes- some Information re growth and jobs and Mark Corbin – Walsall Council MC J8, M5 J1, affect public health issues (air Society and air quality action plan J2. quality). M6 creates severance and Environment air quality issues on the east side of the M6 section
M5 J6 Need to accommodate Capacity and x x Yes - some Transport Network Analysis and Rosemary Williams – RW development growth in Bromsgrove Society and Mitigation Report (Halcrow/WCC Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Environment May 2013); Air Quality Reports, AQMA M42 J1, AQMA Town Centre
M42 Diversion routes cause issues on Capacity x Yes - some Transport Network Analysis and Rosemary Williams – RW closures and A38 on local road network Mitigation Report (Halcrow/WCC Bromsgrove District Council diversion May 2013); Air Quality Reports, routes AQMA M42 J1, AQMA Town Centre
M6 corridor Need to address the impacts on Capacity x x Yes - - MC 3 Enterprise Zone and future job creation in the area; employment growth and housing growth
A38 Fradley Inadequate substandard junction at Safety x No A38 Pell Frischmann Modular Road Held by HA – Ominder Bharj WS Fradley Village Report
137 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Area Wide Strategic network diversion routes Capacity x No - - MC impact on the local roads – need to consider how diversions should work in future
M6 J15-J16 ATM will be provided in the Operational x No - - WS surrounding sections why not this section?
A5 AQMA The issues could have been Society and x x x No - - WS 1 Bridgetown resolved by the proposed HA Environment (Cannock) pinchpoint scheme, but it was not taken forward. AQMA concerns remain
ATM Areas Need to improve the relationship Operational x No - - MC between ATM and local road network - sudden changes in signage type and understanding of this
ATM Areas Public do not understand ATM so Operational x No - - AM their driving behaviour causes congestion
ATM Areas Need to consider and manage the Capacity x No - - MC effect of ATM on local roads and traffic volumes
ATM Areas Need to manage ATM. When signs Operational x No - - AM are left on ‘for no reason’ this Capacity causes unnecessary congestion. Signs need to be reset faster
All Motorway Need to manage the disruption Operational x No - - AM created by continued roadworks
Bilston Bilston Urban Village missing from Other x No - - AM map
138 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M6 J9/J10 Economic activity and general Capacity x Yes - - MC 7 access to area is adversely affected by congestion
M6 Elevated Noise on elevated motorway Society and x No Noise Mapping Mark Corbin – Walsall Council MC Sections sections of M6 Environment
Bromsgrove Air Quality Issues Society and x No Air Quality Report Rosemary Williams – RW Area SRN Environment Bromsgrove District Council
All Areas Safety can be improved with Safety x No - - AM concrete central reservations
A5 Cannock Need to address safety issue Safety x Yes Year 2009 Staffordshire County Will Spencer- Staffordshire WS Area Council Report County Council
M6T M6T could provide more capacity Capacity x No - - AM C and relieve congestion if it was not tolled/changed ownership
M6T M6 experience congestion as the Capacity x Yes - - WS 1 M6T is under utilised
All HA routes Opportunity for HA to act in relation Society and x x x No - - AM to the provision of electric charging Environment C points
M6 J15 Safety Issue Safety x Yes - - WS Stoke & AM
M5/M42 SRN capacity needs to facilitate Capacity x x No - - RW Bromsgrove growth. Site are still to be allocated Area (e.g. for 2500 homes)
M5/M6 to Would congestion on M5/M6 be Capacity x Yes – in terms of - - AM west of alleviated with the provision of a existing capacity Birmingham western relief road? issue
139 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M42 J1. Problems on motorway means that Capacity x x x Yes – in terms of - - RW 6 traffic diverts through Bromsgrove Environment existing capacity along A38 southwards to rejoin M5 issue at M5 J5. This causes local congestion and air quality issues
M5 J1 & J2 Need to address the adverse Capacity x x x Yes - - AM 3 impacts of congestion at these junctions i.e. delays, unreliable journey times
Birmingham To support the activity and Capacity x x x Yes – in terms of - - AM 2 Motorway performance of the West Midlands existing capacity box the Motorway Box should run freely issue
140 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Route-based strategies stakeholder events Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Birmingham Date: 20th September 2013 Breakout Group Yellow
Group Facilitator Sarah Loynes Note-taker Derek Jones
Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are Location Capacity / Safety / Why? Are there any trade-offs? proposed and ensure people Asset Condition / feel heard, but re-focus on Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a discussing their views on the Nb. these could be from any of Operational / Society & consensus about the priorities, but to Environment Nb In this session we most interested in how they priorities. the groups – not limited to the discuss their views. Include initials of the decide what should be a priority rather than what the ones raised by this group Prompt if the same delegates so that we can follow up if priorities are. The sticky dot session will help show what types are raised to necessary the group think the priorities should be. Solution Type (& additional consider whether they notes)
are viewed as a higher Maintenance & renewals / priority than other types Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
M6 J10 Capacity Development Growth – Enterprise Zones MC – but noted importance of other issues as well Needs large scale aspirations and poor existing situation re improvement delays
A5 in Staffordshire Capacity Growth aspirations Based on evidence presented in Staffordshire Area – Safety WS
Birmingham Motorway Box Capacity Affects performance of whole region AM
A50 Uttoxeter Capacity JCB Growth Aspirations Based on evidence presented in Staffordshire Area – Safety WS
M42 J1. Problems on Capacity Likely to be exacerbated by significant RW motorway means that traffic future growth i.e. Bromsgrove 7000 homes, diverts through Bromsgrove Redditch 7000 homes, Birmingham 30,000 along A38 southwards to rejoin homes (shortfall). at M5 J5. This causes local Bromsgrove is 90% greenbelt, an attractive congestion and air quality place to live and located centrally for issues business. This creates pressures for development
141 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A5 Cannock Area Safety Significant safety issues to be resolved AMC
M6 J9 Safety Pedestrian safety - school crossing route MC
M5 J1/J2 Capacity Current capacity issues to be exacerbated MC/AM by growth
M6 J15-J16, for continuity Safety For continuity/safety as is a ‘missing link’ of AM should be ATM ATM
Resurfacing in urban areas to Safety Priority to urban areas as greater number of MC be prioritised to reduce road receptors noise to receptors
142 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Birmingham Date: 20th September 2013 Breakout Group Green
Group Facilitator Lee White Note-taker Anthony Hogan
Relevant RBS Location Description of challenge Type of When does this issue Is the evidence If not, what
challenge become critical? for this evidence is
challenge shown there to show
Capacity / Safety 21 Promises to
/ Asset Condition - on our maps? this is/will provide Raised by Raised
/ Operational / become a supporting 2018
Society & challenge? evidence by received dots Already is Already
Environment 2021 After (name, org) Number of sticky sticky of Number North and East A50 JCB Rocester junction is not adequate for Capacity x x No Scheme funding WS to provide WS 8 Midlands Uttoxeter and future growth. Concern that there is report scheme funding growth on A50 no strategy for A50. report. corridor Not all employment sites are shown JCB can provide generally on HA map evidence South Midlands A5 Staffordshire Single carriageway sections create Capacity x Yes A5 Strategy HA has this WS Area congestion document (Ominder Bharj) London to Major RBS needs to take account of future Capacity x x Yes - - WS Scotland West employment plans for economic growth Midlands to sites; I54 in Wales and South Staffs, Gloucestershire Alton Towers, JCB All Motorway Need to address the impact of noise Society & x No - - MC sections on local residents due to the volume Environment of traffic travelling on the motorway London to M5 J1 & J2. M6 Need to address the consequences of Capacity x Yes Report re M6 Ann Morris – AM Scotland West J9 & J10 congestion at these junctions Toll Free Lorry Road Haulage Trials Association London to A49 The A49 could provide an opportunity Capacity x No - - AM Scotland West Improvement to relieve traffic issues on M6 Midlands to Opportunity Wales and Gloucestershire London to Black country The area is already heavily congested Capacity x x x No - - AM 1 Scotland West route approach and future development opportunities to M6 J10 are likely to impact further on the road network North and East A50 To improve safety there is a need to Safety x No - - AM Midlands close lay-bys London to All; and in Need to improve air quality, therefore Society and x Yes - - AMC/MC 10 Scotland West particular the M6 need to reduce congestion. Air quality Environment needs research and monitoring
143 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
London to M6 J10, J9, J8, Traffic congestion and slow speeds Capacity and x x x Yes- some Information re Mark Corbin – MC Scotland West M5 J1, J2. affect public health issues (air quality). Society and growth and jobs Walsall Council M6 creates severance and air quality Environment and air quality issues on the east side of the M6 action plan section Birmingham to M5 J6 Need to accommodate development Capacity and x x Yes - some Transport Rosemary RW Exeter growth in Bromsgrove and Redditch Society and Network Williams – Environment Analysis and Bromsgrove Mitigation District Council Report (Halcrow/WCC May 2013); Air Quality Reports, AQMA M42 J1, AQMA Town Centre South Midlands M42 closures Diversion routes cause issues on A38 Capacity x Yes - some Transport Rosemary RW and diversion on local road network Network Williams – routes Analysis and Bromsgrove Mitigation District Council Report (Halcrow/WCC May 2013); Air Quality Reports, AQMA M42 J1, AQMA Town Centre London to M6 corridor Need to address the impacts on Capacity x x Yes - - MC 3 Scotland West Enterprise Zone and future job creation in the area; employment growth and housing growth South Midlands A38 Fradley Inadequate substandard junction at Safety x No A38 Pell Held by HA – WS Fradley Village Frischmann Ominder Bharj Modular Road Report All Area Wide Strategic network diversion routes Capacity x No - - MC impact on the local roads – need to consider how diversions should work in future London to M6 J15-J16 ATM will be provided in the Operational x No - - WS Scotland West surrounding sections why not this section? South Midlands A5 AQMA The issues could have been resolved Society and x x x No - - WS 1 Bridgetown by the proposed HA pinchpoint Environment (Cannock) scheme, but it was not taken forward. AQMA concerns remain London to MM Areas Need to improve the relationship Operational x No - - MC Scotland West between MM and local road network - sudden changes in signage type and understanding of this
144 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
London to MM Areas Public do not understand MM so their Operational x No - - AM Scotland West driving behaviour causes congestion London to MM Areas Need to consider and manage the Capacity x No - - MC Scotland West effect of MM on local roads and traffic volumes London to MM Areas Need to manage MM. When signs are Operational x No - - AM Scotland West left on ‘for no reason’ this causes unnecessary congestion. Signs need to be reset faster All All Motorway Need to manage the disruption Operational x No - - AM created by continued roadworks London to Bilston Bilston Urban Village missing from Other x No - - AM Scotland West map London to M6 J9/J10 Economic activity and general access Capacity x Yes - - MC 7 Scotland West to area is adversely affected by congestion London to M6 Elevated Noise on elevated motorway sections Society and x No Noise Mapping Mark Corbin – MC Scotland West Sections of M6 Environment Walsall Council London to Bromsgrove Air Quality Issues Society and x No Air Quality Rosemary RW Scotland West Area SRN Environment Report Williams – Birmingham to Bromsgrove Exeter District Council All All Areas Safety can be improved with concrete Safety x No - - AM central reservations South Midlands A5 Cannock Need to address safety issue Safety x Yes Year 2009 Will Spencer- WS Area Staffordshire Staffordshire County Council County Council Report South Midlands M6T M6T could provide more capacity and Capacity x No - - AMC relieve congestion if it was not tolled/changed ownership South Midlands M6T M6 experience congestion as the M6T Capacity x Yes - - WS 1 is under utilised All All HA routes Opportunity for HA to act in relation to Society and x x x No - - AMC the provision of electric charging Environment points London to M6 J15 Stoke Safety Issue Safety x Yes - - WS & Scotland West AM London to M5/M42 SRN capacity needs to facilitate Capacity x x No - - RW Scotland West Bromsgrove growth. Site are still to be allocated Birmingham to Area (e.g. for 2500 homes) Exeter London to M5/M6 to west Would congestion on M5/M6 be Capacity x Yes – in terms - - AM Scotland West of Birmingham alleviated with the provision of a of existing western relief road? capacity issue London to M42 J1. Problems on motorway means that Environment x x x Yes – in terms - - RW 6 Scotland West traffic diverts through Bromsgrove of existing along A38 southwards to rejoin M5 at capacity issue
145 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
M5 J5. This causes local congestion and air quality issues
London to M5 J1 & J2 Need to address the adverse impacts Capacity x x x Yes - - AM 3 Scotland West of congestion at these junctions i.e. delays, unreliable journey times London to Birmingham To support the activity and Capacity x x x Yes – in terms - - AM 2 Scotland West Motorway box performance of the West Midlands the of existing Motorway Box should run freely capacity issue
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be? Description of challenge / Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are Location Capacity / Safety / priorities? proposed and ensure people feel Asset Condition / heard, but re-focus on discussing Operational / their views on the priorities. Society & Solution Type (& additional notes) Environment Maintenance & renewals / Operational / Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
M6 J10 Capacity Development Growth – Enterprise Zones aspirations and MC – but noted importance of other Needs large scale poor existing situation re delays issues as well improvement A5 in Staffordshire Capacity / safety Growth aspirations Based on evidence presented in Staffordshire Area – WS Birmingham Motorway Box Capacity Affects performance of whole region AM A50 Uttoxeter Capacity / safety JCB Growth Aspirations Based on evidence presented in Staffordshire Area – WS M42 J1. Problems on motorway Capacity Likely to be exacerbated by significant future growth i.e. RW means that traffic diverts through Bromsgrove 7000 homes, Redditch 7000 homes, Bromsgrove along A38 Birmingham 30,000 homes (shortfall). southwards to rejoin at M5 J5. Bromsgrove is 90% greenbelt, an attractive place to live This causes local congestion and and located centrally for business. This creates pressures air quality issues for development A5 Cannock Area Safety Significant safety issues to be resolved AMC M6 J9 Safety Pedestrian safety - school crossing route MC M5 J1/J2 Capacity Current capacity issues to be exacerbated by growth MC/AM M6 J15-J16, for continuity should Safety For continuity/safety as is a ‘missing link’ of ATM AM be ATM Resurfacing in urban areas to be Environment Priority to urban areas as greater number of receptors MC prioritised to reduce road noise to receptors Need to increase use of M6T Capacity Everyone in group in agreement No other viable solution to Midland congestion - seems ludicrous to have the infrastructure in place but not use it
146 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Gloucestershire Date: 27th September Breakout Group Two
Group Facilitator Christine Fowler Note-taker Peter Triplow
Location Description of challenge Type of challenge Is the evidence for If not, what evidence is Promises to provide Raised by Capacity / Safety / Asset this challenge shown there to show this is/will supporting evidence by Condition / Operational / on our maps? become a challenge? (name, org) Society & Environment Study 1. Important to get all information in place before making decisions as this challenge underpins all others. If we rely only on the information as shown the South West may lose out. M5 Bristol 2. This stretch of the M5 always seems to have roadworks, plus Capacity Yes Pete O'Brien some of the junctions are confusing. This creates a negative impression of Gloucestershire to visitors from the south.
