mksm Partnership mksm Transport Strategy July 2009

Connecting the mksm sub-region

TRANSPORT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ECONOMICS

MARKET RESEARCH colinbuchanan.com

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Project No: 16096 July 2009

10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG Telephone: 020 7053 1300 Fax: 020 7053 1301 Email : [email protected]

Prepared by: Approved by:

______Atholl Noon/David Quarmby David Quarmby

Status: Final Issue no: 5 Date: 14 July 2009

16096-01-1 mksm final report v12 290709 .doc

(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has been made

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Contents

Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 17 1.1 Background 17 1.2 Scope and objectives of this Study 18 1.3 The transport planning context 20 1.4 Approach of the study 21 2 mksm overview 24 2.1 Vision and business plan 24 2.2 The regional context 24 2.3 The sub-regional economy and the growth agenda 25 2.4 Transport networks 27 3 Patterns of travel in mksm 35 3.1 General 35 3.2 Employment travel patterns 38 4 Employment and sustainable growth 41 4.1 Introduction 41 4.2 ‘Local’ versus ‘sub-regional’ employment 41 5 Accessibility 44 5.1 Methodology 44 5.2 Accessibility of businesses to labour 44 5.3 Accessibility of businesses to other businesses 45 5.4 Accessibility of housing to employment 47 5.5 Accessibility of housing to employment 49 5.6 Accessibility conclusions 50 6 Corridor flows 51 6.1 Introduction 51 6.2 Results 52 7 Issues and challenges 54 7.1 The growth agenda 54 7.2 The DaSTS goals and mksm 55 7.3 National networks - road 58 7.4 National networks - rail 62 7.5 Inter-urban bus networks 64 7.6 Local transport issues 66 7.7 Planning within mksm 66 7.8 Conclusion - priorities for networks/modes 67 8 A strategy for mksm 68 8.1 Purpose of the strategy 68 8.2 Elements of the strategy 69 8.3 Strategy issues 69 8.4 A sub-regional network 70 8.5 Strategy summary 73 Appendix A – Current RFA priorities 74 Appendix B - mksm travel, population & employment 76 Appendix C – EERM data 81 Appendix D – Accessibility analysis 82

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix E – Corridor flows 83 Appendix F –Response to DaSTS consultation 84 Appendix G – Proposal for M1 Corridor Studies 85 Appendix H – Proposal for Northampton Arc Study 86 Appendix I - Inter-urban bus networks 87

Tables

Table 2.1: mksm 2006 sectoral employment structure (%) 26 Table 2.2: mksm Housing and Jobs growth 2001-2021 26 Table 3.1: mksm Journey to Work mode share Census (%) 37 Table A.1: RFA schemes in mksm sub-region 74

Figures

Figure S.1: mksm sub-region showing growth points 3 Figure S.2: Conceptual sub-regional network 15 Figure 1.1: mksm sub-region showing growth points 18 Figure 1.2: Study process 22 Figure 2.1: DaSTS national network (mksm) 28 Figure 2.2: M1 J19 preferred scheme 29 Figure 2.3: mksm rail network 31 Figure 2.4: mksm 2009 inter-urban bus network 34 Figure 3.1: Summary of am peak highway trip patterns 35 Figure 3.2: EERM Am peak vehicle mksm journey purpose (%) 36 Figure 3.3: Am peak travel movements to/from mksm 37 Figure 3.4: Workplace of mksm residents (excl. mksm, 2001) 38 Figure 3.5: Residence of mksm workers (excl. mksm, 2001) 39 Figure 3.6: mksm “Top 20” journey to work corridors ( 2001 census) 40 Figure 4.1: 2008 Employment and population estimates 42 Figure 4.2: 2008-2021 – Change in population and employment 43

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 5.1: Employment change 2008 to 2021 vs. population (road) 44 Figure 5.2: Employment change 2008 to 2021 vs. population (rail) 45 Figure 5.3: Employment change 08-21 vs. reg employment (road) 46 Figure 5.4: Employment change 08-21 vs. reg employment (by rail) 46 Figure 5.5: Pop change 08-21 vs. employment (road) 47 Figure 5.6: Population change 08-21 vs. 2021 employment (by rail) 48 Figure 5.7: 2021 Rail vs. Road access to employment 48 Figure 5.8: 2021 Access of population to employment (by road) 49 Figure 5.9: 2021 Access of population to employment (by rail) 50 Figure 6.1: Indicative Corridors flows 2021 51 Figure 6.2: Corridor priorities 2021 52 Figure 8.1: Conceptual Sub-regional network 71

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Executive Summary

Introduction Milton Keynes/South Midlands – mksm – will see a 25% growth in population to 2 million by 2021 and 200,000 more jobs. Sitting astride the M1, A14 and two strategic rail corridors, mksm has strong connectivity with London and other cities, and with ports and airports, which have helped to fuel its growth and will continue to do so.

But mksm faces challenges: it depends heavily on the national networks (road and rail) for movement within the sub-region as well as to and from it, and any congestion and overcrowding, and measures taken to prioritise the needs of longer-distance movement will be to mksm’s disadvantage. Second, mksm sits at the intersection of three administrative regions, which complicates the strategic planning, funding and advocacy processes. So mksm – a clutch of major towns and their hinterlands linked by a common destiny of growth – need to develop their own views of what is required in transport terms to enable and sustain their growth. The task is to ensure that the ambitious growth agenda is matched by action to support its successful delivery

The Scope and Nature of this Report – an inter-urban strategy Colin Buchanan was appointed by the mksm partnership of local authorities and regional agencies to develop an inter-urban transport strategy for the mksm sub-region – that is, an integrated strategy for the networks connecting the towns to each other, to their rural catchments and to the rest of the country.

The study does not explicitly consider transport or traffic issues within the towns; these are the subject of local transport plans. We are aware, of course, that the levels of congestion and ease of movement within the towns can affect their desirability and attractiveness for development, alongside their connectivity to other towns, cities, ports and industrial centres.

In addition, ease of movement into and out of the towns does have an effect on the whole interurban journey, whether by bus, car, van or freight vehicle. Our analysis of interurban networks, including levels of congestion and journey speeds, therefore does take account of the urban radial roads leading to the regional and national networks.

We also emphasise that this report is not a ‘transport plan’ – it is not a set of schemes or specific policy proposals. Developing those is the responsibility of local authorities, regional and national agencies. This study, commissioned by the mksm partnership, provides a strategic framework for capturing, analysing and prioritising the key issues for transport – those that are special to mksm as a designated area of very substantial growth.

So this report informs the formal processes (LTP3, RFA, DaSTS regional and national planning processes for highways and rail, etc). It presents analysis, insights, concerns, issues and recommendations which enrich these processes, helping to ensure that the particular needs and concerns of the mksm area and its local and regional partners are taken on board.

And it also makes recommendations for action which we believe the mksm partnership itself can facilitate and progress – such as for the interurban bus network..

The planning context The mksm transport strategy is about enabling successful delivery of the growth agenda. Its focus is on inter-urban movement of people and goods, and on the inter-urban networks – road, rail and bus -

1 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

which link the towns and settlements to each other, to the important nearby destinations, and to London, other major business centres and international gateways.

The strategy informs and provides context for the local transport plans of the individual towns and counties; the strategy also seeks to influence the processes of regional transport planning, and of national network planning by the DfT (Department for Transport) and its agencies and partners.

The government’s recently announced framework for transport planning – DaSTS (Delivering a Sustainable Transport System) – sets a clear timetable, context and process for the national and regional bodies to prepare their proposals for the 2012 Transport Plan (which will determine plans, priorities and funding for 2014-2019 and indicatively beyond that); in particular there is an invitation to the regions and national bodies to bid by June for programmes of studies which will support the planning process towards 2012. mksm has no direct locus of its own in this process, and pursuit of the integrated transport strategy requires advocacy supported by evidence to the relevant stakeholders.

