M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures M4 CEM Appraisal Handbook This handbook explains the Package Development appraisal process and provides key information associated with the M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures Programme.

SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENT November 2011

1 Introduction to the M4 CEM Appraisal Handbook This Appraisal Handbook is intended as a guide to readers of the Package Workbooks. It provides A Stage 1 Report (Problems and Goals) documenting this work can be downloaded at www.m4cem.com. background information and context relevant to the process of developing potential solutions to the travel-related problems affecting the M4 Corridor, Magor to Castleton arising from growing use and Next, all possible solutions to the revised problems were gathered together from many sources, outdated design of the M4. The problems being addressed are ones affirmed and identified during earlier including those contributed during the early dialogue with people and solutions identified during the stages of the M4 CEM Programme. Stakeholder Forum members helped identify measures effective in significant work already undertaken by the Welsh Government and others over recent years. meeting M4 CEM programme Aims and Goals. Those measures have now been grouped together to form packages of, as far as possible, future-proof solutions, offering different strategic approaches to The resulting long list of possible solutions fell into four broad categories: addressing the problems of the M4 Corridor. Taking traffic modelling work into account, the packages  Highways infrastructure – proposed improvements involving building and improving highways and individual measures are appraised in the Package Workbooks, to assess and test their relative merits. networks so that they work more efficiently for travellers and cause fewer problems for people living near them. Following this second round of deliberations with the Stakeholder Forum, appropriate improvements to  Road network management – proposed improvements to manage our existing roads better, and the packages can be made. Then, packages of measures will be presented in a Formal Consultation ideas about how to minimise peak-time congestion, traffic associated with popular events and the process open to all, due to begin in January 2012, to glean the views of others. Assisted by the response to accidents or bad weather so that there is less disruption for everyone. contributions received during Formal Consultation, the Welsh Government will decide which strategic  Alternative travel modes – proposed improvements enabling more people to travel and access approach to problem solving to adopt. services, homes, work and leisure without driving a car.  Smarter Sustainable Choices and Promoting Well-being – proposed improvements involving Content of this Handbook better organisation so that we can prevent further travel-related problems, achieved through: either This Handbook provides: government policy (better strategic land-use planning, linking travel and access plans to health,  A summary of how the M4 CEM Programme has evolved to date; economy and environment agendas); and / or action by businesses or individuals (flexible working  Explanation of the role and content of Package Workbooks; hours, reducing travel by working from home, car sharing).  Package Workbook User Guide and glossary;  A description of the appraisal process, modelling methodology and purpose; While the long list of possible solutions was generated, a specially selected group of experts and people  Summary of the Measure sifting process; representing wide-ranging interests and experiences of transport issues were invited to join a  Packages and phasing details; Stakeholder Forum. Working with the Forum all potential solutions were robustly explored and  Key information and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). appraised before sifting to identify solutions potentially able to deliver the best outcomes in terms of Programme Goals. The next step has been to group the potential solutions or measures into coherent Background and development of the M4 CEM Programme to date and complementary Packages. Each package of measures comprises core and supporting measures, Congestion and unreliable journey times have been a fact of life on the M4 around Newport for many which together represent a sustainable solution to current and foreseeable future issues of capacity, years. Problems also extend beyond the motorway into the wider travel network at times. The M4 resilience and safety in the M4 Corridor, Magor to Castleton. Each package represents an alternative Corridor Enhancement Measures Programme was set up to solve travel-related problems caused by option offering a distinctive strategic approach to problem solving. On page 6 of this handbook, you growing use and outdated design of the M4 here. will find a summary of the results of the sifting and packaging process.

Early on in the development of the M4 CEM Programme we listened to what key stakeholders and The work described in the Workbooks introduces the Packages of measures to the Stakeholder Forum for the people living and working in the M4 Corridor, Castleton to Magor area, told us about the travel- their consideration. They have undergone appraisal to check they meet the requirements of the M4 CEM related issues affecting them. We asked them to consider the Problems identified by the Welsh Programme and Welsh Transport Planning and Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG) criteria. Government, contributing to the obvious safety, capacity and resilience issues, and tell us whether we had identified the problems correctly, and asked what [if any] additional problems they experience. We The purpose of this phase of deliberation with the Forum is to ensure that the best possible also asked them about the M4 CEM programme Goals and the overarching Aims of the Programme. packages or options are presented during the Formal Consultation process, along with appropriate supporting evidence to ensure people can give their considered opinion. We are asking The early engagement involved holding open exhibitions in , , Magor and the Forum to scrutinise the packages and measures presented here, to suggest any [new] measures or , and two half-day workshops for Local Authorities and Government and for Key Stakeholders. options, if they consider any have been overlooked or appraised incorrectly, especially in the context of This phase of dialogue enabled a revision of the Problems, Goals and Aims – an important step because known and potential future challenges. it enables us to:  focus on solving problems recognised by a wide range of people and stakeholders, and During Formal Consultation the public and other stakeholder groups will be asked to express the  appraise any potential solutions against their capacity to deliver the goals identified for the M4 level of support [or lack of it] for each alternative solution, and encouraged to explain their CEM Programme taking into account a wide range of interests and needs. preferences and/or objections.

2

2

Package Workbooks A number of workbooks have been prepared for the use of the Forum. These will be adapted eventually to meet the needs of the Formal Consultation process. Bar the first, each describes a Package of measures, offering detailed descriptions and appraisal notes. The six workbooks prepared are:

 Alternatives Considered – a workbook of measures that have been considered but do not form part of the Packages. These measures are discarded either because they perform poorly against the goals, or because they cannot be delivered as part of the M4 CEM Programme; in each case, an explanation is provided. Where appropriate, an action is noted, identifying an alternative delivery route for implementation.

 Do-minimum scenario – describes a package of measures already planned or committed. This forms the baseline scenario for comparison against other options. Further scheme information about some of the measures included within the do-minimum scenario can be found via the transport section of the Welsh Government website at .gov.uk/topics/transport.

