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.

28. The main proposals amount to a total capital investment of £2,600m over the next 20 years, excluding the £600m of freight measures in the Strategic Rail Authority’s 10 Year Plan. Other rail freight proposals together with public transport amount to 73% of the £2,600m total with road improvements accounting for the remaining 27%. A high proportion of the proposed public transport investment is in light rail.

29. As the motorway has a number of inclines along sections within the study area, slow moving lorries can cause congestion. Following the widening as proposed, present regulations would allow slow lorries in all but the outside lane with continuing congestion. In the consultation report it is suggested that a recommendation should be made to Government to consider the introduction of legislation to limit lorries to two lanes on motorways which have been built or widened to more than three lanes.

5 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 352

30. The draft preferred package (see Appendix A) contains the complete list of the main proposals and also certain options being tested for possible inclusion in the final package. Where relevant, the list of proposals includes an indication of construction costs. The proposals affecting Leicestershire are highlighted in bold and described below. A diagram showing road and rail routes is given in Appendix B.

Proposals in Leicestershire

Rail Improvements

31. The package proposes major improvements to the rail network including:

By 2006:- • New services on existing railway lines which will give faster and more direct services from Leicester and Loughborough to the North West, Sheffield and Birmingham (IR5, IR8 & IU2); • Opening of the Castle Donington freight line to passenger traffic to provide a faster route between Birmingham and Nottingham for existing trains and including a station at Castle Donington with a bus link to the airport (NR8); • Various line speed and capacity improvements throughout the study area including a new and faster track layout at Leicester station (NR14); By 2011:- • New longer distance and regional services via the Castle Donington Line which depend on other new infrastructure outside Leicestershire (IR3 & IU1); • Opening of the Ivanhoe line from Ashby to Leicester with a through service to Derby and Matlock (UT4 & NR1); By 2016:- • Ivanhoe service from Coalville to Leicester, Loughborough and through to Nottingham using the Great Central route north of Loughborough with new railway construction to the south and east of Nottingham (UT2 & NR3); • Service from Leicester to Nottingham, Mansfield and Worksop via Great Central route north of Loughborough (UT5 & NR3).

32. As well as the above main proposals in the package, the following options are currently subject to further tests for possible implementation by 2016:

• Re-routing of the new 2006 Birmingham to Sheffield train service (IU2 test alternative) to make use of the Great Central route and above new railway construction in 2016 between Loughborough and Nottingham (NR3); • Opening of the test track for a new high speed service from Nottingham to Melton Mowbray, Corby and London (this would also require the part of the above new railway construction around the east of Nottingham) (NR4 & IR7); • The Central Railway freight line (FR4).

6 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 353

33. The proposals up to 2006 would generally make more efficient use of existing infrastructure including the Castle Donington line which is used occasionally by passenger trains as a diversionary route. Beyond 2006, the main proposals and test options involve major construction costs and/or revenue support. The consultation report does not identify the funding arrangements that would need to be put in place to deliver these schemes.

Road Passenger Transport

34. The main proposed investment is a light rail line by 2011 from Blaby through Leicester to Syston and East Goscote (LR5b&c). An important feature of this cross city line would be the interchanges between trams and trains at Blaby and Syston stations where there would also be park and ride. The consultation report explains that the route has only been tested at a strategic level, and that there is insufficient information on local travel to fully predict how many people would use the services.

35. The other road passenger transport proposals in Leicestershire are new bus services by 2006 to provide better links in the network and better access to East Midlands Airport from local towns and places near the M1 in the north of the corridor (BC5, BC6 & BC7).

Motorway Improvements

36. By 2006 modest works are proposed at M1 Junction 21 (MW1) to address the safety and congestion problems which have been evident since the opening of the A46 Leicester Western Bypass in late 1995. With an indicated cost of only £0.5m, the scheme would introduce new lane markings and gantry signs to improve the southbound diverge and northbound merge movements between the main carriageway and slip roads north of the junction 21. The proposal also includes modest widening at the junction 21 roundabout to increase traffic capacity.

37. By 2011 it is proposed to construct free flowing link roads between the M69 and the M1 north of junction 21 (MW8). The scheme includes widening of the M1 from dual 4 to dual 5 lane over the short distance between the link roads and junction 21A. The connections with the M69 would be of a similar standard to the existing links between the M1 south and A46 at junction 21A and between the M1 north and A42 at junction 23A. This proposal will give long term relief to junction 21, but will have implications for the motorway service area which have yet to be identified.