The DaSTS paper also sets out the government’s five goals to which the whole basket of national, regional and local transport plans will aspire. It is a critical requirement of this study to consider how well the emerging strategy fulfils these goals.

The strategy also aims to interface with the regional transport planning agenda by:
Recognising any current committed regional schemes as part of the strategy
Providing analysis supporting plans for longer term growth in housing and employment in the sub-region
Showing how the three regions ‘interface’ in the mksm area, and highlighting key corridors and priority issues for future work
Highlighting the priorities for supporting the growth agenda in the sub-region

2 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure S.1: mksm sub-region showing growth points

mksm: an overview The mksm Business Plan sets out clearly by area and timing the plans for population and employment growth across the sub-region. It highlights the key interventions critical to achieving sustainable growth at a local level, together with those strategic interventions across mksm as a whole. It already identifies issues of connectivity which provide a starting point for our work.

The sub-region has benefitted from considerable recent investment in the transport networks (road and rail), and more has recently been committed by government. Some significant issues of capacity and congestion still remain.

What is also clear is that the travel patterns show that the constituent parts of the mksm sub-region are highly inter-related – some 70% of all mksm morning peak travel is within the sub-region as a whole, and more than 80% of the employed residents work within the sub-region. It is also important to note that the travel that does take place outside the sub-region is highly significant for businesses,

3 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

with a very high proportion (more than 55%) of this being heavy goods vehicles and business-related travel. Good connectivity to and through the regional and national networks is therefore critical for competiveness and business success.

The approach of this study Our primary concern in this study is the successful delivery of the growth agenda and the role of transport at a sub-regional and regional level in enabling that. While the performance of the local networks is taken account of in our analysis, we are not explicitly considering the road or bus networks themselves within towns or within local areas.

We also review how well the current plans – and the further transport interventions identified in this report – meet the five goals clearly set out in the DfT’s DaSTS planning process.

We have focused in particular in this study on the links between employment and transport and the growth agenda.

Our proposition is that businesses will only come and invest and grow if they have good access to labour, good access to business centres and markets, and (depending on their sector) good freight access to ports, terminals and logistics centres. And that housing development will only be successful if there is good access to jobs.

It is important to distinguish between employment that is essentially ‘local’, in that it serves the local residential population; and employment that is ‘regional’, which is in businesses which serve other businesses, or wider regional, national or international markets, or in government or other public bodies which serve much wider areas. The key point is that ‘regional’ employment growth is potentially ‘footloose’ – it is not tied to any particular location, and the location decisions will be influenced, among other things, by accessibility. ‘Local’ employment growth, on the other hand, largely follows population growth.

One of the issues for sustainability is the relative location of population and employment growth, and particularly the location of the ‘regional’ employment which by its nature generates more inter-urban business-related movement of people and goods.

With the focus on inter-urban movement, we have therefore addressed the following questions:
What is the planned pattern of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ employment growth and does it support a sustainability agenda?
How accessible are the different employment growth areas to labour, business centres and markets?
How accessible are the different housing growth areas to jobs?
How are these measures of accessibility influenced by the performance of the various networks they depend on?
In which corridors are there particular pressures and costs due to congestion and poor service levels?
What network issues – road and rail - therefore require further consideration to sustain accessibility and support the growth agenda
What further contribution can public transport investment and improvement make – not only to the growth agenda, but to other transport objectives as reflected in the DaSTS goals?
So what are the priorities for networks and modes, what it is the emerging vision and transport strategy, and how well does the emerging strategy score against the DaSTS goals?

4 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

‘Local’ and ‘Regional’ employment We have explained above the concepts of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ employment. ‘Regional’ organisations and businesses have greater need of access to strategic networks, and generate more traffic and travel on inter-urban and strategic networks.

Our analysis has identified that in the mksm Business Plan ‘regional’ employment and its planned growth is indeed concentrated in the main towns – Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton/Dunstable, and to a lesser extent Bedford, Aylesbury and Daventry. This is an important finding because with the better availability of local bus services in these towns, the access to good walking and cycling networks and the better access to the rail network for commuting and business travel, means that the transport consequences of this pattern of growth are more sustainable than if the jobs growth were distributed differently.

Accessibility and the growth of homes and jobs This study explores the extent to which different growth areas within mksm face different levels of ‘accessibility’ (or connectivity), and how this affects their likely success in a) attracting investors and new jobs, and b) attracting housing developers to build houses. For each of the growth areas in mksm we have estimated the accessibility that businesses in those locations would face to labour and to business centres, by mode of travel. Account is taken, as relevant, of access to freight nodes and gateways. This is calculated from the ‘levels of service’ offered by the road and rail networks at 2021, taking account of congestion or crowding on those transport networks at that time (from the EERM (East of England Regional Model) model). This measure is then set against the target for jobs growth, and the different areas in mksm are then compared. Similarly, the accessibility to jobs for areas of housing growth is estimated, and this is set against the target for growth.

While the performance of the local networks is taken account of in the analysis, we are not explicitly considering the road or bus networks themselves within towns or local areas. Our focus is on the accessibility offered by the inter-urban road, rail and limited-stop bus networks to new and existing businesses, and to housing developers.

Accessibility to labour, to business centres and to freight nodes does vary significantly between areas within mksm, and between modes. In areas of lower accessibility, jobs growth may take longer – or some may not happen at all. And growth is more likely if the economic sectors targeted for growth area by area are those most suited to the particular pattern of accessibility in that area.

We consider the corridors of movement where there are issues of congestion and overcrowding, and possible transport interventions in the networks indicated by this. While our analysis is unlikely to say anything new about the ‘hotspots’ themselves, it demonstrates the impact they have on accessibility and on the ability to deliver the growth agenda in the different areas within mksm.

Broadly our findings are that
Northampton has an ambitious target for regional jobs growth, and is reliant on strong commuting flows in from Daventry, Wellingborough, Kettering and to a less extent Corby. The A43/A45 corridor linking these towns and the M1 is increasingly congested – particularly at the key junctions - and this is likely to be a factor limiting Northampton’s accessibility ‘scores’, in spite of its good accessibility to the M1 and to regional services on the West Coast Main Line. This may affect the achievement of the jobs growth target – or at least its timing.

Milton Keynes’ plan for ‘regional’ jobs growth is well in line with its accessibility, with its proximity to M1 and access to the West Coast Main Line which offers (somewhat compromised) Virgin’s long distances services as well as the London Midland regional services. However analysis shows the M1 is under considerable pressure from longer-distance traffic, and measures adopted by the Highways

5 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Agency to address this are likely to affect travel to and from Milton Keynes - over 25% of its inter-urban journeys use the M1.

The Luton/Dunstable urban area offers high inter-urban accessibility both for business and for residents, by road and by rail; we recognise, however, that congestion within the urban area is a continuing problem for businesses and residents alike. But inter-urban transport is not a factor affecting Luton’s future growth; the 2021 accessibility indices reflect the completion and use of the A5-M1 link and the Luton-Dunstable busway. However, the M1 and other corridors east and south-east of Luton demonstrate the same growing pressure as further north.

Bedford demonstrates high accessibility by rail for businesses and for residents. While the completion of the A421 to the M1 will significantly improve Bedford’s accessibility on the inter-urban road network, the sustained and widespread traffic congestion within the town will continue to affect overall accessibility – especially the perception of it by prospective investors. East-West links between Milton Keynes and to Cambridgeshire are regarded as vital by stakeholders.

Accessibility to jobs by road for prospective housing developers in the North Northants towns of Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby is commensurate with the scale of growth. Rail accessibility for business and for commuters – dependent on the intercity Midland Main Line – may be compromised if the service pattern develops to favour the larger towns to the north. The prospect of electrification north of Bedford and projection of ‘Thameslink’ services – considered in Network Rail’s latest draft RUS (Rail Utilisation Strategy) – could be particularly beneficial. Generally, Corby’s more compromised accessibility to main business centres is offset by its closeness to the A14 and the availability of rail freight facilities. Its prospective employment growth will be most successful with a strong focus on the logistics sector.

