Suffolk County Council Shaping the Future of 's Strategic Roads Response to DfT Consultation on 's Initial Report – February 2018

1. Introduction

1.1. This report summarises County Council’s response to the Department for Transport’s consultation on Highways England's Initial Report published in December 2017.

1.2. The Suffolk Growth Programme Board (SGPB) has commented on the Strategic Road Network Initial Report (SRNIR) and their views and support for the County Council’s response is attached as Appendix A.

2. Background

Road Investment Strategy for Road Period 1

2.1. In December 2014 the Department for Transport published their first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1) for the 2015/16 – 2019/20 Road Period. The County Council was disappointed to note that there were no major projects in Suffolk.

“No More A14 delays in Suffolk” campaign

2.2. In response to the DfT’s decision, the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, working with the County Council and other key stakeholders in the county, launched the “No More A14 delays in Suffolk” campaign in March 2015. This campaign has the backing of many partners including businesses, all the county’s MPs and local authorities, and New Anglia and Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough LEPs. As part of this initiative, the Chamber published a brochure entitled “The A14 Vital for the local and national economy”, which highlighted the locations on the A14 where congestion is a problem. The “No More A14 delays in Suffolk Strategy Board” was subsequently established and chaired by a Suffolk MP.

2.3. In April 2016 and as part of the preparations for RIS2, Highways England invited stakeholders to highlight problems, issues and challenges on the trunk road network. In May/June 2016 the County Council, Suffolk Chamber of Commerce and other stakeholders worked with Highways England to highlight areas of concern and develop a reasonable initial list of potential candidates for inclusion in RIS2. This focussed on the worst hotspots on the trunk road network in Suffolk, mainly junctions, and included major maintenance projects where there was evidence that the carriageway has or was failing. In addition, the submission included a proposed feasibility study of the A14 between the M11 at Cambridge and to pick up residual capacity issues around Cambridge, and (including Orwell ), maintain access to the nationally important Port of Felixstowe, improve journey time reliability and support growth in general in Suffolk and at the Port of Felixstowe. The full list and diagram are attached as Appendix B and Appendix C.

2.4. The first meeting of the “No More A14 delays in Suffolk Strategy Board” on the 1 July 2016 agreed the list of potential candidates for inclusion in RIS2. In addition to much needed improvements to the A14, these requests include necessary projects on the A11 at Mildenhall and A12 south of Ipswich. The list of potential candidates, together with an evidence assessment report prepared by consultants, was formally submitted to Highways England on the 28 July 2016.

2.5. In the Autumn 2016, the County Council appointed consultants to develop possible options to address the areas of concern identified on the trunk road network. As before, key Suffolk stakeholders and Highways England were involved throughout this process and many of the options developed represent very good value for money with benefit cost ratios significantly higher than the highest category shown in the DfT WebTag guidance. It is also important to stress that some of the options developed were modest in scale and cost and could be delivered relatively quickly. The relevant reports have been shared with senior Highways England and DfT officials. Page 1 2.6. A meeting with Suffolk MPs and Senior DfT officials was held on the 11 September 2017 at Westminster to discuss the County Council’s RIS2 submission. There was strong support from all Suffolk MPs for the package of measures submitted for inclusion in RIS2.

2.7. In September 2017 the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce published an updated brochure as part of the No More A14 Delays in Suffolk campaign – attached as Appendix D. This sets out the business case for investment at the seven A14 'pinch points' and reinforces the collaborative campaigning approach and desire to secure:

• improvements to key junctions on the A14 at Ipswich, Bury, St Edmunds and Newmarket;

• improvements to the A11 at Mildenhall and A12 south of Ipswich;

• major maintenance schemes on the A14 between and and between Copdock and the Orwell Bridge; and

• a comprehensive feasibility study of the A14 from the M11 at Cambridge to Felixstowe to address remaining concerns about the A14 and the impact of future growth in the county and across the UK.

2.8. The No More A14 delays in Suffolk Strategy Board has met on six occasions and during 2017 senior officials from DfT and Highways England have attended Board meetings to discuss the RIS2 process and the justification for the proposals submitted to Highways England.

Orwell Bridge

2.9. There are specific issues relating to the Orwell Bridge and its closure due to incidents, high winds and planned maintenance works. This has a significant impact on the local community and businesses within Ipswich and on freight movements to and from the Port of Felixstowe and other key businesses. This has been discussed in meetings set up by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Suffolk. This resulted in high level summit meetings being held in Suffolk with key stakeholders and Highways England, i.e. on the 6 March 2014, 19 December 2016, 26 January 2017 and 18 October 2017. Although some progress has been made there is still a long way to go to address and resolve the frequency and impact of the closures. In addition, there is a need to consider alternative strategic options to deal with SRN traffic movements affected by the closures.

Neighbouring Authorities

2.10. The County Council continues to work closely with Highways England and neighbouring local authorities on cross border issues. This includes ongoing work straddling the Suffolk/ Cambridgeshire boundary, which involves Forest Heath and East Cambridgeshire District Councils, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk County Councils and Highways England. It is noted that our neighbours in Cambridgeshire have reinforced cross border support for the inclusion of the following specific projects in RIS2:

• the improvement of the A14/A142 Junction 37 Exning; and

• an A14 Feasibility Study between the M11 at Cambridge and Felixstowe.

Published Route Strategies

2.11. The County Council has expressed concern about the published Route Strategies and provided detailed reports on the Felixstowe to Midlands and Route Strategies to the DfT and Highways England, attached as Appendices F and G.

Page 2 Sub-National Transport Body

2.12. The County Council is working with a range of transport, planning and other organisations with the intention of developing a Sub-National Transport Body. This is at a very early stage of development and DfT and Highways England have been involved.

Strategic Road Network Initial Report

2.13. In December 2017 Highways England published their “Strategic Road Network Initial Report”, which sets out their vision and priorities for the second road period (2020-2025) and is underpinned, and driven, by their aim to accelerate the delivery of government’s ambition, as set out in the Road Investment Strategy, to “revolutionise our strategic roads to create a modern SRN that supports a modern Britain.”

2.14. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the DfT consultation on Highways England’s SRN Initial report and support many of the proposals and recommendations contained in the report for Road Period 2. The remainder of this report sets out Suffolk County Council’s response to the specific questions in the DfT’s consultation on Highways England's Initial Report.

3. Response to questions about the Initial Report:

Question 1 Do you think Highways England's proposals will deliver what users of the SRN want? If not, what could be done differently?

3.1. Although we welcome publication of the SRNIR, the answer to this question is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. Suffolk did not get any major projects in RIS1 (a point made to the Department of Transport and Highways England on several occasions). There is clear evidence to indicate that there are significant existing problems on the SRN in Suffolk. Hence, unless the reasonable projects, developed in conjunction with Highways England, the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce representing businesses, District Councils and other key stakeholders, as submitted to Highways England in July 2016, are taken forward into RIS2, then the proposals set out in the SRNIR are unlikely to deliver what the users of the SRN in Suffolk want both in the short term and into the future. It would be unacceptable in our view to wait until 2030 (RIS3) or beyond to see meaningful improvements implemented to address the existing significant problems on the SRN in Suffolk.

3.2. The diagram showing forecast 2041 daytime delay change on page 53 of the SRNIR shows significant increases on the A14 between the M11 at Cambridge and Junction 38 north of Newmarket, at Bury St Edmunds and around Ipswich and the A11 at Mildenhall and A12 south of Ipswich. This supports the County Council’s proposed list of projects to be included in RIS2.

3.3. The emphasis on a long-term spatial and corridor approach to improving the national network is welcomed and reinforces our call for a feasibility study to underpin a full route strategy for the A14 between the M11 and Felixstowe, which is also supported by our neighbours in Cambridgeshire. Such a study would be expected to:

• demonstrate how the standards applied in delivering the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Expressway can be extended and delivered through to the Port of Felixstowe;

• take into account the impact of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon project currently under construction;

• consider the potential impact of the Oxford to Cambridge project, including the proposed improvement of the A428 between Black Cat roundabout on the A1 and Caxton Gibbet; and

Page 3 • investigate and highlight medium to long term solutions, particularly around Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds, which could then be implemented in Roads Period 3 or subsequently.

3.4. Clearly any improvement of the A14 will support growth in general in Suffolk and at the Port of Felixstowe, with the latter important in the context of Brexit and more generally for the economic wellbeing of UK plc.

Question 2 Do you think Highways England's proposals will deliver what businesses want? If not, what could be done differently?

3.5. See response to question 1, which takes full account of the views expressed by businesses at meetings of the A14 Strategy Board including that held on 26 January 2018, which was convened specifically to consider a Suffolk response to the current consultation on the SRNIR.

Question 3 Do you think Highways England's proposals meet the needs of people affected by the presence of the SRN? If not, what could be done differently?

3.6. The needs of people affected by the presence of the SRN are not met at present and the proposals set out in the SRNIR are unlikely to make a significant difference.

3.7. There needs to be much better communication with businesses and communities affected by the SRN, in terms of community severance, the impact of traffic using the SRN on local communities (e.g. noise, pollution etc.) and more importantly the economic, social and environmental impact of traffic diverted off the SRN due to incidents, weather conditions and planned works. The lack of progress with proposals to mitigate the impact of high winds on the Orwell Bridge, and the very significant economic and social impacts of closures, is one example of where practical solutions are urgently needed but apparently stalled.

Question 4 Do you agree with Highways England's proposals for:

Four categories of road and the development of Expressways (Initial Report sections 4.4.3 and 5.3.6)

3.8. Suffolk County Council welcomes the proposed four categories of road for the SRN and in particular the development of Expressways and the suggested network classification over the medium term, which provides an indication of how the network could develop and in Suffolk shows the A14, A11 and A12 south of Ipswich as current, planned, and potential expressways. It is noted that these designations are consistent with the proposals shown on the diagram entitled “The Network Towards 2040” contained in the DfT publication “Road Investment Strategy Strategic Vision” dated December 2014.

3.9. The County Council notes that in the short-term Highways England expect the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon project to open as their first operational expressway. It makes sense to continue this status into Suffolk through to the Port of Felixstowe. The A14 in Suffolk (and along its whole route) is a major contributor to the UK economy, carrying 70% of the goods shipped through the Port of Felixstowe (which itself handles over 40% of the UK’s container traffic), much of it headed for the Northern Powerhouse or the Midlands Engine. In view of this last fact the significance of the Port of Felixstowe to trade and exporting following Brexit cannot be overstated.

3.10. The County Council works closely with Essex County Council on developing the A12 corridor and there is joint support to improve the whole route between Ipswich and the M25 to expressway standards and the A120 between the A12 and M11.

Page 4 3.11. The County Council welcomes the statement that expressways will ‘feel’ more like motorways, with comparable levels of information, monitoring and response and supports the proposed features of an expressway shown diagrammatically on page 59 of the SRNIR. This includes support for the blue backed and “M” signs, “Traffic Officer Service” and “No non- motorised users and slow moving vehicles permitted”.

3.12. The County Council would appreciate a commitment from DfT to develop the A14, A11 and A12 as expressways and to explore how these could be developed and implemented.

Operational priorities (Initial Report section 5.1)

Customer service ambition

3.13. The County Council broadly accepts Highways England’s operational priorities and customer service ambitions for the 2020-2025 period as set out in section 5.1 of the SRNIR and notes the emphasis on meeting the needs of their customers. This should also apply to those customers diverted off the SRN due to incidents, weather conditions and planned roadworks on the SRN.

Better information

3.14. The County Council agrees with the aim of managing incidents quickly, giving information about planned disruption, and giving live information about delays when they do occur and welcomes Highways England’s intention to continue working with the Department for Transport to investigate whether greater delegation of freedom of action would maximise the benefits Variable Message Signs (VMS) could bring. There is a need to provide better information on existing VMS signs and make them more relevant locally (i.e. not just junction numbers).