 Package 1 – at the core of this is the delivery of additional highway capacity through phased (step- wise) construction of a new dual 2-lane all purpose road to the south of Newport, supported by a range of other traffic management, public transport and sustainable travel solutions. Each implementation phase delivers positive outcomes in terms of M4 CEM Programme Goals.

 Package 2 – at the core of this is the delivery of additional highway capacity through phased upgrading of existing infrastructure, namely at-grade junction improvements (improvements to the existing road, maintaining all junctions at the same level) to the A48 Newport Southern Distributor Road (SDR), supported by a range of other traffic management, public transport and sustainable travel solutions.

 Package 3 – at the core of this is the delivery of additional highway capacity through a programme of on-line widening along the M4 between junctions 24 and 29 to dual 4 lanes, supported by a range of other traffic management, public transport and sustainable travel solutions.

 Package 4 – at the core of this is the delivery of additional travel capacity through major public transport facility and service improvements, aimed at reducing the reliance on private vehicle use and encouraging modal shift onto more sustainable alternatives of transport. It is supported by a number of other highway infrastructure improvements, traffic management, and sustainable development solutions.

3

3 Workbook User Guide

What is a workbook? What will I find within a workbook?

Within a workbook you will find a Package of different measures that aim to address issues of capacity, resilience, safety and On 27 July 2011 the M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures sustainability associated with transport along the M4 Corridor, Magor to Castleton. Programme initiated detailed work with a specially selected A workbook presents the Package in two sections: Forum of Stakeholders, representing a breadth of interests  Package analysis: a high level overview of what the package comprises, its likely impacts and implementation issues, a from the public, private and third sectors in South Wales. summary appraisal worksheet, appraisal table and illustrative drawing (if appropriate).

Thirty four members of the Stakeholder Forum convened  Measure analysis: a detailed view of individual measures, contained in the package, their impacts, implementation issues and with representatives of Welsh Government and Arup staff to compatibility. explore over 100 possible solutions, old and new, to safety, Each is followed by a summary appraisal worksheet, appraisal table and illustrative drawing (if appropriate). 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 Welsh Government and Arup How are the packaged measures appraised? easier to understand, each measure is assessed team have developed four ‘Packages’ of measures that work through appraisal tables using a 7-scale together optimally to address the problems of the M4 Arup has appraised each measure to identify: colour coding system: Corridor, 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 of selected measures – both on a WelTAG criteria; Slight Positive Impact (+) 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, practice 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.

How should a workbook be used?

Please read the workbooks in advance of the Stakeholder Forum meeting. We shall be seeking your views on the Packages, the measures and the appraisals of both Packages and measures during our deliberative discussions on November 15th, 2011.

4

4 Key information and Glossary

Key information sheets Appraisal summary worksheets Appraisal summary tables

A key information sheet is provided at the beginning of a An appraisal summary worksheet sets out details of both An appraisal summary table sheet is used to assess both workbook to offer a summary description of a Package. It Packages and Measures, providing an appraisal at a high Packages and Measures against Welsh Transport Planning identifies a number of core measures and supporting level to identify the likely impacts on the economy, society and Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG) criteria, and the goals of measures that comprise that Package. and environment. Where possible, as part of the economic the M4 CEM programme. Assessment is undertaken both impact appraisal a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) is shown. qualitatively and using the 7-scale grading of significance Core measure – a measure that is central to the strategic BCR is the ratio of the benefits of a project or proposal, (see workbook user guide). approach developed within the Package to address the issues relative to its costs, (both expressed in monetary terms). Core of capacity, safety and resilience on the M4 corridor. highway measures have been subject to traffic modelling to WelTAG – a system of appraisal that clearly identifies the better understand the comparative impact of a Package. The benefits, costs and impacts of schemes and identifies their Supporting measure – a measure that can be delivered potential acceptability, deliverability, feasibility and risk of contribution to the core objectives for transport. Appraisal independently, and as part of a Package in support of the measures is also considered, including compatibility issues. criteria are focused on overarching impact areas relevant to core measure(s), to address the wider goals of the M4 CEM Terms below are sourced from WelTAG guidance: Wales and include: Programme. Economic impact – this is a description of the impact of a Economy Within the ‘core measures’ section of the key information measure on the economy, at a local, regional and/or national  Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) – the impact of sheet, a summary description of the core measures is level. Economic outcomes against which a measure is a proposal on the economic efficiency of the transport provided, including details of phasing and capital costs. appraised include: system.  Access to employment opportunities;  Economic Activity and Location Impact (EALI) – the Within the ‘supporting measures’ section, a summary  Connectivity within Wales and internationally; impact of a proposal on the economy beyond the description of each supporting measures is provided,  Efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of people; transport sector. including the measures’ role in the context of the Package.  Efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of freight; Environment  Access to visitor attractions.  Noise – the impact of noise nuisance from transport on Phasing – a measure is often ‘phased’, meaning it will be local communities. delivered in sections with works and associated costs spread Social impact – the impact of a measure on people and  Local Air Quality – the impact of exhaust emissions out over a determined construction period. Phasing may communities. Social outcomes against which a measure is from transport affecting local air quality. make the difference between a scheme being affordable, or appraised include:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions – the impact of transport not. Each phase is designed to deliver step change benefits to  Access to healthcare; options on climate change. the highway or rail network over time.  Access to education, training and lifelong learning;  Landscape and townscape – the character of a place.

 Access to shopping and leisure facilities;  Biodiversity – impact on ecosystems and habitats. Capital costs – the total upfront investment cost of a  Heritage – impact on sites of historic importance. scheme. The main components of capital costs may include,  Is healthy lifestyle encouraged; but not necessarily be limited to, construction costs, land and  Safety of travel.  Water environment – changes likely to occur to existing water courses. property costs and compensation, preparation and administration costs, and on site supervision and testing. Environmental impact – the impact of a measure on the  Soils – impact on and the condition of the soil of an area. environment. Environmental outcomes against which a Social A Package diagram presents the individual measures that are measure is appraised include:  Safety – freedom from risk of transport accident. subject to detailed appraisal within the measure appraisal  Use of sustainable materials;  Personal security – risk to the transport user. summary worksheets and appraisal summary tables.  Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions;  Permeability – ease of movement by non-motorised  Impact on climate change modes (also referred to as ‘severance’).  Contribution to air pollution;  Physical fitness – contribution to health and wellbeing.  Impact on the local environment;  Social inclusion – the degree to which members of  Impact on heritage; society are able to lead a full life.  Impact on biodiversity.  Equality, Diversity & Human Rights – ensuring all 5 citizens can take advantage of transport services.