Aylesbury shows lower accessibility than the larger towns, although its growth target is lower. The issue is the low road speed and limited capacity offered by the existing modest road networks, rather than heavy traffic congestion characteristic of other mksm towns. This is particularly felt in the critical north-south corridor to High Wycombe and the Thames Valley and - to a lesser extent since the completion of the bypass of Leighton Linslade - to Milton Keynes and the M1. Given the sensitive environment, there is currently no appetite for significant road schemes; accessibility improvements will depend on other measures, such as East-West Rail and inter-urban bus developments, but it is not clear that these will be sufficient to enable the growth to occur.

The findings also suggest that – to support the sustainability goal - distribution of further growth beyond 2021 should reflect the different levels of accessibility, and opportunities to make good use of public transport in and between the sub-region and the rest of Britain. Towns recommended for the higher levels of growth beyond 2021 therefore include Luton/Dunstable, Milton Keynes and Bedford.

Problem corridors Given our understanding of the generally adequate forward capacity and service levels offered by the main rail networks, our gathering of evidence about ‘problem’ corridors has focussed on origin- destination movements by road (which constitute 90%+ of total inter-urban movements). We identified those corridors with high flows, and in particular those showing a significant deterioration in travel time by 2021 compared with the base date. Based on the combination of these two factors, the main problem corridors identified are:

6 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

The M1 Corridor – defined as the M1 itself over the section J10-J16 (Luton-Milton Keynes-Northampton), together with the parallel local/regional roads, especially A5/A43/A508/A4146/A505

The ‘Northampton Arc’ – the A43/A45 corridor linking Daventry and Towcester with Northampton/Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby and Wellingborough/Rushden/A14-Thrapston

The North-South corridor around Aylesbury – to Milton Keynes and M1 in the north and High Wycombe and Thames Valley in the south, and the links to Leighton Linslade and on to Luton/Dunstable

The Luton / Dunstable ‘Gateway’ - between Dunstable, Luton and south and east of Luton, on towards the ‘A1’ towns, St Albans, and Hemel Hempstead

The links between Bedford, via the A421/A1/A428 and further east.

Network issues – Road The M1 is a critical sub-regional link for mksm as well as a national link. The improvements proposed for the M1, which is one of two main highway ‘arteries’ of mksm, are welcome. Nevertheless the Highways Agency's projected speed levels on the M1 in the sub-region in 2025 compared to 2003 show that – even with programmed improvements - speeds are expected to drop significantly.

The planned ‘managed motorway’ regime is likely to involve ramp-metering to control the entry of traffic to maintain smoother and undisrupted flows on the motorway itself, as part of an Integrated Demand Management (IDM) strategy. However, we understand from discussions with the HA (Highways Agency) that they are contemplating the use of more aggressive forms of ramp-metering - imposing delays of up to 5 minutes or more on joining traffic to discourage short distance ‘hops’ travelling two or three junctions, giving priority to longer-distance journeys.

This is likely to incentivise some traffic to divert to parallel local/regional roads such as A5, A43, A508, A4146, A505 and further south, the A5183 and A1081, but the extent of diversion and the scale of the problem needs to be modelled in order to be assessed, and the implications evaluated for those roads, for other traffic and for the communities they serve.

Because of the critical role of the M1 in mksm, we are recommending that the M1 Corridor (that is the M1 together with the network of parallel local and regional roads) be the subject of joint studies between the Highways Agency and the relevant local authorities in mksm; Colin Buchanan has already submitted a paper to mksm partnership outlining the rationale and possible scope of such studies for consideration in the package of ‘DaSTS’ studies by the end of June (See Appendix G).

Improvements are also planned for the A14, which runs east/west along the north of the mksm area, including widening around Kettering, an improvement scheme between Ellington and Fen Ditton and traffic management measures along the route. The traffic management regime is considering ‘traditional’ ramp-metering. We recommend that the mksm partners also review the use of those techniques with the HA on this strategic route and understand that discussions are underway between the HA, DfT and the County Council. The implementation of these improvements is critical to the delivery of the growth agenda around Kettering and for the sub-regions’ wider links.

The ‘Northampton ‘Arc’ - the A45/A43 linking Towcester and Daventry with the M1 through to Northampton-Wellingborough-Kettering and from Wellingborough-Rushden-Thrapston (A14) - shows significant pressures, especially around Northampton, and at the major junctions. This is largely due to the combined pressure of substantial local, regional and national traffic movements, already reaching nearly 100,000 vehs/day on some sections. The A43 is the key route linking the north of the County with the M1, and reducing congestion on this road would strengthen the inward investment potential of Northampton, Kettering and Corby. The recent Highways Agency decision about M1 J19

7 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

(joining A14 and M6) removes any south<>east movement between the A14 and the M1, and puts more pressure on the A43/A45 corridor for longer-distance traffic (especially LGVs (Light Goods Vehicles)) going from the A1/A14 to the M1, the A34 and the South Coast and the West Country. On our advice, mksm submitted in February 2009 a response to the DaSTS consultation recommending that the A43/A45 corridor from M40 J10 – M1 J15/15A – A14/Thrapston be classified at part of the strategic national network; the DfT has subsequently rejected this change.

We believe the continuing issues on this corridor justify a comprehensive study of the whole ‘Arc’, which should include a range of management and public transport options as well as infrastructure. At the request of the mksm partnership we have prepared a note giving the rationale and scope for such studies, which should be endorsed and progressed by a partnership of the DfT, Highways Agency, Northamptonshire County Council and the East Midlands region, and submitted for consideration as a DaSTS regional study. The note is at Appendix H. Failure to address this satisfactorily could bring into question the desirability of further growth beyond 2021.

Luton – east and south east. The corridor analysis suggests significant pressure on roads between Luton and Stevenage (via Hitchin), Welwyn/Hatfield/St Albans. With the exception of part of the A505, here again the issue is largely one of inadequate single carriageway roads limiting capacity and speed. Destinations beyond are better served by M1 and M25, although the longer term sees pressure on these motorway links too.

Luton has aspirations for a Northern Bypass, linking the M1 with the A6 and on to the A505, providing an east/west link outside of central Luton between the M1 and the Stevenage area. The first section of this potential link (between the M1 and A6) is closely associated with (and potentially fundable by) development here, but the next section (between the A6 and A505) is likely to be more challenging to achieve. Initial modelling by Luton indicates that while this road also performs a local function in enabling development, a significant proportion of traffic using it is likely to be of a more strategic nature. The broad corridor to Stevenage and Welwyn Garden city is identified in this study as carrying large volumes with future worsening of journey times. The potential contribution of this link to sub- regional strategic connectivity requires more analysis.

Dunstable: The link between Dunstable and Luton and to Leighton Linslade were also highlighted as priority areas in the analysis. We are not aware of any current proposals to deal with these issues, although the Luton-Dunstable busway should offer alternatives for travellers. We recommend that the link between Leighton Linslade and Dunstable could be considered as part of the proposed north/south route study proposed by the South East Partnership Board and Buckinghamshire mentioned below.

Aylesbury – North and South: As noted previously, Aylesbury does not score highly on the accessibility measures, because of the historic nature of the road network, the limited rail network and the pattern of settlement across the county. Delivering the growth agenda may be compromised without significant accessibility improvements. Priority should be given to those corridors which most affect accessibility and where travel demands are likely to increase substantially – which means northwards towards Milton Keynes and Luton/Dunstable, and southwards towards High Wycombe and the Thames Valley.

North-facing accessibility has been improved by the opening of the A4146 bypass round Leighton Linslade. However, addressing the issues raised by the A418 – including the conflict of through movements and the rural and village environments – has presented challenges and caused considerable debate locally. Opportunities to improve accessibility by road to High Wycombe and the Thames Valley are equally constrained, although we understand that the South East Partnership Board has supported a study of this corridor looking at potential solutions. While the current rail network plays an important though south-facing role, the EW (east-west) Rail development will open rail access to the north. Meanwhile, recent and prospective investment in bus facilities in Aylesbury and High Wycombe, together with a good response by the main operator Arriva, has seen and will continue significant growth in inter-urban bus/coach traffic.