38. By 2011 improvements are also proposed for the M1 between junction 23A and junction 25 (MW11). These would involve slip roads alterations, a flyover at junction 24 and motorway widening from dual 3 to dual 5 lane between junction 24A and junction 25 where existing congestion is a serious problem.

39. By 2016 motorway widening from dual 3 to dual 4 lane is proposed between junction 21A and junction 23A with capacity improvements at the roundabouts at junction 22 and junction 23 (MW15a).

7 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 354

40. As well as the above main proposals in the package, there is a test alternative to the 2011 motorway improvements between junction 23A and junction 25. This is the previous Highways Agency proposal (MW13) which included more free flowing connecting roads, the complete elimination of the roundabout at junction 24, the A6 Kegworth bypass and the same motorway widening from dual 3 to dual 5 lane between junction 24A and junction 25 as in the above MW11 main proposal.

Strategic Roads

41. By 2006 at M1 junction 24, a short link is proposed between the A453 south entry and A50 exit from the roundabout (SR4). This would give an interim increase in capacity on the A453 south arm of the roundabout prior to the more major motorway main proposal (MW11) in 2011, or test alternative (MW13), for improving the junction as a whole.

42. The only other main proposal for strategic roads in Leicestershire is completion of the A6 Kegworth Bypass by 2006. The consultation report indicates that the bypass could be constructed in advance of the motorway improvements (MW11 or MW13) and thus deliver early benefits to the community in Kegworth.

43. As well as the above main proposals in the package, the following options are currently subject to further tests for possible implementation by 2011:

• A453 dualling between junction 24 and Nottingham subject to proposals from the separate A453 multi-modal study (SR7b); • New dual 2 lane carriageway road linking linking the A50 at junction 24A and the A46 at its junction with the A606 at Widmerpool (SR13); • A606 complementary measures to go with SR13 which would selectively upgrade the A606 including bypasses of Melton Mowbray and Oakham with small scale improvements elsewhere (SR17b).

44. Apart from the main strategic road proposals and test options in Leicestershire, the main proposals in Nottinghamshire include by 2011 a new bridge over the River Trent east of Nottingham (SR12). The effect will be to increase traffic on the A46 between Nottingham and Leicester. The consultation report describes the dual carriageway A46 trunk road through Leicestershire as being the only significantly under-utilised major road in the study area.

Transport Change

45. The transport change measures are intended to apply throughout the study area including Leicestershire. The main proposals are all for 2006 and include:

• Widespread adoption of workplace and school travel plans (TC3); • Travel behaviour change strategy involving a comprehensive marketing approach to discourage car travel (TC8) (a summary of this strategy is included at Appendix B since views have been particularly sought on this aspect of the draft preferred package);

8 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 355

• Integrated through ticketing for public transport (TC9).

46. As well as the above main proposals in the package, the following options are currently subject to further tests:

By 2006:

• Stringent car parking controls with workplace charging; • Reduced public transport fares.

By 2011

• Area wide road user charging with dual 4 instead of dual 5 lane motorway widening; By 2016:

• Congestion charging in the three cities Nottingham, Leicester and Derby.

47. The consultation report does not propose motorway tolling in isolation as this would produce a large shift of traffic to other roads resulting in undesirable impacts on the wider network in terms of congestion, environmental pollution and road safety. It is therefore being incorporated into the testing of area wide road user charging.

Comments on Proposals

General

48. The consultation report contains little information on the various impacts of the proposals. Such information will only become available in the final study report expected at the end of February 2002. When this final report is received by the Regional Planning Body, there will be further consultation and deliberations before recommendations are made to the Secretary of State for Transport.

49. The consultation report makes clear that all the proposals in the draft preferred package will be subject to detailed appraisals to determine value for money and other attributes, including a range of environmental impacts. Some proposals may fail these tests and not be included in the final study recommendations.

50. The overall strategy and the proposals in the main package will have only a marginal impact on traffic growth. However, by 2021, initial test results have indicated that the package as envisaged would lead to a significant improvement in travel conditions on the motorway and other roads.

