EAST OF ENGLAND REGIONAL TRANSPORT FORUM ______
Councillor Mark Flewitt Regional Transport Forum Chairman Southend on Sea Borough Council Roads Policy Division Civic Centre Department for Transport Victoria Avenue Great Minster House, Zone 5/25 Southend on Sea 76 Marsham Street Essex London SS2 6ZF SW1P 4DR [email protected] Tel: 07879 803881 Fax: 01702 339607 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.southend.gov.uk/info/200107 /transport_policy/1063/regional_transpor t_forum_rtf Date: 26 th April 2011
To the attention of the Roads Policy Division,
RTF Response to the Road Network Policy Consultation
The East of England Regional Transport Forum (RTF) 1 met on the 11 th March 2011 to consider a number of reports including the DfT Road Network Policy consultation.
The comments regarding the RTF’s response to the Road Network Policy consultation are shown on the following pages.
1 The Regional Transport Forum, which was initially established in 2005, comprises Portfolio Holder representatives from each of the eleven Transport Authorities in the East of England Region. Attendance at Forum meetings also includes representatives from the Department for Transport, the Highways Agency, East of England European Office and Network Rail. The Forum meets three times a year to discuss transport matters of regional interest and to exchange information on best practice.
- 1 - E E R T F
East of England Regional Transport Forum
Comments on Questions
Question Comments Strategic Road Network (SRN) Q – Do you have any comments to make on the principles around The RTF agree with the way the strategic road network is defined. which the strategic road network is defined? Primary Destinations Q – We propose to add the following locations to the list of primary The RTF supports the inclusion of Luton Airport and the Port of Tilbury. The additional destinations to represent the ten largest ports and seven largest destinations reflect the growing importance of the East of England in the country’s airports in England, thereby ensuring that the PRN supports the economy. SNCs identified in chapter two. • Birmingham International Airport In the Appendix of Primary Route Destinations the consultation document states that • East Midlands Airport Luton and Luton Airport are located in Hertfordshire. These are actually located in • Luton Airport Bedfordshire and should be in the list of Bedfordshire destinations. • Thamesport (for Medway Ports East) • Port of Tilbury The RTF suggest that London Southend Airport and the London Gateway Port should be Do you approve of this change? added to the primary destination list. London Southend Airport is being expanded and the site developed to provide over 7,000 jobs and shall cater for two million passengers by 2021. Due to the size and effect on the highway network the RTF feel that the London Gateway Port should be included as a primary destination.
Q – Are there further locations that should be considered as primary The RTF have no suggestions on this. destinations, or which should be removed from the list? Please provide evidence to support any suggestions. Primary Routes Q – Do these guidelines accurately reflect the consideration that The RTF agree that the guidelines appear to be adequate. should go into the selection of a primary route? Is any further guidance required? Q – Are there any further issues on the PRN that we should take into At the RTF meeting it was agreed that road classification should consider the reasons account? why people use certain routes. This should include the decision process of individual drivers, and where appropriate haulage operators. There are a huge number of short journeys and the public do not worry about the classification of a road.
Some research is required into how the public use the road network and how they
- 2 - E E R T F
East of England Regional Transport Forum
understand the road classification system, the results from this research should then be included in this consultation document.
Road Classification Q – Has the Department provided sufficient guidance to allow local There is a concern which involves potential classification boundary issues. Under the authorities to develop their own roads classification policy? new system there appears to be no mechanism for settling disputes between adjacent authorities over intended changes to classification and routing. Disagreement resolution with residents is discussed in paragraphs 4.16 to 4.22 and needs further development. The RTF agreed that classification of the effect of classification change on the level of grant received is required.
Q – Will this guidance ensure a sufficiently consistent picture across RTF are unable to comment without robust evidence. the nation? Q – Would this guidance give a member of the public sufficient RTF feel that the process of road classification is complex and still unclear. The guidance information to understand the process of roads classification? does not give a member of the public sufficient information to understand the process of road classification. Local Authorities should focus on just one form of classification relevant to the case in hand when consulting the public.
Q – Are there further issues on roads classification that we should The Department could give national guidance on the principles underlying routing via the consider? PRN and SRN. Further information could be included on how drivers make decisions on which route to use, including previous experience and knowledge of the road network and congestion hot spots etc. See previous comment on further issues on the PRN.
Reporting Arrangements Q – Do these ensure that all interested parties will receive update The local authorities in the East of England region will continue to consult / work with their information where required? existing consultees and stakeholders.
Q - Will these reporting arrangements simplify reporting for local Local authorities being able to communicate with just one Government Department / authorities? Office should help, otherwise there is unlikely to be any change.
Satellite Navigation Q – Are there any cost-neutral ways in which central or local The RTF believe that route choice is influenced by a range of factors and that new government can better engage with SAT-NAV companies? technology does and will continue to play a part. Road classification/designation is only part of this process.
- 3 - E E R T F
East of England Regional Transport Forum
SAT-NAV can cause problems of misrouting and there is a particular problem with HGVs being misrouted. SAT-NAV misrouting is not only confined to the UK but exists in other countries.
The Government itself needs to enter discussions with the wider SAT-NAV industry. There needs to be an understanding of the importance of the capability of the highway network to cater for heavy vehicles. Purchasers of SAT-NAV systems should be informed about the limitations. There should be discussions to promote the tailoring of specific HGV SAT-NAV system which are not just nationwide but integrates with other countries. Local Authorities can then continue to supply the mapping suppliers with updated network information.
It is considered important to look at all systems that influence route choice, including the availability of information and intelligent transport systems to deliver this information. The RTF support the work that Professor Peter Landshoff at Cambridge University has led on including traffic information and SAT-NAVs.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Flewitt Cllr Chair of the East of England Regional Transport Forum
- 4 -