8 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Nevertheless, our role in this study is to point out that successful delivery of the growth agenda for Aylesbury (for housing and for jobs) will require inter-urban ‘accessibility’ to be improved beyond current plans, and this will depend to a considerable extent on addressing the level of service (in its most general sense) offered by the road network. In this respect our findings support the case of the South East Partnership Board for work looking at future strategic connectivity on the north/south corridor between the M1 and Thames Valley via Aylesbury.

Bedford: Recent and committed road improvements such as the A421 link to the M1 and Milton Keynes will improve the inter-urban accessibility of Bedford, although the remainder of the link beyond the new M1 junction 13 and on to Milton Keynes is not yet committed. The TEES study (2008) identified the A421/A428 Cambridge-Bedford-MK (Milton Keynes) as a stressed route in the worst traffic congestion change group, and regarded it as an ‘economic priority corridor for future intervention’. This study identified ‘medium range’ flows between Bedford and the east on this corridor, and noted decreases in journey time. The corridor remains one of few east/west links between the M1 and A1 and the east in the mksm area, and should be regarded as important in these terms.

It is noted that the modelling used for this study assumed that the Bedford Western Bypass was a committed scheme, although we understand that this is not currently the case and there is little prospect of developer funding alone delivering this link. This strengthens the case for advancement of the Western Bypass in order to facilitate growth.

Network issues – Rail The principal towns in mksm are well located on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and the Midland Main Line (MML), Aylesbury is the exception, at the end of Chiltern’s slow but high quality commuter service to London, and with no north-facing connections. For the WCML and MML, recent and committed improvement plans bring sufficient capacity and frequency for the next 10-15 years to provide for commuters and for business travellers to London, and reasonable access to destinations to the north/north-west of mksm – using the long distance express services and the regional services on each route. There is some intra-regional movement by rail along the main corridors.

One major concern continues to be the access to Virgin long distance services at Milton Keynes given its size and strategic economic importance. The problem is familiar and longstanding, and based on our investigations in some depth with DfT and Network Rail, we judge that current trends in rail traffic along the WCML make the prospects for improvements to Milton Keynes connectivity less and less likely.

Recent and committed improvement plans to MML have reduced the frequency for travellers from Kettering to London and Northamptonshire. Northampton is also relatively poorly served by longer- distance services given its size, although opportunities to change this in the short to medium term are limited by the local rial geography and current service patterns. However the development of HS2 may offer opportunities for more fundamental changes in service patterns in the area.

Another concern is the irregularly timed new service between Corby and St Pancras, involving for some trains waits at Kettering of up to 30 minutes, and only a couple of minutes for other, due to constraints on platform occupation at Corby on the line used by freight trains. There is some concern about reduced connectivity on the MML north from Kettering and Wellingborough. As with the road network, the predominantly radial pattern from London leaves poor East-West connectivity by rail both within mksm and to the towns and cities either side of the sub-region. The East-West Rail project makes a significant contribution to this, offering connections between the WCML and MML as well as northwards from Aylesbury. The project also supports the Regional Spatial Strategies for the South-East and East of England, and has strategic benefits for freight and cross-country services. The cost and engineering requirements have now been confirmed through the continuing work as part of the GRIP4 process. It is important to secure the necessary funding to progress this significant project for mksm.

9 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Since this study was initiated, the government has announced the formation of the High-Speed 2 company, with a specific remit to identify a route and prospective business case and delivery plans for high-speed rail from London to the West Midlands. A substantial opportunity for mksm lies in the consequential reshaping of services on the existing WCML. At the right time this opportunity must be seized, and a clear view formed and advocated about how the needs of Milton Keynes, Northampton, and the other towns on WCML can best be served. Additionally, there may be an opportunity to bid for an intermediate station on HS2 itself, but in our view this has a low chance of being adopted and should not be pursued at the expense of ensuring that mksm gets the full benefit of the consequential reshaping. The mksm partnership should also be sensitive to the possible impact of the possible HS2 alignments on the mksm environment.

Inter-urban bus We believe there is significant scope for improvements to the inter-urban bus network, its scope, its operation and its quality of service, which with the right degree of collaboration between the local authorities and the bus operators can be delivered. We believe there is scope for significant increases in patronage, although its modal share of all travel is still likely to be modest.

An improved inter-urban bus network can make an important contribution to transport accessibility within the sub-region. It will supplement the improvements to local bus services, and by providing improved connectivity for those without access to car it will contribute to the DaSTS goals of equality and quality of life.

The current network consists mostly of hourly services linking the main towns, with more frequent services along the M1 Corridor, on the ‘Northampton Arc’ and Aylesbury north and south. The two main operators are Stagecoach (towards the north) and Arriva (towards the south).

The biggest problem for the inter-urban bus network is the unpredictability of journey times due to congestion, mostly in and out of the towns served. The length of the routes, and the impact of delays on waiting times along the route, make it particularly important to address this, and to do so on a sub- regional basis - the network is only as strong as its weakest part.

There is good cooperation between operators and many of the local authorities individually, on facilities for buses, priorities, information distribution and so on. In addition to this, however, there are opportunities for the local authorities, working in partnership with each other and the operators, to progress on a collective basis:
General bus/coach stop provision and quality and interchanges
Parking enforcement along critical corridors
Traffic signal prioritisation with transponders
Selective road geometry and road surface markings to make bus entry into the traffic stream easier
Information and marketing There is a particular need for real-time passenger information at bus stops and to electronic media such as mobile phones and PDAs; while the technology solutions exist, much of the equipment is in place, and operating in some towns, there are institutional and commercial barriers that need to be addressed if the systems integration problems are to be solved and information to be extended along the length of route for the inter-urban network. Passengers expect and get this on the railways, and ‘raising the game’ for inter-urban bus must involve the same facility.

The two main bus operators are willing to engage in a sub-regional ‘strategic partnership’ with the local authorities to address these issues on a holistic basis, and we have suggested a possible scope for such engagement.

It remains the case that achieving significant modal shift away from the car is easier within urban areas and on journeys between towns and their rural catchments, than for the generality of inter-urban

10 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

journeys – where journey patterns are more dispersed, and longer journeys make alternative modes less attractive or practical.

Nevertheless a longer term vision for a step-change in the role of inter-urban bus, including extensive application of park-and-ride, as set out in this report is worth taking forward. It will involve some radical thinking about policies, priorities and facilities, and require a strategic response from the operators. The opening of the Luton-Dunstable busway will demonstrate how a major shift in the relative travel times of bus against other modes can transform the competitive offer and lead to new service development and passengers. We are pleased to note that Northamptonshire County Council is to develop a radical ‘rapid transport system’ for the Northampton Arc, with just such a transformational objective.

We believe that an aspirational target of doubling the current patronage using inter-urban bus within 10 years can be achieved.

Local transport issues Within the urban areas there are significant congestion and accessibility problems, and this can also have an important impact on the location decisions of employers and residents. It is important that investment in ‘local ‘transport therefore keeps pace with growth.

There is much that the respective authorities are doing in relation to encouraging walking, cycling and buses, and other improvements to reduce congestion. The Smarter Choices work at this local level is also highly important – Aylesbury for example has shown what a concerted effort on encouraging cycling can achieve. The travel issues within towns are also highly important for inter-urban travel:
The exact location and density of development, particularly where accessible to good inter-urban bus corridors, can significantly influence modal share; in other cases (e.g. in the Northampton Arc), development can impact on other inter-urban travel between towns
Higher density development around sub-regional “hubs” (such as that planned at Station Quarter, Kettering) can encourage sustainable travel
Congestion on key corridors can have a significant impact on the reliability and attraction of inter-urban bus services – these services are only as strong as their weakest link
A focus on improving the quality and catchments of the key local interchanges providing access to inter-urban networks
Common standards across authorities and a focus on travel behaviour change by encouraging the appropriate mode for the different types of travel can reduce intra- urban congestion which helps improve inter-urban public transport accessibility
There is also scope for considering the linkages between development and travel in relation to major travel generators such as educational and health facilities, which serve wider catchments
In addition at local level we believe that local authorities can seriously influence the take-up of technology change initiatives for vehicles users within their areas to help achieve climate change goals In terms of rural accessibility, this has not been a major focus of the study, but we recognise the fact that access to public transport in the rural areas of the sub-region is vital to the DaSTS goals of quality of life and promotion of equal opportunity. The emphasis within the strategy of promotion of high quality–inter-urban bus services should help to strengthen the overall quality of rural accessibility.