Better Roadworks

3.15. Experience indicates that traffic diverted off trunk roads does not necessarily use the designated, agreed and signed emergency diversion routes, particularly where they involve lengthy detours. It is not appropriate to divert on to narrow county roads that are not able to accommodate such traffic to avoid long diversions on more suitable roads. Unfortunately, the road network in Suffolk has limited options for alternative routes to divert A14 traffic on to ‘A’ roads, some of which are quite low in standard; resulting in lengthy diversions. This can and does result in traffic, including HGVs, cutting through local villages causing significant disruption as well as damage to the carriageway, verges and physical infrastructure (and properties with frontages situated on these narrow county roads). The County Council is concerned that the development of real time information and selection of alternative routes using SatNav will increase pressure on vulnerable communities and parts of the local road network.

3.16. Another problem with recent Highways England night works near Bury St Edmunds is when Highways England sign the agreed diversion from the agreed junction but without a “hard closure”. Large numbers of vehicles either miss or ignore these signs and continue to travel along the trunk road until eventually the carriageway is physically closed. At this point all traffic, including HGV’s, are left to find their own route through inappropriate, narrow county lanes and quiet villages with no signing. The County Council expects Highways England to undertake all reasonable measures to ensure traffic follows the designated route and not push vehicles off the carriageway in the middle of nowhere with no direction. This is to avoid safety concerns, damage to the county network and avoid reputational damage from dozens of angry local residents.

3.17. Highways England inform Suffolk that the A14 is below standard and too narrow in places to use contraflow works as an option.

Page 5 3.18. The County Council appreciates the need for roadworks and notes that Highways England has talked in depth to motorists about how they can make this better, in particular roadworks which are dynamic and adaptive, and feel proportionate. While minimising disruption and irritation is important to road users, it is also important to those affected by diverted traffic.

3.19. The SRNIR does not appear to give any consideration to those affected by SRN traffic diverted onto local roads as a result of roadworks or to those businesses whose operations are temporarily affected. This applies to Highways England’s customers as well as those living or working on local roads affected by diverted traffic.

3.20. There is also a need to ensure that there is an up-to-date and single platform for all proposed roadworks and associated diversion routes (e.g. roadworks.org), whether promoted by Highways England, Local Highways Authorities, statutory undertakers, developers or others so effective coordination of works can be carried out. This would also be a useful source of information for the public in general and for businesses and visitors including tourists not familiar with an area. Recent experience indicates that this is not the case in Suffolk. Some Highways England notices appear on roadworks.org but many do not. If these works are not visible to all, co-ordination with other promoters wishing to work on the highway is not possible. As a result, some works cannot proceed when desired.

3.21. Problems relating to trunk road traffic diverted onto local roads, whether in the event of incidents, inclement weather conditions or relating to planned works, are longstanding and the following correspondence is attached for information:

• A self-explanatory letter dated 11 January 2011 to the then Secretary of State for Transport re Trunk Road Emergency Diversion Routes and response from Mike Penning MP dated 7 February 2011 (Appendix H);

• A self-explanatory letter dated 1 December 2011 to the then Under Secretary of State for Transport re Planned Trunk Road Works and Diversion Routes and response from Mike Penning MP dated 23 January 2012 (Appendix I).

More reliable journeys

3.22. The County Council agrees that having reliable and easy-to-use diversion routes is a vital part of Highways England’s response to incidents and that it is important that Highways England continues to inspect the condition and signage on existing diversion routes, identify where there are inappropriate routes and bring them up to agreed standards. Similar comments also apply to diversions put in place in connection with planned works on the SRN.

Infrastructure priorities (Initial Report section 5.2)

3.23. The County Council agrees with the priorities for keeping infrastructure in good condition and in particular the statement that Highways England are required to consider whole life cost. Recent experience in Suffolk indicates that expensive reactive maintenance is being carried out and that this causes additional and unnecessary disruption to local communities living near the works.

3.24. The County Council supports the principal of Highways England funding being used on non- trunk roads, where this would provide demonstrable benefit to the SRN.

Enhancement priorities (Initial Report section 5.3)

3.25. It is noted that despite the recognised traffic problems around Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds, at the A14/A142 junction at Newmarket (which was previously identified as one of the top ten worst junctions in the east of England) and also on the A11 at Fiveways and the A12 south of Ipswich, there were no:

• major improvements in Suffolk in the first RIS (5.3.1 and diagram page 72 SRNIR); or Page 6 • strategic or other studies that directly affect or benefit Suffolk (5.3.2 and 5.3.3 and diagram page 73 SRNIR).

3.26. Neither are there any schemes identified in Suffolk for development in the next road period (5.3.4 and diagram page 76 SRNIR).

3.27. It is noted that there are no motorways in Suffolk.

3.28. The County Council notes the phased implementation of proposed expressways leading to motorway designation (5.3.6).

3.29. The County Council welcomes the statement that “in addition to working to deliver upgrades to smart motorways and expressways”, Highways England “will need to continue investing in other parts of the network”. The proposals put forward by the County Council for inclusion in RIS2 focus on junction improvements, to tackle safety, congestion or environmental issues, and generally providing better roads rather than new roads. We believe this is consistent with Highways England’s approach (5.3.7) and the development of proposed expressways (5.3.6).

A local priorities fund (Initial Report section 5.3.8)

3.30. The County Council welcomes the proposals for tackling local priorities (5.3.8).

Future studies (Initial Report section 5.3.11)

3.31. We welcome the statement from Highways England “there is value in funding the development of a wider range of solutions, both to address areas on the network with poorer performance, and to respond to the future challenges and demands on the network”.

3.32. We believe that the County Councils suggested A14 Study between the M11 at Cambridge and Felixstowe will address a range of connectivity and resilience issues, including the provision of free flow connections at Copdock Interchange, improvements to the A14 in general as a key route to the Port of Felixstowe, particularly around Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds and consider the implications of Brexit and the scope to develop the Oxford to Cambridge Corridor and extend it to the Port of Felixstowe. Such a study should build on the work carried out by Highways England in conjunction with Suffolk County Council, the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, District Councils and other key stakeholders in Suffolk to deal with the ongoing capacity and resilience issues associated with the Orwell Bridge and take into account the results of recent and ongoing studies on potential Ipswich Northern Route options.

Designated funds (Initial Report section 5.4)

3.33. The County Council agrees that these funds should be continued and that this should focus on the five areas set out in section 5.4. We are particularly interested in the development of roadside facilities for HGV’s and their drivers.

Performance measures and targets (Initial Report section 6.3) If you disagree with any of these, what could be done differently?

3.34. While we note that the performance framework set out in section 6.3 measures the things that are important to Highways England’s customers and shareholders (and in ways that are easily understood by their users), there is more that can be done to measure the performance of Highways England in terms of the impact on businesses and communities operating or living near the SRN or affected by traffic diverted off the SRN as a result of incidents, weather related issues (e.g. Orwell Bridge) or planned roadworks. We believe this is consistent with the key challenges set out in section 4.5 and investment priorities in section 6.3, (in particular “working more harmoniously with our environment” and Highways England’s statement “making a positive impact on the environment, surrounding landscapes, and local communities” and aspiration “to run a network which works harmoniously with its Page 7 surroundings to deliver an overall positive impact on the environment”).

Question 5: Are there any other proposals in the Initial Report that you do not agree with? If so, which ones and what could be done differently?

3.35. There is a need to consider the whole road network (“integration”) in developing future plans. Liaison with Local Highway Authorities, businesses and other key stakeholders, including those affected by the SRN is essential.

Question 6: Do you agree with Highways England’s assessment of the future needs of the SRN (Initial Report section 4.4)? If not, how would you change the assessment?

3.36. The County Council accepts that the future is inherently uncertain and that there are long term trends that may have an impact.

3.37. We agree that:

• the total population will increase and will drive housing growth (including in Suffolk) and that, in combination with other demographic trends, will have the impact of continuing to increase demand on the network. This is expected to increase pressure on an already congested network in Suffolk.

• improving connectivity between and within regions is vital for driving economic growth and this will continue to be important for the nationally significant Port of Felixstowe and other businesses in Suffolk.

• there is a need for integration between transport modes.

3.38. We welcome the smart assets concept and comments about construction innovation and potential for more efficient and less disruptive construction and maintenance. This needs to be set alongside the impact of traffic diverted off the SRN to facilitate works and impact on local communities.

3.39. The DfT publications “Road Investment Strategy: Strategic Vision December 2014” and “Transport Investment Strategy Moving Britain Ahead July 2017” include maps showing congestion on the SRN in 2010 and predicted in 2040 (attached as Appendix E). These reinforce the views expressed by users of the SRN and key stakeholders in Suffolk, including businesses, that there are severe existing congestion problems on the A14 at Newmarket, Bury St Edmunds and around Ipswich and that conditions on the SRN generally in the county are set to get significantly worse in the future. This evidence strengthens the case for the projects submitted for inclusion in RIS2 including the proposed A14 Feasibility Study between the M11 at Cambridge and Felixstowe.

3.40. We note the forecast flow changes shown on page 52 and daytime delay changes on page 53 and in particular the significant increase in delay hours lost per mile on the:

• A14 between the M11 (junction 31) and A11 Waterhall Interchange (junction 38);

• A14 at Bury St Edmunds;

• A14 around Ipswich;

• A11 at Mildenhall; and

• A12 south of Ipswich

Page 8 3.41. Comments on section 4.4.4 Planning for the future network (pages 60 to 62):

• Theme 2 Connected and autonomous vehicles (CAV): This ambition should be applied to the road network as a whole (not just the SRN). The implications for CAVs diverted off the SRN by incidents, weather related issues and planned works needs to be considered, including the suitability of CAVs using diversion routes. There needs to be an up-to-date and single platform of current works and events that can inform this process to avoid conflicts and problems on the local road network. It is important to be clear how Highways England will interact with their customers and vehicles without distracting drivers.

• Theme 3 Customer mobility: We welcome Highways England’s interest in the opportunity that MaaS could offer to freight, and to work with partners to optimise freight movements across the network. This is important in the context of the Port of Felixstowe.

• Theme 5 Operations: We note and welcome Highway England’s aim to significantly reduce disruption caused by roadworks, extreme weather and serious incidents.

3.42. We agree with the summary of key challenges set out in section 4.5 (page 63).

Question 7: How far does the Initial Report meet the Government's aims for RIS2 (economy, network capability, safety, integration and environment – described in paragraph 2.3)? Which aims could Highways England do more to meet and how?

3.43. The County Council agrees with the Government's aims for RIS2. However, given that the Initial Report does not contain any new projects, the response to the question how far does the SRNIR meet the Government's aims is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, i.e. without a reasonable level of investment in the SRN within Suffolk, as proposed in our submission to Highways England:

• Economy – there is unlikely to be an increase in productivity and economic output in the county;

• Network Capability – the SRN network, which is already under strain, will not be able to meet future demands or support growth for the long term;

• Safety – is likely to be compromised;

• Integration – it will be difficult to link the SRN with local roads, major roads and other modes of transport; and

• Environment – it will be hard to tackle the negative external impacts of the SRN or make a positive contribution to the environment and air quality.

Question 8: Do you think there should be any change in the roads included in the SRN (described in paragraph 1.3)? If so, which roads would you propose are added to or removed from the SRN, and why?

3.44. The County Council proposes that the A140 between the A14 junction 51 Beacon Hill and the A47 at Harford Interchange should be added to the strategic road network. This is supported by Suffolk Chamber’s Transport and Infrastructure Manifesto which states, with regard to the A140: “Dual whole route and include in trunk road network to support economic and business growth between Ipswich and Norwich and improve access from Suffolk to Norwich International Airport.”

Page 9 Question 9: Is there anything else we need to consider when making decisions about investment in the SRN? If so, what other factors do you want considered? Please provide links to any published information that you consider relevant. In addition, in relation to the analytical approach summarised in Chapter 6 and set out in more detail in the strategy document accompanying this consultation:

3.45. It is suggested that the potential impact of Brexit and the economic wellbeing of UK plc are factors that should be considered when making decisions about investment in the SRN.

Question 10: Does the analytical approach taken have the right balance between ambition, robustness, and proportionality? If not, what do you suggest we do differently?