M5 junction 10 3. Question of how well this junction relates to the local road Capacity No John Franklin network. If the junction is made accessible to traffic from the Operational south this would encourage more local traffic onto the motorway. This then raises the question of whether the Agency should try and direct local drivers away from the motorway.
M5 junction 12 4. Too many traffic lights at this junction which cause Operational No Pete O'Brien congestion locally.
M50 5. This road never seems to be open. Question raised as to Asset condition Yes Pete O'Brien where it serves and why it was built. Junction 1 is confusing, even to locals.
A40 north and west of 6. Congestion is caused as the road goes from dual to single Capacity No Ed Halford Gloucester carriageway. This road is the only access to Gloucester and Society & Environment Cheltenham from west of the river so any problems here impact hard on residents and businesses. Question raised as to supported by whether this road should still be a strategic road. Pete O'Brien
A417 south of Cheltenham 7. There is bad congestion on the single carriageway section Capacity Yes No evidence offered but LEP is trying to get evidence Christine Shine from Birdlip to Nettleton Bottom. Slopes and landscape agreed that we need together. Safety designations are likely to make solutions difficult. The hilltop has evidence on journey time, its own microclimate which can surprise drivers. Together with Society & Environment accidents and air quality. We supported by the volume of traffic, this makes it an accident blackspot. also need businesses and Pete O'Brien Drivers who do not know the road tend to drive down the hill with haulage firms to say how their brakes on, which can create confusion at night. The much this stretch of road is Ed Halford turning into Birdlip at the top of the hill can be tricky for cyclists. costing them. John Franklin
147 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
A417 (lighting and signage) 8. Signs seem overly large for the size of road. Could they be Operational No Christine Shine smaller and do all stretches of the road need lighting? Society & Environment Suggestion that it may be possible to turn off more lights than at present.
A417 / A419 (heading north 9. Some drivers heading from the south east to Wales use this Operational No Ed Halford west) road as an alternative to the M4 on the grounds that the M4 might be congested. With better advance signage on the M4 this could be avoided.
A417 / A419 (heading south 10. Some drivers heading from the Midlands to Chippenham Operational No Pete O'Brien east) and the west side of Swindon use this road as an alternative to the M5 on the grounds that the M5 might be congested. With better advance signage on the M5 this could be avoided.
Countywide (journey 11. There is a lack of information on the origins and destinations Capacity No Christine Shine has James Llewellyn information) of traffic so it is hard to distinguish between long distance and information on traffic through
local travellers. For known pinchpoints such as the Air Balloon Nettleton Bottom. this information would be useful. supported by
Christine Shine Ed Halford has a traffic model for the central Severn Vale.
Travel to work data is available from the census.
Countywide (accidents) 12. How useful are the present statistics we have on accidents? Safety Yes James Llewellyn Is safety becoming a greater or lesser problem? We need to understand the whole picture rather than relying on injury data.
Countywide (diversions) 13. Need to think more carefully about where traffic is diverted Capacity No Christine Shine Christine Shine when strategic roads are shut or congested. Traffic figures plateau once a road become blocked so it can be hard to tell whether traffic is diverting and, if so, how much and where to.
Countywide (crossings) 14. It can be very hard to cross strategic roads at flat junctions, Safety No John Franklin particularly for those on bikes. Examples given of the A419 at Society & Environment Cricklade, the A46 south of Evesham and the M5 at Tewkesbury. Although cycle lanes and crossings have been supported by provided, many cyclists choose not to use them. To date it has Rupert Crosbee been assumed that one solution will fit all cyclists, whereas in fact there are different kinds of cyclists with different needs. The narrowness of unimproved sections also makes things tricky. The growth planned east of Tewkesbury will make the M5 junction even harder to cross.
148 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Countywide (service areas) 15. There is nowhere to park motorbikes at service stations. Asset condition No Pete O'Brien Also need a lorry park for the M5.
Countywide (satnavs) 16. Need to tackle the problem of satnavs sending drivers down Operational No Pete O'Brien roads which are ill-suited to their needs (particular problem with
lorries being sent down country lanes. Could the satnav makers be persuaded to provide different settings for cars, bikes, lorries, supported by caravans etc.? Christine Shine
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Gloucestershire Date: 27th September Breakout Group Two
Group Facilitator Christine Fowler Note-taker Peter Triplow
Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are proposed and Sticky dots When does this issue ensure people feel heard, but re-focus on become critical? Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a consensus about the priorities, Why? discussing their views on the priorities. (also to be but to discuss their views. Include initials of the delegates so that we can placed on
Already Before After follow up if necessary the map as Solution Type (& additional notes) is 2021 2021 Nb In this session we most interested in how they decide well)
what should be a priority rather than what the priorities are. Maintenance & renewals /operational / The sticky dot session will help show what the group think the Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New priorities should be. road / other
1. Important to get all information in place before making decisions. Needs to happen before other challenges are tackled. 2. The M5 is the main gateway into Gloucestershire from the south so Work is already underway on this stretch of the M5 so it could Rebuild the Almondsbury interchange to problems around Bristol affect the whole county. be a quick win. make it less confusing. 3. Could make an already congested part of the M5 even busier. Would only become a problem if the junction were to be made accessible to drivers from the south as well as from the north.
4. More a local issue than a strategic one. Not as high a priority as other challenges.
5. This road has little impact on Gloucestershire so this is more of an Agreed by all to be a low priority. observation than a challenge.
6. A40 north and west of Gloucester. Affects economic activity and connectivity One scheme is already going ahead which may help. Could Redesign of Over Island. for those living and / or working west of the Severn. be a quick win but other priorities are higher.
7. A417 south of Cheltenham. Big issue for business, freight and tourism, as All agreed this should be the top priority. well as for local residents. Affects the whole economic attractiveness of
Gloucestershire. Causes hold ups in getting fresh fruit and vegetables out of
149 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are proposed and Sticky dots When does this issue ensure people feel heard, but re-focus on become critical? Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a consensus about the priorities, Why? discussing their views on the priorities. (also to be but to discuss their views. Include initials of the delegates so that we can placed on the county. follow up if necessary the map as Solution Type (& additional notes) Nb In this session we most interested in how they decide well)
what should be a priority rather than what the priorities are. Maintenance & renewals /operational / 8. Has a big visual impact in sensitive areas like the Cotswold AONB. TheSomething sticky dot to session consider will help when show what other the changesgroup think andthe Junction improvement / Adding capacity / New
prioritiesimprovements should are be. made. road / other
9. Hard to quantify but could be putting unnecessary strain on the A417 Cannot do much until we know the start and end points of through Nettleton Bottom. journeys. Could be a quick win as it is only a signage issue. 10. A417 / A419 (heading south east) used if M5 congested. Hard to quantify Cannot do much until we know the start and end points of but could be putting unnecessary strain on the A417 through Nettleton Bottom. journeys. Could be a quick win as it is only a signage issue. 11. A lack of information on the origins and destinations of traffic. Other Needs to happen before certain other challenges can be challenges, such as 9 and 10, rely on us having this information. tackled. 12. Important to understand this issue before making decisions on other Needs to happen before other challenges are tackled. challenges. 13. Important to understand this issue before making decisions on other Needs to happen before other challenges are tackled. challenges.
14. It can be very hard to cross strategic roads at flat junctions. Planned growth A big priority for cyclists. Investment should be directed towards will only make this problem worse so we need to act now. growth areas.
15. Not a huge priority but something to be borne in mind when new services Less of a priority than solving congestion problems. are proposed. 16. Some lorries and caravans are using unsuitable roads as their satnavs only A high priority but not within the Agency's control. have one setting.
Breakout Session 1: what are the key challenges for the routes?
Workshop Name Gloucestershire Date: 27th September Breakout Group Three
Group Facilitator Steve Hellier Note-taker Vicky Edge
150 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Type of challenge Raised by Location Description of challenge Is the evidence for If not, what evidence is there to show Promises to provide supporting Capacity / Safety / this challenge this is/will become a challenge? evidence by (name, org) Asset Condition / shown on our Operational / Society maps? & Environment Amanda Lawson- Region-wide 2. Diversionary routes when the motorway is closed – Operational No Smith must make sure that signs are correct and there is a joined up approach (police, HA, council).
Amanda Lawson- M5 J11a 3. This is a limited movement junction, which causes Safety No Smith some vehicles to undertake strange movements.
Vehicles can’t turn left from the trading estate. Vehicles can’t turn onto the A417, so come out at Zoon’s Court roundabout, which causes congestion.
There is queuing on the A417, formed by traffic joining
Cheltenham (am peak).
At the Brockworth roundabout area, there is potential for around 3,000 dwellings to be developed (half of these are committed, half are proposed).
Holly Jones
Nigel Robbins Missing Link, A417/419 4. Congestion both ways. Capacity This is particularly at the top of Crickley Hill during the peak hours. In the evenings, returning from Swindon is a particular problem. Single carriageway length a particular problem. Amanda Lawson- Air Balloon (out of 5. Accident blackspot. Congestion and safety issues. Capacity / Safety / Not to the full extent Smith Birdlip), A417 Society / Right turn movements, in particular, cause accidents. Environment 20 years ago, the Government upgraded the route to be
used as an alternative to the M4/M5. Improvements have since then stagnated. Country lanes are used as rat runs as the Air Balloon is being avoided. This proves difficult for villages.
AQMA Nigel Robbins
151 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Type of challenge Raised by Location Description of challenge Is the evidence for If not, what evidence is there to show Promises to provide supporting Capacity / Safety / this challenge this is/will become a challenge? evidence by (name, org) Asset Condition / shown on our Operational / Society maps? & Environment Nigel Robbins A419 6. Noise is a problem, and an action group has now been Safety / No The LEP has recently surveyed The results of the survey should be set up because of this. There is a concrete section from Environment businesses in the area about what the published soon (LF). Cirencester to Cricklade which causes particular effect would be of improvements to J9,
problems. J10 and Air Balloon.