Contribution to DaSTS goals DfT have set out clearly their goals within Delivering a Sustainable Transport System and the planning processes that will help their delivery. The goals are:

11 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

to support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks
to reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change
to contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy by reducing transport risks, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health
to promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens
to improve quality of life and to promote a healthy natural environment

Our report indicates how the emerging transport strategy is informed by these goals and to what extent it satisfies them at a strategic level. mksm is well placed to make a significant contribution to the first DaSTS goal, and overall has an appropriate pattern of growth to support it. This also supports the second goal on carbon reduction, on the basis that achieving a target modal share by getting the relative scale and location of new development right in the first place is more effective than trying to influence travel behaviour once people and firms have moved in. Alongside the promotion of travel behaviour change, the government’s approach to carbon reduction in transport involves promoting a wide range of technology measures - and the fiscal and regulatory policies to incentivise their adoption - to drive up vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of alternative energy sources to reduce carbon emissions. There are many opportunities for local authorities to use their own powers to reinforce and leverage these changes, which on an mksm-wide basis could be particularly effective.

While the potential to contribute to the last four DaSTS goals for travel within towns is substantial, because of the opportunities for alternatives to the private car, it is more limited for inter-urban travel. Nevertheless, improvements in the inter-urban bus network, including park-and-ride, and better integration with the existing rail networks, will make an important contribution to equality of opportunity, and to improved quality of life – especially for those without access to a car.

Planning within mksm No purpose-designed transport planning model exists for the mksm sub-region. A number of local authorities have – or are renewing – their own more granular transport models, but we understand that none ‘connect’ with adjacent models to enable policies and scenarios wider than one local authority to be tested reliably. While there is (understandably) no appetite for a sub-regional transport model as such, there is a case for exploring what would be involved in developing a common model architecture, and common formats and data structures for networks, zones and so on, for the various local authority models. This would enable linking between models and the opportunity to properly test scenarios over parts or the whole of the mksm sub-region. The mksm partnership could lead a project with this objective.

Conclusions Our report identifies that
mksm is well placed to deliver its growth agenda of homes and jobs. Committed transport interventions on road and rail will be helpful in catering for much of the anticipated growth, and in providing accessibility improvements which will in general encourage and enable that growth.
The different parts of mksm are highly inter-related in terms of travel patterns, and the inter-urban travel is of critical importance to business.
Overall, the planned growth to 2021 is located appropriately and sustainably for the planned transport infrastructure (not always the case in growth areas).

12 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

The current plans make a good contribution to DaSTS goals; improvements are possible with further interventions that we identify.

This is because ‘accessibility’ offered by the transport networks to enable and encourage investors to deliver homes and jobs growth is higher where the growth plans are most ambitious. However, we express concern however about the effect of pressure on the ‘Northampton Arc’ on the longer term prospects for growth in this area; and we note the lower accessibility of Aylesbury – and the difficulties of significantly improving it – in relation to its growth plans. Meanwhile, Luton stands out as a place which in accessibility terms would be able to attract much higher employment than is planned, if other factors (such as town congestion and land availability) allowed it. Bedford will also have excellent rail access following Thameslink completion, but similarly will need to tackle town centre congestion.

There are significant challenges affecting the overall connectivity for the sub-region:
The M1 is critical to future accessibility for the mksm sub-region, but future management strategies for this road by the HA could adversely affect access to M1 for the three largest towns; joint studies are recommended with the HA and the local authorities, to be brokered by the mksm partnership.
The A43/A45 corridor – the ‘Northampton Arc’ covering Daventry/Towcester to Northampton and to Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby and Rushden/A14 – is under particular pressure through the combination of local, regional and national traffic movements. Current transport plans envisage only limited transport interventions. A comprehensive review is required, considering options of strategic traffic management and public transport improvements as well as infrastructure investment; we note Northants CC have already initiated a rapid transport study. If the longer term growth aspirations of the corridor and Northampton in particular are to be delivered without adverse impacts on the existing communities then these issues must be addressed.
Aylesbury’s growth agenda is ambitious given its relatively constrained accessibility, due to its location, the historic nature of its road network and its limited rail connectivity. Any improvements to the inter-urban road network are sensitive; however, the substantial improvements to bus and coach facilities within the town, coupled with the prospect of EW Rail opening new access northwards, make a valuable contribution. Nevertheless, the overall accessibility may limit the ability to achieve the targeted growth. At the same time, there are a number of opportunities for enhancement in the transport networks which will not only help deliver the growth agenda but make useful further contribution to dasts goals, especially those concerned with equality of opportunity and quality of life, as well as modestly to carbon reduction.

The recognition within mksm of a sub-regional network of importance (See
Figure S.2), and the focus of future attention and investment in protecting and enhancing this network as a means of accessing the national networks and connecting the sub-region. There is potential to co-ordinate and develop common Smarter Choices policies and measures across the sub-region. While these will obviously have greater impact at the local level, the sharing of expertise and best practice across the sub-region, a focus on a common ‘message’ to travellers, co- ordination of policies for travel to e.g. major health and educational facilities, and encouragement of car share and sustainable freight initiatives will also have an impact on inter-urban travel
East/West links, in particular those of the A421/A428 through Bedford and those linking the A505 to the M1 have been identified as carrying significant sub-regional

13 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

volumes and will have future decreases in journey times, and various improvements are being considered for these

The East-West Rail proposals will make an important contribution to east-west connectivity in a sub-region dominated by north-south links (including Aylesbury as well as Bicester, Bletchley, Milton Keynes and Bedford), and to Oxford and Cambridge outside mksm. Prospects for its use for rail freight and for (national) cross-country services will benefit the sub-region too
The role that inter-urban bus plays in connecting mksm can be enhanced by concerted action by local authorities within the sub-region, with the bus operators, to address a range of practical issues affecting service reliability, passenger information and infrastructure facilities; a longer term, more ambitious vision for inter-urban bus, including use of park-and-ride, could make a strategic contribution on certain corridors

The possibility of rail electrification beyond Bedford – raised in the recent Network Rail RUS on electrification – holds the opportunity for projecting the Thameslink service to Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby
High-Speed 2 (HS2) – the vision for high-speed rail from London to the West Midlands – offers the possibility of radical reshaping of the existing WCML servicers to serve the mksm towns, especially Milton Keynes and Northampton, more effectively
In some locations the more significant challenges for delivering growth are local issues – such as local transport access and congestion, or other issues such as skills, training or land availability, rather than strategic inter-urban accessibility

14 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure S.2: Conceptual sub-regional network

Strategy The Transport Strategy for mksm therefore 1. Recognises the close inter-relationship of the towns and areas of the mksm sub- region, as shown by sub-regional travel patterns.

2. Recognises the generally high level of connectivity for mksm offered by the strategic and regional networks, and emphasises the critical nature of the planned improvements on these networks for future growth.

3. Recognises that generally the pattern of growth planned across the sub-region is located appropriately and in areas of higher accessibility (including rail), and overall contributes to the first two DaSTS goals.

4. Requires, in order to sustain the growth agenda, that attention be given to the key challenges of the M1 Corridor, the Northampton Arc, and the north-south connectivity for Aylesbury.

