M4M4 CorridorCorridor EnhancementEnhancement MeasuresMeasures AlternativesAlternatives ConsideredConsidered
MeasuresMeasures discardedfalling outside from of the the M4 M4 CEM CEM Programme Programme
1
Contents
Page Workbook User Guide 2 Key information and Glossary 3 Alternatives considered and discarded Key information sheet 4 Page Measure 1: New M4 lagoon barrage 22 Alternatives considered and could be delivered outside Measure 2: Corporation Road Link 23 of the M4 CEM Programme Measure 3: Celtic Springs and Rogerstone link 24 Page Measure 4: M48 and Second Severn Crossing link 25 Measure 1: B4245 and M48 link 6 Measure 5: Hard shoulder running lanes on M4 26 Measure 2: Cardiff Peripheral Distributor Road 7 Measure 6: Upgrade Steelworks Access Road to 3 lanes 27 Measure 3: Sustainability checklists for developments 8 Measure 7: On-line widening of M4 to dual 3 lanes 28 Measure 4: School Travel Planning 9 Measure 8: Motorway access westbound at J25 29 Measure 5: Workplace Travel Planning 10 Measure 9: Introduce climbing lanes at High Cross 30 Measure 6: Car sharing scheme 11 Measure 10: Introduce climbing lanes at St Julian’s Hill 31 Measure 7: Town centre development planning 12 Measure 11: Bus priority on M4 32 Measure 8: Flexible working arrangements 13 Measure 12: Intercity bus services 33 Measure 9: Travel education programme 14 Measure 13: Reduce public transport fares 34 Measure 10: ICT investment 15 Measure 14: Reregulate commercial bus services 35 Measure 11: Maintain or increase Severn Crossing Tolls 16 Measure 15: Increase fuel duty 36 Measure 12: Reduce or remove Severn Crossing Tolls 17 Measure 16: Increase parking enforcement 37 Measure 13: Collaborative working 18 Measure 17: Increase parking charges 38 Measure 14: Grade separated improvements to A48 SDR 19 Measure 18: Introduce flexible cross border bus passes 39 Measure 15: Closure of J27 to motorway 20 Measure 19: Fuel efficient cars programme 40 Measure 20: Incremental widening along M4 41 Measure 21: Active Traffic Management System on M4 42
2 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures Alternatives Considered Workbook – User Guide
What will I find in this workbook? What is this workbook all about?
Within this workbook you will find a number of different measures that have not progressed to form part of the Packages. On 27 July 2011 the M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures
Programme initiated detailed work with a specially selected This workbook presents the omitted measures - offering a high level overview of what the measure would involve, its likely Forum of Stakeholders, representing a breadth of interests impacts and implementation issues. An explanation is provided for its discarding from the M4 CEM programme, in from the public, private and third sectors in South Wales. addition to an action for relevant parties to pursue where appropriate.
Thirty four members of the Stakeholder Forum convened with representatives of Welsh Government and Arup staff to explore over 100 possible solutions, old and new, to safety, capacity and resilience related problems associated with travel in the M4 corridor between Magor and Castleton.
Building on the robust exploration of possible solutions In order to help make the appraisal information facilitated by the Forum , the WG and Arup team have How are the packaged measures appraised? easier to understand, each measure is assessed developed four ‘Packages’ of measures that work together through appraisal tables using a 7-scale optimally to address the problems of the M4 Corridor, Arup have appraised each measure to identify: colour coding system: Magor to Castleton. • what it would entail;
• what impacts it could have on the economy, society and Large Positive Impact (+++) Package development has involved further research into the environment, in the context of M4 CEM Programme Aims, and Moderate Positive Impact (++) feasibility and deliverability into selected measures – both on WelTAG criteria; Slight Positive Impact (+) a stand-alone basis, and again in the context of the complete • its compatibility with other measures as part of the package; No (or Minimal) Impact (N) package of complementary measures. • how well it addresses the goals of the programme; and Slight Negative Impact (-) • its acceptability, feasibility, deliverability and risks. The resulting four option ‘Packages’, plus a ‘Do- Moderate Negative Impact (--) minimum’ scenario, are each presented within a dedicated Large Negative Impact (---) At this stage, the appraisal of measures is often still “high level”. In workbook. Each ‘Package’ offers a core scheme, practise this means traffic modelling work and assessment of traffic comprising one or more measures, supported by a number of The impacts are appraised in terms of the likely flow and accident data is undertaken, for comparative purposes. supplementary traffic management, public transport and effect each measure would have on the M4 Further technical appraisal is required during project delivery sustainable travel measures. Corridor transport conditions, as defined in following formal public consultation early next year, when a decision Programme Goals and WelTAG criteria. is made with respect to strategy implementation. This workbook presents the ‘alternatives considered’ – which include possible solutions that will not be progressed through the M4 CEM programme, following the packaging process. How should I use this workbook? The measures fall into two categories: This package identifies the measures that will not be progressed through the M4 CEM Programme, following the 1. Those that will help towards meeting the objectives packaging process. Should you feel that some of these measures should be part of the Programme, please let us know. but could be delivered by others outside of the M4 CEM Programme; and
2. Those which have been discarded due to poor performance against the M4 CEM Programme objectives.
3 2 Key information and Glossary
Key information sheets Appraisal summary worksheets
A key information sheet is provided at the beginning of this An appraisal summary worksheet sets out details of workbook to offer a summary description of its content. It Measures, providing an appraisal at a high level to identify identifies a number of measures that have been considered the likely impacts on the economy, society and environment. but discarded as part of the M4 CEM Programme. The potential acceptability, deliverability, feasibility and risk of the measure are also considered.
Economic impact – this is a description of the impact of a measure on the economy, at a local, regional and/or national level. Economic outcomes against which a measure is appraised include: • Access to employment opportunities; • Connectivity within Wales and internationally; • Efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of people; • Efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of freight; • Access to visitor attractions.
Social impact – the impact of a measure on people and communities. Social outcomes against which a measure is appraised include: • Access to healthcare; • Access to education, training and lifelong learning; • Access to shopping and leisure facilities; • Is healthy lifestyle encouraged; • Safety of travel.
Environmental impact – the impact of a measure on the environment. Environmental outcomes against which a measure is appraised include: • Use of sustainable materials; • Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions; • Impact on climate change; • Contribution to air pollution; • Impact on the local environment; • Impact on heritage; • Impact on biodiversity.
4 3 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Key Information Sheet
Alternatives Considered
What are ‘alternatives considered’? The ‘alternatives considered’ are measures that have been identified by either policy makers, stakeholders or the public – some of which may have merit in addressing some of the M4 CEM objectives. However, following detailed analysis and consideration as part of the packaging of the possible measures; these ‘alternatives considered’ fall outside of the M4 CEM Programme, for a number of possible reasons. The Lagoon measures fall into two categories: Barrage
1. Those that will help towards meeting the objectives but could be delivered by others outside of the Junction Highway M4 CEM Programme; and closures upgrades 2. Those which have been discarded due to poor performance against the M4 CEM Programme objectives.
What will happen to the measures falling outside of M4 CEM that are still good ideas? Policy Climbing Each measure’s Appraisal Summary Worksheet sets out an action for the Welsh Government. Whilst poor measures lanes performing measures may not be pursued; those that have merit will be passed onto the relevant potential delivery bodies for consideration. It is important to Welsh Government that these measures that have some merit in helping address the wider transport problems in South Wales will not be lost. Therefore this Workbook will be used to raise these ideas and help join up thinking between different Welsh Government departments and other potential delivery bodies. Alternatives Considered Why have some measures been discarded and what will happen to them? Education Bus prioirty Following appraisal, some measures considered have been identified to have large adverse impacts and programmes on M4 deliverability issues. There may be a number of reasons why a measure presented as an alternative considered has been discarded from the M4 CEM programme. Each measure is presented through an Appraisal Summary Worksheet in this booklet – identifying its description, likely impacts and justification for discarding. Because these measures are not considered to add benefits to the Programme or may in some cases be very difficult to deliver as part of wider South Wales transport schemes, they have been discarded from the process altogether. Those with some merit in helping address wider transport problems have been included in the ‘alternatives considered and could be delivered outside of the M4 CEM Public Travel Programme’ section, which presents measures that will help towards meeting the objectives but could be transport planning delivered by others outside of the Programme. subsidies
Car taxing Land use and parking planning charges
5 4 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures
Alternatives Considered and could be delivered outside of the M4 CEM Programme
Measures that will help meet the objectives but could be delivered by others outside of the M4 CEM Programme
6 5 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 1: Link (and new M48 Junction) between B4245 and M48 east of Magor
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk The provision of a direct connection between The measure would be expected to reduce congestion delays (and The measure is likely to be acceptable to Monmouthshire County Council and a the M48 motorway and the B4245 in the associated economic costs) on the B4245 at its junction with the majority of local residents. However, it is likely to receive opposition from some vicinity of Rogiet / Caldicot would permit access Steelworks Access Road. members of community, as a new motorway junction on the M48 could not be to the M48 / M4 motorway for residents of constructed to full design standards without significant impact on a number of residential Caldicot and Rogiet and potentially some Undy / The measure could facilitate access to Severn Tunnel Junction properties. Alternatively, an at-grade roundabout junction could be constructed with only Magor residents. This would avoid travellers railway station and any associated Park & Ride facility. limited impact on residential properties but only if the M48 motorway classification was needing to pass through Magor and Undy to join removed and the route status downgraded. The measure presents technical challenges if the motorway via the [Llanwern] Steelworks social impacts are to be minimised. Access Road at J23A. The M48 / B4245 connection has been considered previously by Monmouthshire County Council and funding has been one obstacle to implementation in the past.
Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; Social Impact • Poor social impact; Journey times and travel delays would be likely to be reduced for • Presents technical risks. residents of Caldicot, Rogiet, Magor and Undy, especially for those accessing the M4 motorway.
A number of residential properties could be directly affected subject to the detailed design of this measure – potentially creating local opposition from community groups.
Action following exclusion Pass on to Monmouthshire County Council for consideration. Environmental Impact The measure would be expected to reduce congestion delays (and associated economic costs) on the B4245 at its junction with the Steelworks Access Road.
The measure could facilitate access to Severn Tunnel Junction railway station and any associated Park & Ride facility.
7 6 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 2: Cardiff Peripheral Distributor Road Eastern Bay Link
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk The Eastern Bay Link would connect the existing The measure would facilitate access to / from the south eastern The measure has been considered in the past within transport planning documents and Queens Gate roundabout in Cardiff Bay to the industrial, commercial and residential districts of Cardiff subject would be considered acceptable to Cardiff Council. It would be feasible and existing Eastmoors / Southern Way viaduct at to appropriate capacity improvements at the A48 Eastern Avenue deliverable within a previously defined corridor. However, there would be significant Pengam Green with a new dual 2-lane All Llanederyn interchange. ecological and environmental risks to be addressed. Purpose highway. This in turn connects to the A48 Eastern Avenue at the Llanederyn The measure does not appear to offer any direct benefit to traffic Interchange and the eastern gateway to Cardiff and on the M4 motorway corridor - therefore there appear to be no would complete the missing link in Cardiff’s economic benefits in the context of the Corridor Enhancement [Southern] Peripheral Distributor Road. Measures Programme.
