Document Pack Page 347 Agenda Item 10 CABINET – 22ND JANUARY 2002 MULTI - MODAL STUDY - M1 CORRIDOR CONSULTATION REPORT ON DRAFT PREFERRED PACKAGE REPORT OF THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION PART A Purpose of Report 1. To inform Cabinet of the consultation report received from consultants W.S. Atkins acting on behalf of the Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) on the draft preferred package for the M1 Corridor and to recommend an appropriate response. Recommendation 2. It is recommended that the suggested response set out in paragraph 59 of this report be approved and sent as the response of the County Council. Reason for Recommendation 3. To enable the County Council's views to be taken into account in finalising the preferred strategy to be recommended by the team of consultants completing the multi-modal study. Timetable for Decisions 4. The consultation report was received on 28th December 2001 and invites a formal response by 25th January 2002. It will be acceptable for the County Council's response to be sent shortly after this date. 5. It is proposed that this matter be considered by Cabinet on 22nd January 2002; by the Planning and Environment Scrutiny Committee on 24th January 2002; and a final decision made by Cabinet on 5th February 2002. This will allow an interim response following Cabinet on 22nd January and a final response following Cabinet on 5th February. Policy Framework and Previous Decisions 6. An initial response to a consultation report on strategy development was approved by Cabinet at its meeting on 6th February 2001. 1 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 348 7. The aims of the Multi-Modal Study and the basis for selecting a preferred strategy are well related both to the County Council's Medium Term Corporate Strategy and to the objectives of the Local Transport Plans. However, the full impact of the proposals has not yet been assessed by the study and this raises a number of concerns. Resource Implications 8. There are no specific resource implications for the County Council raised at this stage of the multi-modal study. However, some of the proposals in the draft preferred package could in the future be implemented by the County Council either alone or in partnership with others. The method of funding these proposals will require further consideration and discussion with DTLR. 9. The County Treasurer has been consulted on the Resource Implications section of this report. Circulation under Sensitive Issues Procedure. Circulated to all Members under the Members Information Service – 16th January 2002. Officers to Contact Steve Marsh Telephone - 0116 265 7182 Douglas Reid Telephone - 0116 265 7103 2 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 349 PART B Background 10. The multi-modal study started in December 1999, and covers the M1 corridor from the south of Leicester and junction 21 to the north of Chesterfield and junction 30. The aim of the study is to find a way of tackling congestion on the M1 and meet development and travel needs up to 2021. Within the M1 corridor, a separate and more local multi-modal study also started in December 1999, and is concentrated on the A453 corridor between M1 junction 24 and Nottingham. 11. From the surveys of traffic movements, it was apparent early on in the study that congestion problems on the M1 are not just caused by excess north/south movements in the corridor. There are a number of longer distance east/west movements which use sections of the M1, as well as many local journeys using the M1 for relatively short distances. 12. A consultation report on strategy development was the subject of a report to Cabinet on 6th February 2001. In the very short time available the response was limited to comments on possible transport measures in Leicestershire. 13. After the above consultation, many further potential transport measures were identified within the study team or suggested by the wide range of interested organisations and individuals. The long list of measures was grouped into four strategy packages with different combinations of public transport development, road improvements and travel management measures. The packages were then tested for their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the study 14. With the elimination of the least feasible measures, the four strategy packages were reduced to two composite packages for further evaluation and public consultation The two composite packages reflected the fact that congestion on the M1 can be attributed to both long distance traffic and also more local traffic. During peak periods, the latter category of traffic includes the increasing use of the M1 for driving to work. Package 1 was aimed at tackling the longer distance movements, and Package 2 approached the problem by focussing on the more local journeys. 15. The testing of the two composite packages, and the results of extensive recent public consultation, provide the basis for the draft preferred package proposed in the consultation report. 16. The stated purpose of the consultation report is to:- • advise consultees of the draft preferred package of measures which the consultants are continuing more fully to test and appraise; • seek views on the draft strategy and package; and • invite views on proposals for a behaviour change strategy for the area. 3 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 350 Public Consultation 17. The start of the public consultation period was marked by an event for MPs and Members of local authorities on 12th September 2001. This was arranged by the DTLR at the Government Office for the East Midlands. On 19th November a similar event was held at County Hall for all Members of the County Council. 18. During the public consultation period, the main source of information was Issue 3 of the News Update leaflet, a copy of which was circulated to all Members together with the Members' Information Item of 21st September 2001. The News Update leaflet contained a questionnaire for return by post. Views were also received in correspondence from a number of organisations and individual people. 19. Public exhibitions, attended by 1800 visitors, were held for two days in eight different locations including Leicester, Loughborough and Kegworth. This gave people the opportunity to find out more about the options being considered by the study and to express views directly to members of the study team. 20. From the questionnaire returns, correspondence and visitors to the public exhibitions, a wide range of views has been obtained. However, this self selecting sample, does not give a representative basis for gauging the levels of support for the different transport options under consideration. To gain this additional insight, a large household survey took place in parallel with the public exhibitions with 500 interviews in each of eight areas mainly corresponding to the locations of the public exhibitions. This provided a proper random sample of 4000 households. 21. The results of the household survey show a broad consensus that congestion is a serious problem needing to be tackled and that public transport needs to be improved, although there was disagreement on how effective this would be on its own. Most respondents accept that a combination of measures is required involving a mix of:- • Public transport improvements • Road improvements • Travel awareness and behaviour change The exceptions are the 7% of respondents who see road improvements as largely sufficient and the 5% who are opposed to road building. 22. The biggest split in opinion is on the issue of road user charging. However the findings indicate that although most people oppose the idea as an infringement of their freedom, and yet another tax on car drivers, about 60% of respondents seemed prepared to accept some road user charging in exchange for reduced levels of congestion. The analysis goes into some detail on this particular issue and also the various preferences for improving the motorway. Whilst there are many combinations of view, the weight of opinion appears to lie in favour of major improvements to the motorway. 4 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 351 Overall Strategy 23. The following broad conclusions have been drawn from the consultation report leading to an overall strategy as set out below. 24. Overall within the study area, the Government’s forecasts indicate traffic growth of 23% over the next 20 years. Without increasing motorway capacity, traffic flows on the M1 are predicted to increase by on average 35%. 25. From the early testing of a package of maximum public transport investments, the reduction in road traffic was a marginal 5% although this was matched by a 30% increase in the use of public transport. This means that if the aim is to reduce traffic to any greater extent, more would have to be done, over and above the initiatives that it has been possible to test during the study. 26. The existing travel pattern is dominated by journeys which are difficult to make by existing public transport. It will take very many years to put in place better public transport and begin to encourage a travel pattern that is less dependent on car journeys via the M1. This could require additional charging for car use or substantial travel behaviour change. 27. In the meantime the consultation report concludes that there will be unavoidable traffic growth which will use less safe local roads unless the motorway is upgraded to relieve existing congestion and accommodate the extra traffic. The overall strategy therefore consists of:- • Targeted improvements to public transport; • Major upgrading of the M1 to dual 4 or dual 5 lanes in width; • A comprehensive travel behaviour change strategy; • Further testing of methods of road user charging and consideration of stricter control of parking availability across the region as well as workplace parking charges in the three cities.