5. Identifies opportunities for enhancements to public transport connectivity; these are worth pursuing both in their own right and for their wider contribution to DaSTS goals of equality of opportunity and quality of life, as well as to carbon reduction. Some, such as inter-urban bus development, the backing for EW Rail, and the longer term benefits of reshaping the WCML services in the wake of HS2, will

15 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

benefit from concerted action which should be led by the mksm partnership; others require pressure and advocacy with the relevant agencies.

6. Recognises the key role that individual authorities need to play to improve travel and accessibility within their areas, and how decisions made here can have a significant impact on inter-urban travel.

7. Involves the mksm partnership in an important continuing role to. - keep this agenda in front of government – both DfT and CLG – and the national agencies it needs to influence (Highways Agency and Network Rail)

- inform the regional spatial plan review process currently being led by the regions, and engage the regions in supporting the transport agenda identified, both for the regional DaSTS process generally and for the recommended DaSTS studies in particular – emphasising the particular aspects of the transport plans which are essential to support and sustain the ambitious growth agenda for the sub-region

- inform the LTP3 process led by the local transport authorities, identifying the connections with the sub-regional agenda, and supporting those aspects of the local transport plans which contribute to connectivity across the sub- region

- provide leadership for the issues, identified above, which need concerted sub-region-wide action

16 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

1 Introduction

1.1 Background 1.1.1 Colin Buchanan (CB) has been appointed by the mksm sub-regional partnership to develop a Transport Strategy for the sub-region.

1.1.2 mksm is already one of the most successful growth areas in the UK, and as part of the government’s Sustainable Communities Plan is the focus for further substantial growth to 2021 and 2031. Planned housing growth, concentrated mainly in the existing urban areas and in urban extensions, will bring the 2021 population of the sub-region to 2m, representing 25% growth on 2001 levels. Linked with this is projected jobs growth of some 200,000 in and around the existing towns.

1.1.3 Sitting astride the M1, the A14 and two strategic rail corridors - the West Coast Main Line and the MML - mksm has strong connectivity with London, the West Midlands, the Haven Ports and Oxford and Cambridge, all of which have helped to fuel its growth and will continue to do so. And bordering the region are the M40, A1, Chiltern Line and East Coast Main Line which add further links to business centres and international gateways.

1.1.4 But mksm faces challenges. First, it is situated at the intersection of three administrative regions – East of England (Bedfordshire and Luton), East Midlands (Northamptonshire), and the South-East (part of Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes) – which complicates the strategic planning, funding and advocacy processes. Second, mksm depends heavily on the national networks mentioned (both road and rail) for movement within the sub-region as well as to and from, and any congestion and overcrowding on these primary links will inhibit internal movement. And some of the county roads within the region are used extensively by through traffic.

1.1.5 So mksm – a number of major towns and their hinterlands linked by a common destiny of growth – need to develop their own view of what is required in transport terms to enable and sustain their growth, and to have their own voice with government and the key national transport agencies, as well as with their regional partners. The task is to ensure that the needs are understood, and that the ambition of the growth agenda is matched by action to support its delivery.

17 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 1.1: mksm sub-region showing growth points

1.2 Scope and objectives of this Study 1.2.1 The aims of this project are to develop a strategy for inter-urban transport at the sub- regional level; that is, an integrated strategy for the networks connecting the towns to each other, to their rural catchments and to the rest of the country. This strategy must align transport priorities with the economic and housing growth needs of the mksm area and set this against the national policy context for transport.

1.2.2 The study does not explicitly consider transport or traffic issues within the towns; these are the subject of local transport plans. We are aware, of course, that the levels of congestion and ease of movement within the towns can affect their desirability and attractiveness for development, alongside their connectivity to other towns, cities, ports and industrial centres.

1.2.3 In addition, ease of movement into and out of the towns does have an effect on the whole interurban journey, whether by bus, car, van or freight vehicle. Our analysis of interurban

18 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

networks, including levels of congestion and journey speeds, therefore does take account of the service quality (in general terms) of the urban radial roads leading to the regional and national networks.

1.2.4 The study does not aim to produce a ‘transport plan’ as a set of schemes or specific policy proposals. It sets out a strategic framework for capturing the key issues affecting the ability of the transport networks of sub-region to facilitate the growth agenda. These need to be fed into and inform the key local, regional and national planning processes. They also lead to recommendations for action which we believe the mksm partnership can itself progress.

1.2.5 The core requirements were that the study:
Ties into the emerging national transport agenda as articulated through current DfT policy i.e. DaSTS
Identifies a delivery-focused sub-regional transport strategy clear and distinct from, but complimentary to, both regional and local transport planning and delivery
Caters for the uniqueness of the mksm sub-regional geography
Informs and assists planning at the regional and national level
Provides an overarching strategic framework for local transport delivery 1.2.6 To achieve this, the strategy aims to define the ‘strategic transport geography’ of the mksm area, identifying:
the key economic development / housing growth points;
the national destinations / international gateways with which these growth points need to be connected;
the national strategic transport corridors essential to access these growth points;
the key capacity issues / opportunities on these national networks;
the key sub-regional gateways that are essential to access these national transport networks;
the key sub-regional strategic transport corridors; and
the key capacity issues / opportunities on these sub-regional networks. 1.2.7 The study timescale is the period 2001-2021, to match the mksm Business Plan.

1.2.8 In particular, we have chosen to investigate how the connectivity looks for all the different growth nodes in the sub-region – how it looks to those investing in new jobs or expanding existing businesses; and how it looks for those investing in new housing. Connectivity for business investors is all about having good accessibility to the right labour force and skills, good accessibility to other business centres and airports, and (for certain key sectors) good accessibility for freight to logistics centres and international ports. Good connectivity does not guarantee that jobs will be created. But poor connectivity will certainly work against effective jobs growth.

1.2.9 Likewise, connectivity for housing developers is about good accessibility to the right jobs, as well as to local services and facilities. Again, while good connectivity will not guarantee that new housing will find a ready market, because many other factors are relevant; but poor connectivity will make it more difficult.

1.2.10 Where our study suggests that a growth point seems to have particularly ambitious agenda given their level of connectivity to the outside world, our primary purpose is to indicate where further transport intervention appears to be needed, although it might also suggest that the growth targets be revisited, particularly for longer term aspirations.

19 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

1.3 The transport planning context 1.3.1 The DfT outlined clearly their planned approach to long-term transport planning in the publications ‘Towards a Sustainable Transport System’ (TaSTS, 2007) and DaSTS – the latter setting out how the strategy and process would be put into action.

National transport goals 1.3.2 DaSTS sets out 5 transport goals:
to support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks;
to reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change;
to contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy by reducing transport risks, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health;
to promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens; and
to improve quality of life and to promote a healthy natural environment. 1.3.3 DaSTS identified a number of components of the transport infrastructure that, collectively, are critical to the functioning of the system as a whole at a national level and to the economic success of the nation. These are:
The ten ports and seven airports (international gateways) through which most people and goods enter and leave this country
The ten biggest conurbations
14 strategic national transport corridors that connect them and other areas with strong economic growth and inward investment 1.3.4 DaSTS highlights that the DfT will lead on option generation on the national and international networks, addressing the strategic priorities on the national corridors and for the international gateways respectively, and evaluating projects and packages against the transport goals.

1.3.5 Regions will be in the lead for generating options on the city and regional networks; these consist of the highways and rail networks other than those road and rail routes defined as “Strategic National Corridor” (SNC) infrastructure. Recognising that a number of local and regional rail services use the same infrastructure as the strategic national services, DfT note that some collaborative planning with regions will be needed where these are significant – as they are in mksm.

Future process 1.3.6 The DaSTS process going forward will be divided into the following stages, for all networks:
Stage 1: Agreeing strategic priorities and work programme
Stage 2: Generating options
Stage 3: Sifting and packaging options
Stage 4: Deciding on overall programme 1.3.7 The aim is to produce a Transport Plan by all modes by 2012: this will be a programme with priorities for funding in each year from 2014 - 19, along with indicative proposals for 2019 - 24, within the context of a 30 year strategic plan, and an analysis of the impact of the proposals on each goal.