5 Measure sifting process Measure Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Following engagement with the Stakeholder Forum Group in July, 2011 and appraisal by the technical Provide cycle friendly infrastructure to help reduce the number of car Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting journeys of less than 2 miles team, a long list of possible solutions was assessed and subjected to a sifting process. A short list of Provide walking friendly infrastructure to help reduce the number of Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting measures was produced and the selected measures were packaged into Package options. The intention is car journeys of less than 2 miles to present the best possible Package Options for wider appraisal during Formal Consultation (January to Motorway tolling on the whole of the M4/M48 in South Wales Supporting March 2012). The table below shows the results of sifting and lists the measures that contribute to their Urban road pricing Supporting respective Packages, as described in Package workbooks. Promote use of electric vehicles and associated infrastructure Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Improve aesthetics of routes within the M4 corridor Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Use of low noise surfacing, noise barriers and noise proofing of Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Measure Status homes along existing M4 (results of sifting process following the First Stakeholder Forum meeting and technical team review) Measure Alternative considered Lagoon Barrage Alternative considered Measure Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Cardiff eastern bay link Alternative considered New dual 2-lane all-purpose road to the south of Newport Core Corporation Road link Alternative considered At-grade improvement to the A48 Southern Distributor Road (SDR) Core B4245 and M48 link Alternative considered 4 lane On-line widening of the M4 Core Celtic Springs and link Alternative considered A465 Heads of the Valleys road (promoting use as alternative route) Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting M48 and Second Severn Crossing link Alternative considered J23a circulatory improvements Supporting Supporting Supporting Hard shoulder running on M4 Alternative considered Widening of west facing slip roads at Junction 26 Core Supporting Upgrade Newport Steelworks Access Road to dual 3 lane running Alternative considered J27 safety improvements Core Supporting Grade separated improvement to the A48 SDR Alternative considered J28 Improvements Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting 3 lane On-line widening of the M4 Alternative considered Close access to motorway from J25 Core Targeted incremental widening of the M4 Alternative considered Removal of east facing slip roads at J26 Supporting Supporting Core Supporting Reinstate Junction 25 westbound entry Alternative considered High occupancy vehicles lanes Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Close access to motorway from J27 Alternative considered Manage speed of traffic Supporting Supporting Introduce climbing lane at High Cross Alternative considered Improve traffic monitoring, incident management and queue Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Introduce climbing lane at St Julian’s Hill Alternative considered detection Dynamic hard shoulder use Alternative considered Improve incident management Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Bus priority measures on the M4 Alternative considered Better event management Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Introduce an inter-city bus service Alternative considered Encourage use of alternative routes to M4 and improve traffic Supporting Supporting Supporting Reduce public transport fares Alternative considered management for diversion routes Reregulate bus services Alternative considered Introduce ‘greenwave’ traffic signal lights coordination and control Supporting Supporting Increase fuel duty Alternative considered systems Introduce parking enforcement measures Alternative considered Improve road management during times of poor weather Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Increase parking charges Alternative considered Manage HGV traffic Supporting Supporting Supporting Better integrate Welsh and English free bus passes Alternative considered Use of ramp metering Supporting Supporting Supporting Sustainability checklists on all new residential developments Alternative considered Electrification of train service Supporting Core Develop a school travel plan strategy Alternative considered Provide additional train services to the north of Cardiff Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Introduce a car share Programme Alternative considered Introduce Ebbw Vale rail link to Newport Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Develop planning policy to improve accessibility Alternative considered Introduce a light rail system Supporting Discarded Encourage employers to offer flexible working Alternative considered Train lengthening Supporting Supporting Supporting Core Develop travel education Programmes Alternative considered New train stations / station improvements Core Invest in ICT to reduce the need to travel Alternative considered Improve train frequencies Supporting Supporting Supporting Core Maintain/ increase the Second Severn Crossing toll Alternative considered Inter-city Express Programme (IEP) Supporting Reduce/ remove the Second Severn Crossing toll Alternative considered Transfer road freight onto rail Supporting Supporting Supporting Supporting Promote use of fuel efficient cars Alternative considered Use of systematic and enforced bus priority measures on the local Supporting Supporting Supporting Core Improve collaborative working between transport delivery bodies Alternative considered road network Introduce a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service Core Bus stop facilities Supporting Subsidise public transport services Supporting Improve coach journey times Supporting Provide park and share / park and ride facilities Core Provide better transport mode integration including revised ticketing Supporting Supporting Supporting Core system