3.46. It is difficult to say that the analytical approach set out in the SRNIR has the right balance between ambition, robustness, and proportionality. The key is what will DfT do in terms of future investment in the roll forward of the Road Investment Strategy, particularly in Suffolk and in the second road period.

Other:

3.47. The County Council agrees with the comments in section 5.3.12 and will respond separately to the Major Road Network consultation.

Page 10

Appendices

Appendix Description

A Suffolk Growth Programme Board comments

B SCC suggested list of candidates for inclusion in RIS2

C SCC diagram showing suggested candidates for inclusion in RIS2

D Suffolk Chamber of Commerce No More A14 Delays in Suffolk brochure

Congestion Maps:

E • DfT Road Investment Strategy: Strategic Vision December 2014 • DfT Transport Investment Strategy Moving Britain Ahead July 2017

Suffolk County Council report on the Felixstowe to Midlands Route F Strategy

G Suffolk County Council report on the East of England Route Strategy

H Letter dated 11 January 2011 to the then Secretary of State for Transport re Trunk Road Emergency Diversion Routes and response from Mike Penning MP dated 7 February 2011

I Letter dated 1 December 2011 to the then Under Secretary of State for Transport re Planned Trunk Road Works and Diversion Routes and response from Mike Penning MP dated 23 January 2012

APPENDIX A Suffolk Growth Programme Board Comments

The Suffolk Growth Programme Board (SGPB) welcomes the Strategic Road Network Initial Report (SRNIR) produced by Highways England and the transformational impact they are promoting through investment. We endorse the response prepared by Suffolk County Council as our Lead Transport Authority and offer this statement of support. As a joint Growth Board, representing interests across both the public and private sector and with the aim of facilitating and delivering the Suffolk wide inclusive growth agenda, we are committed to securing substantial investment in our transportation infrastructure, not least the A14, A12 and A11, as part of the UK’s Strategic Road Network. Investment in these routes, coupled with investment in both the proposed Major Route Network (MRN) and local road network, including transport solutions around Ipswich will provide resilience to Suffolk’s transport network and deliver much needed economic value to our communities and businesses. The designation of the A14 as an Expressway, continuing the investment in this route from Cambridge to the coast will strengthen the role of Ipswich as Suffolk’s county town and unlock further investment across the region that will deliver both new homes and new employment for our communities and businesses. Furthermore, improvements to the A12 and the A11 will position Ipswich as the anchor in the Cambridge – Norwich – Ipswich triangle and provide connectivity to – allowing Suffolk to benefit from our proximity to these areas and further boost our economy. Suffolk’s ports, notably the Ports of Felixstowe, Ipswich and , are significant employers in their own right, but crucially provide a gateway to the UK. Over 40% of all container traffic into the UK arrives through the Port of Felixstowe and from here travels across Suffolk to be distributed throughout the Midlands and UK as a whole. A coherent invest to grow strategy for Suffolk, focused on our strategic road (and rail) routes will enable the ports and wider logistics / distribution sector to expand and contribute to the local, regional and national economies. SGPB is committed to working with our partners and Government to deliver on the proposals put forward through the Housing White Paper, the Industrial Strategy, the work of the National Infrastructure Commission and both the SRN and MRN consultations to ensure we can achieve integrated investment to deliver the inclusive growth that is right for Suffolk.

SUFFOLK GROWTH PROGRAMME BOARD: delivering inclusive growth through partnership

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

NO MORE

DELAYS IN SUFFOLK

The local and national case for investment

Their Strategic Road Network Initial Report will be the business view published in the autumn of 2017 and is expected to benefits provide a long list of those projects that have met the The No More A14 Delays in Suffolk campaign is looking basic criteria for further evaluation. “The A14 is a critical section of our Suffolk for funding from 2020-2025 to boost capacity and reconfigure these seven ‘pinch points’. infrastructure with importance both locally and The Department of Transport will then engage in nationally. With this in mind Suffolk Chamber consulting with the public in 2018. Aside from alleviating the real costs of delays and and Suffolk County Council have embarked on congestion at these points, this investment would a campaign to raise and maintain the profile of So, the No More A14 Delays in Suffolk campaign still needs further up-to-date information about this contribute to a massive increase in key economic the A14 with central Government. Our aim of indicators – of real benefit to the local and national highway’s congestion problems – and their impact – on securing immediate and ongoing investment in economy: businesses and workers. this highway will be good for both Suffolk and • 7,000 new jobs UK PLC.” We will be able to include up-to-date evidence • £362m extra in Gross Value Added information and so refresh our report during the • Average of 13 minutes a day saved in travel time Stephen Britt consultation process.

Chair of Suffolk Chamber of Commerce’s That is why we need to build the evidence – including Transport & Infrastructure Board anecdotal evidence – about the impact of delays on partners Suffolk’s businesses and residents.

The No More A14 Delays in Suffolk campaign is chaired So we are urging people to share their experiences by MP and through its Strategy Board has of delays on the A14 in Suffolk by going to: the backing of key partners: the next steps • Suffolk Chamber of Commerce twitter.com/NoA14DelaysSfk • Suffolk County Council The No More A14 Delays in Suffolk campaign has built • Suffolk’s seven MPs up a detailed evidence-based case for securing RIS2 • Suffolk’s borough and district councils funding. [email protected] • New Anglia LEP Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough LEP We have submitted this report to Highways England, • www.suffolkchamber.co.uk/representing- Police and Crime Commissioner for Suffolk the government-owned company with responsibility • you/no-more-a14-delays-in-suffolk/ • for the operation, maintenance and improvement of • Business leaders the motorways and trunk roads in England. NO MORE A14 DELAYS

IN SUFFOLK APPENDIX E Congestion Maps: Source: DfT Road Investment Strategy: Strategic Vision December 2014

Predicted congestion on the Strategic Road Network in 2040 Network in Road Strategic on the congestion Predicted

Congestion on the Strategic Road Network in 2010 in Network Road the Strategic on Congestion

Congestion Maps: Source: DfT Transport Investment Strategy Moving Britain Ahead July 2017

Suffolk County Council

Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy

1 Introduction

1.1 This report comments on Highways England’s published Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy dated March 2017.

2 Overview

2.1 The Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy covers the following trunk roads:

 M6 between junction 4 (M42) and M1 junction 19;

 A14 between the M1 junction 19 and Felixstowe, including the short spur to the A1 at Alconbury);

 A45 between the M1 junction 15 and A14 junction 13; and

 A421/A428 between M1 junction 13 near Milton Keynes and A14 junction 31 at Cambridge, but excludes the short section of A1 through Wyboston.

2.2 It is noted that the A14 between Brampton Hut and Swavesey and between Spittals Interchange (A141) and the A1 at Alconbury will be detrunked following completion of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon project currently under construction.

3 Section 2 The Route

3.1 Second paragraph comments:

 The reference to the Port of Felixstowe, “the largest container port by volume in the UK”, is welcomed.

3.2 Seventh paragraph comments:

 The reference to the A428/A421 being predominantly “dual carriageway with the exception of the section between the Black Cat and Caxton Gibbet roundabouts” is not correct. The short section of A1 through Wyboston is a dual carriageway and is not included in this strategy. It may be better to alter the text to “dual carriageway with the exception of the section between the A1 at Wyboston and Caxton Gibbet”

4 Section 3. Current constraints and challenges

A safe and serviceable network

 The points made are welcomed, including the safety and service issues and lack of hard shoulder provision on the A14; the limited layby and lorry parking facilities (particularly on the older sections of the A14), congestion at some junctions (which can be seen at the A14/A142 junction 37). Capacity restrictions at grade separated junctions on the A14 around Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds also contribute to queueing back along slip roads resulting in serious safety issues.

Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy 1 of 5 SCC Comments More free-flowing network

 The points made are welcomed, including the at-grade junctions (and reference to the A421/A1 Black Cat junction), congestion due to lack of link capacity, congestion problems at junctions leading to blocking back onto the trunk road main carriageway (which is apparent at several junctions on the A14 particularly at Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk).

Supporting economic growth

 The points made are welcomed including the role of the route in serving freight movements from ports in the east, planned economic growth around Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds and additional traffic generated, the impact of growth and additional pressure on the route and congestion that can occur.

Second paragraph:

 Should the reference to “the A14/A12 junction 37” be “the A14/A142 junction 37”

An improved environment

Second paragraph comments:

 The comments re A14 Copdock junction are noted.

Third paragraph comments:

 The comments re drainage issues on the A14 between junctions 37 and 38 are noted.

A more accessible and integrated network

 NMU provision continues to be an important issue for Suffolk County Council. Trunk roads often act as a barrier not only for vehicular traffic but also non- motorised movements, particularly those trying to cross trunk roads. The reference to “poor NMU provision results in severance” and an “issue on the A14 between the A140 and A1156” are welcomed

Key challenges for the route - Figure 3.3

 It is suggested that this should highlight potential problems on the A14 Cambridge Northern Bypass that were raised by Suffolk County Council in connection with the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon project development and Examination and reinforced by the potential impact of the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvement (RIS1 project) and development of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway – see Appendix A. This will be compounded by future growth in the Cambridge area generally and in East Cambs/. Suffolk County Council has put forward a proposed Feasibility Study for the A14 between the M11 Cambridge and Felixstowe to be included in RIS2 to address these and other issues on the A14 – see Appendix B.

Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy 2 of 5 SCC Comments Key challenges for the route - Figure 3.4

 Junction 37, and hence the comments “A14 junction 37 experiences low journey time reliability and high levels of delay” and “Drainage issues cause standing water to occur on carriageway at A14 junction 37 and junction 38” are shown in the wrong location.

 There is no reference to the poor running surface and noise problems, which affects local residents living near the A14 concrete carriageways between Woolpit and Haughley and between Copdock and Orwell Bridge.

 The comments regarding the “A14 junction 42 to junction 46 experiences high levels of congestion” and “Junctions on A14 carriageway surrounding Ipswich experience very high levels of congestion” are welcomed.

 There is no mention of the capacity of the Orwell Bridge, which regularly carries more than 70,000 vehicles per day on a D2L carriageway and is vulnerable to incidents and accidents and closure due to high winds. The lack of adequate alternative routes causes significant problems within Ipswich when Orwell Bridge is closed. This is also a resilience issue given the national importance of the Port of Felixstowe.

Maintaining the strategic road network

 There is no reference to the poor condition of the A14 carriageway between Woolpit and Haughley or between Copdock and Orwell Bridge

5 Section 4. Current investment plans and growth potential

Investment plans and economic opportunity areas Figure 4.4

 Ipswich would be expected to be categorised as an “Urban centre”.

 Ipswich Port is the largest exporter of grain in UK, but is not shown as an international gateway;

 There is no mention of research and technology at Ipswich, i.e. Adastral Park;

 Newmarket should be highlighted given its significant in the horseracing industry.

 This map highlights a lack of investment in this section of the corridor.

6 Section 5. Future challenges and opportunities

A11 and A14 to Felixstowe

 Is the title correct? Should this be “A14 from M11 to Felixstowe”?

 The four bullet points listed are welcomed;

 Capacity and resilience issues relating to the Orwell Bridge should be added to the list.

A421 from M1 junction 13 to the M1 at Black Cat roundabout

 The reference to “Upgrade to the A428 is likely to add further pressure to the A421” also applies to the A14 east of the A11, including Cambridge Northern Bypass. See previous comments under “Key challenges for the route - Figure 3.3”.

Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy 3 of 5 SCC Comments APPENDIX A

Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy 4 of 5 SCC Comments APPENDIX B

Felixstowe to Midlands Route Strategy 5 of 5 SCC Comments

Suffolk County Council

East of England Route Strategy

1 Introduction

1.1 This report comments on Highways England’s published East of England Route Strategy dated March 2017.

2 Overview

2.1 The EoE Route Strategy covers the following trunk roads:

 A47 between the A1 at Peterborough and Lowestoft (now the A12 has been renumbered);

 A11 between the M11 and A14 south of Newmarket;

 A11 between the A14 north of Newmarket and A47 Thickthorn interchange at Norwich;

 A12 between the M25 Brook Street Interchange and A14 Copdock interchange;

 A120 between the M11 and A12 at Marks Tey; and

 A1210 between A12 (Ardleigh Crown) and Harwich.