It was noted that this is a problem which may get worse if traffic levels increase (AL). Accidents are caused by people slowing down and speeding up along this route. The variable speed limits
are felt to pose a problem.
Links to Swindon/Reading etc are important as this is a key aerospace/technological area. The A419 is a DBFO with a 30 year contract (phantom toll), managed by RBS. RBS could argue against
reducing traffic as their revenue would be reduced as a consequence. Louise Follet The local authority has heard that RMS are happy with the current situation. If their income is capped, there may
be no incentive for solutions to be developed (an increase in traffic would not see their income increase if Nigel Robbins there is a cap imposed).
Amanda Lawson- Smith Holly Jones M5 J9 (with A46) 7. Congestion at this junction is significant. Capacity / Economic Information on growth junctions not shown Right on the junction, there is an area allocated for housing development. A short way to the east, there is a proposal for 2,200 homes, plus employment (currently an
MOD site).
Worcestershire are requesting dualling of the A46 to Stratford, and a pinch point scheme is currently underway at this junction. Amanda Lawson- Smith Holly Jones M5 J10 8. Currently a limited movement junction. Desire for it to Capacity / Safety No become an all-movement junction (LEP priority). 4,800 dwellings are proposed very close to the junction. If coming south, have to travel through Cheltenham residential areas to access the motorway. Amanda Lawson- Heading east to Cheltenham, queuing back onto Smith motorway, which is a safety issue.
152 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Type of challenge Raised by Location Description of challenge Is the evidence for If not, what evidence is there to show Promises to provide supporting Capacity / Safety / this challenge this is/will become a challenge? evidence by (name, org) Asset Condition / shown on our Operational / Society maps? & Environment Holly Jones M5 J11 9. Development planned towards the A46. Capacity / Economic growth To the west, it is Highways Agency maintained, and to the east it is local authority maintained. A new park and ride plus improvements to the junction are planned at Elmbridge Court. This junction is currently felt to be operating ok, but will be put under huge pressures by development. Amanda Lawson- M5 J12 10. Committed development is planned south of Capacity Smith Gloucester (some as part of Stroud’s plans too). Incinerator site has also been allocated for development. The junction is unlikely to cope with any future development. Queues go back onto the motorway carriageway. A rail strategy is currently being developed. New stations are proposed at: Huntsgrove, Stonehouse, Gloucester Parkway. Amanda Lawson- M5 J13 11. Congestion on A419, into Stroud. Capacity Smith Stroud District Council have development proposals in the area. Louise Follet A40 12. There are strategic allocations to the west of J11a Capacity (North of Gloucester). Another development is proposed at Twigworth, with a possible new roundabout on the SRN, West of Gloucester, there is congestion on A417 (has some pinch point funding). Perceived to be part of ‘virtual detrunking’, so it is maintained but not improved.
M5/M4 13. Massive congestion problems. Capacity Will be over capacity, even with the managed motorway scheme. This makes the case for improving the A419 even stronger.
A40 (council stretch, 14. Lorries using lay-by. Lack of overlay facilities causes Safety Gloucester) a problem as they then rest on A40 and pull out to dual carriageway from a cold start, which poses a safety risk.
Elmbridge transport 15. Once Elmbridge transport scheme is in place, need scheme to communicate and understand the impacts on the whole network. Some lorries and vehicles use A417/Chepstow to get to Wales, rather than pay the toll.
153 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Breakout Session 2: what should the priorities be?
Workshop Name Gloucestershire Date: 27th September Breakout Group Three
Group Facilitator Steve Hellier Note-taker Vicky Edge
Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure Sticky dots When does this issue become people feel heard, but re-focus on discussing their critical? Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a consensus Why? views on the priorities. (also to be placed on the about the priorities, but to discuss their views. map as well) Befor After Already Include initials of the delegates so that we can follow e 2021 2021 Solution Type (& additional notes) is up if necessary Nb In this session we most interested in how they decide what should be a priority rather than what the priorities Maintenance & renewals /operational / Junction are. The sticky dot session will help show what the group improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
think the priorities should be. 3. M5 J11a an issue due to the limited movements. More development is coming forward, which will have an
impact upon capacity.
Traffic queuing on the A417 is going to get worse.
4. Missing Link is an issue, as unlocking capacity on this A pilot project was planned (raised by Nigel route would unlock bigger economic benefits for Robbins) but not sure it would have worked
Gloucestershire as a whole. anyway due to the unpredictability of accidents.
5. Air Balloon an issue due to safety. It can be included within Missing Link comments as it is all one problem, and requires one solution. All single section carriageways need addressing.
6. A419 is a problem due to noise and accidents.
7. M5 J9 an issue due to significant congestion. 8. M5 J10 a priority due to the benefits which would be offered by making an all-way junction. There is currently queuing, which will get worse with the significant development proposed. Effects of development need to be mitigated to stop the junction deteriorating further. 9. M5 J11 will be under pressure due to development
from 2021 onwards.
154 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Why is this considered to be a priority? How does this compare to other priorities? Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure Sticky dots When does this issue become people feel heard, but re-focus on discussing their critical? Nb. We are not asking the group to reach a consensus Why? views on the priorities. (also to be placed on the about the priorities, but to discuss their views. map as well) Befor After Already Include initials of the delegates so that we can follow e 2021 2021 Solution Type (& additional notes) is up if necessary Nb In this session we most interested in how they decide what should be a priority rather than what the priorities Maintenance & renewals /operational / Junction are. The sticky dot session will help show what the group improvement / Adding capacity / New road / other
think the priorities should be.
10. M5 J12 a priority for the City Council. Congestion backs onto the carriageway both northbound and southbound. A safety issue as queuing vehicles may not be noticed by oncoming vehicles. 11. M5 J13 a lower priority for the area. Lower priority
Unsure of Stroud’s proposals, so not sure when it would become a priority.
12. A40 west of Gloucester an issue. The scheme at Elbridge roundabout doesn’t take account There are proposals to detrunk, but the current of the huge developments going on in the area. position of the county is that they don’t want to Approach to the region from the Forest/Hereford. take it on (financial liability). There is a P&R, but no bus lane so doesn’t really help vehicles.
155 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name SEM LEP / Northamptonshire Date: 8th October 2013 Breakout Group Yellow Group LEP
Group Facilitator Jonathan Price Note-taker Graham Fry
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for If not, what evidence Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical this challenge is there to show this supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ shown on our is/will become a (name, org) dots Asset Condition maps? challenge? received / Operational / Society &
Environment
21
-
is
2021
After After
2015 Already
SRN wide Growth information for Society and No N/A Further growth Andrew Longley General Northamptonshire looks Environment information can be [AL] (N Comments accurate but this needs provided by respective Northants) to be the case across all JPUs in
regions so that where Northamptonshire.
growth information is being taken into account in identifying priorities, it is reliable e.g. not based on previous RSS data.
A14, A45, A43 Lorry parking and the Society and No Lorry parks may not N/A Helen Russell- 8 and A5 location and availability Environment be attractive Emmerson [HRE] Felixstowe to of lay-bys is becoming economic (NCC) and Midlands an increasing issue. Lay- investments and the Andrew Longley bys on the A14 in government/HA need [AL] (N Solent to particular and also the to consider taking a Northants) Midlands A45, A43 and A5 are more proactive role in
London to used for overnight stops providing lorry
Scotland East by HGV drivers. parking facilities. However the HGV’s Northampton CC’s often become a target of A14 Challenge and anti-social behaviour. Summit work provides evidence of this and other issues in respect of the A14 (details forwarded post-meeting).
156 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for If not, what evidence Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical this challenge is there to show this supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ shown on our is/will become a (name, org) dots Asset Condition maps? challenge? received / Operational / Society & Environment A14 Delivery of housing and Growth/Society Yes – on growth Information produced Information being Simon 17 Felixstowe to employment in Kettering and Environment plans in support of the produced as part of the Richardson [SR] Midlands East is dependent on the Kettering East Kettering East Funding (Kettering BC) need for SRN planning application Bid being coordinated by
infrastructure - a new and AECOM study KBC.
junction (10a) and work. substantial new local road infrastructure (WEWA link to the A43 north of Kettering.
A14 Future pressures on A14 Capacity/ No (not a significant Study work NCC may have some Andrew Longley 4 Felixstowe to between junctions 3 and Operational existing problem). associated with the information on future [AL] (N Midlands 7 and at A14 J4 itself – Kettering Bypass traffic issues on A14 in Northants), from growth of Kettering widening scheme. Kettering area e.g. NSTM Simon
and Corby and wider Richardson [SR]
network growth. (Kettering BC), and Helen Russell- Emmerson [HRE] (NCC)
A14 Some congestion Capacity/ No – maps Transport NCC may have some Andrew Longley Felixstowe to already at A14 junctions Operation concentrate on SRN assessments information on future [AL] (N Midlands 8 and 9 which will only not on local associated with traffic issues on A14 in Northants) increase as a result of roads at SRN proposed Kettering area e.g. NSTM future development in junctions developments and (Northamptonshire the Kettering area and in AECOM study work. Strategic Transport Wellingborough and Model) Northampton.
A14 A14 not fit for purpose as Capacity/ No (not a significant Study work NCC may have some Andrew Longley 8 Felixstowe to a nationally important Operational existing problem associated with the information on future [AL] (N Midlands route over the longer except in some Kettering Bypass traffic issues on A14 in Northants) term as much of the specific locations). widening scheme. Kettering area e.g. NSTM route in Northamptonshire and wider afield is only two lanes in each direction. Kettering Bypass widening may create problems east of
157 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for If not, what evidence Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical this challenge is there to show this supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ shown on our is/will become a (name, org) dots Asset Condition maps? challenge? received / Operational / Society & Junction 9 where difficult Environment to widen.
SRN wide A14 has good provision Capacity/Safety/ NA N/A N/A Helen Russell- 10 including A1 of ITS (e.g. VMS). Operational/ Emmerson [HRE] General However, limited (NCC) Comments alternative routes except
A45. Other routes have Felixstowe to limited ITS - better real Midlands time traveller information is required on all strategic routes.
M1 J19 This junction is a major Capacity/ Yes N/A NCC will be able to Caroline Wardle London to congestion point on the Operational provide information on [CW] (North Scotland East A14 – should be largely local roads affected by Northamptonshire resolved by the current limitations of the Development major scheme – but improved Cathorpe Company) and some key local Interchange. Helen Russell- movements will not be Emmerson [HRE]
accommodated with (NCC) adverse consequences for local roads and development. The operation of the improved junction and local network will need to be reviewed.
158 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for If not, what evidence Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical this challenge is there to show this supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ shown on our is/will become a (name, org) dots Asset Condition maps? challenge? received / Operational / Society & Environment A45 Main issue on the A45 in Capacity/ Yes Information from Rushden Transport Study Caroline Wardle 13 Felixstowe to Northamptonshire is Operational current HA scheme/ commissioned by ENDC [CW] (North Midlands congestion at Chowns study work and Northamptonshire Mill junction – affecting NSTM. Development both the A45 (e.g. long Company) and queues westbound in the Paul Woods [PW] morning peak) and A6 (North Northants) route. Development and Andrew growth will significantly Longley [AL] (N increase congestion at Northants) this junction e.g.growth in Rushden area
A45 Accident problems on Capacity/ Yes N/A N/A Andrew Longley Felixstowe to the A45 e.g. at Raunds. Operational/ [AL] (N Midlands Northants)
A45 Single carriageway Capacity/ Yes N/A NCC can provide Andrew Longley Felixstowe to section of the A45 Operational information from NSTM. [AL] (N Midlands between Stanwick and Northants) Thrapstone already has poor journey times and future pressures will increase congestion on this section of the A45.
159 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for If not, what evidence Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical this challenge is there to show this supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ shown on our is/will become a (name, org) dots Asset Condition maps? challenge? received / Operational / Society & Environment A45 Junction problems in Capacity/ Yes Current HA study Town Transport Felixstowe to Wellingborough/Rushden Operational work with input from Strategies being Midlands area e.g. at Turnells Mill NSTM. produced by NCC. and Wilby Way (PPP scheme at Wilby Way will come under future pressure from development growth).