6

6 Packages and phasing Package 1 It is proposed the packaged measures will be delivered in phases over a determined construction period. As described previously – phasing facilitates affordability and feasibility of the proposed strategic Construction Phase Up to 2016 2016 to 2022 to 2026 to approaches to problem-solving. A phasing table has been prepared for each Package: 2022 2026 2031 Measure Assumed to Assumed to Assumed to Assumed to be open by be open by be open by be open by Key 2016 2022 2026 2031 Scheme opening year 1. M4 Alternative Route: new dual 2-lane all- (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) Scheme in place for subsequent years purpose road to the south of Newport 2. Dualling of the A465 Heads of the Valleys road Do-minimum (promoting use as alternative route) 3. J28 Improvements Construction Phase Up to 2016 to 2022 to 2026 to 4. Removal of east facing slip roads at J26 2016 2022 2026 2031 5. High occupancy vehicles lanes Measure Component / Description Assumed Assumed Assumed Assumed 6. Improve traffic monitoring, incident management and queue detection to be to be to be to be 7. Improve incident management open by open by open by open by 8. Better event management 2016 2022 2026 2031 9. Improve road management during times of poor 1. A465 Heads of the Sections 1, 4, 3 weather Valleys Dualling Section 2 10. Provide additional train services to the north of Sections 5&6 Cardiff 2. Junction 28 (Option 2b At-grade signalised gyratory 11. Introduce Ebbw Vale rail link to Newport from J28 Report) with through link from M4 to 12. Train lengthening A48 SDR towards Newport 13. Improve train frequencies 3. Pont Ebbw roundabout Signalised throughabout with 14. Transfer road freight onto rail improvement new link connecting the A48 SDR eastern and western arms 15. Use of systematic and enforced bus priority 4. roundabout Signalised throughabout with measures on the local road network improvement new link connecting the A467 16. Provide cycle friendly infrastructure northern and southern arms 17. Provide walking friendly infrastructure 5. Steelworks Access Road Includes upgrade of B4245 18. Promote use of electric vehicles and associated Phases 1&2 junctions at Magor infrastructure 6. Controlled motorway J24 - 19. Improve aesthetics of routes within the M4 to J28 on M4 corridor 7. Newport City Centre re- Minor traffic management 20. Use of low noise surfacing, noise barriers and development schemes and 50mph speed limit noise proofing of homes along existing M4 on A48 into Cardiff 21. Improve transport mode integration 8. Signalisation of Cot Hill Assumed in conjunction with Junction (SDR) east Newport housing north of railway line

7

7 Package 2 Package 3

Construction Phase Up to 2016 2016 to 2022 to 2026 to Construction Phase Up to 2016 2016 to 2022 to 2026 to 2022 2026 2031 2022 2026 2031 Measure Assumed to Assumed to Assumed to Assumed to Measure Assumed to Assumed to Assumed to Assumed to be open by be open by be open by be open by be open by be open by be open by be open by 2016 2022 2026 2031 2016 2022 2026 2031 1. At-grade improvement to the A48 Southern (Phase 1) (Phase 2) 1. 4 lane On-line widening (Phase 1) (Phase 2) (Phase 3) Distributor Road (SDR) 2. Dualling of the A465 Heads of the Valleys road 2. Dualling of the A465 Heads of the Valleys road (promoting use as alternative route) (promoting use as alternative route) 3. J23A circulatory improvements 3. J23A circulatory improvements 4. Widening of west facing slip roads at Junction 26 4. J28 Improvements 5. J27 safety improvements 5. Removal of east facing slip roads at J26 6. J28 improvements 6. High occupancy vehicles lanes 7. Close access to motorway from J25 7. Improve traffic monitoring, incident 8. Removal of east facing slip roads at J26 management and queue detection 8. Improve incident management 9. High occupancy vehicles lanes 9. Better event management 10. Manage speed of traffic 10. Encourage use of alternative routes to M4 and 11. Improve traffic monitoring, incident management Improve traffic management for diversion and queue detection routes 12. Improve incident management 11. Introduce traffic signal lights coordination and 13. Better event management control systems 14. Encourage use of alternative routes to M4 and 12. Improve road management during times of poor Improve traffic management for diversion routes weather 15. Improve road management during times of poor 13. Manage HGV traffic weather 14. Use of ramp metering 16. Manage HGV traffic 15. Electrification of Great Western Main Line 17. Use of ramp metering (GWML) from London to Swansea 18. Provide additional services to the north of Cardiff 16. Provide additional services to the north of 19. Introduce Ebbw Vale rail link to Newport Cardiff 20. Train lengthening 17. Introduce Ebbw Vale rail link to Newport 21. Improve train frequencies 18. Train lengthening 22. Transfer road freight onto rail 19. Improve train frequencies 23. Use of systematic and enforced bus priority 20. Transfer road freight onto rail measures on the local road network 21. Use of systematic and enforced bus priority 24. Improve transport mode integration measures on the local road network 25. Provide cycle friendly infrastructure 22. Improve transport mode integration 26. Provide walking friendly infrastructure 23. Provide cycle friendly infrastructure 27. Promote use of electric vehicles and associated 24. Provide walking friendly infrastructure infrastructure 25. Promote use of electric vehicles and associated 28. Improve aesthetics of routes within the M4 infrastructure corridor 26. Improve aesthetics of routes within the M4 29. Use of low noise surfacing, noise barriers and corridor noise proofing of homes along existing M4 27. Use of low noise surfacing, noise barriers and noise proofing of homes along existing M4

8

8 Package 4

Construction Phase Up to 2016 2016 to 2022 to 2026 to 2022 2026 2031 Measure Assumed to Assumed to Assumed to Assumed to be open by be open by be open by be open by 2016 2022 2026 2031 1. Train lengthening 2. New train stations / station improvements 3. Improve train frequencies 4. Bus priority measures on the local road network 5. Introduce a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 6. Provide park and share / park and ride facilities 7. Improve transport mode integration 8. Dualling of the A465 Heads of the Valleys road (promoting use as alternative route) 9. J23A circulatory improvements 10. Widening of west facing slip roads at J26 11. J27 safety improvements 12. J28 improvements 13. High occupancy vehicles lanes 14. Manage speed of traffic 15. Improve traffic monitoring, incident management and queue detection 16. Improve incident management 17. Better event management 18. Encourage use of alternative routes to M4 19. Introduce traffic signal lights control systems 20. Improve management during poor weather 21. Manage HGV traffic 22. Use of ramp metering 23. Rail electrification 24. Provide additional services north of Cardiff 25. Introduce Ebbw Vale rail link to Newport 26. Introduce a light rail system in Cardiff 27. Inter-city Express Programme (IEP) 28. Transfer road freight onto rail 29. Improve bus stop facilities 30. Subsidise public transport 31. Improve coach journey times 32. Provide cycle friendly infrastructure 33. Provide walking friendly infrastructure 34. Motorway tolling 35. Urban road pricing 36. Use of electric vehicles and infrastructure 37. Improve aesthetics of routes 38. Use of low noise innovations