Rail

51. The main rail improvement proposals are all based on former passenger railway lines within Leicestershire and can be expected to have relatively modest environmental impacts. Provided they meet the criteria of value for

9 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 356

money, the impacts would be expected to be almost entirely positive. The main concern regards funding and the ability of the railway industry to deliver the improvements and hence whether the proposals can be considered realistic. The final Consultant’s report should also reflect the impact of the Strategic Rail Authority’s recently announced Strategic Plan. Without much more information being made available it is not possible to comment on the test option for the Central Railway Proposal.

Road Passenger Transport

52. The road passenger transport proposals are likely to have limited impact with the exception of the light rail line through Leicester. The consultation report makes clear that this proposal cannot be appraised in much detail and it is likely that any scheme would require a much more detailed feasibility study if further progress is to be made. Neither is there any mention in the report as to how this proposal would be funded and whether it may be necessary to introduce a charging mechanism to contribute to its cost.

Motorway

53. The motorway improvements can all be appraised with approximate alignments and predictions of traffic flow. This should allow the environmental impacts to be spelt out in the final study report. Whilst the motorway between junction 21A and junction 23A includes the least busy sections of the M1, the consultation report predicts over 40% growth without widening but up to 70% growth with the dual 4 lane widening as proposed. For the section between junction 23 and 23A the report refers to possible consideration of widening to dual 5 lane

54. The consultation report gives some initial indications of increased traffic flows on roads leading to the motorway but the full implications will only emerge with the detailed appraisals. It is of particular concern that the report does not spell out the consequences of not widening the Motorway. Until all this further information becomes available, it is difficult to reach a view on the acceptability of the proposals.

Strategic Roads

55. The strategic road schemes in the main package would both appear to be positive in terms of impact. The priority being given to the Kegworth Bypass will enable early environmental benefits to be achieved. However, the strategic road test options raise many issues to be addressed if the schemes are added to the final package. In particular the impact of additional traffic on the A606 would be of concern at sensitive locations not subject to bypasses.

56. The consultation report highlights the opportunity for more north-south traffic to use the A46 through Leicestershire. Whilst much of the A46 could accommodate more traffic, it is clear that the Leicester Western Bypass part of the route will not have the scope to handle more traffic in 2021 without very significant improvements to its capacity.

10 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 357

Transport Change

57. The transport change proposals are probably the most difficult to judge in terms of their impact. The main package does not include any road user charging or workplace parking levies. The behaviour change strategy can only be regarded as experimental at this stage as there are no existing schemes elsewhere in the country to give any indication of its effectiveness. Whilst the aims of strategy make great sense, there must be doubts about the extent to which traffic growth can be reduced in this way.

58. The transport change test options mainly consist of unpopular methods of charging motorists for using their cars. The impacts of these should be tested and fully described if added to the package in the final report.

Suggested Response

59. The County Council supports the consideration of a wide range of transport proposals but is concerned that very little information has been made available in the consultation report regarding the impact of the various proposals. Based on the information currently available and the minimal time allowed for response, the County Council’s views are as follows:-

(a) Given the current national transport policy, which seeks greater use of public transport to tackle congestion, it is disappointing that the study has found such measures not to be a solution and that extensive motorway widening still appears necessary.

(b) The railway proposals are supported but there are doubts as to how they would be funded and whether they are deliverable, given the problems on the railways which may not be overcome for very many years. It is therefore difficult at present to regard the proposals as realistic. In this respect the consultant’s final report should clarify how the Strategic Rail Authority’s Strategic Plan will aid their delivery.

(c) The light rail proposal in Central Leicestershire could significantly tackle congestion and improve travel choice. However, much more work will be required after the study is complete to determine whether the proposal is feasible and realistic and to identify how it might be funded.

(d) At M1 junction 21 the existing safety and congestion problems require the low cost scheme (MW1) to be implemented by the Highways Agency as a matter of urgency, and not to be subject to further delay while the findings of the multi-modal study go through the decision making process.

(e) Whilst It is clearly preferable for traffic growth to be concentrated on the M1, rather than less safe local roads, it is difficult to support the motorway improvements until the traffic and environmental impacts have been fully identified and the consequences of not widening the motorway have been spelt out.

11 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 358

(f) The main strategic road proposals in Leicestershire are both strongly supported. The positive approach and priority being given to Kegworth Bypass is particularly welcome.

(g) The strategic road test options in Leicestershire raise a number issues and would require careful consideration if included in the final package. The impact of additional traffic on the A606 would be of particular concern at sensitive locations not subject to bypasses.