A45 A45 causes severance in Society / No Rushden Transport ENDC and NCC to Karen Britton 3 Felixstowe to the Rushden and Environment Study commissioned provide information. [KB] (East Midlands Stanwick areas. by ENDC, and Town Northants) Transport Strategies being produced by NCC. Destination Nene Valley Report
A45 Possible impact of Capacity/ No Transport N/A Andrew Longley Felixstowe to Rushden Lakes Operational Assessment for the [AL] (N Midlands development proposal – development includes Northants) subject to SoS decision a significant on Public Inquiry. improvement to the A45 Skew Bridge junction.
A45 Heavy traffic volumes on Capacity/ Yes HA study work (HA N/A Helen Russell- 1 Felixstowe to A45 and its junction in Operational and local authorities Emmerson [HRE] Midlands the Northampton area have agreed the need (NCC) causing flow breakdown for the A45 on the A45 and Northampton Growth congestion on local Management Scheme roads crossing the A45. to be delivered principally through developer contributions).
160 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for If not, what evidence Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical this challenge is there to show this supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ shown on our is/will become a (name, org) dots Asset Condition maps? challenge? received / Operational / Society & Environment A5 A5 traffic through Society / Yes N/A N/A Helen Russell- 2 London to constrained historic Environment Emmerson [HRE] Scotland East Towcester causes air (NCC) quality and other environmental problems.
HA should consider addressing this through a Towcester Bypass possibly through a joint scheme with developer of Towcester South.
A43 Existing congestion in Capacity/ Yes HA PPP scheme N/A Helen Russell- Solent to Towcester at the Tove Operational modelling and Emmerson [HRE] Midlands and Abthorpe Silverstone/Towcester (NCC) roundabouts which will modelling provides get worse as proposed detailed information. growth takes place at Silverstone and Towcester. PPP scheme at Tove will help ease existing congestion but problems will build up in the future.
A43, M40, M1 Congestion at M40 J10 Capacity/ Yes N/A N/A Helen Russell- Solent to and section of A43 Operational Emmerson [HRE] Midlands between M40 and (NCC) Brackley and at M1 London to J15a. Scotland West London to Scotland East
A5 and M1 Air quality issues Society/ Not evident on the N/A NCC has information of Helen Russell- London to associated with A5 in Environment HA maps AQMAs. Emmerson [HRE] Scotland East Towcester and M1 in the (NCC) Northampton area (J15 – J15a). AQMAs have been designated.
161 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for If not, what evidence Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical this challenge is there to show this supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ shown on our is/will become a (name, org) dots Asset Condition maps? challenge? received / Operational / Society & Environment General - Local The SRN network in Capacity/ No NCC Strategic NCC to provide Helen Russell- 8
Road Network Northamptonshire is part Operational Priorities and information. Emmerson [HRE] – Strategic of a wider network which Society/ Northamptonshire (NCC) Links includes key strategic Environment Arc. General links which are Comments administered by NCC. Growth NCC has key priorities for improvements to the A509 (Wellingborough to Kettering), A43 (Northampton to Kettering), A45 (Daventry to Northampton) and WEAST rail bridge/Route 4. Also potential future problems on A6116 from growth in Corby. Schemes to improve these routes may assist the operation of the SRN and priority needs to be given to addressing issues relevant to both the HA and NCC.
162 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name SEM LEP / Northamptonshire Date: 8th October 2013 Breakout Group Yellow Group LEP
Group Facilitator Jonathan Price Note-taker Graham Fry
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. Environmental groups – not limited to the ones Nb. We are not asking the group to Solution Type (& additional notes) raised by this group reach a consensus about the Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
A45 Chowns Mill junction – Traffic Capacity/Operational/ CW, KB and AL - General agreement AL – Worst congestion point on the HA recognises this is a priority and is Congestion now and increasing with Growth that this is a very high priority owing A45 now that Wilby Way has a PPP already undertaking preliminary growth to existing problems of congestion scheme. design work in order to submit a bid Felixstowe to Midlands and need to support growth in the for funding detailed design of an surrounding area. improvement scheme at the junction – but not yet clear whether this will adequately cater for growth.
Need to have a transparent Partnering HRE – It will be important for the HA HRE – It is difficult to assign priorities methodology for assessing priorities to demonstrate how it has identified as the network should be considered – e.g. a matrix based prioritisation priorities and that they are consistent holistically. framework. This could be used to with LEP/NCC priorities (and compare SRN priorities against NCC compare well against NCC priorities). priorities. General Comment
A14 Existing junctions around Providing SRN infrastructure to SR – Significant SRN infrastructure Equal or higher priority with A45 Solutions have been identified – this Kettering and new Junction 10a support growth has been identified as essential to Chowns Mill. issue is funding and delivery. Felixstowe to Midlands support growth of Kettering. Kettering Bypass widening is committed but A14 junction improvements at Junctions 8, 9 and 10 are also required as is a new Junction 10a. Developer funding cannot deliver all this infrastructure so it must be considered within the RBS approach.
163 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to Solution Type (& additional notes) raised by this group reach a consensus about the Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
A45 Junctions in Capacity/Operational/ KB - Significant issues of existing Second A45 priority after Chowns Mill Existing PPP scheme at Wilby Way Wellingborough/Rushden area Growth congestion and future development (A6) junction but severance issues a (A509) junction. HA already Felixstowe to Midlands pressures coupled with severance priority in their own right. considering mitigation/improvement Society/ effect of the A45 for non-motorised schemes at Skew Bridge and Environment trips between Rusden and Turnells Mill Lane junctions. Wellingborough areas.
A45 Northampton Capacity/Operational HRE - Breakdown in traffic flow Important to have a strategy for HA has identified the A45 Felixstowe to Midlands Growth already occurs on the A45 owing to managing future pressures on the Northampton Growth Management high volume of traffic on mainline and A45 in the Northampton area. Local Strategy (NGMS) to be delivered at junctions. Also significant delays authorities support need for principally through developer on local roads crossing the A45. developer contributions to be used to contributions. address future impacts on the A45.
A5 Towcester Capacity/Operational HRE - A5 traffic has severe impacts LAs are attempting to deliver a Developer scheme for Towcester London to Scotland East Society/ Environment on Towcester and this issue needs to Towcester bypass through a SUE on southern link road. be given higher priority. the south side of Towcester. But this cannot deliver all the infrastructure needed to deliver an effective A5 bypass of Towcester.
A14 Longer Term - fit for purpose Capacity/Operational AL - Consensus that the A14 is a No discussion at the workshop on A14 Kettering Bypass widening issue route of national importance and that possible environmental issues of scheme has started. Felixstowe to Midlands its standard should reflect its upgrading the A14 – just support for it importance. Sections of A14 west of to be a high standard route. J7 and east of J9 will not be able to cope in the future.
A14 Lorry Parking issue Operational AL and HRE – Demand for lorry Has been a problem for some time Some developer interest in providing Felixstowe to Midlands Society/Environment parking is evident on the A14 and and should be treated as a high lorry parks but not considered something needs to be done to priority. sufficient. address the issue.
Improving strategic links in the local Capacity/Operational Improvements to the local road High priority for local authorities in Schemes listed in NCC Cabinet road network network can help relieve pressures the area. Report 19/06/2013. General Comments on the SRN as well as supporting local objectives
164 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
165 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name SEM LEP / Northamptonshire Date: 8th October 2013 Breakout Group Red Group LEP
Group Facilitator Eric Cooper Note-taker Tom McNamara
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for this If not, what Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical challenge shown on evidence is supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ our maps? there to show (name, org) dots Asset Condition this is/will received / Operational / become a Society & challenge?
Environment
21
-
is
2021
After After
2015 Already
Overall There are economic Society No None discussed None Peter Orban 0 (Sustrans) General benefits to Capacity Comments using/providing public transport routes; installing crossings at junctions etc. Peter Orban 0 Overall 60% of journeys that Capacity No Sustrans will provide (Sustrans) General are less than 5 miles Society evidence for this in due Comments are undertaken by course. car. If a shift to more sustainable modes is achieved for some of these, it would free up some space on the network for ‘Economic Driver Vehicle trips’.
Hockliffe, A5 Congestion and road Capacity This is an anticipated Traffic modelling Yes – Further evidence to Manouchehr 2
safety issues. Worries challenge forecasting come. Nahvi London to Safety (Central Scotland East are connected to the suggests an ‘de-trunking’ of this increase in traffic Bedfordshire section of the A5. at Hockliffe Council) After the A5/M1 link is completed there is concern that there will be more traffic at this point on the A5
166 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for this If not, what Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical challenge shown on evidence is supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ our maps? there to show (name, org) dots Asset Condition this is/will received / Operational / become a Society & challenge? Environment M1, Junctions 9- A lot of traffic ‘self- Capacity No Traffic modelling GD will provide evidence of Manouchehr 13
11 diverts’ from the M1 to forecasting this; Central Bedfordshire Nahvi Society (Central London to the A5, through suggests an Council has a wealth of Dunstable, if there is Environment increase at evidence to support this. Bedfordshire Scotland East Council) a problem on the M1. Safety Dunstable This has a detrimental Geraldine effect on the town of Davies Dunstable; noise/air (Central quality. Increase in Beds traffic with the Council) introduction of the A5/M1 link of 14%
Leighton Described as being Environment No None discussed No promise of evidence Peter Orban 0 (Sustrans) Buzzard, A5 ‘imprisoned’ by trunk Society London to roads and motorway. Scotland East Little provision to cross these barriers for non-motorised road users. These roads don’t provide for ‘multi usage’ i.e. pedestrians and cyclists.
Leighton Growth in Leighton Capacity Development growth Not discussed None discussed Brian 0
Buzzard, A5 Buzzard will result in maps indicate growth to Hayward more stress on the A5 the east of Leighton (Bedford London to Borough Scotland East at Hockliffe Buzzard which could generate additional Council) traffic.
Hockliffe It is considered that Capacity Yes – Delays and N/A N/A Manouchehr 2*
Junction there is an existing average speeds Nahvi (Central A5 problem with A5 traffic demonstrate delay. and not solely local Bedfordshire London to traffic using the Council) Scotland East network for local journeys.
167 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for this If not, what Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical challenge shown on evidence is supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ our maps? there to show (name, org) dots Asset Condition this is/will received / Operational / become a Society & challenge? Environment North of Hockliffe Road safety issues Safety Is not on the maps, but N/A N/A Manouchehr 0
here. the consensus is that the Nahvi (Woburn Rd (Central Roundabout on HA know about the problems here. Bedfordshire A5) Council) London to Scotland East
M1 Managed When there is an Operational No Not discussed None discussed Ade Yule 8 motorways incident, management (Bedfordshire Capacity and Luton London to and recovery is Fire and Scotland East considered to be difficult (there is no Rescue hard shoulder so it is Service) difficult to access incidents for emergency services). Major incidents cause a problem and the Highways Agency is refusing to authorise reverse flow traffic, which could ease some of the resulting congestion following an incident.
M1 Junction 11A Once the M1/A5 Link Capacity The HA are aware, but MN will provide modelling Manouchehr 0 Nahvi London to is completed, there Operational felt it needed to be evidence. will be sufficient highlighted. (Central Scotland East Bedfordshire capacity for Highways Agency network. Council) What about local traffic?
168 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for this If not, what Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical challenge shown on evidence is supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ our maps? there to show (name, org) dots Asset Condition this is/will received / Operational / become a Society & challenge? Environment A1/A421 The junction is Capacity Delays are shown to N/A N/A Geraldine 0
considered to be some degree on the Davies Black Cat Operational (Central Roundabout poorly laid out, with maps. huge capacity issues Beds Felixstowe to in the AM and PM Council) Midlands peak. The operation Ben Gadsby London to Leeds of the junction (Amey) (East) appears to favour one flow of traffic over others where there is also high traffic demand
A1/A421Black The worry is that the Capacity No Not discussed None discussed Brian 0
Cat Roundabout signalisation/pinch Hayward (Bedford point investment scheme will only ‘buy Borough Felixstowe to time’ with the Council) Midlands projected London to Leeds development in the (East) area. Consensus was that grade separation is required.
A1 Massive safety Safety Capacity No – the maps do not Not discussed None discussed Brian 0
concern. There is a show a predominate Hayward South of Black (Bedford Cat Roundabout high interaction accident hotspot. between the SRN and Borough Council) ‘The Bends’ local roads as well of London to Leeds bends in the road (East) which increase Geraldine accident potential. Davies Growth scheduled, (Central needs more capacity. Beds Constraint on the Council) network. Growth means there is the perception that more commuting is going to affect the ability of the A1 to serve Bedford’s
169 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for this If not, what Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical challenge shown on evidence is supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ our maps? there to show (name, org) dots Asset Condition this is/will received / Operational / become a Society & challenge? Environment needs. Worry that dealing with problems in isolation will only push them up the corridor – to Bedford. How is the A1 going to be used?