9

9 Key information and FAQ What are the demand forecast projections for vehicle use of the M4 Corridor for future years?

This FAQ has been prepared in response to a number of popular requests for information made by the Response public, key stakeholders and Forum members, during M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures engagement programme. Should you have any queries associated with the information set out in this section, please The annual average daily traffic levels in 2008 and forecasts up to 2031: contact Allan Pitt at [email protected]. 2008 levels 2016 forecast 2031forecast How much does road congestion cost the Welsh economy? J24-J23a J28-J27 J24-J23a J28-J27 J24-J23a J28-J27 82,467 102,982 80,900 130,500 88,200 136,200 Response % change from 2008 levels: -1.9% +26.7% +7.0% +32.3%

Whilst many assumptions have been made by economists and transport professionals in order to attach Evidence Base approximate values to the cost of congestion across the world, it is widely questioned whether a monetary value of congestion costs can be calculated with any accuracy. There have been no quantitative Link Annual Average Daily Traffic Forecast Percentage change studies of the effect of traffic congestion on the Welsh economy, nor any referencing the affect of (2-way) congestion through the Tunnels. 2016 2031 2016 to 2031 J28-J27 (Tredegar Park to High Cross) 130,500 136,200 + 4.4% Evidence Base J27-J26 (High Cross to Malpas) 124,000 128,600 + 3.7% 85,100 88,500 + 4.0% ‘The Economic Costs of Road Traffic Congestion’ (Goodwin, 2004) sets out that the dominant (most J25-J24 ( Rd to Coldra) 116,500 125,600 + 7.8% frequently cited) figure for the total cost of congestion in the UK was around £20bn per annum, J24-J23a (Coldra to Magor) 80,900 88,200 + 9.0% equivalent to about £1000 per year per household. Based on assumptions, the cost of road traffic congestion was anticipated to be around £30bn per annum by 2010. The forecasts on several sections, particularly on the west side of the Brynglas Tunnels, are considerably above the estimated flow reference at which congestion occurs, indicating that the forecasts can be The value of £20bn is largely reached by means of aggregating the costs of business travel (freight, expected to produce significant levels of congestion at peak times on most days. employees’ travel in the course of work, travelling sales representatives, meetings, etc); and the value of time per hour spent travelling by individuals in their own time (personal business, commuting, leisure, The traffic forecasts were prepared using growth projections from two components: holidays, shopping etc).  traffic generated by new developments; and  background traffic growth. However, it is important to note that there are established doubts about whether the measure of congestion used has any real meaning. In his paper, Phil Goodwin (2004) explains that underpinning his Planning data on proposed developments were based on information obtained from Newport City assessment of the ‘total cost of congestion’, is the a theoretical comparison of real-world conditions with Council and Monmouthshire County Council in 2007, while growth factors for existing traffic were a ‘target’ describing the world with all its present traffic, moving at free-flow speeds. This is impossible derived from the Department for Transport’s National Trip End Model (NTEM, version 5.3). to ever observe, because it is a construct which logically cannot exist outside a computer model. NTEM version 6.2 was released in April 2011, and became the ‘definitive’ version in July 2011. This The complexity and variation found in modelling the economic cost of congestion is highlighted in a forms a significant revision that takes account of the current economic downturn. A high level study by Grant-Muller and Laird (2006), which explores differences in approaches to modelling the costs comparison of the growth projections between the previous and current versions of NTEM indicated that of congestion. The study cites a NERA Economic Consulting paper (Dodgson and Lane, 1997) and an the traffic model is predicting significantly higher rates of traffic growth than the revised NTEM Institute for Transport Studies report (Tweddle et al. 2003) which both use 1996 traffic levels and similar projections. It is likely, therefore, that the traffic forecasts produced by the model will be on the high modelling techniques. However, the NERA paper estimated the cost of congestion at £7bn per year for side. The traffic model forecasts have not, however, been re-worked at this stage to take account of the Great Britain while Tweddle and co-workers reached a figure of £15.2bn. new NTEM growth rates or revised expectations of developments. The Welsh Government has considered undertaking a present year validation on the M4 traffic model to update it to a 2011 base year. It was decided not to update the traffic model until the outcome of the ongoing Formal Consultation process is known, after which any traffic survey work and subsequent updates can be targeted to specific needs. In the meantime, the 2005 model and the resulting forecasts can be used to provide a comparison of the relative performance of different highway options under consideration.

10

10 What are the projections for population growth and how many more cars will this equate to?

Response The figures quoted show, between 2008 and 2033 it is projected that the majority of local authorities in Wales will experience an increase in their overall population. This means that in total, the population of The population in South Wales is forecast to total 2.4m in 2033 which represents an increase of 15.2% the listed local authorities that contribute towards the South Wales transport corridor will grow by 15.2% from the mid-2008 population of 2.1m. Over the same time frame it is projected that the number of between 2008 and 2033. Most notably, Cardiff’s population is projected to increase by 41.7% by 2033 - households in South Wales will increase by 27.8% to over 1.15m. This would be expected to put an which is mainly due to an anticipated net migration of 2,400 people into Cardiff in each year of the additional 260,000 vehicles on the road by 2033. projection period.

Between mid-2008 and mid-2033 it is projected that the number of households within the above local Evidence Base authority areas will grow to over 1.15 million. This is an increase of 27.8%. Although anticipating the

Population projections for the Local Authorities that contribute towards the South Wales transport number of vehicles per household over the plan period is difficult, at the current average of 1.05 cars per corridor have been obtained from Local Authority Population Projections for Wales (2008-based data), household this would equate to an additional 260,000 vehicles on the road in South Wales by 2033. published by the Welsh Government in May 2010. Projections are shown below (in thousands):