(h) The consultation report highlights the opportunity for more north-south traffic to use the A46 through Leicestershire. Whilst much of the A46 could accommodate more traffic, it is clear that the Leicester Western Bypass part of the route will not have the scope to handle more traffic in 2021 without very significant improvements to its capacity.

(i) The main transport change proposals are supported but the effectiveness of the behaviour change strategy can only be a matter of speculation with the lack of any working schemes on which to base predictions of outcome. There are significant doubts that the behaviour change strategy will have a material impact on traffic growth.

(j) The County Council welcomes the current exclusion from the main package of stringent parking controls, workplace parking levies, area wide road user charging and urban congestion charging. The County Council will oppose the introduction of these as a means of reducing traffic demand in any location which would have a detrimental effect upon Leicestershire people. Of particular concern is the possibility of stringent car parking controls and workplace parking charges by 2006 which would be prior to the introduction of most of the improvements to public transport.

Equal Opportunities Implications

60. There are no equal opportunities implications raised in the consultation report.

Conclusion

61. The M1 Corridor Multi-modal study has nearly reached a conclusion although much of the information on the proposals will only emerge as part of the final study report in February 2002. After this report has reached the Regional Planning Body, there should be further opportunities to influence the strategy in Leicestershire with the benefit of much more information on the impacts of the proposals. In the meantime the comments in paragraph 59 of this report are intended to be an appropriate response to the formal consultation at this stage of the study.

Background Papers Report to Cabinet - 6th February 2000 Members' Information Item - 21st September2001 M1 Multi-Modal Study News Update leaflet - Issue 3 Autumn 2001 Consultation report on draft preferred package - December 2001

12 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 359

List of Appendices Appendix A Table of proposals in Draft Preferred Package Appendix B Diagram of road and rail routes Appendix C Outline of proposed behaviour change strategy

13 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 360

APPENDIX A DRAFT PREFERRED PACKAGE – MAIN PROPOSALS AND TEST OPTIONS

Ref Cost Main Test Code Description of Proposal £m

RAIL – NEW SERVICES (IR/IU/US) – NEW INFRASTRUCTURE (NR) – FREIGHT (FR) IR2 S Coast/SW-B’ham-Derby-Nottm-Sheffield-West Yorks (then IR3 after 2011) 2006 - IR3 S Coast/SW-B’ham-Castle Donington-Nottm-W Yorks (needs NR8+NR13) 2011 - IR5 North West-Stoke-Uttoxeter-Derby-Leicester 2006 - IR6 North West-Buxton-Matlock-Derby-Nottingham (needs NR12) 2011 - IR7 Nottingham-Melton Mowbray-Corby-London St Pancras (needs NR4) 2016 - IR8 Sheffield-Chesterfield-Trowell-EM Parkway-Leicester-London 2006 - IU1 B’ham-Burton-Castle Donington-Nottingham-Trowell-Mansfield- 2011 - Bolsover-Staveley-Chesterfied (needs NR5+NR8) IU2 B’ham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Trowell-Alfreton- 2006 2016 - Chesterfield-Sheffield (test alternative via GC line needs NR3) IU4 Manchester Airport-Stoke-Derby-Nottingham-Trowell Parkway-Mansfied 2006 - UT1 Belper-Derby-Nottingham 2006 - UT2 Coalville-Leicester-Loughborough-Ruddington-Nottingham-Beeston- 2016 - Loughborough-Leicester- Coalville (needs NR1+NR3) UT3 Rotherham-Sheffield-Staveley-Mansfield-Nottingham (needs NR5) 2011 - UT4 Ashby-Leicester-Loughborough-Derby-Matlock (needs NR1) 2011 - UT5 Leicester-Loughborough-Ruddington-Nottingham-Mansfield-Worksop 2016 - (needs NR3) UT6 Alfreton-Nottingham-Bingham 2006 - NR1 Reopening Ashby to Leicester line with chord at Knighton Junction 2011 35.0 NR3 Loughborough to Nottingham using Great Central line to Ruddington 2016 139.0 and new construction via Tollerton with new rail bridge over River Trent NR4 Melton Mowbray to Nottingham reopening test track line to Tollerton and 2016 79.0 new construction including new rail bridge over River Trent NR3/4 Combined cost - sharing new construction from Tollerton to Nottingham 154.0 NR5 Reopening Mansfield to Chesterfield line via Clowne and Staveley 2011 29.0 NR6 Reopening Pye Bridge to Kirkby line 2006 6.0 NR8 Reopening Castle Donington line to passengers and new station at 2006 9.0 Castle Donington to be served by bus link to EM Airport NR12 Reopening Matlock to Buxton line 2011 76.0 NR13 Newark Chord connecting line from Nottingham to East Coast Main Line north 2011 13.0 NR14 Rail network speed and capacity improvements – various proposals 2006 441.0 including new and faster track layout at Leicester station NR15 Improved accessibility to rail stations 2006 50.0? FR0 Strategic Rail Authority freight strategy improvements (current plans) 2011 600.0 FR1 Intermodal rail freight terminal (location not specific) 2011 10.0 FR2 Loading gauge improvements - including costs of FR3 2016 40.0 FR3 Rail freight links to Humber ports (cost included in FR2) 2016 - FR4 Central Railway proposal – Leicester to Sheffield section of route 2016 155.0