A1(M) Junctions If you ease the Capacity No Not discussed None discussed Geraldine 3 Davies 6-8 congestion along this Operational section of the (Central London to Leeds Beds (East) network, promoting the London to Leeds Council) route, again, you risk Brian pushing the problems Hayward up towards Bedford. (Bedford There is a need for Borough ‘strategic thinking’ Council)
Luton to Bedford. Big barrier to Safety No See right Will email with the NCN Peter Orban 0 (Sustrans) A6 movement between Environment evidence. Felixstowe to these places on the Midlands National Cycle Society Network (NCN). There is no way to cross the A421 to get onto the NCN in Bedford, North of the A6/A421 roundabout.
New Bedford Will increase the Capacity No Not discussed None discussed Brian 0 Hayward bypass. pressure on the A6 S Environment of Bedford. (Bedford New A6 S of (Noise) Borough Bedford. A6/A421 junction is Council) Felixstowe to going to be a problem Midlands post 2021.
170 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for this If not, what Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical challenge shown on evidence is supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ our maps? there to show (name, org) dots Asset Condition this is/will received / Operational / become a Society & challenge? Environment M1 Junc 13 Very poor signage. Safety Not known. Is it on Geraldine 4 Davies Exit on A421 Confusing if you are Operational accident statistics? not familiar with it. (Central London to Leads to people Beds Scotland East travelling in the Council) Felixstowe to incorrect lane. Ben Gadsby Midlands (Amey) Lots of accidents are seen here (anecdotal)
M1 Managed Some parts are not lit Safety No Not discussed None discussed Ade Yule 0
Motorways during the night. (Bedfordshire Operational There is no hard and Luton London to Fire and Scotland East shoulder meaning a broken down vehicle Rescue is exposed; this is a Service) real safety problem.
A5 (the section Drainage issues. Asset Condition No Not discussed None discussed Ben Gadsby 13* (Amey) due for de- There is the Environment trunking) perception that Operational London to maintenance on this Geraldine Scotland East section though Davies Dunstable has been (Central neglected due to its Beds inevitable de-trunking Council) in the near future.
Overall – Junction design. Society No Not discussed None discussed Geraldine 0 Davies Junctions Highways Agency Safety (Central General appears to put ‘safety’ Beds Comments above everything, but Council) this can cause severance, reducing accessibility for other road users. On top of this it is also considered to look ‘awful’ having metal railings up everywhere.
171 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for this If not, what Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical challenge shown on evidence is supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ our maps? there to show (name, org) dots Asset Condition this is/will received / Operational / become a Society & challenge? Environment Overall – HA designs are Society No Not discussed None discussed 0 Junctions always set to DMRB Safety Ben Gadsby General standards, whereas a (Amey) Comments lot of local authorises are using guidance such as the Manual for Streets, as a departure from DMRB standards in order to better serve the communities the junction serve/impact upon.
A5 Road side barriers are Society No Not discussed None discussed 2 London to along this as it runs Safety Ben Gadsby Scotland East through towns such (Amey) as Dunstable and Hockliffe. These cause severance. The speeds are so low on these roads; it is hard to justify the resulting severance and barriers to crossing the network.
A5 These barriers and Safety No Not discussed None discussed Geraldine 0
other safety features, Society and Davies London to (Central Scotland East used in order to Environment satisfy DMRB Beds standards, often Council) impact on the look of a town, which can be very important to the local economy.
172 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of When does this issue Is the evidence for this If not, what Promises to provide Raised by Number challenge challenge become critical challenge shown on evidence is supporting evidence by of sticky Capacity/Safety/ our maps? there to show (name, org) dots Asset Condition this is/will received / Operational / become a Society & challenge? Environment Dunstable – A5 Dunstable is an Air Environment No Enquired as to Manouchehr 13*
Quality Management (AQ) whether the Nahvi London to (Central Scotland East Area (AQMA). AQMA information is Bedfordshire Worries over the Council) effects that diverted used to inform traffic from the M1 HA decisions and used as an onto the A5 has on Geraldine the air quality in evidence base for Davies Dunstable. RBS. (Central Beds Council)
* Duplicate scores for identical or overlapping challenge
173 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name SEM LEP / Northamptonshire Date: 8th October 2013 Breakout Group Red Group LEP
Group Facilitator Eric Cooper Note-taker Tom McNamara
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to raised by this group reach a consensus about the Solution Type (& additional notes) Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
Congestion on A5 in Dunstable Capacity Gridlock in Dunstable, will make it No trade offs were discussed. When the congestion is not incident less attractive for investment. related is there an option to use VMS (caused by ‘self-diverting’ traffic from Operational and Managed motorway signage to M1) alert driers to the fact that Dunstable London to Scotland East is also busy, possibly discouraging vehicles from electing to use this route? st Bedfordshire East/West constraints Capacity Considered 1 long-term priority. Not discussed (post 2021) Felixstowe to Midlands General Comments nd Identify problematic junctions on the Capacity Problems are known to exist along Considered 2 long-term priority. Not discussed this stretch of the A1. An (post 2021) A1. Assess the Environment accessibility/severance in the assessment is needed to prioritise Bedford/A1 area. Social and offer best solution to severance issues. London to Leeds (East) It is important that in dealing with one junction on the A1 the problems aren’t just pushed along to the next junction.
Infrastructure issues at A1 Junctions Capacity These are existing issues which No trade offs were discussed. Not discussed need addressing prior to growth London to Leeds (East) Environment coming forward Social
Congestion in communities around Capacity There is an existing deficit and an No trade offs were discussed. Not discussed opportunity to influence travel Bedford. Accessibility for non- Social motorised road users. behaviour through improvements
174 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to Solution Type (& additional notes) raised by this group reach a consensus about the Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be Felixstowe to Midlands Environment General Comments
Severance for Pedestrian and Social There is an existing deficit and an No trade offs were discussed. Not discussed Cyclists at the A421/A6 junction. opportunity to influence travel Environment behaviour through improvements Felixstowe to Midlands
M1 (managed motorway) – Post Operational This is an existing issue. No trade offs were discussed. Major incidents cause a problem and accident Operation. the Highways Agency are refusing to Safety authorise reverse flow traffic, which London to Scotland East could ease some of the resulting congestion following an incident.
Area Wide Freight Management Capacity Not discussed No trade offs were discussed Not discussed General Comments rd A5 Hockliffe junction Capacity Considered a priority because it is a Considered 3 long-term priority. ‘strategic movements’ issue, not (post 2021) London to Scotland East predominantly caused by local traffic. Growth in Leighton Buzzard will contribute to an increase in problems at Hockliffe in the future.
M1 Junction 13 – Signage Operational Confusing if you are not familiar with No trade offs were discussed - Improve on-road signage. Regarded however see right as a ‘quick win’ that could be London to Scotland East Safety the junction layout. Leads to people travelling in the incorrect lane. addressed in the short term. Lots of accidents are seen here (anecdotal observations)
A5 – Around Kensworth Safety Not discussed No trade offs were discussed Not discussed London to Scotland East
175 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name SEM LEP Date: 8th October 2013 Breakout Group Green Group
Group Facilitator Chris Shaw Note-taker Tasha Duggan
Location Description of challenge Type of When does Is the evidence for this If not, what evidence is there Promises to provide Raised by Numbe challenge this issue challenge shown on our to show this is/will become a supporting evidence r of Capacity/Safe become maps? challenge? by (name, org) sticky ty/ Asset critical dots Condition / receive
Operational / d
Society &
Environment
21
-
Alreadyis 2015 2021After
Milton Keynes The stadium will be increasing Capacity/ The growth map indicates There was no discussion of None Sue 17
Stadium capacity to 30k and will be Operational that there will be evidence. . Dawson A5 facilitating daily events (rugby, substantial growth in Milton (Stadium football etc); it will be taking Keynes; however there are MK) M1 Junctions 13- over the MK bowl. A leisure no specific details of 14 centre is also being built. This growth at the stadium. London to will cause movement issues Scotland East especially on the A5. There are currently congestion issues around events. Additional growth and investment for residential and retail developments are planned
A5 to Milton This is a high speed section of Operational/ The safety map indicates N/A Whilst the workshop Neil Biggs 5 Keynes the route and there are usually Safety that this section of road map shows there to (Thames London to serious incidents because of a has a relatively high level be casualties, this Valley) Scotland East lack of lighting and speed. of vehicle casualties. does not necessarily There are also blind spots. indicate that there were near misses.
M1 Junction 10 There are proposals for growth Capacity/ The Key Growth map N/A None Keith Dove London to in Luton including employment Operational provides details of growth (Luton BC) Scotland East in the town centre which could in Luton. increase congestion over the wider network.
A5 MK Proposals for residential and All The Key Growth map N/A Ishwer Gohil (MK C) Ishwer 12 (Jn M1 Junctions 13 retail growth in Milton Keynes provides some details of has commuting figures Gohil (MK 14) which will put pressure on the
176 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of challenge Type of When does Is the evidence for this If not, what evidence is there Promises to provide Raised by Numbe challenge this issue challenge shown on our to show this is/will become a supporting evidence r of Capacity/Safe become maps? challenge? by (name, org) sticky ty/ Asset critical dots Condition / receive Operational / d -14 A5 and M1. MK is expected to Society & growth in this area. up to 2026. C) 3 (Jn Environment London to grow from a population of 250k Travel Plan data is Neil Biggs 13) Scotland East to 350k by 2031 and therefore Yes – the delay map available (Dorian (Thames there will need to be enough Holloway (OU MK)) Valley) capacity on the roads. A key indicates that this section factor of this will be commuting of the route experiences Modelling being which will be around 50k. high levels of vehicle carried out. Currently there are 53k delay. commuters that come into MK from outside. Additionally, delegates felt that Junction 14 was already running at capacity and would not be able to cope with increases in traffic.
Delegates also discussed issues exiting the M1 from the north and south at Junction 14 which form queues. This has been happening Southbound for quite some time. There are more issues at Junction 14 than at Junction 13.
M1 Junction 15 Issues with queuing Capacity/ Yes – the delay map No further evidence discussed. None Sue 0 and 15a northbound and southbound Operational indicates that this section Dawson London to exits from the M1. of the route experiences (Stadium Scotland East high levels of vehicle MK) delay.
A421 Improvements on this route Capacity/ Yes/No – the potential No further evidence was None Ishwer 14 Felixstowe to have pushed the problems Operational economic benefit of discussed. Gohil (MK Midlands further down. Delegates felt congestion relief map C) that the HA need to keep in indicates that the north- mind that when making eastbound section improvements, that changes between M1 J13 and will also need to be made Bedford would have a further along the route. moderate to high benefit of congestion relief. The peak hour speeds map does not indicate a low traffic speed problem.
177 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of challenge Type of When does Is the evidence for this If not, what evidence is there Promises to provide Raised by Numbe challenge this issue challenge shown on our to show this is/will become a supporting evidence r of Capacity/Safe become maps? challenge? by (name, org) sticky ty/ Asset critical dots Condition / receive Operational / d Society & A5 & M1 Link Delegates felt that the link Capacity/ None Evidence is anecdotal and None Ishwer 0 Environment London to would put pressure on this Operational based on an individuals’ Gohil (MK Scotland East route further along. experience, but there seemed C) to be consensus from many of the delegates that this issue was commonplace.
A5/ A43 There are general congestion Capacity/ No Evidence is anecdotal and None Sue 1
Towester challenges in Towester. This Operational based on an individuals’ Dawson London to has got much worse over the experience, but there seemed (Stadium Scotland East last two years, going north and to be consensus from many of MK) south. the delegates that this issue Solent to was commonplace. Midlands There are also plans for growth around Towester and Silverstone.
A5 Dunstable There are plans for All Yes – the delay map N/A None Keith Dove 0 M1 Junction 11 development in Central Beds, indicates that this section (Luton BC) for example Houghton Regis of the route experiences London to where there are plans for 7k high levels of vehicle Scotland East new homes which will link to delay. the planned M1 Junction 11a. The growth maps show some of the growth planned for this area.