The absence of the Eastern Bay Link forces traffic onto local routes to enter and exit the south eastern region of Cardiff.
The Llanederyn interchange is congested with Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme current traffic volumes and it may be necessary to Social Impact • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; consider capacity improvements at this location, in The measure would reduce local traffic congestion, and improve • Poor environmental impact. addition to the Eastern Bay Link itself. highway safety for both drivers and pedestrians in a significant part of south east Cardiff.
Community severance may be reduced with reduced traffic volumes on local roads.
Environmental Impact The measure would have potentially significant ecological and environmental impacts, with the primary issue being that much of the Action following exclusion route is within the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation, Pass onto Cardiff Council for consideration. Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site.
Generally, the removal of traffic from local routes in the south east Cardiff region and the reduction in atmospheric pollution associated with slow moving congested traffic, would have a beneficial environmental impact on communities in south east Cardiff.
8 7 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 3: Introduce a travel sustainability checklist to be applied to new developments
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk A Sustainability Checklist for developments can Incentivising or regulating the need to satisfy a travel sustainability Introducing a requirement to fulfil sustainability checklists will require mandatory be used by both developers and architects to checklist for new developments will facilitate and encourage better legislation or commitment by the developer to ensure its successful implementation. review good practice and demonstrate the transport planning – ultimately helping to improve connectivity to It is understood that the Welsh Government is planning to introduce One Planet sustainability performance of proposed local and regional employment opportunities, facilities and Development guidance, which would include an element on transport. developments. Planners can also use it to assess a services by a range of modes. Ensuring that new development adheres planning application and, through forward to sustainability criteria will help reduce transport costs by planning, compare the sustainability of different facilitating the sustainable movement of people. It will also improve development site options. local economies by enabling access to local jobs and services.
Checklists can be tailored to reflect key local issues and local authorities can choose at what size of development the Checklist should apply. The transport element of a checklist comprises questions that aim to ensure people can reach the facilities they need by designing out the need to Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme travel, encouraging walking and cycling, Social Impact • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, encouraging public transport use and Encouraging new developments to both facilitate and promote the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. accommodating private cars in a way that sustainable travel will encourage modal shift and improve local minimises their impact and promotes a reduction accessibility. Encouraging more walking, cycling and public transport in their use. use has benefits for individuals in terms of their health and well- being, whilst improving access to local services for all will improve An example may be asking ‘what measures will be social equality. taken to ensure that the development enables sustainable and healthy modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport?’
Action following exclusion Environmental Impact Pass onto Welsh Local Planning Authorities for their consideration. By designing out the need to travel and encouraging people to travel by sustainably modes of transport will help reduce the dependence on the private vehicle and encourage a reduction in congestion, pollution and emissions.
The overall impact will depend on the scale and compliance of developments to the checklist.
9 8 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 4: Develop School Travel Plans and safe routes to school schemes
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk The development of school travel plans and safe Promoting the sustainable transport of children to school will help Whilst largely supported, implementing travel education programmes and travel plans routes to school schemes encourage children to reduce transport costs for parents and educational programmes will will require commitment from parents, teachers, school governors and local councils walk and cycle to school through a range of create jobs for trainers. Typically, this kind of intervention can alike. There is a risk that if this kind of intervention is not accompanied by initiatives that practical and educational measures. Organisations achieve a benefit-cost ratio of 4.6:1. will also encourage parents to use sustainable transport that efforts could be such as Sustrans in particular do much to help undermined. These interventions are only likely to replace short journeys and would deliver programmes that aim to make the school therefore only replace a small number of trips currently made along the M4 corridor. journey safer, healthier and more enjoyable for children. School Travel projects might include cyclist and pedestrian road safety training, walking buses, incentives and promotional activities, curriculum work, highway improvements and the provision of facilities such as cycle parking and waiting shelters. Social Impact Schools might create a School Travel Plan to set Whilst walking and cycling to school will improve children's health, Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme out how they intend to make travel to and from the associated education programmes will also help improve road • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, educational sites safer and more sustainable for safety and reduce child casualties. In addition to safer travel, School the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. pupils, parents and teachers. It is therefore an Travel Plans help combat social exclusion by encompassing all important tool in helping to reduce the number of pupils in its sustainable travel programme. It can also contribute to pupils who travel to school by car (a figure which community cohesion, helping to create safer, more pleasant streets currently stands at 32% according to the National for people to meet and socialise and for children to play. Travel Survey 2009).
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Encouraging the sustainable travel of pupils, parent and teachers will Pass onto Welsh Local Authorities and Local Education Authorities for their help reduce traffic congestion and pollution, ultimately contributing consideration. towards making the local community greener and improving the quality of life for everyone.
10 9 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 5: Develop Workplace Travel Plans
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk A workplace travel plan aims to identify and Business travel incurs costs related to mileage claims; staff time spent Implementing travel plans will require commitment from employers and employees promote possible alternatives to single travelling; and parking. Delays and unreliability caused by congestion alike. occupancy car use in order to address the over- also creates a business cost. Travel plans have the potential to make a dependency on car travel to work. A reduction in strategically important contribution to achieving better use of the In order to encourage enough businesses to adopt travel plans to make a real difference to car miles can not only benefit the environment but transport system and employees can gain a wide range of benefits and mode share, a co-ordinated approach is likely to be required, offering support to can produce financial benefits and productivity savings from an employer’s travel plan. A well-designed travel plan businesses that have less internal resources and show encouragement to others. improvements, saving both the business and its can typically cut 15% of commuter car use, which has huge cost staff money and time. Mostly they concentrate on saving benefits. Sustrans estimate that investment in workplace Government and local authorities are under increasing pressure to lead by example improving existing travel choices whilst giving cycling facilities has at least a 6:1 benefit-cost ratio. to encourage other organisations to develop Business Travel Plans. For some companies incentives to use more sustainable travel and the core business revolves around expanding the ‘environmental market’ and therefore it disincentives to solo car use. Interventions can is in their commercial interest to lead by example to develop environmental products, or include: approaches. • Cycle parking, showers and lockers; • Preferential parking for car sharers with 3 or Social Impact more in the team; By encouraging staff to travel by sustainable means, staff stress can Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme • A carshare database to promote carpool be reduced and punctuality improved. Staff recruitment and • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, formation; retention can be enhanced, walking or cycling to work can bring the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. • Discount on bus and rail season tickets; health benefits. Employees who are physically active for 20 minutes • Promotion of and information about alternative a day take less than half the annual sick leave of staff who are only modes; active for 10 minutes a day, providing additional economic benefits • The phasing out of company cars and their to the business. replacement with clean-fuelled pool vehicles; • Company bus services;
• Telecommuting and teleworking.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Transport is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, Pass onto Welsh Local Authorities and Business Groups for their consideration. and commuter and business travel constitute nearly 40% of miles driven by car. Measures taken to reduce excessive vehicle use are therefore vital for any business that seeks to make its operations more environmentally sustainable. Increasingly, organisations are exerting pressure on their suppliers to demonstrate ‘green credentials’, through ISO14001 or EMAS accreditation. Preparing and delivering measures through a GCP can satisfy corporate environmental objectives as well as bringing real environmental benefits.
11 10 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 6: Promote local and regional car share schemes
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Car sharing is when two or more people share a Car sharing reduces the need for a private car and reduces the number Advertising campaigns are important to the viability of car sharing schemes – and local car and travel together on a journey. Car sharing is of trips made by each driver – ultimately resulting in savings on authorities often partner with national car sharing companies to deliver local and regional becoming increasingly popular as the benefits are transport costs. It can also help to reduce parking costs for schemes. acknowledged: businesses. • Saves money on transport costs; Successful car sharing schemes are often coordinated by private organisations. • Fewer cars on the road means less congestion, less pollution and easier parking; • Provides a real solution to the transport problems of rural areas; • Gives employees and employers more transport options; • Reduces the need for a private car.
Car sharing can be incentivised through priority ‘2+’ highway lanes and special priority car Social Impact Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme parking. Initiatives are often promoted and Car sharing helps reduce costs of transport and gives employees more • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, marketed through car share organisations and local transport options – thus providing improved accessibility to those the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. authority websites. residing in rural areas in particular. Concerns over passenger safety – for women sharing with strangers in particular, are often addressed If everyone who drives on their own to work every effectively by policies offered by national car sharing companies. It day were to catch a lift with someone just once a can also improve staff morale by providing a sociable commute. week, the commuting car journeys would reduce by 20%.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Reducing the number of cars on the road will result in less congestion Pass onto Welsh Local Authorities and local car sharing scheme companies for their and less pollution, including air, noise and greenhouse gas emissions. consideration.
12 11 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 7: Locate key services in town centres (not out of town) in order to satisfy government sustainable development policy
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Town centres are the traditional focus for shops, Locating key services in town centres attracts a large number of trips The implementation of this approach will be determined by the level of local and national leisure facilities, financial and professional and as such focusing development in such sustainable locations will government commitment shown to sustainable development planning guidance. services, and various community services. As such attract investment and encourage funding for town centre regeneration However, it is unlikely to be possible in the near future to remove competition from they attract significant demand and are generally purposes, to the benefit of transport infrastructure. Such a policy will existing out of town shopping areas altogether. Further regeneration of town centres will accessible by both public and private means of not only protect town centre vitality and viability but encourage require investment from the private sector, and possibly specific delivery bodies to be transport. However, the traditional retailing role sustainable transport movements to and from important community set up. of the town centre has come under threat from out- and employment destinations. Vibrant town centres can also of-town developments, which are often less well encourage greater investment in the local economy. served by public transport services. Recent government planning guidance has recognised the importance of town centres as sustainable locations for development of community and economic functions - and now emphasises the need to protect town centre vitality and viability. Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme As such, government policy should promote Social Impact • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, sustainable development principles to Social equality is upheld by focusing development in locations where the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. encourage sustainable transport movements, all consumers are able to access key services and maximise the thus reducing the need to travel and reducing the opportunity to use means of transport other than the car. reliance on the private vehicle. It is also likely to improve community cohesion, as a vibrant town centre provides space for people to meet and socialise locally.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Focusing key services in sustainable locations accessible to a means Pass onto Welsh Local Planning Authorities for their consideration. of transport, including town centres, will reduce the need to travel and reduce the reliance on the private vehicle. Ultimately this approach will help reduce congestion, pollution and emissions. If there is significant regeneration of town centre areas, this also provides the opportunity to build in improvements to e.g. urban biodiversity and water quality.