Local Authority 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2008-33 %

Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council 68.8 69.4 70.3 71.1 71.4 71.4 3.8 Bridgend County Borough Council 133.9 138 142.1 146 149.4 152.1 13.6 Caerphilly County Borough Council 172.4 175 177.7 179.9 181.3 181.9 5.6 Cardiff Council 330.5 353.9 381.1 410.5 439.7 468.2 41.7 Carmarthenshire County Council 180.7 187.4 194.3 200.9 206.7 211.6 17.1 Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council 55.6 56.2 57 57.6 57.9 58.1 4.5 Monmouthshire County Council 87.8 89.5 91 92.5 93.5 93.9 7 Neath Port Talbot County Borough 137.6 140.4 143.5 146.5 148.9 150.9 9.7 139.7 142.1 145.2 148.4 151.2 153.6 10 Pembrokeshire County Council 117.6 120.5 123.5 126.1 128 129.3 9.9 Rhondda Cynon Taf 234.4 237.2 240.3 243.2 245.2 246.4 5.1 City and County of Swansea 230.1 237.4 246.1 255.3 264 272.1 18.3 Torfaen County Borough Council 90.6 90.7 90.8 90.7 90.1 89.2 -1.6 Vale of Glamorgan Council 124.1 128.4 132.8 137.3 141.2 144.6 16.5 TOTAL 2103.8 2166.1 2235.7 2306 2368.5 2423.3 15.2

11

11 What percentage of journeys on the M4 Corridor between Magor to Castleton are local trips? How many users of the M4 Corridor between Magor to Castleton are cross border travellers (i.e. use the Severn Crossing Tolls)?

Response Response

Local journeys make up a substantial proportion of traffic on the M4 Corridor. Around 45% of vehicles An analysis of traffic movements on the M4 around Newport has indicated that: joining the M4 between Magor and Castleton also leave the M4 at another junction on this section.  On the easternmost section between Magor and Coldra (J23a-J24), the proportion of traffic using the Severn crossings is 63%;  this falls to 45% of traffic passing through the Brynglas Tunnels; and Evidence Base  25% for the westernmost section between Tredegar Park and Castleton (J28-29). This demonstrates that the majority of cross border traffic is observed making trips close to the Severn About 104,100 vehicles Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) join the M4 between Castleton and Crossing Tolls. Magor, with 104,500 vehicles leaving the motorway. Of these, about 45% of vehicles both join and leave the M4 within this section. Evidence Base An analysis of traffic movements on the M4 around Newport in the 2005 base year traffic model indicates, of the estimated AADT flow of 78,200 vehicles, 43% of traffic passing through the Brynglas An analysis of traffic movements on the M4 around Newport in the 2005 base year traffic model has Tunnels is through traffic travelling the full length of the section between the M48 (Junction 23) and indicated that, on the section between Magor (Junction 23a) and Coldra (Junction 24), the total Annual Castleton (Junction 29). Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is about 80,100 vehicles, of which about 50,100 (63%) use either the old Severn Bridge or the Second Severn Crossing. Of the traffic travelling on the westernmost link in the section (between Junction 28 Tredegar Park and Junction 29 Castleton), 70% either join or leave the motorway between Junction 28 and Junction 23. The AADT flow through the Brynglas Tunnels is 78,200 vehicles, of which 35,200 (45%) use the Severn crossings. Of the traffic travelling on the easternmost link in the section (between Junction 23 M48 and Junction 23a Magor), 54% either join or leave the motorway between Junction 29 and Junction 23a. On the westernmost section between Tredegar Park (Junction 28) and Castleton (Junction 29), the AADT is 110,200 vehicles, of which 28,100 (25%) use the Severn crossings.

12

12 How many accidents have there been since the introduction of the temporary 50mph speed limit and permanent variable speed limit system – and how does this compare to historic data?

Response

The number of personal injury accidents on the M4 between Magor and Castleton in 2010 (the first complete calendar year with a 50 mph speed limit and average speed cameras) was 40, which compares with 59 accidents in 2008 (the final complete calendar year with a 70 mph speed limit). Accident data is not currently available for the period following the introduction of the variable speed limit in June 2011, as assessment requires 12 months of robust results (traffic flows uninfluenced by temporary works etc).

Evidence Base

The number of collisions on each section of the M4 during the 5-year period 2006-2010 is shown in the below (Welsh Government statistics). This shows an annual reduction in the total number of collisions.

No. of Personal Injury Accidents 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 Jan- 20 March – 31 1 Sept – 31 19 March Aug Dec 50 mph, Speed Limit / Enforcement 70 mph 50 mph avge speed cameras Magor to Coldra (J23a-J24) 5 13 3 2 2 3 9 Coldra to Caerleon (J24-J25) 29 20 22 4 4 3 11 Caerleon to Malpas Relief Rd (J25-J25a) 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 Malpas Relief Rd to Malpas (J25a-J26) 5 3 4 0 2 3 2 For 2009, the different changes in speed limit and enforcement over a short time period means that any Malpas to High Cross (J26-J27) 16 20 14 0 0 3 6 calculated accident rates will be unreliable. The table below therefore compares the observed and High Cross to Tredegar Park (J27-J28) 6 3 9 0 1 3 4 estimated accident rates (per million vehicle kilometres) for 2010 with the average for the three years Tredegar Park to Castleton (J28-J29) 13 4 4 0 1 3 5 2006-08 on three sections of the M4. 6 10 20 TOTAL 78 67 59 36 40 Accident Rates per million vehicle km The normal motorway speed restrictions, with a 70mph speed limit, were in place until 19th March 2009, Average, 2006-2008 2010 when the permanent 50mph speed limit was introduced between Coldra and Tredegar Park. Enforcement (70mph speed limit) (50mph speed limit) Coldra to Caerleon (J24-J25) 0.144 0.071 of this speed limit changed on 1st September 2009 with the introduction of average speed cameras. Malpas to High Cross (J26-J27) 0.148 0.065

High Cross to Tredegar Park 0.068 0.052 The figure opposite illustrates the impact of the speed limit restrictions between Coldra and the Usk (J27-J28) Bridge. While the reduction from 70mph (shown in red) to 50mph (shown in blue) reduced average speeds, the spread of speeds around the average followed the same shape, with a wide range of The results suggest that the reduced speed limit has produced a significant reduction in accident rates on individual speeds, so that compliance with the reduced speed limit was poor. The introduction of the the M4. This is, however, based on a single year’s observation using estimated traffic flows, and would average speed cameras (shown in yellow) not only produced a further significant reduction in average need to be confirmed using reliable traffic data over a longer time period. speed, but also considerably reduced the variation in vehicle speeds. The number of accidents is related to the total volume of traffic on the road, and the presence of the major road works with the The variable speed limit system was introduced in June 2011, and no accident data is currently available accompanying speed restrictions has resulted in some reduction in traffic using the M4, as some vehicles to indicate the impact of this system on accident rates. have switched to alternative routes. The presence of the road works, however, has presented difficulties in maintaining the regular monitoring of traffic flows on the M4, so that traffic volumes for the years 2009 and 2010 can only be estimated based on observed traffic patterns from previous years.