M1 Junction 10 Around 75% of people Capacity/ The Key Growth map No discussion of evidence. None Keith Dove 0 London to travelling to the airport use this Operational provides details of growth (Luton BC) Scotland East corridor. Furthermore, the in this area. majority of employment is in this area or in the town which is close to the airport. There are issues at the roundabout of this junction. There are proposals to increase the airport from 9.8 to 18 mppa by 2028
178 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of challenge Type of When does Is the evidence for this If not, what evidence is there Promises to provide Raised by Numbe challenge this issue challenge shown on our to show this is/will become a supporting evidence r of Capacity/Safe become maps? challenge? by (name, org) sticky ty/ Asset critical dots Condition / receive Operational / d Society & M1 Junction 13 Delegates discussed current Capacity/ Yes – the delay map Evidence is anecdotal and None Dorian 0 Environment and 14 issues with E/W routes Operational indicates that this section based on an individuals’ Holloway London to (including A421 and A509) of the route experiences experience, but there seemed (OU MK) Scotland East which cause problems at these high levels of vehicle to be consensus from many of junctions. delay. the delegates that this issue was commonplace.
M1 Junctions 15- These junctions are close Capacity/ Yes – the delay map Evidence is anecdotal and None Ishwer 0
18 together. Queuing evidence Operational indicates that this section based on an individuals’ Gohil (MK A43 needs to be gathered for the of the route experiences experience, but there seemed C) southbound carriageway in the high levels of vehicle to be consensus from many of A508 AM peak from M1 Junction 21 delay. the delegates that this issue London to down to 14. If there is an was commonplace. Scotland East accident during peak time and the route is running to full capacity then queues sometimes go all the way back to Newport Pagnell. If there are issues then that motorists use the A43 and the A508 to avoid delays.
A43 Towester The Abthorpe Roundabout Capacity/ The potential benefit of No discussion of further None Hilary 6 Operational London to failed to get pinch point congestion relief map evidence. Chipping Scotland East funding; however there are still shows some of the highest (SEMLEP) issues on this roundabout. potential benefits on the Solent to north-eastbound section of Midlands There are schemes planned to improve Towester but funding the A43 approaching the roundabout. has not been agreed.
M1 Junction 10- Delegates felt that a managed Capacity/ Yes – the delay map N/A None Ishwer 0 13 motorway would relieve traffic Operational indicates that this section Gohil (MK London to from M1 junction 10-13 and of the route experiences C) Scotland East high levels of vehicle delay.
General There are now far more heavy Capacity/ N/A Evidence is anecdotal and None Neil Biggs 0
Comments good vehicles on the motorway Operational based on an individuals’ (Thames which adds pressure. experience, but there seemed Valley) to be consensus from many of the delegates that this issue
179 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of challenge Type of When does Is the evidence for this If not, what evidence is there Promises to provide Raised by Numbe challenge this issue challenge shown on our to show this is/will become a supporting evidence r of Capacity/Safe become maps? challenge? by (name, org) sticky ty/ Asset critical dots Condition / receive Operational / d Society & was commonplace. Environment
M1 A5 Milton If there has been an incident Capacity/ Yes – the delay map N/A None Ishwer 0 Keynes on the M1 then there are huge Operational indicates that this section Gohil (MK London to delays on the A5. of the route experiences C) Scotland East high levels of vehicle delay.
There are also issues when events are being held at the stadium.
M1 Junction 13 Delegates discussed Capacity/ Yes – the safety on the N/A None Ishwer 0 London to congestion at this junction Operational network 2008-2011 map Gohil (MK Scotland East during peak times of the day. indicates that The M1 at C) J13 is a top 100 collision location (ranked 52). This may indicate that collisions are occurring at the junction however the cause is not known. The potential economic benefit of congestion relief map shows that there would be the highest level of economic benefit of congestion relief on the M1 either side of J13.
M1 Junction 13- Issues with congestion and Capacity/ The potential economic N/A None All 4
15a & Junction queuing northbound and Operational benefit of congestion relief 15a-19 southbound on these sections map shows that there London to of the route. would be the highest level Scotland East of economic benefit of congestion relief on the M1 either side of J13.
A5/A421 There is no lighting at this Safety/ No evidence presented on Evidence is anecdotal and None All 1
Junction section of the route (around Operational the maps to indicate high based on an individuals’ London to the Redmoor Roundabout). collision rate on this experience, but there seemed Scotland East section of the A5. to be consensus from many of the delegates that this issue
180 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of challenge Type of When does Is the evidence for this If not, what evidence is there Promises to provide Raised by Numbe challenge this issue challenge shown on our to show this is/will become a supporting evidence r of Capacity/Safe become maps? challenge? by (name, org) sticky ty/ Asset critical dots Condition / receive Operational / d Society & was commonplace. Environment
181 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name SEM LEP Date: 25th September 2013 Breakout Group Green Group
Group Facilitator Chris Shaw Note-taker Tasha Duggan
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to Solution Type (& additional notes) raised by this group reach a consensus about the Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
M1 Junction 14 queuing/ congestion. Capacity / Operational There are plans for growth which There was no discussion of trade- Not discussed Delegates felt that Junction 14 was could increase problems. offs. Amongst the group, there was already running at capacity. an impression that this was a higher priority challenge. London to Scotland East
A421 Capacity / Operational Not discussed There was no discussion of trade- Dualling on the A421 to improve Improvements on this route have offs. Amongst the group, there was traffic issues pushed the problems further down. an impression that this was a higher Delegates felt that the HA need to priority challenge. keep in mind that when making improvements that changes will also need to be made further along the route. Felixstowe to Midlands
M1 Junction 13 peak time traffic Capacity / Operational There are plans for growth which There was no discussion of trade- Not discussed. London to Scotland East could increase problems. offs.
M1 Junction 13-15a & Junction 15a- Capacity / Operational Issues with queuing N&S. There was no discussion of trade- Managed motorways at Junction 13- 19 offs. 15a & Junction 15a-19 Issues with congestion and queuing N&S on these sections of the route. London to Scotland East
182 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to Solution Type (& additional notes) raised by this group reach a consensus about the Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
A5/A421 Junction – there is no Operational/ Safety There are a number of incidents There was no discussion of trade- Lighting lighting along this route. caused by the lack of lighting. offs. London to Scotland East Felixstowe to Midlands
A5 & M1 Capacity / Operational Lack of roadside information, e.g. There was no discussion of trade- VMS signage and real time Event congestion (MK Stadium) VMS, causes additional congestion offs. Amongst the group, there was information for events at MK. problems especially for those an impression that this was a higher Real time info signs London to Scotland East travelling in from outside the area. priority challenge.
A43/ A5 Towester Issues Capacity/ Operational There are plans for growth around There was no discussion of trade- Not discussed There are general congestion Towester and Silverstone. offs. challenges in Towester especially around the village of Stonebrew. This has got must worse over the last two years, going North and South London to Scotland East Solent to Midlands
A5 Abthorpe Roundabout Capacity/ Operational There are schemes planned to There was no discussion of trade- Not discussed The Roundabout failed to get pinch improve Towester but funding has offs. point funding; however there are still not been agreed issues on this roundabout. .London to Scotland East Solent to Midlands
183 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name SEM LEP / Northamptonshire Date: 8th October 2013 Breakout Group Blue Group LEP
Group Facilitator David Abbott Note-taker Liz Judson
Location Description of Type of challenge When does this Is the evidence If not, what Promises to provide supporting Raised by Number challenge Capacity/Safety/ issue become for this challenge evidence is there evidence by (name, org) of sticky Asset Condition / critical shown on our to show this dots Operational / maps? is/will become a received Society & challenge?
Environment
21
-
Already is 2015 After 2021
A45 / A509 (Wilby This junction is Capacity / The delay maps Evidence is No Chris Lewis (Pro 0
Way) considered to be Operational suggest that there anecdotal and Logis) Felixstowe to overloaded and is delay to the based on a few Midlands suffering from west of the individual’s congestion issues. junction; however experience in this the junction is not specific area of the specifically network, although included on the it was not maps. contradicted by other delegates.
A43 between This section of the Capacity No – not part of Evidence is No David Allen (South 0 Northampton and A43 (as part of a the HA’s network anecdotal and Northamptonshire Ketting longer section based on a few Council) Felixstowe to between Corby individual’s Midlands and Towcester) is experience in this considered to specific area of the London to suffer from some network, although Scotland East of the worst it was not congestion within contradicted by the county. Whilst other delegates. this section is not part of the HA’s network there was a concern that if you improve this part of the route then this will just shift the problem elsewhere.
184 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of challenge When does this Is the evidence If not, what Promises to provide supporting Raised by Number challenge Capacity/Safety/ issue become for this challenge evidence is there evidence by (name, org) of sticky Asset Condition / critical shown on our to show this dots Operational / maps? is/will become a received Society & challenge? A14 in the vicinity There were EnvironmentCapacity No Evidence is No Simon Bowers 0 of M1 Junction 19 concerns from the anecdotal and (Daventry District Felixstowe to delegates that based on a few Council) Midlands improvements at individual’s M1 Junction 19 experience in this could shift issues specific area of the on the A14. network, although it was not contradicted by other delegates.
M1 Junction 15 There is a concern Capacity No Evidence is No David Allen (South 0 London to that the current anecdotal and Northamptonshire Scotland East layout (dumbbell based on a few Council) roundabout) is not individual’s sufficient for the experience in this volume of traffic at specific area of the the junction. network, although Delegates it was not identified that there contradicted by was a need for a other delegates. double bridge at the junction going forward.
A5 route as a There were Capacity / No delay maps Evidence is No David Allen (South 0 whole concerns from the Operational included in the anecdotal and Northamptonshire London to delegates that delegate pack. based on a few Council) Scotland East piecemeal However growth individual’s upgrades on the maps indicate experience in this A5 were not significant growth specific area of the sufficient to is proposed in the network, although support existing vicinity of the A5. it was not and forecast levels contradicted by of traffic – the other delegates. route needs completely upgrading.
185 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of challenge When does this Is the evidence If not, what Promises to provide supporting Raised by Number challenge Capacity/Safety/ issue become for this challenge evidence is there evidence by (name, org) of sticky Asset Condition / critical shown on our to show this dots Operational / maps? is/will become a received Society & challenge? M1 at Daventry There are currently EnvironmentCapacity No delay maps Evidence is No Simon Bowers 3 London to congestion issues included in the anecdotal and (Daventry District Scotland East on the M1 near delegate pack. based on a few Council) Daventry. However the individual’s Delegates maps do suggest experience in this questioned that there is a high specific area of the whether there level of potential network, although could be local road economic benefits it was not improvements from congestion contradicted by here that could relief in this other delegates. benefit the SRN. location.
M1 and A5 One delegate Capacity / No Evidence is one No Simon Bowers 0 between M1 suggested that the Operational delegates (Daventry District junction 15A and A5 between M1 experience and Council) 19 junction 15A and other delegates London to 19 should be de- expressed Scotland East trunked and that concerns that this improvements might not be should be focused feasible. In on the M1. particular they raised the issue that this would potentially remove an alternative route should the M1 be experiencing problems.
A number of Delegates Capacity No delay maps Richard Palmer No Richard Palmer 15 junctions and links identified that included in the (Northamptonshire (Northamptonshire on the A43 and existing congestion delegate pack. Borough Council) Borough Council) A45 around at these junctions However the indicated that there Northampton is constraining maps do suggest were some Felixstowe to development that there is a high evidence reports to Midlands within level of potential support this and Northampton. economic benefits that AECOM had from congestion prepared them. relief in this location.
186 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of challenge When does this Is the evidence If not, what Promises to provide supporting Raised by Number challenge Capacity/Safety/ issue become for this challenge evidence is there evidence by (name, org) of sticky Asset Condition / critical shown on our to show this dots Operational / maps? is/will become a received Society & challenge? A number of There is significant EnvironmentCapacity / No delay maps Richard Palmer No Richard Palmer 0 junctions on the growth planned for Operational included in the (Northamptonshire (Northamptonshire M1 and A45 Northampton (up delegate pack. Borough Council) Borough Council) around to 2029) and these However the indicated that there Northampton junctions need maps do suggest were some London to improvement to that there is a high evidence reports to Scotland East support level of potential support this and development. The economic benefits that AECOM had Felixstowe to Northampton from congestion prepared them. Midlands Growth relief in this Management location. The Scheme has growth map generated indicates a developer funding significant level of towards growth planned in infrastructure and around schemes. Northampton. Delegates questioned whether the HA could contribute to the Scheme?