3 Section 2 The Route

3.1 First paragraph comments:

 Although there is reference to a number of “large and medium-sized urban centres”, it may also be useful to mention Newmarket given its significant in the horseracing industry.

3.2 Second paragraph comments:

 The A11 does not of itself connect London to Norwich. It would be better to define the A11, as shown in Figure 2.2 on page 7, and describe its function/role in a different way; and

 I am not aware that the A11 (as defined in paragraph 2.1 above and shown in Figure 2.2 on page 7) “is a dual carriageway, with sections of 3- and 4-lane dual carriageway”. I believe it is a dual 2-lane carriageway (i.e. 2 lanes in each direction).

3.3 Third paragraph comments:

 The A12 north of Lowestoft is now renumbered and signed as the A47 – see Appendix A;

 It is noted that the A12 between Ipswich (Seven Hills Interchange) and Lowestoft (southern approach to Bascule Bridge) was detrunked on the 1 June 2001 and hence is a county road. This section of A12 is predominantly a single carriageway and is in part relatively lightly trafficked;

East of England Route Strategy 1 of 7 SCC Comments  I would suggest that the description of the A12 should be defined as between the M25 and A14 Copdock interchange and its function/role described in a different way; and

 This section of A12 comprises 2- and 3-lane dual carriageways.

3.4 Fourth paragraph comments:

 Given its national significance, the reference to the Port of Felixstowe and relationship to the A12 and access via A14 is important; and

 It is agreed that “the region is highly dependent on the A12, as it is the only major access route north and south for commuters and freight companies transporting goods”. However, given that Lowestoft faces north via the A47 and the A12 county road between Ipswich and Lowestoft is in part relatively lightly trafficked, the significance of the A12 in terms of “freight companies transporting goods to and from the port of Lowestoft” is unclear.

3.5 Fifth paragraph comments:

 Reference to “the A12 is formed of 2- and 3-lane dual carriageways” repeats the contents of the third paragraph; and

 In addition to the “number of at-grade junctions that contribute to congestion and journey time delays” there are numerous private accesses that feed onto the A12. This includes the sections between Kelvedon (J24) and A120 at Marks Tey (J25) and also between Capel St Mary and the Suffolk/Essex county boundary where the trunk road crosses the River Stour.

3.6 Sixth paragraph comments:

 While accepting that Thetford can be accessed “via the A131” and the A134, Thetford is approximately 40 miles from the A120 and sections of the A131 and A134 are relatively lightly trafficked. Hence, Thetford is unlikely to be significant in the context of this strategy; and

 Given its national significance, the reference to Stansted Airport, which is accessed via the A120, is noted.

3.7 Seventh paragraph comments:

 The statement that “the A47 is a 171-mile trunk road linking Birmingham to Lowestoft” is factually incorrect. It is also unclear whether traffic using the A47 west of the A1, including that based in Birmingham, is a significant factor in managing the A47 trunk road east of the A1. It would be better to define the A47 as shown in Figure 2.2 and describe its function/role in a different way; and

 The A12 north of Lowestoft is now renumbered and signed as the A47 and ought to be incorporated into the A47 description (see Appendix A)

4 Section 3. Current constraints and challenges

A safe and serviceable network

General:

 In addition to the issues highlighted, there are also safety concerns on the A11 in the vicinity of Fiveways and the junction complex with Tuddenham Road/Newmarket Road.

East of England Route Strategy 2 of 7 SCC Comments Second bullet point:

 Reference to “the A12 between Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth” should now read A47.

Third bullet point:

 In addition to concerns about short slip roads on the A12 around junctions 31 and 32, there are similar concerns at junction 30 Stratford St Mary.

More free-flowing network

Fourth bullet point:

 The reference to “at grade junctions and roundabouts, for example on the Thetford Bypass (A11) and on the A12 between Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth” should also include the A11 Fiveways roundabout. Reference to A12 should be A47.

Supporting economic growth

Third paragraph comments:

 It is suggested that “the A120 is also strategically important to the local and regional economy, on account of its connection to the” Port of Harwich and Stansted Airport.

 The reference to “the lack of capacity on the A120 route leads to longer trips between the A133 and A1232, which is negatively affecting growth in the surrounding area”, is unclear. The A120 between the A1232 (Ipswich Road Colchester) and the A133 (to Clacton) is a dual 2-lane carriageway carrying in the region of 35000 vehicles AADF (DfT data). This is significantly less that the traffic flow recorded on the A14 around Ipswich, an equivalent dual 2-lane carriageway standard, which typically carries around 60000 vehicles AADF (DfT data) and up to 70000 vehicles per day over Orwell Bridge.

Fifth paragraph comments:

 The reference to “the local economies of Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth are highly dependent on this route [A47], because of its strategic importance in connecting the region to the rest of the East of England” is noted and agreed. However, the reason for including the statement ”that the lack of sufficient capacity, including a number of at-grade roundabouts, may constrain further growth” is unclear, as there are no plans to develop grade separated junctions as part of the RIS1 projects A47 Blofield to North Burlingham dualling and Great Yarmouth Junction enhancements.

Sixth paragraph comments:

 The text does not appear to refer to growth aspirations in Suffolk or north east Essex, including the Suffolk Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Framework (SPIF), the proposed Garden Villages at Marks Tey and Braintree or the redevelopment of Mildenhall Airbase.

An improved environment

Third paragraph comments:

 Reference to “the eastern section of the A12” is unclear. However, given that this relates to Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth the text should now refer to the A47.

East of England Route Strategy 3 of 7 SCC Comments A more accessible and integrated network

Second paragraph comments:

 While noting the general statement that “there are a number of areas along the A11 that may benefit from improved accessibility, primarily on the local highway network”, there are specific issues on the A11 between the A14 and Fiveways.

Third paragraph comments:

 In addition to the accessibility issues mentioned, the A12 south of Capel St Mary acts as a barrier to local movements crossing and joining the trunk road.

Key challenges for the route - Figure 3.3

 I am not aware that there are any outstanding issues on the A11 between Fiveways and Thetford following completion of the major improvement, which was opened to traffic in December 2014. With this in mind should the reference to “A11 between A14 and A134 - safety hotspot”, be amended to refer to A11 between A14 and A1065 Fiveways?

 Similar comments also apply to the “A11 between A14 and A134 - growth and congestion issues on A11 corridor in Suffolk, coupled with issues of central reservation gaps”.

 Should there be a reference to supporting economic growth given the planned development at Mildenhall, including the airbase?

Key challenges for the route - Figure 3.4

 In addition to problems at “A12 junction 31-32 - Short slip roads can result in queuing on the mainline”, there are similar issues at junction 30.

5 Section 4. Current investment plans and growth potential

Investment plans and economic opportunity areas Figure 4.2

 The definition of “economic opportunity areas” and sub headings and how this has been applied consistently is unclear.

 Should Norwich be shown as an “Urban centre” and potentially a “Mixed employment cluster” similar to “Ipswich A14 corridor”?

 Should Lowestoft be highlighted as an “Energy” area.

 Renumbering part of the A12 as A47 now complete – see Appendix A.

Investment plans and economic opportunity areas Figure 4.3

 Should Mildenhall, Thetford and Norwich be included as “Housing and mixed use”?

 On the 9 March 2017 Transport Secretary Chris Grayling announced plans to spend £400,000 on a package of measures targeted at addressing congestion and delays at Fiveways and safety concerns on the A11 immediately to the south of Fiveways. Should this be included on Figure 4.3?

 Should Newmarket be highlighted given its significant in the horseracing industry?

East of England Route Strategy 4 of 7 SCC Comments Investment plans and economic opportunity areas Figure 4.4

 The “Housing and mixed use” symbol at Marks Tey (i.e. adjacent to J25) is marked as A21 – should this be A12?

 Ipswich would be expected to be categorised as an “Urban centre”.

 Ipswich Port is the largest exporter of grain in the UK, but it is not shown as an international gateway;

 There is no mention of research and technology at Ipswich, i.e. Adastral Park;

6 Section 5. Future challenges and opportunities

Lowestoft to Great Yarmouth – A12 corridor

 The A12 has been renumbered as A47;

A120 between Harwich and A12

 See previous comment re capacity issues on the A120 between the A133 and A1232.

A12 from M25 to A14

 The junction numbers shown on this diagram are confusing, partly because it shows junction numbers for the M25 and A14;

 M25 Junction 28 is not the same as A12 Junction 28. This is confusing when reading the second bullet point;

 It would help to show diagrammatically the junction numbers listed in the bullet points below the plan;

 As indicated previously there are also issues at A12 junction 30; and

 There is no mention of capacity issues at Copdock junction and in particular the extensive queueing on the A12 approach.

A11 between A14 and A47

 It would help to include a further point about the potential use of the C624 through Tuddenham as a link between the A11(N) and the A14 junction 40. This is important in the context of future development and the potential impact of improving the A11 in the vicinity of Fiveways (which will remove a difficult and unsafe turning movement on the A11).

East of England Route Strategy 5 of 7 SCC Comments APPENDIX A

From: Nugent, Aran [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 April 2017 14:39 To: Peter Grimm Cc: Derek Oldham ; Liz Chenery Subject: RE: Trunk Roads

All

The information on the website[1] referring to Highways England is correct apart from change of A12 to A47 referred to by Derek in the email below. There has been no other changes to responsibility in terms of management of network or assets for Highways England or Local Authorities.

I am not sure what the expectation is for “formal adoption” but we are not re-drafting any Traffic Regulation Orders so now that the traffic signs have been renumbered, the route should now be referred to A47 rather than the A12.

Regards

Aran Nugent, Service Delivery Team Leader Highways England | Woodlands | Manton Lane | Bedford | MK41 7LW Tel: +44 (0) 300 4704940 | Mobile: + 44 (0) 788 0785913 Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk

[1] see following page]

East of England Route Strategy 6 of 7 SCC Comments https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/Environment%20and%20Transport/Roads%2 0and%20Pavements/Management%20of%20Trunk%20Roads%20in%20Suffolk%20INFODO C.pdf

East of England Route Strategy 7 of 7 SCC Comments

Portfolio0B Holder for Roads, Transport and Planning ______

Guy McGregor Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich Suffolk Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP IP1 2BX Secretary of State for Transport Department of Transport Enquiries to: Guy McGregor Great Minster House Tel: 01473 264993 76 Marsham Street London Fax: 01473 216877 SW1P 4DR Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk

Your Ref: Our Ref: GM/CF Date: 11 January 2011

Dear Secretary of State

Trunk Road Emergency Diversion Routes

We are writing jointly as elected representatives of local communities in Suffolk.

On the 1 December 2010 a meeting, hosted by Suffolk County Council, was held in Ipswich to receive a report from the Highways Agency on their proposals for dealing with traffic diverted off the trunk road network in the event of an incident/emergency and to facilitate a discussion on the issues and implications arising from these proposals. Community representatives and key stakeholders across Suffolk were invited to and attended this meeting.

The intention was to ensure that the County Council understood the views of local community representatives and key stakeholders and to enable the County Council to take a view on the appropriate way forward. We believe this is entirely consistent with the “Big Society” agenda.

At the end of the meeting we agreed that:

1. the County Council would confirm it’s position on completing the signing of Emergency Diversion Routes in Suffolk (content of the email subsequently sent to the Highways Agency is attached for information);

2. as elected representatives we would write to you with our concerns; and

3. the County Council would contact BBC Radio Suffolk to clarify how, what and when information is received from the Highways Agency, in particular from the National Traffic Control Centre.