13 12 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 8: Encourage local employers and schools to offer more flexible working arrangements
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Reducing the need to travel is a key element of Being socially and environmentally responsible, apart from its Surveys demonstrate that the main obstacle to introducing innovative working practices is sustainable travel planning and such an approach intrinsic value, can also have a powerful marketing impact. It can organisational culture. In addition, the underlying infrastructure of technology and can benefit from moves to flexible working and help raise the profile of organisations and it can help to sell products processes must be sound if more flexible working methods are to succeed. smarter working. and services. It can also make the organisation more attractive to potential recruits. Should a culture change progress, future flexibility The deliverability of this measure would rely heavily on commitment from local New forms of flexible working are emerging as in location could mean that organisations could locate work in areas authorities, schools and businesses to implement. technologies in communication improve and of employment need, which may have financial advantages due to become more affordable. Advances in lower property and labour costs, and availability of grants and other communications have seen progress in incentives from government for relocation. Furthermore, some teleworking, hot-desking and virtual offices – flexible working arrangements, such as ‘hubs’, can improve meaning that where once there were only flexible collaboration between companies and encourage innovation. contracts and flexible working hours, there is now flexibility in location as well. If it is properly implemented, flexible, location independent and mobile working can substantially reduce costs, Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme boost productivity and deliver a host of other Social Impact • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, benefits to employers, customers and staff. Flexible working arrangements offer employees more choice in the the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. way they organise their time, including spending time with a family, Transport for London has published a Smarter or contributing to the local community, improving wellbeing and Working Guide in association with Work Wise cohesion. As well as supporting equal opportunities, new ways of UK, the national campaign to promote flexible working have the potential to help sustain local economies by working. The research involved suggests that locating work in areas of employment need, for example rural flexible and location independent working can communities and post-industrial towns. substantially reduce travelling, both for individuals and for organisations.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Many studies have been carried out on the travel behaviour of home- Pass onto Welsh Government Business and Economy team, Welsh Local located employees. A recent study by BT into their own staff found Authorities, Local Education Authorities and Business Groups for their home-based workers reduced their commute travel by an average of consideration. 3,149 miles. Most studies find mileage reduction between 2,000 and 3,000 miles per year. However, it should be noted that home working is likely to lead to an increase in energy use at home and possibly more short journeys during the day. New ways of working can contribute directly to an employer's environmental policies through business-related transport reduction (commuting and in-work) through local working, home-based working, flexible working hours, electronic access to files, etc. This ultimately helps businesses contribute to reducing congestion, pollution and emissions.
14 13 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 9: Provide travel and behaviour information through education programmes
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Educating people of measures which can change Many ‘smarter choice’ ideas have been developed over the last decade Implementing and delivering travel education programmes will require commitment people’s decisions about when they travel, or so to encourage changes in travel behaviour. Typically the goal is a from businesses, schools and government funding alike. In order to promote this where they go and the mode of travel they use shift from relatively expensive and high energy car use towards lower measure, walking and cycling should be at the heart of local transport and public will be increasingly important in off-setting the carbon and more active travel – which makes transport more cost health strategies and plans – which will require political commitment. Cycling and need for new transport capacity. effective for individuals and businesses. There is potential to make walking are normally judged to be appropriate to replace journeys of up to 5 miles and significant savings to the economy through more active travel in would therefore only replace a small number of trips currently made along the M4 Promotion of the evidence of travel change particular: other countries like the Netherlands have achieved huge corridor. If this is not accompanied by investment in walking and cycling infrastructure, it behaviour can better educate people about the cost reductions in healthcare by supporting walking and cycling may not provide the expected modal shift. following benefits of sustainable travel: policies and promoting the benefits to communities. This is a low cost • Travel behaviour change measures can provide option, with no new infrastructure required. very high benefits compared to costs, when measured by WelTAG, the method for evaluating transport investment; • Changing how we travel can reduce the need for expensive infrastructure; Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme • Behaviour change measures can be Social Impact • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, implemented much more quickly than Encouraging more people to travel more sustainably can help facilitate the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. infrastructure projects; modal shift and bring health and wellbeing benefits if people start • Travel behaviour change measures can achieve walking and cycling short distances opposed to using the car. In genuine carbon reductions; addition, active modes can improve equality, as they are a cheap • Approaches to encourage walking and cycling mode of transport, equally accessible to most groups. It can also can promote the health and wellbeing benefits; contribute to community cohesion, helping to create safer, more • Better driving techniques can have economic pleasant streets for people to meet and socialise and for children to and environmental benefits through reduced play. fuel use.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Educating people to make better decisions that can help reduce the Pass onto Welsh Local Authorities, Local Education Authorities and Business need to travel and encourage people to travel more sustainable – will Groups for their consideration. create positive environmental benefits in terms of reducing car use, pollution and emissions. Specifically, there are benefits for the environment in promoting walking and cycling as alternatives to the car - with potential modal shift helping to create safer and more pleasant streets, better air and noise quality and lower carbon emissions, as a result of reduced congestion.
15 14 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 10: Invest in IT and broadband connections to reduce need to travel
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Reducing the need to travel is a key element of Flexible working and a reduced need to travel offer businesses the The level to which benefits are reaped will coincide with the level of investment the sustainable travel planning and advances in IT potential to make a strategically important contribution to achieving government, an organisation or individual is willing to commit to. There are often communications are central to moves to flexible better use of the transport system, whilst both employers and significant financial costs involved in rolling out new technologies and although they may working and smarter working. employees can gain a wide range of benefits and savings from lead to longer term savings in transport costs etc – the initial expense can often deter reduced travel costs. Furthermore, flexibility in location allows delivery. New forms of flexible working are emerging as organisations to locate in areas of employment need, which may have technologies in communication improve and financial advantages due to lower property and labour costs, and become more affordable. Advances in availability of grants and other incentives from government for communications have seen progress in relocation. Deployment of next generation broadband will be teleworking, remote desktop access, mobile email commercially viable in densely populated areas of Wales, but public access, hot-desking and virtual offices. Such sector intervention will be required in rural areas. investments in IT facilitate the potential to implement flexible contracts and flexible working hours, whilst there is now flexibility in location as well. If it is properly implemented, flexible, Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme location independent and mobile working can • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, substantially reduce costs, boost productivity and Social Impact the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. deliver a host of other benefits to employers, Investment in ICT offers employees more choice in the way they customers and staff. organise their time, benefiting from a reduced need to travel. As well as supporting equal opportunities, new ways of working have the potential to help sustain local economies by locating work in areas of employment need, for example rural communities and post- industrial towns. Delivery of high speed broadband is less commercially attractive in rural areas; this barrier will need to be overcome through subsidies or alternative delivery models in order to ensure that rural areas have equal access to services. Suitable training will need to be provided to ensure that all groups can benefit equally from next generation broadband.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion New ways of working, supported by technological advances in Pass onto Welsh Government Business and Economy team for their consideration. communications, can contribute directly to an employer's environmental policies through business-related transport reduction (commuting and in-work) through local working, home- based working, flexible working hours, electronic access to files, teleconferencing etc. This ultimately helps businesses contribute to reducing congestion, pollution and emissions. However, ICT is a significant user of electricity. If combined with investment in low carbon electricity supply then this will help to create a low carbon future.
16 15 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 11: Maintain/Increase River Severn Crossing tolls
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Determining the costs and benefits of alternative Previous research has demonstrated the importance to businesses of Given current budgetary constraints, an additional source of revenue for re-investment is a futures for the tolls is far from straightforward. access to suppliers, consumers and labour force. The Severn potentially attractive option – although any review of the toll price structure is unlikely Once the concession agreement has ended (approx Crossings effectively reduce this accessibility both in terms of time until after the concession agreement ends around 2017. However, the decision rests with 2017) the UK Government has the flexibility over and cost. There are three elements to cost. These consist of a short the Department for Transport despite the importance of the Severn Crossings for Wales the decision to remove tolls, retain tolls at a level time delay for westbound traffic at the toll booths and the cost of the and the fact that transport is a devolved policy area. Decisions on the future of the tolls to cover maintenance costs, or increase tolls in toll itself. In addition, there may be a further perception of cost, are, therefore, political as much as they are economic. order to fund transport infrastructure inconvenience and delay, especially in the case of businesses improvements elsewhere. considering inward investment into South Wales. An increase in toll prices would exacerbate the current perceived and actual Increasing the tolls will aim to generate increased economic costs, although should demand fall – congestion and revenue that can be reinvested in the maintenance time delays could in fact be reduced along this stretch of the M4. or improvement of Welsh transport infrastructure. There would be a likely adverse impact on the visitor economy in However, depending on the effect on demand, a particular. toll increase could also see reduced demand for the route – ultimately leading to a reduction in use, Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme congestion and a shift to alternative means of • Poor social impact; transport to the car. The response of traffic demand • Significant deliverability issues; to tolls has proved difficult to predict with • This measure would fall outside of the scope of delivery for the M4 CEM accuracy. The choices facing transport users are Social Impact Programme. complex and the response to tolls is shaped by a It is reasonable to expect, for labour markets in close proximity to the range of local factors and circumstances. A bridge, that a toll increase will impact adversely upon the daily decision would see a trade off between increased commuting and residential patterns of workers on either side of revenue and modal shift, with wider economic the Severn – in terms of increased financial burden. In particular, an costs and impacts. Retention of the tolls may increase would place additional financial burden on those less able benefit from technologies in toll collecting that to pay for the increased toll price. However, should demand reduce, reduce the economic impact of queuing times. journey time reliability may be improved as a result of reduced congestion. Public transport and cycle alternatives would need to be improved and in particular made accessible to those unable to afford the toll increases.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Depending on a user’s willingness to pay an increased toll, an increase Pass onto Welsh Government Economic Advice Unit for their consideration. in toll price could lead to reduced use along this stretch – leading to a reduction in congestion, pollution and emissions. In some cases, the effect could be modal shift, which will bring environmental benefits. However, where car users may seek alternative routes – congestion hot spots may appear on local roads and redistribute air, noise and emissions pollution elsewhere on the untolled network.
17 16 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 12: Reduce/Remove River Severn Crossing tolls
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Determining the costs and benefits of alternative Previous research has demonstrated the importance to businesses of Given current budgetary constraints, reducing a source of revenue generated from the tolls futures for the tolls is far from straightforward. access to suppliers, consumers and labour force. A reduction or is a potentially unattractive option – although any review of the toll price structure is Once the concession agreement has ended (approx removal of the Severn Crossings tolls would effectively increase this unlikely until after the concession agreement ends around 2017 in any case. The decision 2017) the UK Government has the flexibility over accessibility both in terms of time and cost. There are three ultimately rests with the Department for Transport despite the importance of the Severn the decision to remove tolls, retain tolls at a level elements to cost. These consist of a short time delay for westbound Crossings for Wales and the fact that transport is a devolved policy area. Decisions on the to cover maintenance costs, or increase tolls in traffic at the toll booths and the cost of the toll itself. In addition, there future of the tolls are, therefore, political as much as they are economic. order to fund transport infrastructure may be a further perception of cost, inconvenience and delay, improvements elsewhere. especially in the case of businesses considering inward investment into South Wales. A decrease in toll prices would reduce the Decreasing the tolls will aim to boost the visitor current perceived and actual economic costs, although should economy and cross border trade. However, this demand increase – congestion and time delays could in fact be would be at the expense of direct generated from exacerbated along this stretch of the M4. the tolls. Depending on the effect on demand, a toll decrease could ultimately lead to an increase in use, congestion and a reduced incentive for modal Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme shift. The response of traffic demand to tolls has • Significant deliverability issues; proved difficult to predict with accuracy. The Social Impact • This measure would fall outside of the scope of delivery for the M4 CEM choices facing transport users are complex and the A toll increase would improve access to labour markets in close Programme. response to tolls is shaped by a range of local proximity to the bridge, by reducing the financial burden on both factors and circumstances. A decision would see a commuters and businesses. This will be to the benefit of social trade off between decreased revenue and modal equality. shift, with other wider positive economic impacts.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion A decrease in toll price could lead to increased use along this stretch – Pass onto Welsh Government Economic Advice Unit for their consideration. leading to an increase in congestion, pollution and emissions. However, a removal of the tolls altogether would remove queuing, thus improving fuel efficiency.