1.3.8 DaSTS included an invitation to the regions and national bodies to bid by June 2009 for programmes of studies which will support the planning process towards 2012. mksm has

20 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

no direct locus of its own in this process, and pursuit of the integrated transport strategy requires advocacy supported by evidence to the relevant local, regional and national stakeholders.

LTP 3 1.3.9 DfT has recently issued consultation on its guidance for preparation of LTP 3 – some key elements of this guidance are that:
LTP 3 must be in place by April 2011, and goals will reflect DaSTS goals.
Local transport authorities may replace their Plans as they see fit – at a sub- regional level, co-ordination is likely to be beneficial.
LTP 3 will contain separate plans for (a) Strategy (policies) and (b) Implementation (delivery of policies) – clearly there are opportunities here for sub-regional co- ordination.
Arrangements allow for shared Joint Strategy with separate Implementation Plans at either district or locality-based level.
The guidance notes that much transport is suited to planning at a sub-regional level, to take into account the economic area that transport serves.
Where authorities have prepared a Multi Area Agreement (MAA) it will be essential for effective delivery to ensure consistency between the MAA and relevant LTPs.

1.4 Approach of the study

General approach 1.4.2 The mksm transport strategy is about enabling successful delivery of the ambitious growth agenda. Its focus is on inter-urban movement of people and goods, and on the inter-urban networks – road, rail and bus - which link the towns and settlements to each other, to the important nearby destinations, and to London, other major business centres and international gateways. The focus is on multi-modal corridors of travel demand, rather than individual links and junctions.

1.4.3 The strategy does not aim to replicate regional transport and RFA (Regional Funding Allocation) work, but rather to inform and provide context for the local transport plans of the individual towns and counties; the strategy also seeks to influence the processes of regional transport planning, and of national network planning by the DfT and its agencies and partners.

1.4.4 Our study process is set out in Figure 1.2 and described below.

21 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 1.2: Study process

Vision and objectives Inter-urban focus

Existing travel Employment and Accessibility patterns growth analysis

Corridor flows and hotspots

Issues and challenges

Priorities for networks

Strategy

Overview of the sub-region 1.4.5 In chapter 2 we provide an overview of the sub-region, transport and the economy. We summarise the mksm vision and business plan, regional policy, the location of growth, the nature of the local economy and finally describe the sub-regional inter-urban networks of road, rail and bus.

Patterns of travel in mksm 1.4.6 In chapter 3 we describe and analyse the key features of inter-urban travel in the sub- region – we show how important inter-urban travel is for the economic, and describe current employment travel.

Employment and sustainable growth 1.4.7 In chapter 4 we describe the patterns of employment and growth and relate these to the transport strategy. We distinguish between ‘local’ and ‘sub-regional’ employment, and show why this distinction is important, and we identify where in the sub-region these types of employment are located.

Accessibility 1.4.8 In chapter 5 we analyse the accessibility of the sub-region, in particular how the accessibility of the different parts of the sub-region relate to potential employment and housing locations, and we describe how this is expected to change in the future.

22 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Corridors and hotspots 1.4.9 Chapter 6 describes the main movement corridors in the area, highlighting those where volumes of movement are high, and where future travel times may deteriorate – this leads to identification of ‘hotspots’ or points of stress in the sub-region.

Issues and challenges 1.4.10 In chapter 7 we pull the threads of the analysis together, identifying issues and challenges and measures which will address these, and how DaSTS goals can be addressed

Conclusions and strategy 1.4.11 The final chapter 8 describes the conclusions and emerging strategy for the sub-region.

23 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

2 mksm overview

2.1 Vision and business plan

mksm vision 2.1.2 The mksm Business Plan sets out the following vision

“mksm offers the best opportunities for growth in the UK. By 2021 mksm will have achieved diverse and sustainable growth of 224,000 new homes and 192,000 additional jobs, which will be absorbed into expanding polycentric and diverse urban centres.”

“mksm is a strategic location for the UK, within an hour of central London - it is an international gateway (through Luton airport) as well as a strategic national link between London and the South-East and the Midlands and the North.“

“mksm is already a great place to live and work. mksm’s growth will add further quality, variety and opportunity. Its new development will help mksm move to a high value, low carbon economy and create stronger and sustainable communities for new and existing residents.”

mksm business plan 2.1.3 The mksm Business Plan highlights the key interventions critical to achieving sustainable growth at a local level together with those strategic interventions across mksm as a whole. These include a range of key schemes in
town centres;
other residential and commercial development;
knowledge and enterprise economy;
education and skills;
major tourism and leisure facilities;
strategic green infrastructure; and
connectivity. 2.1.4 In respect of connectivity, and in addition to planned improvements to the M1 and rail services in the area, the Business Plan identifies packages of strategic transport improvements that have the ability to unlock growth capacity and contribute to both sustainable transport choice and economic growth. The strategic interventions identified include:
East-West rail –a scheme which has the potential to link Oxford through to Milton Keynes, Bedfordshire and Cambridge.
Packages of sustainable transport schemes, including BRT (bus rapid transit) schemes in major urban areas (such as the planned Luton-Dunstable busway).
Road improvements throughout mksm, including the A14 and its M1, M6, and A45 links, A421 eastern improvements, and A5 to M1 and A418 Links.

2.2 The regional context 2.2.1 The Regional Economic Strategies (RES) of the 3 regions that include mksm make it clear than an effective transport system is a fundamental requirement for continuing economic success. Common to all three strategies are the need to enhance international and inter-urban connectivity, the need to make the best use of existing networks and the need to reduce the environmental impact of moving goods and people.

24 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

2.2.2 The South-East RES emphasises the need for delivery of identified projects, and the need for demand management to address congestion. In the mksm area the key priorities identified include East-West rail, Thameslink 2000, the A34 link between Southampton and the North and, on the edge of the mksm area, J4 of the M40.

2.2.3 The East of England RES emphasises the need to focus on maximising the effectiveness of the existing transport network, encouraging behavioural change towards less roads- based private transport, removal of local bottlenecks, and a focus on key transport corridors to maximise productivity, particularly those linking with ports and airports.

2.2.4 The East Midland RES emphasises:
improving inter and intra-regional connectivity and reliability on key routes for passengers and freight;
improving international accessibility by improving surface access to airports and road/rail to mainland Europe;
improving access from all communities to employment, unlocking investment sites in disadvantaged communities, and addressing inequality by improving accessibility; and
contributing to environmental, quality of life, and wellbeing indicators by implementing demand management measures, and access to recreation, sport, and cultural facilities. 2.2.5 In conclusion, there are many common elements of the strategies relating to connectivity to help guide an mksm transport strategy, in particular:
Improving inter-urban connectivity and international accessibility.
Managing demand and making best use of existing infrastructure.
Encouraging modal shift. 2.2.6 Regions have been submitting priority schemes for RFA, with the most recent submission being in February 2009. The scheme in the mksm area submitted in the RFA1 and RFA 2 rounds are shown in the table and figure in Appendix A. Those shown as RFA1 are either underway or have begun processes for implementation and have secured funding.

2.2.7 This strategy aims to interface with the regional transport planning agenda by:
Including any current committed regional schemes as part of the strategy.
Providing analysis supporting plans for longer term growth in housing and employment in the sub-region.
Showing how the three regions ‘interface’ in the mksm area, and highlighting key corridors and priority issues for future work.
Highlighting the priorities for supporting the growth agenda in the sub-region.

2.3 The sub-regional economy and the growth agenda 2.3.1 Figure 2.1 shows the 2006 sectoral employment structure from the mksm business plan. The table highlights the overall importance of the hotels, restaurants sector, followed by banking, finance and insurance and public administration, education and health. These three sectors make up nearly 70% of total mksm employment, with manufacturing (13%) being the next most important sector. Transport and communications, which includes distribution, is significantly above the England average.