A43 near Some delegates Capacity / No delay maps David Allen (South No David Allen (South 0 Towcester discussed the Operational included in the Northamptonshire Northamptonshire London to need for a delegate pack. Council) made Council) Scotland East Towcester Relief However the reference to the Road to take maps do suggest Towcester pressure off the that there are Transport Study, town centre and some potential which he A43. economic benefits suggested from congestion provided evidence relief in this to support a Relief location. Road.
A14 Junctions 3 – This section of the Capacity / No delay maps Evidence is No Chris Lewis (Pro 3 7 A14 was identified Operational / included in the anecdotal and Logis) Felixstowe to as a particular Safety delegate pack. based on a few Midlands congestion However the individual’s concern in the maps do suggest experience in this peak hours. A that there are specific area of the problem with some potential network, although weaving, due to economic benefits it was not the short distance from congestion contradicted by between junctions, relief in this other delegates.
187 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of challenge When does this Is the evidence If not, what Promises to provide supporting Raised by Number challenge Capacity/Safety/ issue become for this challenge evidence is there evidence by (name, org) of sticky Asset Condition / critical shown on our to show this dots Operational / maps? is/will become a received was also identified. Society & location. The challenge? Environment safety map does not support the concern with weaving as it is not identified as a part of the network with safety concerns. M1 Junction 17 It is not possible to Capacity / Daventry is Evidence is No Chris Lewis (Pro 0 London to make the Operational identified as an anecdotal and Logis) and David Scotland East movement from area that could based on a few Allen (South M1 southbound to experience individual’s Northamptonshire M45 westbound or significant growth experience in this Council) from M45 up to 2021 and specific area of the eastbound to M1 beyond. network, although northbound. This it was not means that contradicted by vehicles have to other delegates. use M1 Junction Evidence of the 18 and travel number of vehicles through Kilsbury that do / could and along local make that roads to access movement was not Banbury or provided. Daventry. David Allen (South Northamptonshire Council) suggested that a link road here could open up a lot of growth.
M1 corridor This corridor Capacity No delay maps Evidence is No Chris Lewis (Pro 0 southbound experiences included in the anecdotal and Logis) London to significant delegate pack. most delegates Scotland East congestion in the However the agreed that the AM peak maps do suggest corridor (particularly 7.30 – that there is a high experiences 9am) level of potential congestion issues. economic benefits from congestion relief in this
188 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Location Description of Type of challenge When does this Is the evidence If not, what Promises to provide supporting Raised by Number challenge Capacity/Safety/ issue become for this challenge evidence is there evidence by (name, org) of sticky Asset Condition / critical shown on our to show this dots Operational / maps? is/will become a received Society & location. challenge? Environment
A14 corridor Delegates Capacity / No Evidence is No Simon Bowers 0 Felixstowe to identified that the Operational anecdotal and (Daventry District Midlands peak hours on the based on a few Council) A14 can differ from individual’s the traditional experience in this peak, or there can specific area of the be an additional network, although mid-day peak, due it was not to the high level of contradicted by HGVs using the other delegates. route to access / leave Felixstowe Port. Delegates suggested that this occurs westbound at M1 Junction 19 and consideration should be given to this when planning any improvements at the junction or on the route. A14 at Corby Delegates Operational / No Evidence is No Chris Lewis (Pro 0 Felixstowe to commented that Society & anecdotal and Logis) Midlands Corby is poorly Environment based on a few connected to the individual’s SRN and where it experience in this does connect the specific area of the junctions can be of network, although poor quality it was not contradicted by other delegates.
189 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Workshop Name SEM LEP / Northamptonshire Date: 8th October 2013 Breakout Group Blue Group LEP
Group Facilitator David Abbott Note-taker Liz Judson
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to raised by this group reach a consensus about the Solution Type (& additional notes) Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
In the past there have been some All Delegates were keen that these This was a general point that was None identified mistakes made, in particular where mistakes were learned from during raised but limited discussion took the road provision has not matched this process and that the highway place. that required to support growth. network was of sufficient quality and General Comments had enough capacity to support growth proposals going forward.
A14 corridor between M1 junction 19 Capacity / Operational / Safety This was seen as the section of the As the A14 is a significant route None identified. and Kettering – this is perceived to A14 that was the most congested through the area the successful have the highest levels of congestion and weaving problems could cause operation of this was considered key. along this route. safety issues. Delegates therefore Felixstowe to Midlands considered that this section should be improved first.
M1 and A45 junctions around Capacity Northampton is identified as an area This issue was discussed at great Nothing was discussed in particular Northampton were identified as where significant growth is planned length in the workshop and due to the but AECOM understands that experiencing congestion and were and without improvements to these number of junctions that require assessments have been undertaken currently constraining growth in the junctions the growth may not be able improvement and the quantum of to inform the Management Scheme. area. to come forward. development proposed in Felixstowe to Midlands Northampton this was considered a high priority. London to Scotland East
190 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to Solution Type (& additional notes) raised by this group reach a consensus about the Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
The M1 links and junctions around All Daventry is an area identified for It was unclear how much of a priority A link road was identified between Daventry may not have sufficient notable levels of growth and there this is but the access from M1 north M1 north and M45 west to ease capacity or be of sufficient quality to were concerns that if improvements to Daventry and vice versa was pressure on the local road network. support development within were not made to the M1 in this raised as a significant concern. Solutions at other junctions / links Daventry. location that development may not were not discussed. London to Scotland East come forward.
There was some concern that any All If the existing issues are only shifted This was not discussed in great detail Suitable planning procedures need to improvement schemes that come to another section of the network but was raised on more than one be utilised to determine the potential forward could displace problems to then there could still be capacity occasion when discussing proposed wider impacts of improvements on other sections of the network, rather issues that constrain growth. improvements. the network. than remove them completely. General Comments
M1 junctions 13-19 – delegates were Capacity / Operational This section has recently been Although this concern was raised the Not discussed. concerned about how long the widened but delegates noted that delegates considered that further widening along this section would there are still regular congestion improvements at this stage were provide sufficient capacity for existing problems in the peak hours. unlikely and therefore limited and future traffic. Therefore concerns were raised discussions took place. London to Scotland East regarding the potential for the corridor to accommodate additional traffic in the future.
There are problems entering and Capacity Northampton is identified as a Due to the growth planned within Not discussed specifically but linked leaving the SRN at Northampton due significant area for growth and these Northampton this was considered to to the Northampton Growth to capacity issues. capacity issues could be constraining be a relatively high priority. Management Scheme. London to Scotland East this growth. Felixstowe to Midlands
191 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to Solution Type (& additional notes) raised by this group reach a consensus about the Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
The delegates recognised that there All There were concerns that the work A number of delegates considered N/A are a number of pinch point funding that went into identifying and that this was an important issue and schemes that were not allocated preparing these schemes would not were keen for previous studies funding, for various reasons. be utilised in the RBS process. undertaken to be considered. General Comments Repetitive or wasted work should be avoided.
M1 corridor – need to remove Capacity / Operational There were concerns that there are This was considered to be a relatively The provision of a strategic park and strategic trips from the network and not infinite levels of capacity on the high priority. ride site, potentially at Watford Gap, encourage other modes of transport. M1 and that attempts should be to shift longer distance car trips to London to Scotland East made to shift existing and future bus or rail. traffic to alternative modes.
There are current congestion issues Capacity The A45 is a key route between This was the subject of a limited Not discussed. on the A45 south of the A14. Northampton and the A14 and discussion in the group; furthermore Felixstowe to Midlands therefore it is considered an some delegates thought it was of less important route on which to ensure concern than others. congestion is limited.
There were concerns that the All If strategic and local schemes are Limited discussion on this priority Not discussed. consultation between the HA and brought forward without consideration took place within the group. local authorities would not identify of the combined impacts then the local schemes that can be linked to greatest benefits from both schemes strategic improvements and provide may not be realised. greater benefits than large scale schemes alone. General Comments
192 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Description of challenge / Location Type of challenge Why is this considered to be a How does this compare to other Capture any solutions that are proposed and ensure people feel Capacity / Safety / Asset Condition priority? priorities? heard, but re-focus on discussing / Operational / Society & Why? Are there any trade-offs? Nb. These could be from any of the their views on the priorities. groups – not limited to the ones Environmental Nb. We are not asking the group to Solution Type (& additional notes) raised by this group reach a consensus about the Nb In this session we most interested priorities, but to discuss their views. Maintenance & renewals/Operation / Prompt if the same types are raised in how they decide what should be a to consider whether they are viewed Include initials of the delegates so priority rather than what the priorities Junction improvement / Adding as a higher priority than other types that we can follow up if necessary are. The sticky dot session will help capacity / New road / other show what the group think the priorities should be
There are concerns going forward Capacity / Operational / Safety The reason for this to be considered This was not considered a high Longer / heavier HGVs or HGV regarding the proportion of HGVs in a priority is due to how this affects priority. convoys. the A14 traffic (thought to be up to the capacity, average speed and 25% at certain times of the day). safety of the route. Felixstowe to Midlands
193 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Part C Bibliography
194 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
195 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
C1 Bibliography
C1.1 Chapter 2
Area 2 Asset Management Plan Area 7 Asset Management Plan Area 9 Asset Management Plan South West regional safety report Midlands regional safety report, April 2012
East Midlands airport Sustainable Development Plan 2013-14, www.eastmidlandsairport.com/developmentplan
Environmental Information system (EnvIS) - contains environmental data supplied by Service Providers, the HA and other third parties and displayed in the Highways Agency Geographical Information System (HAGIS). The data within EnvIS identifies the asset, location, condition and broad management requirements. EnvIS is divided into the following environmental topics:
Landscape Nature Conservation and Ecology Water Cultural Heritage Noise Air Quality Waste and Material Resources
C1.2 Chapter 3
East Midlands airport Sustainable Development Plan 2013-14, www.eastmidlandsairport.com/developmentplan. Ashfield Local Plan Publication 2013 (scale up to and including 2024) Gedling Borough Council Update of 5 year Housing Land Supply Assessment 2013 Broxtowe Borough Council Housing Land Availability 2013 (scale up to and including 2028) Erewash Core Strategy Submission Version (scale up to and including 2028). Nottingham City Council Housing Land Availability 2012 (scale up to and including 2028). Newark and Sherwood Allocations and Development Management DPD (scale up to and including 2026) Mansfield LDF Seventh Annual Monitoring Report (scale up to and including 2026) Rushcliffe core strategy, publication version march 2012 Bolsover Local Plan Strategy Chesterfield Borough Council; Adopted Local Plan
196 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Land Supply and Trajectory in Amber Valley Borough (scale up to and including 2026) Derbyshire Dales Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft (scale up to and including 2028) High Peak Local Plan Preferred Options South Derbyshire District Council: Assessment of 5 year Housing Supply (scale up to and including 2026) Derby City Council Preferred Growth Strategy (scale up to and including 2028) North East Derbyshire Local Plan Housing Target Lichfield Local Plan Strategy Solihull Local Development Framework Cannock Chase Local Plan Tamworth Local Plan Redditch Draft Local Plan No. 4 Bromsgrove Disatrict Plan Submission Verison Wyre Forest Core Strategy North West Leicestershire Core Strategy with Proposed Changes. Harborough Core Strategy (scale up to and including 2028). Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy (scale up to and including 2026) Blaby Core Strategy DPD (scale up to and including 2029). Charnwood Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft (scale up to and including 2029) Leicester City Council Core Strategy (scale up to and including 2026). Melton Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006-2031). North Northamptonshire AMR (scale up to and including 2021) West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Pre-Submission document (scale up to and including 2026). Rugby Borough Council AMR 2012 (scale up to and including 2026) Warwick District Council Preferred Options (scale up to and including 2029) Stratford on Avon Housing Sites and Completions June 2013 Coventry CC Housing Policy Topic Paper (scale up to and including 2028) North Warwickshire Borough Council Annual Monitoring Report 2012 (scale up to and including 2027) Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan Preferred Options East Staffordshire Borough Council Pre-Submission Local Plan 2013 Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Revised Submission Core Strategy (scale up to and including 2026) Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council SHLAA 2012/13 (scale up to and including 2026)
197 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Newcastle-under-lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Strategy Adopted Stafford New Local Plan Publication document Central Lincolnshire Core Strategy (up to 2031). South Kesteven Core Strategy (adopted) South Worcestershire Local Plan Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Draft Joint Core Strategy Kettering Borough Council website North Northamptonshire AMR 2011/12 Grantham Area Action Plan, South Kesteven Annual Monitoring Report 2011-12 and the Housing Strategy 2013-2018
C1.3 Evidence from stakeholders
A5 Business Engagement Event: group discussion feedback, 22 October 2013
198 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Leicestershire and Coventry and Warwickshire
Evidence Evidence source Summary of content Relevance to the SRN RBS Route Title Headline Environment -Flood risk is broadly -EA did/do not know where issues within Agency referred to. work is being proposed and so the EA remit did not provide specific details -It is suggested that the that apply to with regards to the SRN. Water Framework Highways Directive and Water Development Quality is included in HA’s + maps list of EIA scoping topics. -Highways construction must not make the waterbody status worse and mitigation should be N/A installed to alleviate pollution risks associated with construction works. -Protection and development of natural fisheries environment is one of EA’s key priorities – actions for their protection are set out in the document.