18 17 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 13: Improve collaborative working from in order to reduce the negative impacts of current travel patterns
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Greater co-ordination and collaboration Collaborative working comes at no direct additional financial cost Working collaboratively requires an alignment of organisational and individual between adjacent local authorities and/or regions but is centred on delivering best value outputs. It can aid data cultures for the common good of partnership working and aiming to deliver best value can bring several benefits with regards to transport sharing and even see the use of shared ICT systems – ultimately outputs. Obstacles to collaborative working include lack of commitment by leadership, management and planning. eliminating the time and costs of unnecessary travel. Better sharing of cultural differences, capability and skills deficits, and wasteful practices focused on information with team members both internally and externally, such delivering projects on lowest price and not best value. Benefits from co-ordination and collaboration as partners or delivery bodies, can see the exchanging of information include: benefit knowledge transfer – helping organisations and staff personnel • improving cross-border/cross-department become more skilled, efficient and profitable. Overall this approach communications and data sharing; helps add value to projects and helps deliver higher quality projects • the sharing of technical and project on time and to budget more easily. There is also potential for management skills, experience and personnel; procurement savings with increased scope for resource pooling. • the development of common objectives and delivery plans; • more sustainable procurement of products services from the supplier market; Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme • the sharing of operational and maintenance • Although the impacts are favourable towards helping meet the aims and goals, costs; Social Impact the deliverability of this falls outside of the realms of the M4 CEM Programme. • standardisation of services and technologies Collaborative working benefits the quality of communication within organisations and between partners between departments and organisations, helping to improve workplace offering efficiency savings. efficiency, responsiveness, and professionalism. It can reduce competition and antagonism between organisations, departments and individuals, creating a more pleasant working environment and improving wellbeing.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Encouraging partnership working reduces the need to travel through Pass onto Welsh Government Business and Economy team and Local Authorities more efficient data sharing, when resources can be pooled, and and for their consideration. multiple offices can be used by partnering staff. Skills sharing and knowledge transfer can also support innovative practices that may help reduce the environmental impact of projects for no additional cost. It can also lead to a more joined up approach to delivery of an integrated transport system; encouraging modal shift, which results in reduced pollution and emissions.
19 18 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 14: Grade-separated improvements to SDR
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk The at-grade junctions on the SDR tend to This measure is aimed at reducing journey times on the SDR which This scheme would be difficult to construct and cause delays during construction. disrupt main carriageway traffic and the SDR will result in user benefits. Greater use of the SDR should reduce Environmental issues need to be addressed, whilst there would be local land and access would be a more attractive alternative east-west delays elsewhere on Newport’s local highway network and the M4 issues to be resolved. The operation and maintenance of the SDR is currently under the traffic route if the main carriageway flows were motorway. control of a private company under the terms of a concession agreement. Any changes to given greater priority by grade separation of operating conditions on the SDR will be subject to the terms and restrictions of the extant some key junctions. Construction would be disruptive to the operation of the road and agreement. would have an adverse impact on local businesses affected along This measure would see grade separation of certain sections of the SDR during the construction period. Initial traffic modelling has shown that daily travel time on the network will be reduced as some junctions to support at-grade SDR a result of this measure. This will result in some benefit to road users. The cost of the improvements scheme, including enhancement measure could outweigh the benefits. at:
• Maesglas Road; Social Impact • Usk Way; The purpose of this measure is to create an alternative route for east- • Corporation Road; west traffic to the M4 that will relieve traffic congestion on the wider Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme • Nash Road; highway network. As such, this new focus for the SDR could make • The scheme would be expensive and difficult to construct; • Queensway Meadows; access to local services more difficult in some places, although • At-grade improvements to the SDR would be more beneficial in terms of cost • Hartridge; and general access into Newport would be enhanced by an improved SDR and benefits delivered. • Beatty Road. route.
Improvement in operating conditions on the Whilst a completed scheme would help relieve traffic congestion SDR will aim to encourage a significant overall; much of the work would entail a lengthy construction period, proportion of east-west traffic to use the SDR being disruptive to the operation of the road and adversely affecting instead of sections of the M4 motorway around communities in the short to medium term. Newport, particularly those with an origin and/or destination within Newport. Under normal operating conditions, it is unlikely that strategic motorway traffic would divert onto the SDR.
Environmental Impact Whilst the environmental impacts of improvements would vary along Action following exclusion different sections of the route, the overall impact would encourage Welsh Government to consider the benefits of grade separated improvements to more cars to use the SDR and therefore increase greenhouse gas minor sections of A48 SDR as an alternative approach during the potential emissions along the SDR; whilst relieving traffic congestion and development of an SDR at-grade junction improvement scheme in the longer term. improving the environmental implications of traffic along the M4 route.
There would also be environmental construction impacts, including dust, noise, waste and transport - that would need consideration and mitigation.
20 19 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Considered Measure 15: Close J27 Access to and from the M4
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Junction 27 links the B4591 to the M4 motorway. The measure will improve journey time reliability on the M4, thus At an estimated cost of £10M the measure is affordable in the short term. The B4591 provides a route between communities improving the efficient long distance movement of freight travel in the Ebbw and Sirhowy Valleys and Newport. and people to employment opportunities. There may be possible opposition to junction closure from local residents. This route is characterised by commuter traffic and is a bus route. Circulating traffic accessing or Traffic previously using J27 to access the motorway would need to Other localised highway improvements may be needed on diversion routes to access exiting the motorway results in queuing on the divert to alternative routes, which could lead to longer journey times M4 via Junction 28 or Junction 26. The redundant roundabout may also need to be approaches on the B4591. This option for these vehicles. replaced by a through link for the B4591 route. discontinues use of all slip roads onto the motorway at this location (1). Junctions 28 and 26 provide alternative access to the motorway. The B4591 is an important regional bus service route providing access into Newport from communities in the Ebbw and Sirhowy Valleys. The opportunity to improve these services and commuter journey times would result from Social Impact Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme closure of Junction 27. The slips could be The reduction in traffic entering and exiting the M4 will improve • The scheme would lead to adverse knock-on effects at J28; retained for use by emergency services and for safety. • Closing J27 would adversely impact on local accessibility; maintenance only. • Safety improvements at J27 would reconfigure the junction and provide a more Access to strategic locations via the M4 will be removed for attractive alternative within the Packages. Consideration may need to be given to communities residing locally in the J27 area. replacing the roundabout by reinstating the main B4591 route, which would require the existing bridges to be demolished and a new bridge installed over the M4.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion By reducing queuing on and off the junction; air, noise and harmful Potentially consider as a future scheme as part of other junction enhancements emissions pollution will be reduced in this area. Traffic diverting outside of the M4 CEM Programme Packages. onto alternative routes could result in additional noise or air pollution elsewhere.
21 20 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures
Alternatives Considered and Discarded
Measures which have been discarded due to poor performance against the M4 CEM Programme objectives
22 21 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 1: Combine a new M4 with a lagoon barrage
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk This measure would build a new transport The measure would introduce a significant detour and increase the The measure is only deliverable in conjunction with a Severn Tidal Barrage and corridor on top of a Severn Estuary Tidal travel distance compared with the existing M4 motorway. It is therefore entirely dependent on other developments and policy decision making. It is Barrage. This proposal would provide a difficult to see how a lagoon barrage could reduce journey times and likely to face significant environmental opposition. The barrage presents as yet causeway stretching from Nash Point to the south so it is unlikely to be attractive to either long distance or local unquantified technical risks. east of Newport up to Sudbrook at the western end traffic. It would be unlikely to have any positive effects in improving of the Second Severn Crossing. journey time reliability on the M4.
Outline proposals for a ‘Severn Barrage’ include a full estuarial crossing between the Newport and Somerset coasts and also smaller scale, tidal lagoons adjacent to either (or both) the east or west estuary shorelines.
A new transport corridor combined with the Social Impact barrage would necessarily follow the same route in The barrage is likely to have limited social impact after the initial Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme the Severn estuary and would require connection construction. The transport connections from either end of the barrage • Poor economic impact; to the existing transport network at each end. to the existing network will have permanent social impacts on the • Limited social impact; communities that they pass close to. The lagoon barrage option is • Poor environmental impact; Whilst the barrage could support both road and rail unlikely to attract any appreciable traffic volume from the existing M4 • Likely to attract significant public opposition; infrastructure, rail connections to the existing corridor and so is unlikely to offer any appreciable improvement for • Presents high technical risks. network would be more difficult than highway communities close to the existing corridor. connections.
Environmental Impact Construction of a Severn Estuary barrage would be likely to have Action following exclusion significant adverse effects on the Severn Estuary SAC, SPA and None Ramsar site. Construction of a transport corridor on top of a barrage would have further environmental impacts beyond that of the barrage itself. Further impacts would include the introduction of air, noise and emissions pollution into a region that currently experiences very low pollution levels.
23 22 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 2: Corporation Road Link
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk A single carriageway Corporation Road Link was Whilst some road users may experience shorter journey times, it The measure is unlikely to attract community or political opposition and thus is likely to originally considered as a potential feature of the is not obvious how construction of the link in isolation could be acceptable to Newport City Council. The scheme would be feasible and could be New M4 Project. It was intended to connect the deliver any significant economic benefits. constructed in isolation. A risk (potentially significant) is associated with necessary proposed New M4 Newport South Junction with electricity utilities diversions. The cost of construction of the Corporation Road Link Corporation Road via Traston Road and land may include brown-field land remediation costs in addition to high voltage electricity adjacent to the Solutia chemical works. supply diversion costs.
The principal purpose of a Corporation Road Link would be to bypass Meadows Road and Nash Road and convey traffic between Pye Corner (Nash) and the A48 Newport Southern Distributor Road in the most efficient manner.
Social Impact The measure has the potential to reduce traffic flows in vicinity of Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme Liswerry School and adjacent residential properties, thus improving • Poor economic impact; safety for road users and pedestrians. • Limited social impact; • Poor environmental impact; Whilst access would be improved to the communities on the • Presents technical risks. Gwent Levels (Nash and Goldcliff), it offers no obvious benefits to communities adjacent to the existing M4 motorway.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Part of the Corporation Road Link would be constructed on green- None field land, of which the ecological and environmental impacts would require investigation.
The link could remove traffic from Nash Road and so reduce traffic flows with associated reductions in noise and air quality pollution adjacent to residential properties and Liswerry School.
The link may increase development pressures on land within the Gwent Levels SSSI in the vicinity of Pye Corner.