13

13 What percentage of vehicles using the M4 Corridor between Magor to Castleton are HGVs? What is the relationship between vehicle emissions and vehicle speeds (i.e. what is the environmental cost of traffic congestion)?

Response Response

HGV traffic has been observed to make up 6-20% of vehicles travelling daily along the M4 Corridor The study ‘Traffic Congestion and Greenhouse Gases’ (Barth and Boriboonsomsin, 2009) sets out that: between Magor and Castleton.  Very low average speeds generally represent stop-and-go driving, and vehicles do not travel far - therefore, the emission rates per mile are quite high. Evidence Base  When vehicles travel at much higher speeds, they demand very high engine loads, which require more fuel, and which therefore lead to high CO2 emission rates. The observed proportion of HGV vehicles on each section of the M4 in 2005 is shown in the table  Low emission rates exist at moderate speeds of around 40 to 60 mph. below. This shows the proportion of vehicles on the road that are HGVs at different times of day and  If moderate congestion brings average speeds down from a free-flow speed over 70 mph to a slower separated by the eastbound (E/B) and westbound (W/B) carriageways. speed of 45 to 55 mph, this moderate congestion can reduce CO2 emissions.  If congestion mitigation raises average traffic speed to above about 65 miles per hour, it can increase Link Observed HGV traffic volume CO2 emissions. AM Peak Flow Interpeak Flow PM Peak Flow  Smoothing the stop-and-go pattern of traffic so that cars move at a relatively constant speed will E/B W/B E/B W/B E/B W/B reduce CO2 emissions. J28-J27 (Tredegar Park to High 10% 9% 13% 16% 7% 6% Cross) J27-J26 (High Cross to Malpas) 9% 12% 11% 17% 7% 6% Evidence Base Brynglas Tunnels 11% 15% 13% 20% 9% 8% J25-J24 (Caerleon Rd to Coldra) 10% 13% 11% 15% 7% 7% Matthew Barth and Kanok Boriboonsomsin (2009) have undertaken research for the University of California Transportation Centre, exploring the relationship between traffic congestion and vehicle J24-J23a (Coldra to Magor) 11% 12% 13% 15% 8% 7% emissions. Average across J28-J23a 10% 12% 12% 17% 8% 7% The diagram below visually demonstrates the above statements:

14

14 Where are the air pollution levels highest along the M4 Corridor, Magor to Castleton?

Response

Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are created where air pollution levels are high enough to be a potential health risk. It is recognised that almost all air pollution comes from traffic emissions. Of Newport’s 9 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), 4 are located adjacent to the M4:  Shaftesbury /  St Julians  Royal Oak Hill  Glasllwch

Since 2010, all monitoring locations within AQMAs adjacent to the now fall below the Air Quality Objective thresholds, meaning that pollution levels are now below those perceived to be a potential risk to health. It is assumed that a significant contributing factor to reduced levels in these areas was the reduced speed limit along the M4 across almost its entire length through Newport.

Evidence Base

Air quality standards have been developed for a wide range of pollutants based on known effects on human health, vegetation and ecosystems. Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 places a statutory duty on local authorities to periodically review and assess the air quality within their area. The Newport City Council Local Air Quality Management Progress Report (April 2010) supplements the second round of review and assessment of air quality. Local authorities assess air quality against a number of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs), which are set by Government through the Air Quality (Wales) Regulations 2000 (as amended). Current Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), where air quality is poorest, include:  Malpas Road AQMA  Shaftesbury / Crindau AQMA  St Julians AQMA  Caerleon Road AQMA  Royal Oak Hill AQMA  Caerleon High Street AQMA  Glasllwch Two new AQMAs were introduced in October 2011:  Caerleon Road / Chepstow Road  Malpas Road (Graig Park – Pillmawr Road).

Newport’s 2010 Local Air Quality Progress Report noted that: “All monitoring locations within AQMAs adjacent to the M4 Motorway now fall below the Air Quality Objective thresholds. It is assumed that a significant contributing factor to reduced Nitrogen Dioxide levels in these areas is the reduced speed limit along the M4 across almost its entire length through the built up areas of Newport.”

For more information visit: http://www.newport.gov.uk/_dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=environmentalhealth.homepage&contentid=cont4 46719

15

15 Where are the noise levels highest along the M4 Corridor, Magor to Castleton?

Response

The Welsh Government has compiled strategic noise maps for the study area, which indicate areas subjected to particularly high noise levels. It shows that the communities and businesses worst affected include those located around J25a to J26 (Malpas Relief Road to Malpas) and Junction 24 (Coldra). The noise map opposite visually shows areas adjacent to the M4 that suffer from noise pollution.

Evidence Base

The European Council Directive about assessment and management of environmental noise 2002/49/EC is often called the Environmental Noise Directive (END). The Directive became law in Wales under the Environmental Noise (Wales) Regulations 2006. The Directive requires Member States to produce strategic noise maps for road, rail, and for agglomerations. These noise maps are then used to produce action plans to manage noise issues.

The Welsh Government has completed strategic noise maps for major roads, railways and agglomerations. The Roads Action Plan for Wales has been prepared to prevent and reduce environmental noise where necessary and particularly where exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health and to preserve environmental noise quality where it is good.

Wales Major Roads Noise Map 47, 48 and 56 identify the worst noise affected areas relevant to the M4 Corridor, Magor to Castleton. A map is provided opposite. For more information visit: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/noiseandnuisance/environmentalnoise/noisemoni toringmapping/majormaps/?lang=en

16

16 To what extent can ‘smarter sustainable choices’ actually help to reduce congestion? How can you predict the impact of a proposed highway measure, and how accurate can you be?