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. The following summarises the issues of concern expressed at the meeting: a) The local road network within Suffolk has evolved over time and has not been designed and so consequently is unable to safely carry the volume or weight of traffic that use trunk roads in the county, either now or into the future. With this in mind we believe that as a matter of principle and wherever possible trunk road traffic should be kept on the trunk road network, i.e. trunk road traffic should not be diverted onto local roads as a matter of course. In addition, when significant delays are expected as a result of an incident/accident every effort should be made to implement a contraflow system on the trunk road network utilising crossovers and the opposing carriageway. Previous experience indicates that diverting trunk road traffic can lead to additional accidents on the local road network and advice from the Police not to divert off the trunk road and wait for the trunk road to be cleared. b) We accept that Police priorities will focus on the incident/accident on the trunk road and other demands around the county and hence resources available to manage diverted traffic will be limited. Nevertheless, we believe that effective management of traffic on diversion routes is essential to deal with and safely manage any significant congestion and incidents/accidents on these and other local routes. This includes possible funding to the Police to assist in additional traffic management. c) The identified diversion routes in Suffolk have not been subject to any detailed assessment in terms of the suitability or ability of these routes to carry the volume and weight of diverted trunk road traffic (contrary to information published by the Highways Agency, i.e. “Since May 2006 we have worked with Local Authorities to develop and implement the most effective diversion routes. We can now direct traffic on to these agreed and signed routes, minimising congestion on other local roads. Before proposing EDRs, the Agency investigates each possible route for suitability, identifying traffic ‘pinch points’ such as low or weak , schools, hospitals, large retail outlets, sports and entertainment venues and main commuter routes”). It is clear that the identified diversion routes are inadequate and evidence from the Highways Agency suggests that signing these diversion routes will have little overall impact. On their own these routes do not represent an effective solution and in reality diverted traffic will continue to use a wider network of unsuitable, and in many instances unsigned, local routes, hence in reality a significant volume of diverted traffic will be uncontrolled and unmanaged. We accept that local knowledge, use of SatNav, the length of the diversion route and inevitable congestion on the designated diversion route will influence driver behaviour. This also raises concern about potential emergency welfare for trunk road motorists diverted off the HA network and the associated responsibilities and costs; d) Diverted trunk road traffic can and does cause major disruption to residents, businesses and local communities in Suffolk; e) Current trunk road conditions associated with capacity and congestion leads to trunk road traffic diverting onto county roads. For instance the B1115 through the village of Sproughton is particularly affected and unsuitable for this traffic. Evidence has shown that diverted trunk road traffic, particularly HGVs, can have a significant impact on local communities, the structural integrity of carriageways and statutory undertaker’s services, including damage to buildings and sewers and water supplies by the extra volume and weight of traffic. We believe this places an additional and unacceptable burden on local authorities, organisations and individuals who have to repair the resultant damage; f) Local Highway Authority officers do not appear to have been involved in post incident/ accident debriefs (subsequently confirmed by officers). We believe this should be corrected and that in addition local community representatives and stakeholders directly affected should be invited to contribute to post incident/accident debriefs;

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. g) We believe that crossover points should be provided at key positions along trunk roads to assist in managing traffic caught up in incidents/accidents (and also for planned works on the trunk road network). It would be helpful if a map showing where crossover points are located could be circulated and their use incorporated into the relevant diversion strategies and plans. Particular attention is drawn to the problems associated with Newmarket Bypass, which is seen as a critical location on the trunk road network as it caters for both A14 east- west and A11/M11 north-south traffic movements. The Clock Tower junction in Newmarket, which forms part of the diversion route, is wholly inadequate to take the volume of traffic using the A14 Newmarket Bypass (reported by the Highways Agency to be over 65,000 vehicles per day). The opportunity to introduce crossovers and use a contraflow system on Newmarket Bypass in the event of a significant closure due to an incident/accident on one of the carriageways is seen as vital; h) In our view there is a general lack of knowledge and awareness about the purpose and significance of diversion route signs and confusion in respect of the symbols that are used. It is clear to us that an education programme needs to be put in place, although this should be based on a sensible and practical strategy for dealing with traffic caught up in incidents/ accidents; i) Communication is seen as a significant issue in terms of informing businesses and hauliers (important in the context of the Port of Felixstowe) as well as motorists generally and local communities affected by diverted trunk road traffic. There is a general view that information provided by BBC Radio Suffolk appears to come from listeners (motorists and local communities directly affected). It was unclear how, what and when information is provided by the Highways Agency to BBC Radio Suffolk; j) In our view long distance trunk road traffic movements should be encouraged to use alternative routes on the trunk road network. While recognising that the A14 Technology Project may help in terms of east west movements, this does not address north south movements using the A11/M11 corridor and the need for advanced signing on the A47 at Norwich and also at the M11/A120 Interchange at Stansted. In due course we would welcome feedback on the performance of the A14 Technology Project in terms of it’s effectiveness in reducing incidents/accidents, signing traffic onto diversion routes and also encouraging long distance trunk road traffic to use alternative routes on the trunk road network; k) We believe that more needs to be done to reduce the number and severity of incidents/accidents that subsequently necessitate the use of diversion routes. Reference was made to the effectiveness of the average speed cameras on the A14 north of Cambridge, work undertaken through the A12 Alliance including the introduction of additional Police vehicles aimed in part at reducing congestion; reducing collisions and managing incidents in a timely, effective and ‘joined up’ manner and the role of Highways Agency Traffic Officers. l) We are concerned about the potential conflict that would arise if a serious incident occurs on the westbound carriageway of the A14 between Trimley and Seven Hills at the same time as Operation Stack Felixstowe is in place (as the agreed diversion route is used to stack HGVs). Although such an event may be considered low risk, the potential impact on container traffic leaving Felixstowe Port and on the communities at Felixstowe, the Trimleys and surrounding villages would be significant; m) We believe that the potential disruption and consequences to the local and national economy of the congestion and delays arising as a result of incidents and accidents on the A14, particularly around Ipswich and between Ipswich and Felixstowe, should be taken into account; n) It appears to us that there is a lack of an effective central traffic control centre;

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. o) We believe that the Highways Agency’s Regional Traffic Model for the East of England should be used to inform the Highways Agency’s strategy and related plans for dealing with incidents/accidents on the trunk road network; p) There is an opportunity to utilise the proposed UTMC system in Ipswich to manage diverted traffic and also to link this into the A14 Technology Project; q) The plans being developed by the Highways Agency need to recognise that inclement weather, including snow and ice may preclude use of the identified diversion routes. Similarly, the Highways Agency should check that diversion route is clear prior to implementation and if appropriate to liaise with relevant SCC officers/Agents regarding any necessary closing down of roadworks sites (if indeed this is possible/practical). r) We are aware that the County Council has been invited to sign a related document setting out confidential supplementary arrangements as part of a detailed local operating agreement with the Highways Agency. Can you please confirm that this document can be circulated to us as community representatives likely to be affected by these arrangements?

Planned work

Although the meeting addressed issues relating to incidents/accidents on the trunk road network, we believe that: i) Increasingly, the local diversion routes are being used for planned maintenance work on the Trunk Roads exacerbating the disruption to communities located along these diversion routes. They should only be used as a last resort where traffic cannot be managed on the existing trunk road network; and ii) Opportunities to provide significant additional crossovers on the trunk road dual carriageway network should be pursued in order to enable greater use of contra flow working in the future for planned works and significant events on the trunk road network which would otherwise result in prolonged closure of trunk roads.

East of England Traffic Information Project

We are aware of the contents of a report for information to the Regional Transport Forum on related work led by Professor Peter Landshoff at Cambridge University. We understand that Professor Landshoff’s report, which was submitted to DfT in September, comments on the management of major incidents and hence is relevant in terms of the concerns, particularly economic, raised in this letter.

Professor Landshoff’s subsequent letter to Mike Penning MP dated 27 November 2010 is enclosed for convenience.

We would welcome your comments on the issues raised in this letter, which has been copied to all those that were invited, attended or were involved in the meeting on the 1 December and also all Suffolk MPs.

Yours sincerely

Cllr. Guy McGregor Suffolk County Council Portfolio Holder for Roads, Transport and Planning and Councillor for the Hoxne and Eye Division

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. Signed on behalf of:

Cllr. Tony Goldson Assistant to Suffolk County Council Portfolio Holder for Roads, Transport and Planning, and Councillor for the Division

Cllr. Colin Law Suffolk County Council Portfolio Holder for Skills and Economic Development and Councillor for the Oulton Division and Waveney District Councillor

Cllr. John Goodwin Suffolk County Councillor for the Felixstowe North and Trimley Division

Cllr. Patricia O'Brien Suffolk County Councillor for the Martlesham Division

Cllr. Bill Sadler Suffolk County Councillor for the Exning and Newmarket Division

Cllr. Kathy Pollard Suffolk County Councillor for the Belstead Brook Division and Leader of the Liberal Democrat and Independent Group

Cllr. Andrew Stringer Suffolk County Councillor for the Upper Gipping Division and Leader of the Green and Independent Group and District Councillor

Cllr. Sandy Martin Suffolk County Councillor for the St. John's Division and Leader of the Labour Group

Cllr. Peter Jones Council

Cllr. Rona Burt Forest Heath District Council

Cllr Tanya De Hoedt Transport Portfolio Holder, Ipswich Borough Council

Cllr. Roy Barker Mid Suffolk District Council

Cllr. Andy Smith Deputy Leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council

Cllr. Joe Orr Chairman of Bentley Parish Council

Cllr. John Williams Claydon & Whitton Parish Council

Cllr. David Long Chairman of Levington and Stratton Hall Parish Council

Cllr. Terry Styles Mendlesham Parish Council

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. Cllr. Warwick Hirst Newmarket Town Council

Cllr. Simon Curl Chairman of Sproughton Parish Council

Cllr. John Barker Chairman of Trimley St Martin Parish Council

Cllr. John Hinton Chairman of East Bergholt Parish Council, Ward Member for Babergh District Council and Chairman of the A12 Highways Group (7 Parishes)

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. Content of email sent to the Highways Agency on 8 December 2010

Subject: Trunk Road Emergency Off Network Diversion Routes - Suffolk

Following the meeting held in the Elisabeth Room in Endeavour House, Ipswich in the afternoon of the 1 December 2010, I am writing to confirm the County Council’s position regarding the signing of trunk road diversion routes within Suffolk.

As summarised at the end of the above meeting, the County Council accepts the Highways Agency’s plans to sign the diversion routes as previously agreed (although as I understand the situation at that time the agreements were not based on any detailed assessment of the suitability or ability of these routes to carry the volume and weight of diverted trunk road traffic).

Bearing in mind the comments made at the recent meeting about the effectiveness of, and need to manage traffic on, the diversion routes can you please ensure that before the signing work is carried out:

• the Area Highway Managers (and Agents where appropriate) are fully involved and approve the proposed signing arrangements for each diversion route; and

• relevant District and Parish Councils are kept informed throughout and in particular are notified that signs will be installed at a reasonable time before works begin on site.

From my perspective there is a need for the Highways Agency/MACs to actively work with the relevant Police Authorities and Local Highways Authorities, including SCC, to seek to improve the management of the off road diversions, including possible funding to the Police to assist in additional traffic management.

As a general comment and reflecting on the discussion, it is clear that:

• the diversion routes are generally inadequate to take the volume and weight of trunk road traffic and hence on their own do not represent an effective solution. We have previously discussed the specific problems at Newmarket and the Clock Tower junction, which is wholly inadequate to take the volume of traffic using the A14 (both now and into the future as traffic levels increase, particularly container traffic movements to and from the Port of Felixstowe). Similar points also apply to the A142 and the railway crossing/low underpass at Ely;

• (as discussed) providing the appropriate symbols on the diversion routes will have little overall impact and while it will be possible to direct trunk traffic onto these signed routes, other local roads will continue to be used by diverted traffic. It is unlikely that congestion on these other local roads will be minimised;

• the disruption which the use of these routes cause means that these diversion routes should not be the default position for planned work. They should only be used as a last resort where traffic cannot be managed on the existing trunk road network; and

• opportunities to provide crossovers on the trunk road dual carriageway network should be pursued in order to enable greater use of contra flow working in the future for planned works and significant events on the trunk road network which would otherwise result in prolonged closure of trunk roads.

In addition to concerns about the capacity of the diversion routes, the meeting highlighted the following relevant aspects:

• The numbers and weight of diverted vehicles;

• Impact on local communities;

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. • Damage to the structural integrity of carriageways;

• Damage to Statutory Undertakers services;

• Impact of inclement weather, including snow and ice; and

• Need to check diversion routes for roadworks or other events prior to implementation of any closure and to liaise with SCC Area Highway Managers or Ipswich Borough Council regarding any necessary closing down of roadworks sites (if this is possible/practical).