24 23 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 3: Create road between Celtic Springs and Rogerstone roundabout
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk This measure would involve the provision of a The measure will improve journey time reliability on the route This scheme would be a significant cost and would require Orders to be made. It new road link between the A48 at Celtic between Cardiff and Ebbw Vale and the Rhymney and Sirhowy would also be difficult to construct a new bridge under the M4, as necessary to delivery, Springs, west of M4 Junction 28, and the A467 Valleys, thus improving the efficient long distance movement of which would create a large volume of excavation to deal with. Option 1 would impact on north of Junction 28. The value in providing this freight travel and people to employment opportunities. the historic resources and landscape and result in the partial loss of land at school link is so that traffic between Cardiff and Ebbw playing fields – thus likely to prove unpopular with local communities and Vale and the Rhymney and Sirhowy Valleys can politicians. avoid Junction 28, which is severely congested during peak periods.
Two alignments have been developed in outline. Option 1 would run from the Electronics Plant roundabout on the A48 to the A467/A468 roundabout at Bassaleg. Option 2 would also run from the roundabout to a new roundabout on the Social Impact A467 just north of Junction 28. From the A48 both Slightly beneficial in improving accessibility north of the M4 Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme options would need to tunnel beneath the existing Junction 28 to Cardiff, the measure would improve safety and traffic • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; M4 and climb steeply northwards cutting deep into flow. Option 1 is likely to create a localised and specific negative • Poor social impact; the hillside before dropping steeply to the A467. impact on Bassaleg School, in terms of safety, accessibility and • Presents high technical risks. Option 1 in particular would have extensive health. Option 2 is likely to have a negative impact on the farm on the earthworks due to the topography and would route. impact on a hill fort and school playing fields at Bassaleg.
Environmental Impact By reducing congestion at Junction 28; air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced in this area. However, overall traffic numbers are unlikely to reduce as a result of this Action following exclusion measure, so this impact will be slight. Option 1 would impact on None Graig-y-Saeson defended enclosure (hill fort). It also runs very close to Bassaleg School, and the noise and air pollution impact are likely to have a localised negative impact for students and staff. A full landscape and visual impact assessment would be required, but both options are likely to have a negative impact.
25 24 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 4: Link between M48 and Second Severn Crossing
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk The provision of a u-turn facility between the The disruption caused by its construction is likely to cause short term This measure would require very costly engineering solutions due in particular to its M48 and M4 corridors in the vicinity of Rogiet delays. structural impact on an existing railway bridge. For the relatively limited traffic would remove the need for traffic travelling to / movements likely to use this facility and the infrequent closure of the Old Severn Bridge, from England to make a u-turn at Magor Junction There is no obvious significant user demand for this measure other this measure would appear to be disproportionately expensive. 23A in the event that the Old Severn Bridge is than at times of Old Severn Bridge closure and even then traffic closed. volumes would not be expected to be excessively high. The measure The physical impact of the additional link roads on residential properties on the would primarily only improve journey times between the Chepstow western fringe of Rogiet would be likely to be significant. As would the impact on the This measure would be provided by means of / Monmouth area and England. existing M4 bridge over the London – South Wales Railway line. motorway links in the vicinity of the existing M4 / M48 Junction 23, close to Rogiet. The measure is potentially feasible albeit at a high financial cost. However, there would be a technical risk introduced by interface with Network Rail infrastructure.
Social Impact The measure would benefit road users from the Chepstow / Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme Monmouth area travelling to / from England by improving localised • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; accessibility. • Poor economic impact; • Poor social impact; The facility would have a direct physical impact on residential • Presents high technical risks. property and farm holdings in the vicinity of Rogiet – potentially causing community tension. Increased physical and noise impact on residents to the west side of Rogiet is likely.
Environmental Impact This measure may reduce traffic making a u-turn movement at the existing Junction 23A. However, overall it would have minimal environmental impact following construction.
It could lead to possible reduced noise and air quality impacts on Action following exclusion residents to north / north west side of Magor but increased impacts on None residents to the west side of Rogiet.
26 25 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 5: Permanent hard shoulder running lanes on the existing M4
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk For hard shoulder running to be implemented Average speeds could be expected to increase on the sections with This is a highly complex and costly scheme with many overbridges needing demolition between Junctions 23a and 29 the existing hard hard shoulder running. However the Brynglas tunnels ‘bottleneck’ and replacement and major viaducts needing to be widened, all requiring lengthy shoulders need to be made continuous as sections are effect could be expected to worsen with 4 lanes on the approach to periods of traffic management on the M4 and the affected side roads. Decisions need to non-existent. The reinstatement of hard shoulders the tunnels dropping to 2 lanes through the tunnels. This could lead be made on whether the bridges are replaced offline with land take and orders or else would be complex and costly with a high structural to higher levels of congestion, incidents and delays on the roads and footpaths closed for the duration of the re-construction. Utilities in the bridges element involving overbridge replacement, approaches to the tunnels. will also be affected and will need diversions. On sections too short for active traffic underbridge extensions, and long lengths of Significant disruption to road users could be expected during management to be implemented full time hard shoulder running would be employed and retaining structures to minimise land take. construction works, with a negative economic impact. will require similar safety controls. The estimated cost is £290-350M excluding J25 to Delivery between J24-25 and J27-J28 would be more J26. complex than the other sections. In addition, it is not feasible to provide hard shoulder running through the Brynglas Tunnels (J25a to J26) and as a result of that it is also not feasible through J26. Elsewhere hard shoulder running has already been adopted through J25 to J25a and also through J27. Traffic forecasts also Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme suggest that hard shoulder running would not be • necessary on J23a to J24, and through J24 and J28. Social Impact Poor economic impact; Hard shoulder running would result in fewer areas for drivers to pull • Poor social impact; Due to the signalling and signage requirements for part- over and stop in case of an emergency or breakdown. This could • Poor environmental impact; time hard shoulder running (or active traffic reduce safety. The improved monitoring and recovery systems • Presents high technical risks. management) motorways sections having weaving required to mitigate this could improve safety and journey time distances below 2.0km would require this to be permanent by means of road markings and fixed reliability overall. signage, such that the section would operate as permanent D4 but without hard shoulder. The three There will be disruption to cyclists, pedestrians and the local sections west of Brynglas tunnels, Junctions 26 to 29, community during construction. are each 2km or below and so hard shoulder running would therefore be a permanent feature. East of Brynglas, Junctions 23a to 25, the two sections exceed 2km and so part-time hard shoulder running with the necessary signalling, variable signage and monitoring
could be considered. Environmental Impact There will be negative environmental impacts related to construction, including dust, transport, noise etc, which will need to be mitigated against. Action following exclusion None Overall, the measure should result in reduced congestion, with associated environmental benefits. However, should traffic volumes increase, total pollution and emissions would increase.
27 26 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 6: Upgrade Steelworks Access Road to dual 3 lanes
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk It is currently proposed that M4 Junction 23a will This measure would have significant adverse impacts on businesses Previous assessments have indicated that this scheme would operate within capacity for a be connected by a dual 2 lane all purpose road to along the corridor due to loss of land some of which is required to design year of 2031. The value for money in upgrading the Steelworks Access Road the A48 Newport Southern Distributer Road by an maintain local access. further is therefore questionable. improved route following the Steelworks Access Road. At grade roundabouts or signalised junctions These proposals would be challenging to implement as the corridor is constrained by are proposed at strategic locations to provide local development sites on each side, and would most likely result in significant impact upon access. the Air Products site to the south side. Grade separation would also require a rationalisation of a number of junctions, making local access difficult to achieve, which This measure is to further improve on the route to resolve would probably need parallel local access roads further impacting upon a tight standard by the provision of dual 3 lanes with corridor. At the western end, creating a dual 3 lane corridor would create a significant grade separated junctions. adverse impact on surrounding businesses. There is also existing ground contamination along the corridor, which would need to be remediated. [For information: Social Impact A development comprising 4000 houses and 40 ha of employment The current proposals for the Steelworks Access land is proposed for the Newport Eastern Expansion site south of the Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme Road upgrade involve a dual 2 lane all purpose railway line, immediately west of the Steelworks. This site would be • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; standard route between Queensway Meadows and accessed via the Steelworks Access Road. Rationalisation and grade- • Poor economic impact; the eastern edge of the Steelworks Site with a wide separation of junctions with the Steelworks Access Road would be • Poor social impact; single carriageway along the remaining length up likely to reduce accessibility to this site from the road network. • to Junction 23a of the M4. The B4245 junction at Poor environmental impact; Therefore this proposal could reduce accessibility to the • Presents high technical risks. Magor is also proposed to be upgraded to traffic development area by road, which could have adverse impacts for signals as part of this scheme.] pedestrians and cyclists if no alternative routes for these modes provided.
Action following exclusion Environmental Impact None This measure goes through the Gwent Levels SSSI, and will have significant negative ecological impacts on the habitat. Adverse construction impacts on the environment would need to be further assessed and mitigated against.
The measure should reduce congestion along the M4, with
associated environmental benefits. However, there is likely to be
increased traffic on this stretch of road, with associated negative environmental impacts.
28 27 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 7: 3 lane on-line widening on existing M4
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk This measure involves a programme of major The measure will provide extra capacity, helping to improve journey This is a highly complex scheme with a total of fourteen overbridges needing demolition on-line widening to the existing M4 corridor time reliability and provide accident and delay savings. and replacement and three major viaducts needing to be widened, all requiring lengthy between Junction 24 and 29 to dual 4 lane Improving journey times will reduce the costs of congestion but periods of traffic management on the M4 and the affected side roads. The engineering motorway standard with hard shoulders (to will cause significant disruption during construction, which could works involved in boring a new tunnel and modifying the existing infrastructure on the achieve a design speed standard of 100kph have adverse impact on the local economy over the phased approach are also significant and complex. There are inherent risks in tunnelling, with (60mph). delivery period. ground collapse which impacts on properties above the tunnels. The phased programme would see on-line Decisions need to be made on whether road bridges are replaced offline with land take widening in three sections over an approximate and orders, or else roads and footpaths could be closed for the duration of the re- 20 year construction period: construction. Utilities in the bridges will also be affected and will need diversions. It is likely that the railway line would have to be diverted in order to construct a new bridge to West of the Brynglas Tunnels - the west of the tunnels. The section of M4 between J29 and J26 is dual three lanes, is the section with the highest flows It is possible that the cost of this measure will outweigh the benefits despite providing and the most congested. The proposed solution is Social Impact extra capacity. The outline cost estimate range for works is: to improve the horizontal curves and sightlines, Improved visibility and the provision of hard shoulder and the • but to leave the substandard grades and crest removal of bottlenecks on the M4 is likely to improve safety West of the Brynglas Tunnels - £190M to £210M; curve. To achieve desirable minimum standards conditions. • Through the Brynglas Tunnels - £320M to £380M; the overall width of the motorway (verge to verge) • would need to increase by 2-19m. In addition some Around 35 properties are likely to be demolished to the west of the East of the Brynglas Tunnels - £175M to £200M. 1800m of new retaining walls would be required. Brynglas tunnels; and around 100 to the east of the Brynglas tunnels in order to implement the required works, which is likely to attract Through the Brynglas Tunnels - opposition from the local residents and communities affected. Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme
Having only dual 2 lanes the tunnels are operating • Would not meet the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme to the same There would also be significant impact on local communities during at capacity during peak periods. The capacity of extent as 4 line on-line widening; the construction phase. the existing tunnels cannot be increased and so to • Poor social impact; achieve dual 3 lane standard, a new bore tunnel • Poor environmental impact; would be created (4 lane plus hard shoulder • Presents high technical risks. carriageway width), whilst converting the existing
bores to carry the opposite carriageway in (2 lane)
+ (1 lane) formation.