1 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 361

Ref Cost Description of Proposal Main Test Code £m

ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT – LIGHT RAIL (LR) – BUS SERVICES (BC) LR1 Current NET (Nottingham light rail) proposed extensions to Beeston, Clifton 2006 397.0 and West Bridgford with enhancements LR2 Net line 1 extension from Hucknall to Mansfied 2011 238.0 LR3 NET to Trowell Parkway / Ilkeston North / Cotmanhay 2011 146.0 LR4a NET to Gamston 2011 37.0 LR4b NET to Gedling 2011 35.0 LR4c NET to Cotgrave 2011 139.0 LR5b Leicester north LRT to Syston/East Goscote 2011 170.0 LR5c Leicester south LRT to Blaby 2011 126.0 BC1 Bus priority on major routes 2006 10.0? BC4 Derby-Alfreton-Mansfield-Bolsover-Chesterfield 2006 - BC5 Derby-Melbourne-East Midlands Airport-Shepshed-Loughborough 2006 - BC6 Leicester-Coalville-Shepshed-Loughborough 2006 - BC7 Dronfield-Chesterfield-Clay Cross-Alfreton-Ripley-Heanor-Ilkeston- 2006 - Trowell-East Midlands Airport (via M1) BC8 Derby shuttle bus linking Derby South Parkway through Sinfin to Derby 2006 - station, City centre and Spondon station

STRATEGIC PARK AND RIDE (PR) PR3a Trowell Parkway (served by NET light rail proposal LR3) – requires new road 2006 9.8 connection from M1 service area including M1 overbridge PR3b M1 Junction 26 at Nuthall (served by extension of NET line 1) 2011 19.0 PR3c M1 Junction 25 (served by extended NET line to Beeston in LR1) 2011 in LR1 PR5 Markham Employment Growth Zone (MEGZ) served by heavy rail US7+NR5 2016 in NR5

MOTORWAY IMPROVEMENTS (MW) MW1 Junction 21 – lane reallocation and roundabout widening 2006 0.5 MW2 Junction 26 – widened northbound exit slip road 2006 0.2 MW3 Junction 28 – roundabout and approach road widening 2006 2.0 MW3a Junction 29 – A617 flyover and roundabout capacity improvement 2006 7.2 MW5 New Junction 29a (approved scheme – funds committed) 2011 - MW8 Free-flow link roads between M1 north and M69 with widening from 2011 23.5 dual 4 to dual 5 lanes between link roads and Junction 21A MW9 The Highway Agency scheme for free-flow links at Junction 28 2011 15.4 MW10 Link roads between M1 north and A610 to relieve Junction 26 2006 6.8 MW11 Junction 23A to 25 intermediate scheme with widening to dual 5 lanes 2011 64.0 between Junction 24A and Junction 25 (MW13 is an alternative) MW12a Junction 25 to 27 widening to dual 5 lanes (including Junction 25 and 26 2011 176.0 improvements) but with dual 4 lanes through junctions and also between Junctions 26 and the new Junction 26A introduced with MW10 MW13 The Highways Agency scheme for Junction 23A to 25 including 2011 107.0 widening to dual 5 lanes between Junction 24A and Junction 25 MW15a Junction 21A to 23A widening to dual 4 lanes with Junction 22 and 23 2016 171.0 capacity improvements MW15b Junction 27 to 30 widening to dual 4 lanes with climbing lanes added on 2011 185.0 uphill carriageways between Junction 27 and 29