This e-mail has been copied to all those that were invited, attended or were involved in the meeting on the 1 December and also all Suffolk MPs

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. Professor Peter Landshoff UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

27 November 2010

Mike Penning MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport Department for Transport 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR

Dear Mr Penning East of England Transport Information Project

Following your recent meeting with Steve Cox of the East of England Development Agency, I have been asked to write to you with brief details of the project I have been heading with transport authorities in the East of England, and to suggest a meeting with you.

The project began a little over two years ago at the instigation of your CSA Professor Brian Collins. After an initial workshop involving key stakeholders the subsequent work focused on the management and future planning of the road network, so as to increase its effective capacity without laying more tarmac. From the start we recognised the importance of carrying out small-scale trials which could be expanded later to a regional and national system and not to embark on activities that are complicated and expensive. With this in mind the initial studies have focused on the area encompassed broadly by the M11, A12 and A14, and including the Port of Felixstowe. They could be key to relieving some of the £2bn costs that congestion in East of England imposes on the UK economy.

Three groups were set up to study specific areas of work. These were led by officers from local transport authorities and involved relevant stakeholders, including the Port of Felixstowe and key representatives from the DfT and the Highways Agency. The work also fed into discussions on the London to Haven Ports study, in particular to identify low-cost interventions to address the most pressing challenges within this corridor.

I enclose a copy of the progress report we wrote a couple of months ago. Among the needs it identifies are to:

• Allow better advance planning of journeys so that freight operators can more reliably meet their delivery slots. This will be done by enhancing the Transport Direct journey time prediction tool, including information about road works and other planned events such as football matches or school holidays, and other relevant information such as weather forecasts.

• Give more prompt and reliable information about unforeseen incidents, so as to help drivers avoid them. The information must be continually updated and should benefit all road users, including businesses and local communities affected by diverted traffic.

• Give better information to those who manage the road system. At present when the Highways Agency has to divert traffic off one of its roads little can be done to discover whether the previously- agreed diversion routes run into unexpected problems.

• Enable more effective information flow among those who have to handle incidents. In the case of a recent incident on the A12 which caused wide-scale disruption for 24 hours, the Highways Agency Regional Control Centre was not informed. And there is need to adapt protocols so that local authorities can contribute more effectively to the management of incidents.

Centre for Mathematical Sciences Wilberforce Road Cambridge CB3 0WA

07917 131540 [email protected] http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/pvl The BT Laboratory at Martlesham has offered to construct a demonstrator, which we hope will be in place by the middle of next year. This will focus on the A12 and the A14. You will be well aware of the already- severe problems with these two roads, which will become more acute with the development of the container port at Felixstowe and those planned for Shellhaven at Thurrock and for Harwich. The Corporate Director Environment, Growth & Commissioning for Northamptonshire County Council has emailed me: “the constant mistake we seem to continue to make is to think that the A14 only relates to a stretch of road in Cambridgeshire. This is a far wider issue linking the economy of Northern Ireland (Belfast) with mainland Europe via Felixstowe. The sooner we look at it holistically then the better”.

Experience with information technology projects has been that it is a mistake to try to do too much at once, so we intend adopting a gradual approach. The next step might be a region-wide facility, with eventual national deployment. This will need significant collaborative effort; so far TomTom and Isotrak (which manages the GPS carried by major retailers such as Tesco and Sainsbury) have expressed interest in joining in. We already have support from the Highways Agency; its Director for Network Delivery and Development Derek Turner has indicated that if need be the HA can be the overseeing body.

We should be happy to come and talk to you about the project.

Yours sincerely

Professor Peter Landshoff

Centre for Mathematical Sciences Wilberforce Road Cambridge CB3 0WA

07917 131540 [email protected] http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/pvl

ANNEX A to MP/002439/11 a) Following an incident, the Highways Agency does everything it can to keep traffic moving on the trunk road network. However, the Agency always tries to avoid holding large numbers of vehicles indefinitely while an incident is cleared, and this is why EDRs are implemented. The closure of a trunk road and the decision to implement a diversion onto county roads is not taken lightly, and is only done when it is absolutely necessary and at the request of the Police. The use of EDRs is infrequent and Agency records show that, in Suffolk, there was approximately one emergency diversion per month during the last two years. On average, these EDRs were in place for a duration of approximately 5 hours.

Using a contraflow for incident management is not practical, even if crossovers are available, as it is likely to take in excess of 5 hours to set up. A contraflow also necessitates the closure of the opposite carriageway for it to be put in place safely. Once an incident had been cleared, both carriageways would again be disrupted while the contraflow was removed, extending the duration of any delays caused. b) The management of an incident and traffic using an EDR is a Police matter. The Agency believes that symbol signing diversion routes will lead to a more effective management of traffic on the diversion routes. c) EDRs in Suffolk were identified and agreed by Suffolk County Council, Suffolk Police and the Highways Agency between 2004 and 2006. They were agreed as the most suitable routes and, where possible, use County A and B roads. Due to the rural nature of Suffolk’s road network they are not ideal; however, it was deemed that there were no better alternative options. Symbol signed EDRs help drivers to find the most appropriate alternative route, and to avoid unsuitable roads in sensitive areas. d) The Agency appreciates diversions can and do impact on residents, businesses and local communities, therefore, the implementation of an EDR is always considered as a last resort. e) It is recognised that there are issues associated with traffic diverting from the trunk road network onto county roads during busy periods. For example, a high proportion of traffic on the trunk road network around Ipswich is local traffic using the A12 and A14 as a local distributor route. The Highways Agency and Suffolk County Council will continue to work together to reduce demand through encouraging sustainable transport in the area. f) Post incident debriefs are only held in exceptional circumstances, usually when there is a major failing in the management of an incident, or where lessons can be learned from the handling of an incident. No such debriefs have been held for incidents in Suffolk in the last year. When such debriefs are held, the Highways Agency invites stakeholders involved in the management of the incident to attend. The Agency is happy to receive the views of local community representatives by way of feedback through Suffolk County Council. g) There are many crossover points already provided to assist the Agency in managing traffic caught up in incidents and I have enclosed a schedule of their locations with this letter. The Agency is aware of the particular difficulties at Newmarket when the A14 is closed and is planning to install two further crossovers this year which will help with incident management through the ability to release trapped traffic, rather than contraflow arrangements as I highlighted earlier. h) When an EDR is set up, a trigger sign is displayed which provides the instruction telling drivers to follow a diversion route and the symbol they need to follow. There are a total of 42 EDRs in Suffolk of which 23 are symbol signed; further signing of other routes will provide consistency for motorists.

In terms of education, the Agency is working with stakeholders, including the freight industry and local authorities, to increase awareness of EDAs. Information already appears on the Agency's website, plus the websites of the AA and RAC. The Agency is also discussing EDRs with the publishers of the Highway Code to make the entry for diversion routes more prominent and there are plans to include questions on EDRs in the Theory Test for learner drivers. i) The lists of contacts to whom the Agency sends out incident reports, via the National Traffic Control Centre, are considered to be the major media links, who would then disseminate that information to other media stations and travel/traffic organisations. As a provider of travel data and information, the Agency does not control the format or timings of travel bulletins, as this is at the discretion and policy of the individual broadcasting organisations. j) The A14 Technology Project between M1/M6 Catthorpe Interchange and Felixstowe is nearing completion. Once operational, this system will inform drivers of incidents on key strategic routes many miles in advance, which gives them the opportunity to divert onto other trunk roads or motorways. There are currently no plans to install further technology on the A11/M11 corridor.

The Agency holds regular liaison meetings with Suffolk County Council and contributes to their work on road safety in the County. These meetings will be used to share information on how effective the A14 Technology scheme is in providing better information on incidents, once the system is operational.

k) The Agency continually monitors incidents which occur on the network and where possible promotes schemes that improve the network and reduce accidents. They already work closely with both Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Police to improve safety in the County. Although the Agency's Traffic Officers already attend incidents on the A14 in Cambridgeshire and, when resources allow, help with Operation Stack, there are currently no plans to extend the Traffic Officer Service to the A14 in Suffolk. l) Incidents on the A14 between Trimley and Seven Hills which require an EDR are thankfully extremely rare. Operation Stack is only implemented on a small number of occasions each year and therefore the possibility of both events occurring at the same time is minimal. In the unlikely event of these two issues coinciding, other options would be considered in liaison with Felixstowe Port and the Police, taking the particular circumstances of the incident into consideration. m) The Agency is aware of the disruption caused in Ipswich when an incident closes the Orwell Bridge but there are no suitable alternative diversion routes other than via Ipswich itself. However, the implementation of the A14 Technology Project and Suffolk County Council's scheme to introduce electronic message signs in Ipswich should help to better manage these incidents. n) The Highways Agency has a Regional Control Centre at South Mimms which manages incidents in the region. They work in conjunction with the Agency's Incident Support Units and the Police. This liaison has proved an effective way of managing incidents on the trunk road network. o) The Highways Agency’s Regional Traffic Model for the East of England is a strategic model intended to understand the implications of economic growth on the strategic highway network. It was not designed to predict the effects of incidents on the network. However the Agency has a separate model which they use to predict the congestion that would be caused by lane and carriageway closures resulting from incidents. p) Once the A14 Technology Project is operational, Suffolk County Council will be able to contact the Agency and request messages to be set on the new electronic message signs when there are incidents on the local road network. This has already been agreed with Suffolk County Council. q) Prior to implementing an EDR, checks are made with the relevant county council to ensure there are no major roadworks or other obstructions on the diversion route. Additionally, the Highways Agency's Incident Support Units drive the diversion route, prior to implementation, to ensure that it is safe and available.

r) The Detailed Local Operating Agreement (DLOA) is a document confirming the methods for implementation of EDRs and does not grant permission to use a particular diversion route. Routes with specific limitations are identified in the DLOA to prevent certain diversion routes being used at certain times of the day; for instance, past a school when students are leaving. As the DLOA is classified, there are no plans to circulate it beyond the current recipients at present.

Portfolio0B Holder for Roads, Transport and Planning ______

Guy McGregor Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich Suffolk Mike Penning MP IP1 2BX Under Secretary of State for Transport Department of Transport Enquiries to: Guy McGregor Great Minster House Tel: 01473 264993 76 Marsham Street London Fax: 01473 216877 SW1P 4DR Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk

Your Ref: Our Ref: GM/CF Date: 1 December 2011

Dear Mr Penning

Planned Trunk Road Works and Diversion Routes

We are writing jointly as elected representatives of local communities in Suffolk to express our concerns about how recent maintenance works on the westbound carriageway of the A14 trunk road between the A140 interchange at Beacon Hill and Bury St Edmunds have impacted on the local road network and local communities affected by diverted trunk road traffic, in particular HGVs using this strategically important route to and from the Port of Felixstowe.

1. Introduction

As the Suffolk County Council Portfolio Holder for Roads, Transport and Planning, I would expect to represent the Local Highway Authority on these issues. In addition I believe that it is essential that local councillors and communities likely to be affected by planned trunk road works are properly engaged; an approach which I consider to be entirely consistent with the localism agenda.

It is important to stress from the outset that as local councillors we collectively accepted the need for the planned maintenance works. Indeed, on previous occasions over several years, and at a recent meeting, the Highways Agency, Atkins and Birse have advised that the carriageway on this section of trunk road has reached the end of its life and needs to be reconstructed.

Our concerns relate to the length of time that the trunk road was closed in order to carry out these essential planned works, the excessive length of the diversion route, the impact on unprotected local communities and the impact on businesses and the local economy, in particular hauliers operating to and from the Port of Felixstowe. While piecemeal maintenance may be seen as a short term fix at this location, from our perspective this will need to be carried out on a regular basis, a fact not disputed by the Highway Agency, with an inevitable and ongoing impact on local roads and communities and on businesses and the local economy. It is also unclear whether such an approach is justified in cost/benefit terms.

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. 2. Background

I refer to my letter dated 11 January 2011 addressed to Rt. Hon Phillip Hammond, the then Secretary of State for Transport, which relates to trunk road emergency diversion routes and your response dated 7 February 2011 as Minister responsible for the strategic road network. These are relevant in the context of discussions relating to planned works on the trunk road network. With this in mind copies of this correspondence are attached for your convenience.

We were pleased to note that you recognised the important issues raised in my letter and in particular your comment that “on the matter of planned works, all diversions require the County Council's permission. The Agency does everything it can to keep traffic on the trunk road during planned works and local roads are only used as a last resort. There has not been an increase in the use of diversion routes as a result of planned works”.

Unfortunately, this view was not shared by representatives of the Highways Agency and Atkins (Area 6 Managing Agents Contract (MAC)) at an officer meeting on the 29 June to agree a future protocol for the handling and processing of requests for planned Off Network Diversion Route consents and address the issue of handling appropriate consultations with the local community and elected Members. County Council officers were specifically advised that the statement that “all diversions require the County Council's permission“ is incorrect, i.e. the Highways Agency does not require written consent from the County Council as the local Highway Authority. This was based primarily on their legal interpretation of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as it relates to Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders.

At the same meeting the Highways Agency presented their proposals to carry out essential maintenance works over a three week period on the westbound carriageway of the A14 trunk road between junctions 49 (Tot Hill) and 47 (Elmswell) [referred to by the Highways Agency as 515425 A14 Haughley WB] as a fait accompli. This included their plan to use the A140 and A143 (county roads) as a diversion route (adding approximately 20 miles and 40 minutes to journeys). A relevant plan is attached. The Highways Agency subsequently promoted the use of the A12, A120, M11 route as an alternative diversion route aimed particularly at outbound HGV movements from the Port of Felixstowe, with a consequential time and distance penalty to traffic.

The County Council expressed concern that local knowledge, SatNav, maps and communication between hauliers and HGV drivers would be relevant factors in route choice and hence highlighted the real possibility that drivers would seek to avoid the lengthy diversion routes and that local communities adjacent to the trunk road would be directly affected. This included Elmswell, Haughley, Wetherden and Woolpit and other villages to the north and south of the A14. As a result the County Council stressed that a contraflow system should be implemented. The Highways Agency made it clear that the budget was fixed and that no alternative arrangement was possible.

As a result it is not obvious to us as local councillors that the Highways Agency “does everything it can to keep traffic on the trunk road during planned works and local roads are only used as a last resort”. Indeed the Highways Agency also advised that as far as planned works in the future are concerned “there will be a greater impact on the public”. This is clearly of concern to me as the relevant County Council Portfolio Holder and to local communities throughout Suffolk and their elected representatives affected by traffic diverted off the trunk road network onto the local road network.

This is a particularly important issue as far as the A14 is concerned given the volume and weight of traffic using the A14 trunk road and the generally inadequate nature and capacity of local roads in the vicinity to carry these increased loads. We have stressed that Felixstowe Port is a 24/7 operation and the A14 is the major route into and out of the Port. It is clear that a significant volume of container traffic is moved overnight, including trunking operations, and that these movements will be directly affected by planned overnight working on the trunk road.

Page 2

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. On the basis that the Highways Agency is correct and that in the future there will be a greater impact on the local road network and communities, then I would be happy to invite you to a seminar in Suffolk to explain the Secretary of State’s position as Highway Authority for trunk roads to relevant councillors and other community representatives and key stakeholders in Suffolk. In view of the issues involved, I would expect to extend an invitation to relevant representatives of neighbouring authorities.

3. Meetings with Elected Representatives

Given the Highways Agency’s position, the lack of progress in reaching an agreed protocol at the 29 June initial officer meeting and concern about the potential impact of closing the A14 westbound carriageway near Haughley in order to implement these proposed works, the County Council advised the Highways Agency that officers would organise an early meeting with relevant County Councillors, elected representatives of the three Parish Councils most likely to be affected by the specific works and closure together with the Suffolk Constabulary and the Highways Agency.

The County Council subsequently arranged a meeting on the 12 August 2011. Unfortunately, the Highways Agency was unable to attend or be represented. Following the intervention of David Ruffley MP a further meeting was arranged on the 29 September 2011 when representatives of the Highways Agency were present.

4. Need for Maintenance Works

As local councillors we fully appreciate the need to carry out essential planned maintenance work on this section of the A14 and to undertake the work in the most cost effective way, especially in the current financial climate. Nevertheless, we remain concerned that the approach adopted by the Highways Agency has no regard to the impact on local roads and communities or on the local economy within Suffolk, in particular hauliers operating out of Felixstowe (we are aware that HGV drivers expressed concern about the length of the diversion route through the Highways Agency Information Line (HAIL) system).

5. Issues

Cooperation

We understand that cooperation between the Highways Agency and Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) is a key principle in the National Guidance Framework (NGF) and that this extends to all aspects of network management including the planning and implementation of diversion routes and the co-ordination of planned works and events. In addition we believe that the Highways Agency has a role in facilitating the movement of traffic on local road networks.

While we accept that the NGF does not constitute a legally binding agreement or commitment between any parties it is intended to provide a basis for the voluntary partnership arrangements to be developed between the Highways Agency and LTAs. We do not see this as a one way street. In this instance there has been little evidence of cooperation from the Highways Agency or Atkins. Indeed feedback from officers indicate that discussions were difficult and that the arrangements for carrying out these works and diverting traffic onto a lengthy diversion route using local roads was determined by the Highways Agency and Atkins in advance with no room for manoeuvre. In addition and despite requests no information was provided by the Highways Agency or Atkins to help the County Council fulfil its duties and responsibilities under the Traffic Management Act.

Page 3

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. Works diversions

We understand from information produced by the Highways Agency that:

• where the Highways Agency intends to undertake pre-planned roadworks, any associated diversions agreed on the Local Authority’s network will be considered to be a “Works Diversion”;

• routes established for tactical diversions (for emergency purposes) may be used as works diversion routes;

• the requirements for works diversion routes are different from those for tactical diversion routes and the two should be considered separately; and

• the use of any route as a works diversion route will always be subject to specific advance agreement with the LHA in relation to the particular works to be undertaken.

In other words, and notwithstanding that a “Works Diversion” may utilise the route of an agreed tactical diversion, no “Works Diversion” will be implemented without the agreement of the Local Highway Authority, and until such additional measures as may be necessary for the planned use (such as prior notification to road users, diversion route signing, publicity etc) are established, and/or completed. Any additional measures required for a Works Diversion will be established at the Agency’s expense.

This principle was not applied in this case despite the fact that the County Council made it clear at the outset that the tactical diversion route in this area had not been agreed for this or any other planned trunk road works. Despite confirming the County Council’s position on several occasions, the Highways Agency continued to promote their diversion route via the A140 and A143 and subsequently provided temporary diversion route signing without the approval of the Local Highway Authority. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated event.

Impact of diverting traffic onto local roads and through local communities

There was little or no evidence that the impact of diverting traffic onto local roads and through local communities had been taken into account by the Highways Agency. On the contrary the Highways Agency advised that no assessments had been carried out.

It is also clear to us that failure to adequately address the potential impact on local communities in the vicinity of the works, including routes through Elmswell, Haughley, Wetherden, directly led to HGV’s using unsuitable local roads, including a narrow lane with a weight restriction. In our view and despite comments to them, neither the Highways Agency nor Atkins had an adequate grasp of the local situation or the issues involved.

Our assessments indicate that traffic flows through Elmswell increased significantly as a result of the overnight closure of the westbound carriageway. In particular the overall volume of traffic was measured at 2½ times, and HGV movements between 5 and 5½ times, the normal levels. It is not surprising that this had a significant impact on the local communities.

In order to alleviate local concerns the Highways Agency, at the meeting with David Ruffley MP and councillors on the 29 September, gave an assurance that in addition to providing appropriate signing a gateman would be located at Tot Hill interchange to dissuade drivers from using unsuitable alternative routes through the local villages. Subsequent correspondence from Atkins indicated that “we have no legal right to prevent any vehicle using this route” and “the gateman is there in a purely advisory capacity and must not stop any vehicles”. Feedback from the local community suggested that the gateman was rarely in position and in some cases “the van was

Page 4

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. unattended, and lorries drove by unimpeded”. The effectiveness of the gateman has quite rightly been questioned given the observed increase in the number of vehicles, in particular HGVs, using the local road network during the closure period.

A further problem, which came to light after the works began, was the need to maintain access for lorries travelling to and from a local business based in Elmswell.

Engagement with Communities likely to be affected

We note the statement in the Highways Agency Business Plan 2011-12 that “maintaining good relationships with the people who live close to our network continues to be a priority. We have always prided ourselves on high levels of customer engagement … and we will ensure that this continues”. This was not our experience. It was only after the actions taken by the County Council, and subsequently the involvement of David Ruffley MP, that the Highways Agency attended a meeting with local community representatives, regrettably just before the works began.

It is our view that meaningful consultation should take place with local communities likely to be affected at an early stage in the process before budgets are fixed. In this way local communities would be made aware of what is proposed and the likely implications and also contribute to the "solution", including identifying reasonable mitigation measures aimed at minimising the impact.

Economic impact

We are aware that the Highways Agency Business Plan 2011-12 refers to the introduction of a new reliability measure and states that “it is … vitally important to the economy that the [Trunk Road] network remains a reliable transport choice for our customers” and “we remain committed to listening to customers and their opinions to help improve the network for their use”. We also understand that the new reliability measure “takes into account the effects of planned roadworks on the flow of traffic”. In our view this is an important issue.

Discussions with the Highways Agency indicate that no assessments were carried out and hence we understand that this new reliability measure was not applied in this case. We are not aware of any discussion with hauliers or assessment of the impact of the proposed diversion on their operations, particularly at a time when they are actively seeking to reduce their costs in a difficult economic climate. You will be aware that the A14 is a key route out of the Port of Felixstowe and carries a large volume of HGV movements.

We have worked with the Road Haulage Association (RHA) and Turners Distribution of Soham to understand the impact of the diversion on hauliers. We have assessed the impact in terms of additional time and mileage costs imposed on hauliers and our calculations indicate that the cost to the local economy and hauliers in particular significantly exceeds the cost of introducing a contraflow arrangement on the A14 (based on the cost provided by the Highways Agency/Atkins at the 29 September meeting).

Our estimated cost to hauliers does not take into account:

• extra wage costs, e.g. overtime;

• the impact on driver hours and potential consequences or the possible loss of a delivery and associated costs;

• potential cost of extra resources;

• disruption to established routes;

Page 5

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. • a potential reduction in operations;

• the additional costs imposed on other drivers/vehicles; or

• the additional closures due to lost work during adverse weather conditions.

The location of the Turners Distribution operations at Soham meant that the alternative A12, A120, M11 diversion route put forward by the Highways Agency, which would add approximately 35 miles to their shunting operations to and from Felixstowe, was clearly impractical.

Condition of the Carriageway

As previously indicated, it is clear from discussions with the Highways Agency/Atkins/Birse over recent years, that the carriageway on this section of the A14 has reached the end of its life and needs to be reconstructed.

We are concerned that the current works will not address the underlying problems and that further planned works will be required with a consequent and ongoing impact on local communities close to the trunk road.

We believe that the right way forward is to reconstruct the carriageway and at the same time to provide a quiet surface to minimise noise intrusion on the local communities adjacent to the A14.

Contraflow Working

The initial proposal from the Highways Agency was to carry out the maintenance works overnight over a three week period. This was subsequently reduced to ten weekdays. We were later advised that the contractor was unable to complete the work during this period due to adverse temperatures. As a result this requires a further 3 nights work with the A14 closed to traffic. Current information from the Highways Agency indicates that this additional work will be carried out in the Spring next year.

In these circumstances, the County Council as the Local Highway Authority felt that the appropriate solution was to implement contraflow working. This was rejected by the Highways Agency on cost grounds and because the budget was fixed.

Although the County Council was provided with an estimate of the cost of introducing a contraflow system (£166k) at the meeting on the 29 September, this has been disputed as too high by County Council officers with experience in these matters. Despite requesting a written and detailed description of the options available and a breakdown of costs involved for each option this was not supplied by the Highways Agency or Atkins and hence this estimate could not be validated or accepted by the County Council. We do not believe this demonstrates cooperation.

As local councillors we strongly requested the Highways Agency at the meeting on the 29 September:

• to use a contraflow system in the future;

• to upgrade the crossovers to enable a contraflow system to be implemented; and

• to reconstruct the carriageway on this section of the A14 and at the same time to provide a quiet road surface.

Page 6

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. 6. Views of community representatives

We attach for your information the views of the Parish Councils on their experience of the impact of these planned works and in particular the closure of the A14 westbound carriageway.

7. Conclusions

We would welcome your comments on the issues raised in this letter, including:

• Are you aware of any relevant advice that the Secretary of State for Transport as Highway Authority for trunk roads has given to the Highways Agency?

• Do you agree with the approach adopted by the Highways Agency/Atkins in this instance?

• Do you agree that there should be effective and early engagement with local communities representatives likely to be affected by planned works on the trunk road network to ensure that all relevant issues are considered and where appropriate mitigation measures are identified and implemented as part of the works?

• Do you agree that serious consideration should be given to contraflow working where this is reasonably requested by the local Highway Authority and/or where there is likely to be a significant additional and disproportionate cost to businesses and hence the local economy?

• Do you agree that the existing crossovers should be upgraded to enable contraflow systems to be implemented?

• Do you agree that the carriageway on this section of the A14 should be reconstructed and with a quiet road surface?

• Would you be willing to attend a seminar in Suffolk to explain the Secretary of State’s position as Highway Authority for trunk roads on planned trunk road works and the impact of trunk road closures on local roads and communities to relevant councillors and other community representatives and key stakeholders in Suffolk and neighbouring authorities?

• Do you agree that “Works Diversion” on local roads should not be implemented without the agreement of the Local Highway Authority?

• Do you agree that temporary diversion route signing should not be provided on local roads without the approval of the Local Highway Authority?

Yours sincerely

Guy McGregor Portfolio Holder for Roads, Transport and Planning

Page 7

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. Signed on behalf of:

Cllr. Tony Goldson Assistant to Suffolk County Council Portfolio Holder for Roads, Transport and Planning, and Councillor for the Halesworth Division

Cllr. Jane Storey Deputy Leader of Suffolk County Council, Suffolk County Council member for North (covering Elmswell and Woolpit)] and also Mid Suffolk District Councillor for Elmswell and Norton

Cllr. Andrew Stringer Suffolk County Council member for Upper Gipping (covering Haughley, Haughley New Street, Wetherden), Leader of the Green and Independent Group on the County Council and Mid Suffolk District Councillor for Mendlesham (covering Haughley and Haughley New Street)

Cllr. Penny Otton Suffolk County Council member for Thedwastre South (covering Beyton and villages south of the A14)

Cllr. Sarah Mansel Mid Suffolk District Council member for Elmswell and Norton

Cllr. Rachel Eburne Mid Suffolk District Council member for Haughley and Wetherden

Cllr. Ramon Melvin Mid Suffolk District Council member for Woolpit

Cllr. Alan Shaw Chairman of Haughley Parish Council

Cllr. Bill Green Haughley Parish Council and Portfolio Holder for road matters

Cllr. Alex Jarrett Vice-Chairman of Wetherden Parish Council and Portfolio Holder for road matters

Cllr. Sonia Jewers Wetherden Parish Council

Cllr. David Barker Chairman of Elmswell Parish Council

Cllr. Mike Friend Elmswell Parish Council

Page 8

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process.

A Quality Council

ELMSWELL PARISH COUNCIL Clerk to the Council, Peter Dow PARISH CLERK’S OFFICE, STATION ROAD, ELMSWELL, BURY ST. EDMUNDS, SUFFOLK IP30 9HR Telephone (01359) 244 134 email; [email protected] www.elmswell.suffolk.gov.uk

Mr Peter Grimm Suffolk county Council Strategic Traffic manager Economy Skills & Environment department Block 1 Floor 4 Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX

29th November 2011 by email

Dear Mr Grimm

A14 closure and subsequent diversion routes

Thank you for your recent consultation and for your efforts to help the local communities find a voice in this vexing situation.

At a Parish Council meeting on Monday 21.11 I tabled the following comments in support of the draft letter which you had circulated for submission to the Under Secretary of State for Transport.

The feedback which has come to my office from various sources and the conclusions to which I am lead by this feedback are as follows: . 1 The HA has acted in a high-handed manner completely out of keeping with the current ‘listening’ climate promulgated by Government generally and at all levels.

2 The ‘gate man’ was a token. He was seen present on one occasion out of the 5 reports which came in. In some cases the van was unattended, and lorries drove by unimpeded. On other occasions the van was not in position.

3 The increase in traffic and subsequent nuisance was as predicted. Without the pressure from SCC and others this would have been far worse.

4 The pressure for re-surfacing of the concrete section should be revived, co-ordinated by SCC. The result of the recent disruption, as observed on the carriageway, is clearly a make do-and-mend job and an extremely poor return on the time, trouble and money expended. It is likely that a similar exercise will have to be carried out on an annual basis unless and until this section is properly upgraded.

I would hope that you feel able to reflect some of the above in pursuing this matter towards a long term solution.

Yours sincerely

Peter Dow Clerk to Elmswell Parish Council

HAUGHLEY PARISH COUNCIL Clerk: Marilyn Bottomley 8 Church Close Rede Tel: 01284 789303 Bury St Edmunds E-mail: [email protected] Suffolk IP29 4BG ______

To: Peter Grimm By e-mail SCC Highways Department 22 November 2011

RECENT WORKS ON THE A14 WESTBOUND – HAUGHLEY/WOOLPIT

Dear Peter Our observations of this event, and the concerns that derive from them, fall into four broad categories: 1 Value for money: This hugely expensive exercise would appear to be about papering over a lot of fundamental cracks in the road. Our understanding from the meetings held is that it is an essentially temporary solution that will have to be addressed again in a year or two. This is appallingly bad value for money at a time when money – especially public money – is hard won and hard to come by. This point was dismissed in the meetings on the grounds that ‘we (HA) are only funded for 12 months at a time’ or something similar. It is absurd to waste so much public money because of the ‘system’. Change the system.

2 Poor judgment: The HA was continually told that the proposed diversion was far too long and would be ignored by HGV drivers. Sure enough, such proved to be the case. How much are these people paid to be so poor at their jobs? Again – with public money. And presumably where this wide diversion was adhered to, commerce, the private motorist and the environment paid the price in extra fuel, time and depreciation.

3 Misinformation & groundless assertions: We were told that contraflowing was not an option because (variously) ‘there were no breaks in the central reservation’ (there are several); ‘it would cause too much of a hold up’ (we are unsure why, because it didn’t during the Rougham or Haughley bends work); ‘it would cost too much’ (really? Why?); and ‘couldn’t be done overnight because it would take too much time away from the actual work’ (this isn’t really true, is it, if you start moving the cones early enough?). The latter has also worked extremely well throughout the installation of the new cabling along the A14 recently.

4 Breach of Code of Practice: The HA code of practice makes much of engaging with the communities, consultation, openness, accessibility and much else along similar warm and cuddly lines. We saw absolutely none of this put into practice. They merely announced their intentions (inappropriate as they were), ignored all advice, ducked the first meeting and stuck obdurately to their guns at the second. Frankly the only interaction we witnessed was the avalanche of e-mail sniping that broke out during the ensuing chaos. This would have been funny if it hadn’t been so depressing. As for the effect on the quality of life of our residents, clearly there were problems and clearly the diversion was, as predicted, widely ignored, but the communities most directly affected – Wetherden and Elmswell – will doubtless cover these issues in depth in their correspondence. Yours sincerely Haughley Parish Council WETHERDEN PARISH COUNCIL

Parish Clerk: 7 Cresmedow Way Mr Peter Grimm Elmswell Strategic Traffic Manager Bury St Edmunds Suffolk County Council Suffolk Transport Strategy IP30 9GL Block 1, Floor 4 Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Tel: 01359 242206 Ipswich Suffolk E Mail :- [email protected] IP1 2BX 10 November 2011

Dear Peter Grimm

Re: A14 Westbound Surface repairs – Wetherden October 2011

As you are aware, Wetherden lies on an obvious alternative route to the stretches of the A14 which were closed. The same applies to Haughley, in particular Haughley New Street and Elmswell. It was fairly obvious early on in the evaluation of the Highways Authority's plans that a diversion as suggested by them, taking traffic north almost to Diss and then west to Bury St Edmunds would be ignored, when a much shorter albeit unsuitable route was available.

For this reason we in Wetherden strongly objected to the suggested diversion and supported your proposals that a contraflow should be operated to keep traffic safely on the A14.

Wetherden has had a traffic problem for years with through traffic often exceeding the speed limit. We have taken steps ( eg Community Speed Watch) to try to tackle this, but it does mean that we have a good idea of the amount of traffic flowing through.

We can tell you, that whilst the works were progressing, and as soon as the A14 was closed, the traffic flow grew, so that at times it was impossible to cross the main through road, without a long wait. The route which was being used by HGVs as well as other traffic, runs into Wetherden from Road, and out on Elmswell Road. Residents on the latter whose houses are very close to the pavement if not right against it, described the impact to them as "horrendous"

HGVs in particular travelled onwards towards Elmswell beyond Wetherden, at a pace which intimidated the other traffic on the road, sometimes in groups of four or more at a time which was totally inappropriate for the width of road here.

Stowmarket Road is also narrow, it was never designed to take large volumes of traffic and on some nights the flow was uninterrupted for some time, bringing noise and danger to the route. Residents on Stowmarket Road reported a virtually uninterrupted traffic flow between the hours of 8 p.m and 10 p.m. whereas the road would normally be virtually traffic free at these times. This led to residents being woken continually by lorry traffic shaking houses.

You may also know that the crossroads in Wetherden have recently been refurbished as we have for a long time been very concerned about road safety at this four way junction. What was done helped but did not enable us to slow the through traffic East to West and vice versa. Witnesses have reported cars queuing to come onto these crossroads coming North on Park Road. The traffic traveling through was such that people were beginning to take risks, to proceed.

We now understand that the current road works phase was not completed and that further disruption is likely later this month. We are also aware that there will be more work in future as the state of the surface on the Eastbound carriageway is just as bad, and until the whole concrete section is resurfaced this will be a regular occurrence.

We understand that as long as 11 years ago the Highways agency was instructed to re-surface all concrete road sections in the UK with ‘silent tarmac’ within 10 years. The Council believes the Roads minister should instruct the Highways agency to meet this requirement forthwith as continual patching will only lead to the undesirable impact on local communities continuing indefinitely.

Wetherden Parish Council would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in trying to insist on a contraflow and would be grateful if in your discussions with The Highways Agency you could emphasise that the proper solution is a full resurface, alternatives will merely result in a repeat of the recent inconvenience to our parishioners.

Yours sincerely

Mr.A.Couzens ( Parish Clerk)

WOOLPIT PARISH COUNCIL Clerk: Mrs Peggy Fuller, 86 Forest Road, Onehouse, Stowmarket IP14 3HJ Tel: 01359 245895 email [email protected]

28 November 2011

Ranjit Mistry The Highways Agency Woodlands Manton Lane Bedford MK41 7LW

Dear Sirs

Recent repair work to A14, Woolpit, Suffolk

The Parish Council has received several complaints about the recent repair work, both with the standard of the work and the subsequent increase of noise nuisance.

As the surface has been patched, the repairs appear to be proud of the existing road surface. This therefore has increased the noise when vehicles traverse the repairs, particularly with HGV’s. The noise can now be heard by residents further away from the A14 who liken it to the noise from rumble strips.

Woolpit Parish Council has also received concerns regarding the quality of the repairs. Many residents feel that the repairs will only last a short period of time before more work will be required.

It has been apparent for some years that this section of the A14 has come to the end of its life and should be reconstructed with a more suitable surface.

Yours sincerely

P A Fuller

Peggy Fuller Clerk to the Council