Environmental Impact East of the Brynglas Tunnels - There would be significant environmental impacts caused during
The section of M4 between J25 and J24 is dual construction, whilst there would be a slight beneficial impact on
three lanes. Of the two links on this section J25- vehicle pollution and emissions following construction, with
J24 is operating close to capacity in the peak reduced congestion. However, this benefit may be offset in the periods and hence subject to regular congestion, longer term should total traffic volumes continue to increase. whilst J24-J23a has spare capacity – thus will not Action following exclusion be subject to widening as part of this measure. The Construction activities, new viaduct structures and potential increased None proposed solution is to improve the horizontal traffic volumes may also adversely affect the River Usk Special curves and sightlines, but to leave the substandard Area of Conservation. grades and crest curve. The overall width of the motorway (verge to verge) would need to increase by 0-24m. In addition some 8500m of new
retaining walls would be required.
29 28 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 8: Reinstate motorway access westbound at J25
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk At Junction 25 the westbound on slip to the M4 Reinstatement of the westbound on slip to the M4 at J25 would result It is not possible to reinstate the slip road due to overlap between the Junction 25 was closed off in the past by hatching out road in less detour and therefore shorter journey times for traffic merge and the Junction 25a diverge. A reduction in accessibility to destinations via markings on the carriageway and providing a travelling between Caerleon and the M4 westbound. However, J25a westbound off-slip would be expected to outweigh any improvement in accessibility barrier (1). This measure looks at reinstating the this is likely to be outweighed by the additional detours and longer to Caerleon traffic. It is considered that this would generate significant public access onto the M4. journey times that would be experienced by other traffic that opposition. previously used the westbound off slip to J25a, resulting in longer The closure of the on slip was necessitated by the journey times overall. construction of Junction 25a (2). The westbound diverge to Junction 25a would overlap with the Junction 25 westbound merge if the latter is to be reinstated and this would be totally unacceptable due to the exceptionally short scissors movement that would result. Technically, the only realistic way this measure is to be implemented would be to close the off slip to Junction 25a. Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme • Poor economic impact; Social Impact • Poor social impact; Reduction in accessibility to destinations via J25a westbound off-slip • Poor environmental impact. would be expected to outweigh any improvement in accessibility to Caerleon traffic. This would be likely to cause opposition by local communities.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion The measure would result in longer journey times overall, thus None increasing congestion and emissions.
30 29 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 9: Introduce climbing lanes at High Cross
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk The maximum recommended grade for a This measure would have minimal impact on journey time This is a highly complex scheme with three overbridges needing demolition and motorway is 4% but between Junctions 28 and 27 reliability. replacement and a major viaduct needing to be widened, all requiring lengthy periods of the existing uphill grade eastbound is traffic management on the M4 and the affected side roads. Decisions need to be made on approximately 5%. This measure would see the whether the two road bridges are replaced offline with land take and orders or else roads addition of a climbing lane on the verge side. and footpaths closed for the duration of the re-construction. Utilities in the bridges will The start of the climbing lane would conflict with also be affected and will need diversions. It is likely that the railway line would have to be the eastbound merge at Junction 28 but could be diverted in order to construct a new bridge. In a do-minimum scenario, this 0.7km section accommodated by it commencing as a lane gain of M4 would be predicted to have a high ratio of flow to capacity of 106% during peak from the merge. However, at Junction 27 the periods on a typical weekday in 2031 and the climbing lane would be justified for climbing lane would pass through the junction and capacity but may not provide value for money given the high cost of £38-45M. the on-slip merge could only be accommodated by the replacement of both junction overbridges. In operational terms it would be better in any case to close the eastbound slips to reduce traffic conflicts and avoid the bridge demolition, and so it is Social Impact Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme assumed that the slips would be closed with this Safety on M4 eastbound between Junctions 28 and 27 likely to • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; measure. The existing retaining wall along this improve through the introduction of a climbing lane. • Limited economic impact; section would need to be demolished and replaced • Poor environmental impact; further back with a new 500-600m long retaining • Presents high technical risks. wall to provide sufficient room for a climbing lane and hard shoulder/widened verge to give the necessary sightline. At least one property would need to be demolished and three existing bridges over the motorway would need to be replaced with longer span structures. The River Ebbw viaduct would also need widening at J28 merge.
Action following exclusion Environmental Impact None There are likely to be extensive construction works with associated adverse environmental impacts caused by disruption. Once completed, the resulting environmental impacts resulting from the measure are likely to be negligible.
31 30 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 10: Introduce climbing lanes at St Julian’s Hill
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk The maximum recommended grade for a There would be minimal impact on journey time reliability. This is a highly complex scheme with three overbridges needing demolition and motorway is 4% but between Junctions 25 and 24 replacement and a major viaduct needing to be widened, all requiring lengthy periods of the existing uphill grade eastbound is traffic management on the M4 and the affected side roads. Decisions need to be made on approximately 5% and so the addition of a whether the two road bridges are replaced offline with land take and orders or else roads climbing lane on the verge side would be and footpaths closed for the duration of the re-construction. Utilities in the bridges will justified in operational terms. The start of the also be affected and will need diversions. In a do-minimum scenario, this section of M4 2.5km long climbing lane would conflict with the would be predicted to have a high ratio of flow to capacity of 93% during peak periods on eastbound merge at Junction 25 but could be a typical weekday in 2031 and the climbing lane would be justified for capacity but may accommodated by it commencing as a lane gain not provide value for money given the high cost of £70-80M. from the merge. The St Julian’s Hill climbing lane would end at the crest of the hill part way along the J25-J24 section. The hard shoulder at St Julian’s Hill is discontinuous, whilst sections at or close to Social Impact existing bridges over the motorway are missing. In Safety on M4 eastbound between Junctions 25 and 24 likely to Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme addition further widening works would be improve through the introduction of a climbing lane. • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; required to provide for a continuous hard • Limited economic impact; shoulder through this eastbound uphill part of the • Poor environmental impact; motorway. Approximately 1200m of new retaining • Presents high technical risks. wall would also be required to provide sufficient room for a climbing lane and shoulder/widened verge to give the necessary sightline.
Three existing bridges over the motorway at Pen-
y-lan Farm Footbridge, Firbank Avenue, and
Rembrandt Way would need to be replaced with
longer span structures. St Julian’s Viaduct would
need to be widened eastbound.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Although the measure would involve extensive construction works, None the wider environmental impacts are likely to negligible.
32 31 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 11: Use of systematic and enforced bus priority measures on the M4
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk This measure would see the introduction of a bus The measure would improve journey times and reliability for A bus lane on the M4 Magor to Castleton would have to be justified in terms of usage by lane on the M4 between Magor and Castleton, permitted bus lane users. However, whilst the financial cost of permitted vehicles. In May 2001 a Sunday Times survey found that of 111 buses that used much like the M4 bus lane between Heathrow introducing priority measures would be low, the likely demands to the M4 Heathrow to London bus lane over a 5 hours 50 minute period, 38 were carrying Airport and central London, which ran from 1999 replace lost general road traffic capacity would require a no passengers, 37 were carrying 10 or fewer passengers, 15 were half full and 21 were to 2010. significant offset investment. full. Typified by the suspension of the M4 bus lane between Heathrow Airport and central London in December 2010, the measure may prove unpopular with road users and The aim of the bus lane is to result in time savings A study by the Transport Research Laboratory 'Monitoring of the M4 politicians. A review of the business-case for removing the M4 London bus-lane showed during peak periods for all types of vehicles. bus lane: the first year' in 2000 reported that the £1.9m scheme had an increase of 2% in overall weekly congestion, with no significant change in journey Improving bus journey times along strategic routes reduced rush hour journey times by 3.5 minutes for buses and one times for bus lane users. The M4 Heathrow to London bus lane was also criticised for a would help attract greater patronage and encourage minute for cars. Off-peak car journey times were a minute longer due lack of enforcement undermining its status. modal shift. to a reduced speed limit from 70mph to 50mph and overall journey This may mean that this measure would be more acceptable if coupled with other times had increased by 1.8%. Overall, there was an increase of 2% in measures to improve bus patronage. Currently, only long distance bus/coach services weekly congestion. For the motorway around Newport, the addition of operate along the M4 corridor Magor to Castleton. a bus lane would likely to have a more severe detrimental impact. The business case for the M4 bus lane alone is economically unpersuasive. The bus lane would be reserved for buses, coaches, motorbikes, emergency vehicles and licensed taxis. Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; • Poor economic impact; Social Impact • Poor environmental impact; Improving bus journey times will improve long distance • Significant deliverability issues. accessibility to a range of urban centres for those unable to use a car. Initial studies have also suggested that further benefits associated with the M4 London bus lane include a reduction in accidents. This is the subject of a longer-term study, but police have perceived a decrease in the number of accidents attended since the reduced speed limits were implemented. It is important to note the driver frustration with the M4 London bus lane, caused by underutilisation – exacerbated particularly during peaks of congestion.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion The environmental performance of the M4 Heathrow to London bus None lane was favourable, with CO2 emissions cut by 16%, fuel consumption improved by 16% and noise levels down by one decibel.
33 32 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 12: Improve inter-city bus services between Bristol/Newport/Cardiff
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk This measure would see the introduction of a Attracting greater bus patronage would boost public transport The delivery of an improved set of strategic bus services would require commitment more regular and higher quality bus service revenues and through improving journey frequency and potential from private operators. Viability of pilot services may even require subsidisation of operate between Cardiff, Newport and Bristol - modal shift, the measure would improve connectivity and choice of services, which would require political commitment in terms of allocation of resources. which would provide a real public transport transport mode between strategic destinations along the M4 corridor. An improved service may require public sector subsidies, subject to business case alternative to the car for strategic trips. development.
A more frequent, higher quality bus service operating along the M4 corridor between the three urban centres of Cardiff, Newport and Bristol would help attract greater bus patronage by commuters and leisure users – helping encourage modal shift by providing an attractive public transport alternative to the car. Social Impact Currently Cardiff Bus and Newport Bus operate An improved strategic bus system would improve bus journey times Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme services between Cardiff and Newport, whilst and accessibility to a range of urban centres for those unable to use a • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; National Express operates a service to Bristol. The car – thus also promoting social inclusion. Delivering a higher quality • Significant deliverability issues. national express services run every 2 hours but bus service would also provide an opportunity to change travel there is poor frequency after 5pm. This means that behaviours, particularly amongst commuters and business travellers. cross-border travel by bus is currently unattractive to commuters.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion A limited direct reduction in carbon emissions would be expected None as a result of encouraging existing car users to shift to more sustainable bus travel. New bus vehicles can also be stipulated to meet stringent environmental standards – which helps encourage a significant upgrade in the local bus fleet.
34 33 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 13: Achieve a reduction in fares for all public transport
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Urban public transport may be provided by one or This measure will have limited impact on journey time reliability. Many local authorities have been forced to abandon some existing public transport more private transport operators and services are subsidies and reduce the hours of its concessionary fares schemes after significant usually funded by fares charged to each passenger. Government cuts in funding for public transport. A reduction in public transport fares will threaten the commercial viability of many local services. As such, public subsidy is A reduction in fares is unlikely to have a the most feasible approach to delivering this measure. Subsidies usually take the form of significant impact on encouraging modal shift but direct payments to financially unprofitable services. This process will be at an it is likely to benefit existing service users. economic cost to Government, usually raised through a range of sources including local taxation, parking charges and parking enforcement revenues. The majority of UK local authority areas are served by commercial bus services that are regulated and part subsidised by local or national Social Impact tax revenue. In some cases, local bus services are Reducing public transport fares will provide a more accessible fully subsidised in order to maintain their transport service to all. Unemployed people or people on a low commercial viability. In order to reduce public income who find it challenging to access jobs and services is an transport fares, an increase in subsidy is the most important element of the social exclusion that defines urban poverty. Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme likely approach due to a reduction in fares may Cheaper public transport can help address this poverty. • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; otherwise put pressure on the quality, frequency • Significant deliverability issues. and viability of existing services. Local
authorities often opt to subsidise public transport for social, environmental or economic reasons. A key motivation is the need to provide
transport to people those who do not have access
to a car. Promoting modal shift can also reduce
congestion, pollution and emissions.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Encouraging people to use public transport by providing cheaper None alternatives to the private vehicle will promote modal shift, helping to reduce congestion, air and noise pollution and emissions. However, it is likely that reduced fares will only produce major modal shift if combined with other measures.
35 34 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 14: Re-regulate commercial bus services
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Bus services in England and Wales were In Wales companies can currently cherry-pick the most profitable bus Following the successful referendum, Wales now has direct law-making powers, deregulated by the Transport Act 1985. The last routes, leaving some areas with a poor or non-existent service. Under facilitating the potential to re-regulate bus services. Labour Government made some changes to the a re-regulated system, the service provider would have to operate deregulated system – legislating for Quality within a franchise area and would have to bid for a package of routes, Delivering a re-regulated bus service in Wales will require the implementation of a Public Partnerships and Quality Contracts which allow ultimately taking on both the profitable and less profitable routes. This Transport Bill, which could also create Joint Transport Authorities that could oversee local transport authorities more control over bus would not only improve accessibility for rural/peripheral better integration of regional services more effectively. services. Generally however, any bus operator in communities to urban centres and reduce the need for local England and Wales can establish, change or authorities to subsidise these services, often at a great economic cost. Recent political support for the re-regulation of bus services has been voiced in Wales by abolish a bus service. Therefore local authorities the Welsh Liberal Democrats, Welsh Conservatives and Wales Green Party. However, have little control over bus services in their areas there may be difficulties implementing changes due to likely opposition towards change unless they choose to implement a voluntary or from operators. statutory Partnership or a Quality Contract.
A re-regulated system would see local authorities able to force companies to bid for a package of Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme services, which means operators would have to Social Impact • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; run unprofitable, but socially valuable routes in The regulation of buses will ensure transport authorities can plan • Deliverability issues. order to secure the profitable routes. With these proper services across Wales, including in the rural and poorer powers local authorities would have greater areas. This approach will see bus services go where people need them control over integrated timetables and integrated to, opposed to where service operators perceive the greatest profitable ticket systems between buses and trains. This routes to be. would also facilitate the introduction of the All Wales Smart Card (similar to the London Oyster Card).
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Improving access to public transport for communities who previously None lacked a quality service will help encourage modal shift by providing an alternative means of transport to the private vehicle. Encouraging people to use public transport by providing better alternatives to the private vehicle will help to reduce congestion, air and noise pollution and emissions.
36 35 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 15: Increase Fuel Duty
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk A fuel duty is an excise tax imposed on the sale Fuel duty increases would generate additional tax revenue for the Increases in fuel duty have been experienced historically over time. However, at times of of fuel. This measure would see the cost of fuel government, but fuel price increases would also place additional economic difficulty, additional taxation would be met with opposition from business prices increase as fuel duty is increased over time. financial burden on those who travel longer distances in particular. and community groups. As such, some businesses including freight/logistics companies may Historically, due to the relatively inelastic nature see their costs reach unsustainable levels. Alternatively, people on of demand for petrol and diesel, in the short term low incomes who travel to work by car or public transport would also increases in fuel duty have been an effective experience additional transport costs, which could reduce their source of revenue. However, in the longer term the disposal incomes and in some cases lead to significant financial demand may be more elastic, particularly during difficulties. times of economic challenge, people are more likely to use the private vehicle less as the fuel prices increase. This could encourage more sustainable modes of travel whereby people could switch to more fuel-efficient cars, public transport, cycling, walking; or change behaviours by car Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme sharing or travelling less. • Poor social impact; Social Impact • Significant deliverability issues. Increases in fuel duty would increase transport costs for both the private vehicle user and public transport modes. Arguably this would impact more heavily on the poor than the rich, and it represents an additional financial burden on those who travel longer distances. Those who travel long distances regularly by car or public transport would be worse affected and increased prices could reduce their accessibility to strategic destinations. It is also likely to have a disproportionate adverse impact on rural communities, unless accompanied by increased investment in alternative sustainable modes.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion The use of fuel duty increases helps to decrease dependence on fossil None fuels, which often have to be imported, whilst also aiming to reduce traffic and ultimately reduce pollution. The environmental impacts of reduced numbers of cars on the road would be felt nationally.
37 36 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 16: Introduce decriminalised parking enforcement and Red Route enforcement measures in Cardiff and Newport
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) is the In return of taking control over car parking regulations from the DPE has proved popular with local authorities who reap the benefits of a decriminalised name given in the United Kingdom to the civil police, local authorities keep the proceeds made from enforcement system. However, in many urban areas, parking attendants are difficult to recruit due enforcement of car parking regulations, carried out revenues. Without DPE, fixed penalties from the issue of parking to the nature of the work, the lack of career prospects and the adverse and often excessive by civil enforcement officers, operating on behalf tickets by the police is collected by Fixed Penalty and passed directly reaction against the attendants from drivers and the public. Staff retention is also a of an authority or private firm. to central government. With DPE in place, the local authority retains problem as there is a frequent turnover of employees and a need for continual training. the income generated from parking penalties to finance parking The verbal (and physical) abuse of parking attendants, who are acting on behalf of the With increasing problems of town centre enforcement and certain other activities such as local transport community, is increasing and is causing concern to the police and the attendants’ congestion, and demand for on-street parking, measures. Local authorities raise more than £1 billion a year from employers and union representatives. coupled with the pressures on police resources, parking fines. and the low priority given by some police forces to the enforcement of parking regulations, the Road There is often opposition from local businesses to increased parking Traffic Act 1991 permitted local authorities to enforcement. Research by Sustrans shows that customers are most apply for the legal powers to take over the likely to use the highest number of local services is travelling by foot. enforcement of, on-street, as well as off-street, car parking regulations from the police. This Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme provides greater control to local authorities over • Already largely in place in Cardiff and Newport the effective regulation of illegal parking.
Social Impact More efficient car parking management helps to create a higher turnover of parking spaces, thus making it easier for people to park. This aids the safety of streets due to less circulating traffic, whilst having less obstructed streets helps improve conditions for emergency service access and for those travelling by bike or on foot. Ultimately decriminalised parking enforcement helps to reduce the demands placed on police resources, which aids the effective use of their time.
Action following exclusion None Environmental Impact Effective parking regulation and enforcement helps result in less congested roads by removing obstructions. In turn, reduced congestion leads to less pollution and fuel use.
38 37 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 17: Increases in parking charges
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk The provision and pricing of car parking in urban Whilst an increase in parking charges can help increase revenue for An increase in parking costs may meet with opposition from business groups who will areas helps to manage demand, reduce local authorities, it can also make a real difference to shoppers' suggest that they will be adversely affected by a loss of footfall. traffic/congestion, regulate land use and behaviour. Town centre businesses often oppose rises due to the provides a revenue for the local authority. The significant impact they can have on footfall. However, research by Deliverability will heavily rely on commitment from private operators. elasticity of demand is a major factor to consider Sustrans shows that business owners consistently overestimate the when formulating a pricing structure for car number of customers travelling by car. Failure to recognise the positive impact that charging mechanisms have on modal shift parking. Issues that affect the elasticity of demand could impact on the success of other measures. include the availability of alternative facilities and services in locations where parking may be cheaper, the quality of alternative transport modes including public transport services, and the location of the car parking in relation to the service or facility in demand. Social Impact An increase in parking costs may reduce demand for facilities and Many local authorities use parking fees to generate services in the area affected, should alternative locations offering Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme a significant income that assists investment in local similar facilities and services exist. For example, in many cases • Poor social impact; transport service maintenance and improvement. consumers will opt to travel longer distances to out of town centres • Significant deliverability issues. should this approach offset potentially high parking costs in the town centre. Whilst those opting to travel by public transport may benefit from a subsidised service, those dependant on the private vehicle may be adversely impacted with additional financial burden and as a result – potentially reduced accessibility to urban services. Improved air quality will have associated health benefits, as will any increase in active travel.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion Some local authorities raise car parking charges in line with strategies None to encourage modal shift and support the subsidy of bus services. Raising prices helps discourage the use of the private vehicle and ultimately aims to reduce congestion, reduce pollution and improve road safety. Charging mechanisms and reducing car parking spaces are the most effective way of promoting modal shift for journeys to that destination. However, where consumers will opt to travel longer distances to out of town centres where charges may be lower or free, users may incur additional fuel use thus contributing to additional harmful emissions and pollution.
39 38 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 18: Include English buses on the free passes for elderly
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Welsh residents aged 60 or over or who have a Free bus travel for 600,000 elderly and disabled people in Wales was The deliverability of this proposal would require joined-up working and management disability, are eligible for free travel in Wales introduced in 2002 under the scheme which was priced at the time at between both local and national transport authorities and governments. Without through the Concessionary Bus Pass scheme. £17.7m. Since 2009 the independent ministerial advisory group on collaboration, the measure could require additional cross-border service subsidy, transport has suggested that the current approach to subsidising public which would come at a significant cost. At present passengers can only use Welsh transport (at a cost of £230m in 2008-09) is rapidly becoming Concessionary Bus Pass on all local bus services unaffordable. Expansion for the Welsh Concessionary Bus Pass in Wales. Passengers cannot use Welsh passes Scheme to include cross-border travel would see this cost increase for travel in England and similarly, English pass significantly without collaborative working between local and holders cannot use their English pass for travel in national transport authorities. However the introduction of a Wales. Whilst both Governments now offer unified UK Smart Card scheme would significantly streamline concessionary bus passes within their respective ticketing costs in the longer term. nations, the passes do not allow for free cross- border travel; although in some cases Welsh users can travel to and from towns just over the border in England, providing there is no change of bus Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme involved. • Unlikely to address the aims and goals of the M4 CEM Programme; • Significant deliverability issues. The lack of a unified scheme is particularly Social Impact difficult for Welsh residents who may be closer to Improving free access to cross-border services, facilities and shops and health services in England but unable to attractions will enhance the quality of life for eligible users. access them by the free public transport they Enhanced independence sourced to the provision of free long distance would be entitled to if they were to travel longer public transport will improve accessibility for socially excluded distances to Welsh alternatives. This measure groups of people. would see the creation of a unified UK scheme.
Action following exclusion Environmental Impact None Increasing free accessibility to English destinations for eligible Welsh passengers is unlikely to lead to significant impacts on the environment. Whilst patronage on longer distance trips may increase, overall patronage is unlikely to increase to any significant extent due to the narrow demographic of those persons eligible. Where the improved accessibility may encourage modal shift by attracting car users to the free bus travel, environmental benefits would be felt in terms of reduced congestion, pollution and emissions.
40 39 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 19: Incentivise fuel efficient cars
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk As fuel prices continue to rise, more and more Besides the obvious financial advantage of being more fuel The availability of more fuel efficient vehicles will rely on demand and supply market people are looking to trade in their old fuel efficient, fuel-efficient cars bestow numerous advantages on their mechanisms. As such, incentives that may include government interventions such as inefficient cars for newer, more fuel-efficient owners. They are easier and cheaper to maintain, whilst many reduced tax rates on fuel efficient vehicles may help support policies to increase the models. This will ultimately provide significant leading car insurance companies offer discounted insurance economic and environmental sustainability of road vehicles. economic and environmental benefits. Hybrids and coverage rates for people who drive fuel-efficient cars. Apart from diesel engines are currently the most fuel-efficient being more affordable to run, by getting better fuel mileage, a fuel cars on the market. Automakers and researchers efficient car will not require as many fuelling stops as would a less are working on more fuel-efficient vehicles that efficient car. By enabling more miles to be driven per full tank, a fuel will be released to the market in years to come. efficient car will allow less frequent fuel stops to the benefit of journey times (although frequent stops should be encouraged to Market incentives that promote the introduction of maintain the safety of drivers on long distance journeys). these technologies include vehicle tax discounts Incentives may create a reduced or additional revenue stream for for fuel-efficient models, creation of low emission national or local government, depending on their nature. zones, and cheaper running costs. Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme Latest fuel efficient vehicles have achieved a range • Significant deliverability issues; of over 1,000 miles on a single tank of fuel as part • This measure would fall outside of the scope of delivery for the M4 CEM of a road challenge. Social Impact Programme. The development of more affordable to run vehicles will benefit social equality and improve accessibility to more sustainable modes of transport. However, there is a risk that those who are less well off are not able to afford the upfront costs of a new fuel-efficient vehicle, and are therefore priced out of the market and forced to drive old, inefficient vehicles with high running costs.
Environmental Impact Fuel efficient cars produce fewer emissions and smog-producing exhaust gases than do less-efficient cars. By burning less fuel to operate, a natural effect is less combustion gases, which means cleaner exhaust emissions to the benefit of air pollution. Fuel- efficient cars reduce the amount of global warming gasses such as Action following exclusion carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Hybrid cars can cut Pass onto Welsh Government Business and Economy team for their consideration. operational carbon emissions by as much as half. However, lifecycle costs are an important consideration in terms of emissions reduction, as there are carbon emissions associated with the production of new vehicles, and replacement does not mean that the old vehicles come off the road, but rather that the overall number of cars increases.
41 40 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 20: Targeted incremental widening along the M4
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk This measure would provide a programme of Overall, incremental widening would help improve journey time Between J26 and J27 the motorway is perceived to be congested, so this measure is likely targeted widening along the M4 to provide reliability by increasing highway capacity and reducing traffic to be publicly supported. However, disruption during construction may be an issue. In a additional highway capacity at capacity pinch congestion problems in the short term. do-minimum scenario this 2km section of M4 would be predicted to have a highest ratio point sections, in order to resolve localised of flow to capacity of 96% during peak periods on a typical weekday in 2031 and so congestion problems in the short to medium widening of this section could be justified for capacity reasons; however at an estimated term. Disruption to road users could be expected during construction works, cost of £100-110M the cost could outweigh the benefits. which may have short term adverse impacts on local businesses. The key congested sections to be targeted and Works between J27 and J28 would require a highly complex scheme with three associated works proposed are set out as follows: overbridges needing demolition and replacement and a major viaduct needing to be widened, all requiring lengthy periods of traffic management on the M4 and the affected Improvement of the upstream section between side roads. Utilities in the bridges will also be affected and will need diversions. It is Social Impact J26 and J27 from the diverge to J27 could be likely that the railway line would have to be diverted in order to construct a new bridge. In Personal injury accidents and incidents occur regularly in both achieved by widening the motorway to 4 lanes a do-minimum scenario, this 0.7km - 1.4km section of M4 would be predicted to have a directions on the motorway between Junctions 27 and 26. plus hard shoulder from the end of the existing highest ratio of flow to capacity of 106% during peak periods on a typical weekday in
retaining wall immediately to the east of junction 2031. However, the need to modify/replace existing highways structure could result in Incremental widening of the M4 between Junctions 29 and 27 would 27. Westbound, there is less justification for high costs of £73-88M, which could outweigh the user benefits of widening this section of be likely to improve safety in this area too, in addition to improving carriageway widening, especially if Junction 27 the motorway. access into Newport. was to be closed before delivery. In the eastbound
direction the widening would incorporate The delivery of widening between J28 and J29 is likely to cause disruption to motorway improvements to the diverge section of the traffic during construction. Overall, it is likely to be seen as desirable to effectively
Junction 26 off-slip road – and so would not be reducing congestion. However, at a high cost, accident savings may be off-set against Environmental Impact delivered should J26 east facing slips be closed in investment. In a do-minimum scenario this 1.0km - 1.8km section of M4 would be Widening the motorway would have environmental impacts, as the short term. predicted to have a highest ratio of flow to capacity of 103% during peak periods on a although it could be partially achieved within the highway typical weekday in 2031. Incremental widening would be justified in capacity terms, boundary, additional land will be required. Nearby environmental Targeted on-line widening between Junctions however at an estimated cost of £32-40M the cost could outweigh the benefits. constraints include; four listed buildings located along the 28 and 27 would require significant new lengths Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal, Fourteen Scheduled Ancient of new retaining wall and modification/ Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme Monuments, and the Allt-Yr-Yn Local Nature Reserve. The widening replacement of existing structures. • may also impact upon the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal which The scheme would be expensive and difficult to construct;
runs adjacent to the M4 between Junctions 27 and 26. • There would be significant environmental impact; Incremental widening could be introduced Incremental widening between Junctions 28 and 27 would be situated • The scheme would deliver short term benefits only; between Junctions 29 and 28 to provide adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas including Tredegar • The scheme would not be appropriate as part of Packages 1-3; sufficient space for eastbound traffic from the Park (Grade 1 listed Building, Historic Park and Garden, • The scheme would be detrimental to the culture change required as part of A48(M) to merge onto the M4 at Junction 29 and Conservation Area and the Tredegar Park Sports and Recreation Package 4 measures. for eastbound traffic to diverge to exit the Ground). The widening would cross the flood plain of the River Ebbw motorway at Junction 28. Similarly, for (Zone C2). A listed building is situated just to the west of the M4 at westbound traffic, the intention is for sufficient Nant Coch and there is a Scheduled Ancient Monument to the east carriageway space to be provided to accommodate (Tredegar Camp). Action following exclusion merging traffic at Junction 28 and diverging traffic Online widening between Junctions 29 and 28 can be achieved within None joining the A48(M) at Junction 29. the existing highway boundary, thus the environmental impacts associated with the construction of this measure would be negligible. Overall, reduced congestion would lead to environmental benefits.
42 41 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures: Discarded Measure Appraisal Summary Worksheet
Discarded Measure 21: Dynamic Temporary use of Hard Shoulder at Peak Times (Active Traffic Management)
Description Appraisal
Economic Impact Acceptability, Deliverability, Feasibility and Risk Active Traffic Management (ATM) offers the This measure has been established on the M42 motorway since The successful operation of similar schemes on other UK and European motorways makes dynamic temporary use of the hard shoulder to September 2006. Overall, traffic conditions on the M42 have this a politically attractive option. However, its feasibility will require upgrades to hard provide additional capacity during times of become smoother and more consistent since the implementation of shoulder running and along some stretches there is no hard shoulder capacity. Where congestion and is usually implemented with ATM. This has led to economic savings resulting from reduced it is feasible though, the existing ITS infrastructure including VMS would reduced travel speeds and is a key component of journey times, less congestion, and fewer accidents. accommodate the use of ATM without the need for significant investment in the Highways Agency’s ‘Managed Motorway’ communications technology. rollout. Capacity on the M42 has increased by an average of 7 to 9% when hard shoulder running is in effect. Travel times have improved by Information is provided to travellers via Variable 24% in the northbound direction and 9% in the southbound direction Message Signs (VMS) and overhead lane during peak periods as a result of the speed management deployment. signalling about changes during periods of Additionally, the ATM has improved the distribution of traffic across recurring congestion or incidents, depending on the travel lanes and has not had an adverse effect on traffic in the whether or not the hard shoulder is open for travel. surrounding areas. In both cases, gantries with lane control signals and dynamic message signs indicate reduced speed Justification for exclusion from M4 CEM Programme limits and the availability of the hard shoulder for • The scheme would have significant feasibility and deliverability issues due to travel use rather than for emergency refuge only. Social Impact existing highway constraints along the M4; ATM and temporary use of the hard shoulder allows for extra capacity • This measure would not be compatible and/or appropriate within the Packages. Overall benefits include increased capacity; at times of severe congestion, which ultimately improves safety; enhanced journey reliability; reduced driver stress, reduces driver stress; provides a more comfortable driving number and severity of crashes, traffic noise, experience and encourages improved driver behaviours. emissions, and fuel consumption; and improved driver behaviour. A Highways Agency report into the first six months of the M42 ATM scheme showed a reduction in the number of accidents from over 5 a month to 1.5 per month on average.
Environmental Impact Action following exclusion As part of the ATM, speed management controls are often employed None during severe weather conditions and in environmentally sensitive areas to reduce pollutants. Vehicle emission and air quality measurements on motorways that benefit from ATM show that on average, vehicle emissions for carbon-monoxide, particulate matter, carbon-dioxide, and nitrogen oxides have dropped between 4 and 10% and fuel consumption has dropped by 4% since deployment. Noise reduction along the corridor has also been measured between 1.8 dB(A) and 2.4 dB(A) on average.
43 42
For further information please contact:
Allan Pitt M4 CEM Team Arup 4 Pierhead Street Capital Waterside Cardiff CF10 4QP United Kingdom t +44 29 2047 3727 f +44 29 2047 2277 www.arup.com
44 43