Response Response

A Department for Transport report found that following the implementation of smarter travel measures A traffic model was developed using the network analysis programme software ‘SATURN’ to assess the in trial ‘Sustainable Travel Towns’, car driver trips by residents fell by 9% per person. A study benefits of highway measures contributing towards the M4 CEM Programme package development undertaken in 2010 by Leeds Transport Strategy team (currently unpublished data) indicates that journey stage. Traffic forecasts were developed to inform the operational, environmental and economic times are around 30% quicker during school holidays when reduction in traffic volumes approaching the assessments of proposed highway schemes in the study area. The forecast scenarios with these schemes city centre is around 5-10%. This suggests that reductions of car use of around 9% would be significant. in place were compared against a baseline ‘Do-minimum’ scenario, which includes all highway improvement schemes to which Welsh Government are committed at the time of forecasting.

Evidence Base The forecast traffic demand used in the M4 CEM appraisals is likely to be high compared to current

A Report to the Department for Transport (February 2010) sets out The Effects of Smarter Choice traffic growth projections, especially if some of Newport’s planned development projects fail to be Programmes in the Sustainable Travel Towns. Following a competition, four towns were designated followed through to completion (see below). This is likely to result in an over-prediction of economic ‘Sustainable Travel Towns’, implementing a programme of measures from 2004 to 2009, intended to benefits of any proposed schemes. However, an appraisal based on the traffic forecasts will provide an reduce car use. Baseline surveys in each town in 2004 showed that traffic growth was a significant issue indication of the relative performance of the different Packages of Measures under consideration. of public concern, with between 80% and 94% of respondents considering it to be a problem. Taken together they spent £15 million and all spent most on personal travel planning, followed by travel Evidence Base awareness campaigns, promoting walking and cycling, and public transport marketing. Smaller amounts were spent on workplace and school travel plans. The analyses gave the following key results: The SATURN traffic model was based on trip origin-destination data which was largely collected during  Car use: Car driver trips by residents fell by 9% per person, and car driver distance by 5% to7%, roadside interview surveys in 2005. Similarly, traffic count and journey time data were collected in according to aggregated household survey results for the three towns. 2005 which were used to calibrate and validate a base year traffic model.  Bus use: Bus trips per person grew substantially, by 10% to 22%, compared with a national fall of 0.5% in medium-sized towns. Generally, when preparing traffic forecasts, the traffic generated by developments should be taken into  Cycling: The number of cycle trips per head grew substantially in all three towns, by 26% to 30%. account, with overall growth across the study area constrained to background traffic growth projections.  Walking: The number of walking trips per head grew substantially, by 10% to 13%, compared to a Planning data on proposed developments in the study area were obtained from Newport City Council national decline in similar towns. and Monmouthshire County Council in 2007. There is usually some degree of uncertainty surrounding whether or not developments will be built and if so what size they will be as well as what future year Analysis of local traffic conditions in Leeds indicates that urban highway networks are extremely traffic growth will be. Consequently trip matrices were produced for a low and a high growth scenario, susceptible to even minor changes in traffic volumes. The study compared periods of lower traffic during and a central growth scenario, which is an average of the two. All of the appraisals undertaken for the school holidays and suggested that an increase in traffic volumes of only 5-10% could result in a 30% M4 CEMs are based on the central growth traffic forecasts. improvement in journey times. This suggests that reductions of resident car use of around 9% would be significant. In the intervening period since the traffic forecasts were developed, revised traffic forecasts for Great Britain have been produced in response to the economic downturn. Recent comparison of the traffic Overall, the Smarter Choice Programmes in the towns contributed positively to objectives of supporting growth projections for Newport indicates that the traffic model is predicting significantly higher rates of economic growth, reducing carbon emissions, increasing health, promoting equality of opportunity, and traffic growth than the revised projections. improving quality of life. The estimated outturn costs of the programme were £10 per person per year (roundly £11 at November 2009 prices), including both capital and revenue expenditure. On A full technical report ‘Traffic Modelling Background Information’ can be downloaded from the M4 conservative assumptions, the implied benefit-cost ratio of the achieved outcome in the three towns, CEM website at www.m4cem.com. allowing only for congestion effects, is of the order of 4.5.

In Wales, Sustrans are expanding their Personalised Travel Planning program ‘TravelSmart Cymru’, which is currently operating in Cardiff. The programme looks to target communities along the M4 Corridor to generate momentum for sustainable travel behaviour change right across South Wales. Sustrans expect reductions in car-as-driver trips of up to 10% or more across target populations and would also expect increases in mode share for walking, cycling and public transport.

17

17 Bibliography

Air Quality (Wales) Regulations 2000 available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2000/1940/contents/made

Barth, M., & Boriboonsomsin, K. (2009). “Traffic Congestion and Greenhouse Gases”, University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, California, USA.

Dodgson J, Lane B (1997). "The Cost of Road Congestion in Great Britain". NERA Briefing Paper.

Environmental Noise Directive available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm

Goodwin, P. (2004). “The economic cost of road traffic congestion”, discussion paper, the Rail Freight Group, London.

Grant-Muller, J. and Laird, S. (2006). “Cost of Congestion: Literature Based Review of Methodologies and Analytic Approaches”, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.

Local Authority Population Projections for Wales (2008 based data) available at: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100527popprojsum08en.pdf

Newport City Local Air Quality Quality Management Progress Report available at: http://www.newport.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/form/cont563166.pdf

Sustrans (2009) Travel behaviour research in the Sustainable Travel Towns.

Tweddle, G., Nellthorp, J., Sansom, T., Link, H., Stewart, L. and Bickel, P. (2003), “Pilot Accounts - Results for the United Kingdom”, Annex 7 to “Deliverable D8 Pilot Accounts -Results for Tranche B Countries”, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.

For further information please contact:

Allan Pitt M4 CEM Team Arup [email protected] 4 Pierhead Street Capital Waterside Cardiff CF10 4QP United Kingdom t +44 29 2047 3727 f +44 29 2047 2277 www.m4cem.com

18

18