2 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 362

Ref Cost Description of Proposal Main Test Code £m

STRATEGIC ROADS (SR) SR1 Local Authority Local Transport Plan proposals for 2006 (not committed) 2006 - SR2 Local Authority longer term proposals 2011 - SR4 Short free-flow link between A453 south entry and A50 exit from 2006 0.2 Junction 24 roundabout SR5 A6 Kegworth Bypass (also included within MW13) 2006 8.4 SR7a A453 minor improvement from Crusader junction to University entrance 2006 1.0 SR7b A453 dualling subject to proposals from A453 multi-modal study with 2011 - omission of SR13 and SR17b SR12 New crossing of River Trent east of Nottingham with associated link roads 2011 22.7 SR13 New dual 2 lane carriageway road linking the A50 at Junction 24a with 2011 94.9 the A46 at its junction with the A606 at Widmerpool SR17b A606 complementary measures to go with SR13. Upgrade A606 2011 26.7 including bypasses of Melton Mowbray and Oakham SR18 A617 Glapwell Bypass dual 2 lane carriageway 2006 13.5 SR19 A1 Upgrading to dual 3 lane motorway between Peterborough and Blyth 2011 1,390 (possible alternative to MW 15a)

TRANSPORT CHANGE (TC) TC1 Stringent car parking controls with workplace charging 2006 - TC2 Congestion charging for road users in the three cities 2016 - TC3 Widespread adoption of workplace and school travel plans 2006 - TC5a Area wide road user charging with dual 4 lane instead of 5 lane 2011 - widening TC7 Water freight: inland port at Colwick on River Trent east of Nottingham 2006 10.0 TC8 Travel behaviour change strategy 2006 - TC9 Integrated through ticketing for public transport 2006 - TC9a Reduced public transport fares 2006 -

3 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc

Document Pack Page 363 APPENDIX B

J26

M1 NOTTINGHAM DERBY J25

J24A J24 KEGWORTH J23A MELTON MOWBRAY ASHBY DE-LA LOUGHBOROUGH ZOUCH J23

M1 J22

J21A LEICESTER

J21

M69 M1

Key

Passenger Railway - Existing Passenger Railway - Proposed or Test Option Motorway with Junction Numbers Other Strategic Roads New Strategic Road - Proposed or Test Option

ã Crown copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Use of this image is limited to viewing online and printing one copy. Leicestershire County Council. LA076724

DEPARTMENT OF DIAGRAM OF ROAD AND PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION RAIL ROUTES North

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 364

APPENDIX C

OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BEHAVIOUR CHANGE STRATEGY

Awareness Raising 1. This first stage in the process would be to promote a widespread general understanding of problems affecting travel in the East Midlands, ways of dealing with the problems and the encouragement of the individual to effect changes which will be helpful in this context.

2. A communications strategy would inform people of progress with transport improvements in the adopted package and include positive public relations work relating to the improvements progressively achieved during the life of the plan up to 2021.

Changing Travel Behaviour 3. The strategy would include activities to change behaviour based on existing opportunities, such as more cycling or public transport use, and the choices which will arise with implementation of the planned package of measures. Activities might include:-

• Personalised journey planning techniques for travel other than by car; • Demonstration projects involving community action or alternative lifestyle approaches to car ownership and use; • Sponsoring ways of changing lifestyle to reduce or stop the need to travel.

4. The activities would be targeted at the following times of life when people naturally think about their travel needs and possible alternatives:-

• The beginning of secondary school; • Transfer to sixth form/FE college or University; • Starting a first job; • Moving home; • Moving to a different workplace; • Children being born, and their departure from home.

Strategy Management 5. From the multi-modal study so far there is no obvious organisation or body of people to manage the above activities. There will also be a need to co-ordinate and monitor the process in conjunction with the many stakeholder organisations involved such as the Strategic Rail Authority, Highways Agency, local transport authorities and public transport operators. There will need to be a person or group of people able to provide the leadership and put the strategy into effect.

Integration with the Package 6. The behaviour change activities will need to be closely integrated with the implementation of the proposals in the adopted package. The programme of schemes will involve major investment and a wide range of organisations whose staff and procedures will differ in experience and capability. Guidance will be needed to gain maximum benefit. For example, there will be a number of key interchanges where good travel awareness and reliability of services will be essential if the full benefits of integration are to achieved.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc