DOCSLIB.ORG

The Major Road Network

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Major Road Network House of Commons Transport Committee The major road network Eighth Report of Session 2009–10 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 24 March 2010 HC 505 [Incorporating HC 533, Session 2009-09] Published on 30 March 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Transport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Mr David Clelland MP (Labour, Tyne Bridge) Rt Hon Jeffrey M Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) Mr Philip Hollobone MP (Conservative, Kettering) Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Mr Eric Martlew MP (Labour, Carlisle) Mark Pritchard MP (Conservative, The Wrekin) Ms Angela C Smith MP (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough) Sir Peter Soulsby MP (Labour, Leicester South) Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Manchester Blackley) Mr David Wilshire MP (Conservative, Spelthorne) The following was also a member of the Committee during the period covered by this report: Sammy Wilson MP (Democratic Unionist, East Antrim) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/transcom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Annette Toft (Clerk), Adrian Jenner (Second Clerk), David Davies (Committee Specialist), Marek Kubala (Inquiry Manager), Alison Mara (Senior Committee Assistant), Jacqueline Cooksey (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] 1 Contents Report Page 1 Introduction 3 2 Current road policy 4 3 The wider transport policy context 6 4 The current road network 10 Coverage and capacity 10 The standard of major roads 11 Management and maintenance 12 De-trunking 14 Strategic oversight 16 5 Investment and funding 17 The financial climate 17 Rates of return and assessment methods 18 Funding mechanisms 20 The national level 20 The regional level 21 6 Congestion and capacity 22 Maintenance work and congestion 23 Cost of congestion 23 Forecasting traffic growth 25 To build or not to build 26 Using the existing road network more effectively 28 7 Conclusion 31 Conclusions and recommendations 33 Annex: Classification of road types 37 Formal Minutes 38 Witnesses 41 List of written evidence 42 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 43 3 1 Introduction 1. The major road network is defined by the Department for Transport as “the network of motorways, trunk roads and principal roads that serve the country’s strategic transport needs.”1 We have accepted this definition for the purpose of our inquiry. Motorways and trunk roads (nationally significant A-roads)2 managed by the Highways Agency make up approximately 20% of the major road network. The remaining 80% of the major road network consists of principal roads—other A-roads managed by local authorities.3 2. Roads policy and maintenance is a devolved matter apart from issues such as signage and driver training standards. The Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are therefore responsible for roads in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.4 As a consequence, this report is concerned only with the major road network in England. 3. In total, there are 187,000 miles of roads in England, of which nearly 22,000 miles are major roads.5 Just 4,500 miles of these are motorways or trunk roads, managed by the Highways Agency.6 Local authorities are responsible for the remaining 165,000 miles of public roads, many of which are vital in connecting small communities and isolated towns with the major network.7 The Annex sets out the Department for Transport’s classification of different types of roads in greater detail, and Table 1 below provides an overview of the lengths of different types of major roads. Table 1: Major road lengths by type England Great Britain Miles % of total Miles % of total Highways Agency Motorway 1,845 8.4% 2,186 7.0% Dual carriageway 1,626 7.4% 2,156 6.9% Of which: Urban 122 0.6% 165 0.5% Rural 1,504 6.9% 1,991 6.4% Single carriageway 1,033 4.7% 3,209 10.3% Of which: Urban 55 0.2% 97 0.3% Rural 979 4.5% 3,112 10.0% Total Highways Agency 4,505 20.6% 7,551 24.2% Local authority managed Motorway 25 0.1% 25 0.1% Principal roads - dual carriageway 2,477 11.3% 2,775 8.9% Of which: Urban 1,464 6.7% 1,644 5.3% Rural 1,013 4.6% 1,131 3.6% Principal roads - single carriageway 14,905 68.0% 20,873 66.8% Of which: Urban 4,374 20.0% 4,996 16.0% Rural 10,531 48.1% 15,877 50.8% Total local authority managed 17,408 79.4% 23,674 75.8% Total major roads 21,913 100.0% 31,225 100.0% . Source: Department for Transport, Road Statistics Great Britain 2008 1 Annex 2 Motorways and trunk roads are also referred to as the Strategic Road Network. 3 See Ev 98 4 Ev 98 5 The figure of 31,261 miles, quoted in the terms of reference refers to Great Britain rather than England. 6 Transport Statistics Great Britain 2009: Road lengths—data tables, http://www.dft.gov.uk 7 Almost all motorways are trunk motorways under Highways Agency control except for short lengths of principal motorway (25 miles in total) under local authority control. See Table 1. 4 4. Major roads under local authority control are the 17,408 miles of principal roads, some of which are former trunk roads which have been ‘de-trunked’, that is transferred from the Highways Agency to local authority control. Trunk roads came into being with the 1936 Trunk Roads Act,8 but with the 1998 White Paper, A new deal for transport: better for everyone, the policy of managing all strategically important roads centrally by the Highways Agency was reversed.9 The White Paper announced that, of the then 9,356 miles of trunk roads, around 70% had been identified as nationally important routes.10 The remaining 30% were considered to be of greater local and regional significance, and control of these was therefore transferred to local authorities. It was intended that de-trunking would allow local transport authorities to better integrate these roads with transport policies for their areas as part of local transport plans. 5. It is now more than a decade since the publication of the White Paper. We launched this inquiry in order to assess what had been achieved since 1998, and what still needs to be done to ensure that England’s major road network is as effective as possible in supporting the UK economy and meeting the travel needs of individuals, while supporting sustainable development. 6. We would like to thank those organisations and individuals who gave evidence to our inquiry. We are also grateful to our Specialist Advisers, Dr David Quarmby and Professor Jon Shaw.11 2 Current road policy 7. The major road network is the most important part of the UK’s transport infrastructure. The evidence we received concurred in the view that a well functioning, effective major road network is vital for the UK economy and for meeting the travel needs of individual road users. 8. Since the 1998 White Paper, a number of policy and strategy documents on the major road network have emerged.12 In 2003, the Department for Transport published Managing our roads which set out to identify the challenges likely to affect the road network over the next 20–30 years. This document made clear that capacity improvements to the existing road network, rather than the construction of new roads, would take priority: …we cannot continue to try to build our way out of all the problems we face. Instead, we should seek to make far better use of the capacity available. We must also take 8 In 1936, 30 roads were identified as trunk roads and responsibility for them passed to the then Ministry of Transport. Over time, more roads were added to the trunk road network, either through legislation or as a result of construction. In 1994, the Highways Agency was created, and responsibility for trunk roads was transferred to it. 9 Department for Transport, A New deal for Transport: Better for everyone, Cm 3950,1998, p 59 10 The White Paper quotes distances in kilometres, thus referring to 15,057 kilometres of trunk roads. 11 Dr David Quarmby resigned as Specialist Advisor to the Committee on 24 June following his appointment as Chairman of the RAC Foundation. Professor Jon Shaw was appointed as Specialist Advisor on 24 June. A declaration of interests made by Dr Quarmby can be found in the formal minutes of the Committee meeting on 20 May, and Professor Shaw’s declaration can be found in the minutes for 24 June 2009.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.36: White City Green: Indicative Masterplan Including Wood Lane
    White City Opportunity Area Planning Framework Chapter 4 urban design strategy Mayor of London 71 ChapterChapter 0404 Pedestrian & cycle bridge Strategic pedestrian link Pedestrian route Improved existing roads Pedestrian areas Public Park Opening up railway arches Strategic green link Pedestrian crossing Figure 4.35: Precedents for the proposed White City Green Figure: 4.36: White City Green: indicative masterplan including (Source 3D model:Z Mapping) Wood Lane station and Central Line crossing 72 White City Opportunity Area Planning Framework areas, toilet facilities and space for performances Design objective: Local Open Spaces, public or temporary events such as film screenings realm and inclusive environments and specialty market space. Opportunities to incorporate public art and create a setting for hierarchy of quality public and private spaces temporary cultural events, tying in with local comprising formal parks, allotments, urban squares, creative industries could also be pursued. communal open space, private open space and 4.68 The design of the Green must adopt wilderness corridors. These will allow for a range the principles of inclusive design effectively from of recreational and leisure opportunities which will the outset, making spaces accessible, easy and benefit the health and wellbeing of the community. convenient to use for all groups of people, with 4.26 Large scale residential, mixed use and particular attention to thinking about the needs of employment developments will be expected to disabled persons or older people. consider how their proposals can contribute to 4.69 Consideration must be given to the the provision of strategic open space to serve the function that this space would provide late at needs of the wider area, particularly the provision night, with detailed lighting, other secure by design of White City Green.
    [Show full text]
  • Scott Wilson Scotland: a History Volume 11 the Interchange Years
    Doc 12.56: Scott Wilson Scotland: A History: Vol 11: The Interchange Years 2005-2009 JP McCafferty Scott Wilson Scotland: A History Volume 11 The Interchange Years 2005-2009 Transcribed and edited from ‘Interchange’ JP McCafferty 1 Doc 12.56: Scott Wilson Scotland: A History: Vol 11: The Interchange Years 2005-2009 JP McCafferty Significant or notable projects, people and events are highlighted as follows for ease of reference:- Projects/Disciplines People Issue/Date Actions Contents Background ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Interchange ......................................................................................................................................... 12 JP McCafferty [Find Issues 1-40; Fix Pics P 16, 21; Fix P 68 150 Header 2]...................................... 12 Interchange 41 [21.10.2005] ............................................................................................................... 13 The Environment section in Edinburgh is delighted to welcome Nicholas Whitelaw ..................... 13 Interchange 42 [28.10.2005] ............................................................................................................... 13 S W Renewable Energy at British Wind Energy Association [Wright; Morrison] ............................. 13 Interchange 43 [4.11.2005] ................................................................................................................. 14 Jobs: Civil
    [Show full text]
  • Road Investment Strategy: Overview
    Road Investment Strategy: Overview December 2014 Road Investment Strategy: Overview December 2014 The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department. Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.gov.uk/dft General enquiries https://forms.dft.gov.uk ISBN: 978-1-84864-148-8 © Crown copyright 2014 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Photographic acknowledgements Alamy: Cover Contents 3 Contents Foreword 5 The Strategic Road Network 8 The challenges 9 The vision 10 The Investment Plan 13 The Performance Specification 22 Transforming our roads 26 Appendices: regional profiles 27 The Road Investment Strategy suite of documents (Strategic Vision, Investment Plan, Performance Specification, and this Overview) are intended to fulfil the requirements of Clause 3 of the Infrastructure Bill 2015 for the 2015/16 – 2019/20 Road Period.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020-2025
    Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020–2025 March 2020 CORRECTION SLIP Title: Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020-25 Session: 2019-21 ISBN: 978-1-5286-1678-2 Date of laying: 11th March 2020 Correction: Removing duplicate text on the M62 Junctions 20-25 smart motorway Text currently reads: (Page 95) M62 Junctions 20-25 – upgrading the M62 to smart motorway between junction 20 (Rochdale) and junction 25 (Brighouse) across the Pennines. Together with other smart motorways in Lancashire and Yorkshire, this will provide a full smart motorway link between Manchester and Leeds, and between the M1 and the M6. This text should be removed, but the identical text on page 96 remains. Correction: Correcting a heading in the eastern region Heading currently reads: Under Construction Heading should read: Smart motorways subject to stocktake Date of correction: 11th March 2020 Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020 – 2025 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at https://forms.dft.gov.uk/contact-dft-and-agencies/ ISBN 978-1-5286-1678-2 CCS0919077812 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Isurium Brigantum
    Isurium Brigantum an archaeological survey of Roman Aldborough The authors and publisher wish to thank the following individuals and organisations for their help with this Isurium Brigantum publication: Historic England an archaeological survey of Roman Aldborough Society of Antiquaries of London Thriplow Charitable Trust Faculty of Classics and the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge Chris and Jan Martins Rose Ferraby and Martin Millett with contributions by Jason Lucas, James Lyall, Jess Ogden, Dominic Powlesland, Lieven Verdonck and Lacey Wallace Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries of London No. 81 For RWS Norfolk ‒ RF Contents First published 2020 by The Society of Antiquaries of London Burlington House List of figures vii Piccadilly Preface x London W1J 0BE Acknowledgements xi Summary xii www.sal.org.uk Résumé xiii © The Society of Antiquaries of London 2020 Zusammenfassung xiv Notes on referencing and archives xv ISBN: 978 0 8543 1301 3 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background to this study 1 Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data 1.2 Geographical setting 2 A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the 1.3 Historical background 2 Library of Congress, Washington DC 1.4 Previous inferences on urban origins 6 The moral rights of Rose Ferraby, Martin Millett, Jason Lucas, 1.5 Textual evidence 7 James Lyall, Jess Ogden, Dominic Powlesland, Lieven 1.6 History of the town 7 Verdonck and Lacey Wallace to be identified as the authors of 1.7 Previous archaeological work 8 this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Roads Are Often Crowded, Frequently in Poor Condition, Chronically Underfunded, and Are Becoming More Dangerous
    OVERVIEW America’s roads are often crowded, frequently in poor condition, chronically underfunded, and are becoming more dangerous. More than two out of every five miles of America’s urban interstates are congested and traffic delays cost the country $160 billion in wasted time and fuel in 2014. One out of every five miles of highway pavement is in poor condition and our roads have a significant and increasing backlog of rehabilitation needs. After years of decline, traffic fatalities increased by 7% from 2014 to 2015, with 35,092 people dying on America’s roads. CAPACITY & CONDITION With over four million miles of roads crisscrossing the United States, from 15 lane interstates to residential streets, roads are among the most visible and familiar forms of infrastructure. In 2016 alone, U.S. roads carried people and goods over 3.2 trillion miles—or more than 300 round trips between Earth and Pluto. After a slight dip during the 2008 recession, Americans are driving more and vehicle miles travelled hit a record high in 2016. With more traffic on the roads, it is no surprise that America’s congestion problem is getting worse, but adding additional lanes or new roads to the highway system will not solve congestion on its own. More than two out of every five miles of the nation’s urban interstates are congested. Of the country’s 100 largest metro areas, all but five saw increased traffic congestion from 2013 to 2014. In 2014, Americans spent 6.9 billion hours delayed in traffic—42 hours per driver. All of that sitting in traffic wasted 3.1 billion gallons of fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • London to Scotland East Route Strategy March 2017 Contents 1
    London to Scotland East Route Strategy March 2017 Contents 1. Introduction 1 Purpose of Route Strategies 2 Strategic themes 2 Stakeholder engagement 3 Transport Focus 3 2. The route 5 Route Strategy overview map 7 3. Current constraints and challenges 9 A safe and serviceable network 9 More free-flowing network 9 Supporting economic growth 9 An improved environment 10 A more accessible and integrated network 10 Diversionary routes 17 Maintaining the strategic road network 18 4. Current investment plans and growth potential 19 Economic context 19 Innovation 19 Investment plans 19 5. Future challenges and opportunities 25 6. Next steps 37 i R Lon ou don to Scotla te nd East London Or bital and M23 to Gatwick str Lon ategies don to Scotland West London to Wales The division of rou tes for the F progra elixstowe to Midlands mme of route strategies on t he Solent to Midlands Strategic Road Network M25 to Solent (A3 and M3) Kent Corridor to M25 (M2 and M20) South Coast Central Birmingham to Exeter A1 South West Peninsula London to Leeds (East) East of England South Pennines A19 A69 North Pen Newccaastlstlee upon Tyne nines Carlisle A1 Sunderland Midlands to Wales and Gloucest M6 ershire North and East Midlands A66 A1(M) A595 South Midlands Middlesbrougugh A66 A174 A590 A19 A1 A64 A585 M6 York Irish S Lee ea M55 ds M65 M1 Preston M606 M621 A56 M62 A63 Kingston upon Hull M62 M61 M58 A1 M1 Liver Manchest A628 A180 North Sea pool er M18 M180 Grimsby M57 A616 A1(M) M53 M62 M60 Sheffield A556 M56 M6 A46 A55 A1 Lincoln A500 Stoke-on-Trent A38 M1 Nottingham
    [Show full text]
  • Tackling High Risk Regional Roads Safer Roads Fund Full
    Mobility • Safety • Economy • Environment Tackling High-Risk Regional Roads Safer Roads Fund 2017/2018 FO UND Dr Suzy Charman Road Safety Foundation October 2018 AT ION The Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring Ltd is a transport policy and research organisation which explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues relating to roads and their users. The Foundation publishes independent and authoritative research with which it promotes informed debate and advocates policy in the interest of the responsible motorist. RAC Foundation 89–91 Pall Mall London SW1Y 5HS Tel no: 020 7747 3445 www.racfoundation.org Registered Charity No. 1002705 October 2018 © Copyright Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring Ltd Mobility • Safety • Economy • Environment Tackling High-Risk Regional Roads Safer Roads Fund 2017/2018 FO UND Dr Suzy Charman Road Safety Foundation October 2018 AT ION About the Road Safety Foundation The Road Safety Foundation is a UK charity advocating road casualty reduction through simultaneous action on all three components of the safe road system: roads, vehicles and behaviour. The charity has enabled work across each of these components and has published several reports which have provided the basis of new legislation, government policy or practice. For the last decade, the charity has focused on developing the Safe Systems approach, and in particular leading the establishment of the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) in the UK and, through EuroRAP, the global UK-based charity International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). Since the inception of EuroRAP in 1999, the Foundation has been the UK member responsible for managing the programme in the UK (and, more recently, Ireland), ensuring that these countries provide a global model of what can be achieved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Permanence of Limited Access Highways*
    The Permanence of Limited Access Highways* Adolf D. M ay, Jr. Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering Clarkson College of Technology Potsdam, N. Y. Almost all studies of urban and state highway needs point out that in general streets and highways are not adequate for present traffic. Furthermore, these studies indicate that future traffic will have greater demands, and unless more action is taken, the highways will deteriorate, structurally and geometrically, at a rate faster than they can be replaced. The American way of life is dependent upon highways, as ex­ emplified by the rapid development of commercial, industrial, and residential areas along a new highway. In certain cases, this land development has occurred before the highway was opened to traffic. In the development of a new high-type highway, design features are controlled to permit optimum safe speeds, but as soon as some highways are open there is so much of a conflict between the high speed of through traffic and the variable speed of local traffic that control of speed is often a necessity. Soon afterwards, slow signs, blinking lights, and finally stop signs and traffic lights become necessary, thus decreasing the effectiveness in the movement of through traffic. Then it is usually too late and too expensive to rehabilitate the geometric design of the route, and the usual procedure is to leave the existing route to serve adjacent property and to build a new route for the through traffic. However, without protection of the new route from the development of the adjacent property, the strangulation will occur again and the highway, particularly near urban areas, will again become geometrically inadequate for the intended purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • The Automobile Accident Insurance Act
    1 AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT INSURANCE c A-35 The Automobile Accident Insurance Act being Chapter A-35 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective February 26, 1979) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1979, c.69; 1979-80, c.92; 1980-81, c.34 and 83; 1982-83, c.16 and 22; 1983, c.66, 80 and 82; 1983-84, c.1, 16 and 54; 1984-85-86, c.1 and 47; 1986, c.1 and 33; 1986-87-88, c.29; 1988-89, c.37, c.42, c.44, c.54 and c.55; 1989-90, c.15; 1990-91, c.35; 1992, c.20; 1994, c.34; 1996, c.9; 1997, c.S-50.11 and 12; 1998, c.18; 2000, c.A-5.3, I-2.01 and 5; 2001, c.33; 2002, c.44; 2004, c.L-16.1, T-18.1 and 35; 2005, c.5; 2006, c.25; 2011, c.3; 2012, c.14; 2013, c.S-15.1, W-17.11 and c.27; 2014, c.E-13.1; 2015, c.F-13.1001, c.I-9.11, c.21 and c.28; 2016, c.11, c.27 and c.28; 2018, c.6, c.21 and c.42; and 2020, c.20. NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments have been incorporated for convenience of reference and the original statutes and regulations should be consulted for all purposes of interpretation and application of the law. In order to preserve the integrity of the original statutes and regulations, errors that may have appeared are reproduced in this consolidation.
    [Show full text]
  • ANALYSIS of HIGHWAY CONCESSIONS in EUROPE French Study for the DERD/WERD
    CONTENTS ANALYSIS OF HIGHWAY CONCESSIONS IN EUROPE French Study for the DERD/WERD INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………….….1 I. ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE CONCESSION PRACTICE IN EUROPE ……………………………2 I.1 TOLL CONCESSIONS …………………………………………………………………………………..5 I.1.1 Toll system advantages and disadvantages I.I.2. Toll system functions I.1.3. Acceptability of toll systems in Europe I.2 SHADOW TOLL CONCESSIONS…………………………………………………………………….14 I.2.1 Definition I.2.2 Shadow toll practice in Europe I.2.3 Advantages and disadvantages of shadow tolls I.3. INITIAL CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE CONCESSION APPROACH IN EUROPE …………………………………………………………18 I.3.1. Concession approach and remuneration of the concession company I.3.2. Widely varying road infrastructure practice in Europe I.3.3. Concession contracts compared with other infrastructure funding systems I.3.4 Principal merits of concession contracts I.3.5 Integration of socio-economic and equity return in connection with the decision to set up a concession contract I.3.6 Comparison of state-owned and private concession companies II. KEY COMPONENTS OF A ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE CONCESSION….………………...…38 II. 1. CONCESSION LOT SIZE………………………………………………………………………….…38 II. 2. ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE CONCESSION PERIOD……………………………………..………3 II.3 DEFINITION OF TOLL CHARGES …………………………………………………..………………40 II.3.1 Setting toll charges II.3.2 Remuneration of concession companies on a DBFO type basis – the interesting "traffic band concept II.4 CONCESSION COMPANY SELECTION PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA……………………...44 II.5 CONCESSION COMPANY FREEDOM………………………………………………………………46 II.6 SHARING OF RISKS BETWEEN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND CONCESSION COMPANIES ……….48 II.6.1. Transfer of risks in the case of a toll concession II.6.2 Transfer of risks in a shadow toll system II.7.
    [Show full text]
  • A Choice of Entry and Exit Points Fair Pricing
    M6 Toll Junction Information A choice of entry Entry points Exit points Toll stations Northbound from A4097 Northbound and exit points T1 Southbound from M42 to M42 Southbound None T2 only You can join the M6 Toll at various junctions along the road. You just T3 Northbound and Northbound and On Entry (S) either pay at a junction, or at one of two main Toll Plaza stations which Southbound Southbound On Exit (N) Northbound and Northbound and On Exit stretch across the whole motorway at Great Wyrley on the northbound T4 Southbound Southbound carriageway and Weeford Park on the southbound carriageway. Northbound Southbound Pull out all On Exit T5 only only the stops. Southbound and Southbound and On Exit Fair pricing T6 Northbound Northbound Southbound Northbound T7 only only The toll system automatically classifies vehicles and charges separate Southbound Northbound rates for each category, depending on the size of the vehicle. Each T8 only only time you pass through a Toll Lane our sensors tell us how many axles Welcome to the M6 Toll – the most your vehicle has and how high it is from the point of the first axle. This tells us which class your vehicle falls into. exciting development in British What class is my vehicle? www.m6toll.co.uk transport history for many years. As a Vehicle Class Number Number Height at free-flowing alternative to the M6, the of Wheels of Axles 1st Axle* M6 Toll offers reliably shorter journey Z-CARD™ (trademarks used by Z industries Ltd under license). Class One Under 4 Any This product is a doubly-folded sheet card.
    [Show full text]