Leicestershire Leicestershire -Sets out the transport -All of the content makes direct County County Council evidence base for reference to the appropriate Council: Leicestershire. section of the SRN. Evidence for -Provides an overview of the RBS -London to major committed stakeholder Scotland East developments in event Leicestershire and required associated - North and improvements to the East Midlands SRN.
-Describes and reviews committed improvement schemes to the SRN. - South -Sets out district wide Midlands studies in Leicestershire. -Provides a brief synopsis of LLITM. Leicestershire Leicestershire -A map displaying -The location of the site -London to County County Council housing developments allocations in relation to the Scotland East Council: with more than 100 SRN can be seen on the map,
County dwellings and although it is black and white developments employment development with no labels so is not -North and map areas across the county. completely clear. East Midlands It is colour coded to show
applications, appeals, SUE sites known and -South committed developments. Midlands Leicestershire Leicestershire -A map showing -Congestion levels are -London to
199 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Evidence Evidence source Summary of content Relevance to the SRN RBS Route Title County County Council congestion levels in the displayed by a differential Scotland East Council: Leicestershire/Nottingham symbology on the SRN (and
Congestion /Derby areas. other roads) so it relevant to map the SRN. However, congestion -North and on the M1/M69 is not shown. East Midlands
-South Midlands Leicestershire Leicestershire -A map showing a -Little data is displayed on the -London to County County Council congestion plan of the SRN (most is positioned on the Scotland East Council: county in 2026 shown as LRN).
Stress map a Stress (AADT/CRF)% (2026) -North and East Midlands
-South Midlands Nuneaton and Nuneaton and The Local Plan/Core One development, North of Bedworth Bedworth Strategy for the borough, Nuneaton in particular is Borough Plan: Borough Council running until 2028. Details adjacent to the A5. General -Felixstowe to Preferred anticipated housing and growth within the borough may Midlands
Options (Part employment development have mixed impacts on the 1&2) in the borough. SRN. Nuneaton and Nuneaton and Details infrastructure Nuneaton has submitted Bedworth Bedworth required to support A5/A47/B4666 Longshoot / Borough Plan: Borough Council anticipated development. Dodwells junction Infrastructure Background to key improvements to LTP3. County -Felixstowe to
Delivery Plan connections commuting council have identified 16 Midlands patterns, and traffic issues highway-related improvements
and trends. required if full extent of northern expansion (SHS4) -London to development is completed (3 Scotland West affecting A5. One further general aspiration affecting M6 J3). Nuneaton and Nuneaton and Detailed map of Highlights M6 J 3, and A47 Bedworth Bedworth anticipated developments junctions with A5. Highlights Borough Plan: Borough Council in the borough, along with housing site SHS4’s proximity -Felixstowe to Proposal Map proposed infrastructure to A5 (3,000 dwellings). Midlands
improvements. County council have identified
16 highway-related improvements required if full -London to extent of development is Scotland West completed (3 affecting A5, 1 aspirational). North North The core strategy of North Significant housing -Felixstowe to Warwickshire Warwickshire Warwickshire borough development planned in Midlands Core Strategy: Borough Council from 2006 until 2028. Atherstone & Mancetter and
Submission Dordon (A5), and Coleshill Version (A446). - South Midlands
200 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Evidence Evidence source Summary of content Relevance to the SRN RBS Route Title North North The site allocations plan Details the following Warwickshire Warwickshire for North Warwickshire. development options (that Site Borough Council Used as an evidence have a potential SRN impact): Allocations base for the Core
Plan: Strategy, above. Preferred Employment (any size): Covers Employment, Options Housing and retail sites. -Dordon, 31ha (A5) -Felixstowe to Midlands -Atherstone, 6.9ha (A5)
- South Housing (>200 units): Midlands -Atherstone & Mancetter, 600 units (A5) -Polesworth & Dordon, 440 units (A5) -Coleshill, 275 units (A446) North North Other potential May impact on SRN if any Warwickshire Warwickshire development sites: come to fruition. [Additional Borough Council -Grendon – appeal for information further 85 units. from email, DB -Atherstone - pre- -Felixstowe to 03/10/13] application for additional Midlands 400 units. -Employment sites, especially around M42 Js 9&10. Warwickshire Warwickshire CC The third Local Transport -Notes absence of long term LTP 2011- Plan for Warwickshire. strategy for A5. Report to be
2026 Has background details drafted in collaboration with on local transport in the HA. county and future key -Details many of the SRN proposals. Details improvements currently being strategy delivery of: planned by the HA: A5 congestion, land use and junctions/improvements, M6 transportation, road junctions, A46 Stratford- -Felixstowe to safety, highway Alcester, M40 J 14, A45 Midlands maintenance, intelligent junctions, A46 junctions, A45- transport systems. Finally, A46 underpass. implementation plan up to -London to 2015. -Quality Bus Corridor along A5 Scotland West from Altherstone-Tamworth.
-Many major developments shown around Rugby, -South including Radio Tower SUE, Midlands Gateway SUE and DIRFT will affect SRN. -Congestion strategy (p159) will impact on SRN directly and indirectly. -No major schemes listed in plan to affect SRN up to 2015.
201 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Evidence Evidence source Summary of content Relevance to the SRN RBS Route Title
A Strategy for Warwickshire CC Analysis of issues and Details issues experienced the A5 potential solutions of the along the A5, and potential Produced by A5 (December A5 in terms of local and developments along the route Transport Group, 2013). national policy. that may affect its operation. in conjunction Summarises development Includes phasing information. with local -South proposals along its route. Strategy up to 2026 (from p40) government and Midlands Outlines the strategy and especially relevant. Action plan HA. intended role of A5 up to outlines issues, 2026. responsibilities, costs and anticipated timescales of key improvements required. Warwick Warwick District Revised development Development SE of Kenilworth District Council Council strategy (June 2013) for (Thickthorn) adjacent to A46. Local Plan: Warwick DC, details site Development S of Warwick, -London to Revised allocations for the local and between Warwick and Scotland West Development plan. Leamington Spa close to M40 Strategy (J14). -South Midlands Development of 500 dwellings at Whitnash. No direct impact on SRN. Stratford on Stratford on Avon Extracts from the Details developments in Avon: extracts District Council Intended Proposed Stratford on Avon that have an from Intended Submission Core impact on the A46 - South Proposed Strategy, endorsed by the Midlands Submission Council in July 2013. Core Strategy Stratford- Warwickshire Evaluation of 5 Impacts measured on: upon-Avon County Council development scenarios -M40 J12-14 District Council (Options E&F from Core
– Strategic Strategy) for development -M40 J14-15 Transport across the district, and the -A46 Stratford Northern Assessment impact on the local and bypass October 2012 strategic road network. Scenario 2 (Option F) is -A46 between Marraway and -South preferred strategy (wider M40 J15 dispersal of Midlands -A46 Warwick Bypass. development).
-London to Scotland West (STA S-PARAMICS % growth (approximate Modelling Report contains additional vehicle movements) information relevant only of each scenario: to Startford-upon-Avon). -Scenario 1: 1-2% (100-150), 1-2% (100-150), 8-9% (100), 3-4% (150), 3% (150). -Scenario 2: 1-2% (100-150), 1-2% (100-150), 6% (100), 2%
202 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Evidence Evidence source Summary of content Relevance to the SRN RBS Route Title (100), 2% (150). -Scenario 3: 4% (300), 2% (200), 6% (100), 4% (150), 3% (150). -Scenario 4: 23-25% (2,100), 8-10% (1,050), 7% (100), 13- 14% (500), 8-9% (450). -Scenario 5: minimal, minimal, minimal, 8-9% (300), 4% (200).
Details interventions that would be required under each scenario on the SRN. Warwickshire Warwickshire Testing of two Details impacts on the local County County Council approaches to housing Stratford area, including A46, Council allocation; South East and M40 J12-13.
Stratford SUE and Stratford-on- Stratford Regeneration Avon Strategic Zone (SRZ) or New General network stats only are -South Transport Settlement at detailed for Stratford. Fairly Midlands Assessment Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath similar results between (GLH) (M40 J12). comparison and with SUE and Phase 2 SRZ and mitigation measures. Modelling Expected sizes -London to Report June (dwellings/employment): Scotland West 2013 SUE - 2,750/8ha, SRZ – Journey times with GLH 700, 25ha, GLH – development reduced in 2028 5,000/18ha. Includes scenario on M40. expected mitigations as part of each approach. Stratford-on- Warwickshire Modelling of impacts of PARAMICS model does not Avon Strategic County Council proposed development at reach to SRN (closest is M42 Studley. J2/3), but discusses Transport development planned in (London to Assessment Studley. West Phase 2 Scotland) Studley Scenario Analysis
203 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
D2N2 and Greater Lincolnshire
Evidence Evidence Summary of content Relevance to the SRN RBS Routes title source and key contacts
-London to Flood maps Environment -Flood maps showing -The SRN has been highlighted Scotland East Agency flood zones, flood storage so is easy to see where it areas, flood defences and comes into contact with a flood the areas benefitting from zone area etc. -North and East flood defences (individual Midlands maps for Derby South, Newark and Grantham, Nottingham and Newark, -South Newark and Lincoln, Midlands North Lincolnshire and North Nottinghamshire) -London to Leeds (East)
-South Pennines (outside of this area) N/A Headline Environment -Flood risk is broadly -EA did/do not know where issues within Agency referred to. work is being proposed and so the EA remit have not provided specific -It is recommended that that apply to details with regards to the SRN. the Water Framework Highways Directive and Water Development Quality is included in HA’s list of EIA scoping topics. -Highways construction must not make the waterbody status worse and mitigation should be installed to alleviate pollution risks associated with construction works. -Protection and development of natural fisheries environment is one of EA’s key priorities – actions for their protection are set out in the document.
- London to Scotland East Ashfield DC Ashfield DC -Provides a summary of -The summary document Local Plan the Local Plan Publication makes no reference to the
Publication Document (which SRN. Document AECOM provided a
204 South Midlands route-based strategy technical annex
Summary response to on 20/09/13). -The location of different Leaflet policies in relation to the SRN -The summary document (August 2013) can be seen on the map. briefly sets out the + Policies However the SRN is not clearly content of the Local Plan, Map highlighted. including vision and objectives, strategic policies and area-based strategic policies specifically in Hucknall, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Kirkby-in-Ashfield and rural villages. -The map highlights the locations of the policies set out in the summary document. - North and East Midlands NCC average Nottingham City -8 maps displaying -Data is provided for both the speed data Council average speed data in LRN and SRN in the immediate the Newark and vicinities of Nottingham City - London to Nottingham City Centre Centre and Newark. Leeds East areas for AM and PM peaks. -South Pennines DCC – URS Jamie Douglas, -Evidence provided with -The A628 is the only part of Trans- Representing regards to the economic the SRN which links Pennine Andrew benefit of improved Manchester to Sheffield. There Connectivity Bingham MP transport links between is little reference to this link in Study Final Manchester and the document. Draft Issue 2 Sheffield.
(August 2012)
Bassetlaw Bassetlaw -Provides detailed Provides more detail as to pre -London to Site Council information regarding the and post 2021 growth. Leeds East Allocations housing trajectory for Bassetlaw from the period 2014-2028 which is split across several different strategic sites.
205 If you need help using this or any other Highways Agency information, please call 0300 123 5000* and we will assist you.
© Crown copyright 2014. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence: visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].
This document is also available on our website at www.highways.gov.uk
If you have any enquiries about this document email [email protected] or call 0300 123 5000*. Please quote the Highways Agency publications code PR158/13
* Calls to 03 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 num ber and must count towards any inclusive min utes in the same way as 01 and 02 calls. These rules apply to calls from any type of line including mobile, BT, other fi xed line or payphone. Calls may be recorded or monitored.
Highways Agency media services Birmingham Job number M130521