2.3.2 In terms of the spatial distribution of sectoral employment, the importance of manufacturing in North Northamptonshire, of banking, finance and insurance in Milton Keynes and of public administration, education and health in Aylesbury Vale and Bedford and Mid-Bedfordshire are noteworthy, while the logistics/transport sector is strong in Luton. Milton Keynes and many parts of Northamptonshire.

25 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Table 2.1: mksm 2006 sectoral employment structure (%)

mksm Area Manuf Constr. Hotels Transport Banking, Public Other . Etc. And Finance, Admin, Services Comms Insurance Education, Health Aylesbury Vale 9.3 4.2 24.3 3.9 21 31.8 5.3 Bedford & Mid- 10.4 6.1 24.0 6.1 19.1 28.1 5.5 Beds Luton & South 12.4 3.7 24.4 10.7 22.2 21.6 4.7 Beds Milton Keynes 9.4 2.4 27.7 9.4 28.6 17.9 4.5 North Northants 21.8 4.9 24.7 8.6 15.3 20.1 4.3 West Northants* 12 4.2 22.7 10 23.9 22.3 4.5 All mksm 12.7 4.2 24.5 8.6 22.1 22.8 4.7 England 11 4.7 23.8 6.1 22 26.5 5.3 * includes Northampton Source : mksm Business Plan

Planned growth 2.3.3 Table 2.2 and Figure 1.1 summarise the key features of planned growth. In general housing growth is aimed at the main existing urban centres or urban extensions, and the objective for jobs growth is to match housing growth in each district where possible.

Table 2.2: mksm Housing and Jobs growth 2001-2021

mksm Area Housing Growth Jobs Growth Aylesbury Vale 19,400 (9%) 12,690 (7%) Bedford and Mid-beds 31,800 (14%) 27,000 (14%) Luton & South beds 27,300 (12%) 23,000 (12%) Milton Keynes 44,900 (20%) 44,900 (23%) North Northants 52,100 (23%) 47,400 (25%) West Northants 48,900 (22%) 37,200 (19%) mksm Total 224,400(100%) 192,190 (100%) Source : mksm Business Plan

2.3.4 As shown in Table 2.1, the sub-region is characterised by a diverse economic structure with a mix of employment sectors, and the mksm business plan notes that some of these are expanding, and some are in decline. There are several dynamic employment sectors in the sub-region that will be promoted to secure continued growth. The sub-region’s growth sectors include:
High Performance Automotive
Creative Industries
Other knowledge-based Industries
Food and Drink
Freight and Logistics
Health and Social Care
Tourism
Airport Services.

26 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

2.3.5 Sectors that face structural challenges over the next 30 years but will continue to play an important role in the Sub-Region’s economy include:
Aviation Sector
Manufacturing Sector
Primary Industries (Agriculture and Forestry) 2.3.6 There are clearly strong transport linkages required for many of these economic sectors, particularly freight and logistics, manufacturing, tourism, aviation and airports and primary industries.

2.3.7 The mksm Business Plan also emphasises that a particular need is to address low levels of historic employment growth in Milton Keynes and North Northamptonshire, since these areas combined are expected to deliver around half of all mksm new jobs.

2.4 Transport networks 2.4.1 DaSTS has identified the strategic national networks in relation to mksm, and these are depicted in Figure 2.1. The strategic national road elements consist of:
the M1 leading from the M25 to the junction with the M6 (M1 J19) and the North
the M40 leading from the M25 to the West Midlands
the A14 leading from the Haven ports and to the M6 at M1 J19
the A34 linking the M40 and the South Coast ports
the A1081 from J10 of the M1 to Luton airport 2.4.2 The key rail elements are:
the WCML between London, the West Midlands, the North-West and Scotland
the MML running between London, Bedfordshire the East Midlands and Sheffield and on the edge of the sub-region
The East Coast Main Line ( ECML ) between London, the North-East and Scotland
Chiltern rail services from Marylebone 2.4.3 In addition to the above, both Luton Airport in the sub-region and East Midlands airport on its periphery are regarded as national gateways, the latter for freight.

National networks – road 2.4.4 The M1 is of major importance to the sub-region, running centrally through it and linking the three principal urban areas of Northampton, Milton Keynes and Luton/Dunstable.

2.4.5 The A14 connects the North Northants towns – Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough - east to the A1 and Haven ports, and west via the M1 and M6 to the West Midlands and the North.

2.4.6 In January 2009 the DfT published ‘Britain's Transport Infrastructure: Motorways and Major Trunk Roads’ which set out current spending plans fro these strategic roads, Those relevant to mksm include:
Recent completions - M1 J6a to 10 widening just north of London, the M25 to Luton.
Scheme starts 2009/2010 - Traffic management technology improvements on the A14 between Felixstowe and the M1; Hard Shoulder Running (HSR) on the M1 J10-13 between Luton and Milton Keynes.
Scheme starts in 2010/11 and 2011/12 - widening the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton (already planned to start in 2010/11); improving the key M1 J19 interchange with the M6 and A14; widening the A14 around Kettering.
In addition the document notes that future HSR is also being planned for M1 J13- 19 in the mksm sub-region.

27 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 2.1: DaSTS national network (mksm)

2.4.7 It is notable that there appears to be a ‘missing link’ in the national network, the current A43 between M40 J10 and the M1 at J15A, and the A45 from J15 on the M1 to the A14 at Thrapston. This means that traffic from the South Coast ports only has the ‘national route’ of the M40 to the North (via the congested West Midlands network) rather than the additional more direct route via the M1 as well.

2.4.8 But even using the M1 is difficult. Connection between the M1 and A14 is compromised by the lack of south<>east movement at M1 J19; however, connections to the local network means that this movement can be done ‘unofficially’, albeit at some inconvenience to the local communities. The HA recently approved a new junction design for J19 which continues the lack of south<>east movement but also removes connections to the local network, so prohibiting this movement altogether. The latter must be right, but the consequence is to encourage the use of the A45/A43 for freight and other traffic coming from the A1 or from the Haven ports to the south coast or to the West Country.

28 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

2.4.9 As part of the consultation response on DaSTS, on the advice of Colin Buchanan, the mksm partnership submitted a paper arguing that the A43 between M40 J10 and M1 J15A and on from J15 via the A45 to Thrapston on A14 be included in the strategic national road network. This link is shown in orange on Figure 2.1. DfT have subsequently rejected this proposal.

Figure 2.2: M1 J19 preferred scheme

No south<>east movement, between A14 and M1 South, is provided for

2.4.10 To optimise the benefits of ‘managed motorways’, the HA also plans to provide for ‘ramp- metering’ – the use of traffic signals on motorway entry slip roads – as an integral element of HSR schemes, to ensure the best traffic flow onto the motorways, and are also considering IDM whereby traffic controls on the motorway are coordinated with those on the adjoining road network. The managed motorway infrastructure could potentially enable additional capacity to be tolled, however the publication notes that the Government currently has no plans to seek the powers that would be necessary to implement single lane tolling.

2.4.11 We understand from discussions with the Highways Agency that a more ‘aggressive’ form of ramp-metering is being seriously contemplated on the M1 and other heavily stressed motorways, whereby ramp traffic signals will impose significant delays (up to 5 minutes or more) with the object of discouraging short distance traffic to use the motorway at all. While the logic of this is understandable from the viewpoint of prioritising long distance traffic on the motorway, it could have significant consequences for those sub-regional journeys within mksm which by virtue of the location of the main towns use the M1. We return to this later in the report.

National networks – rail 2.4.12 The rail links within and through the sub-region are heavily dominated by north-south radial lines linking the Midlands, the North and Scotland with London. With the exception of the currently under-used Bedford – Bletchley line, there are no lateral or orbital rail links.

29 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

2.4.13 The national network status of the WCML, MML and ECML passing through the sub- region have already been referred to. In addition short sections of the Chiltern Main Line pass through the sub-region, while there are London commuter services from Aylesbury to London Marylebone.

2.4.14 Milton Keynes, Northampton, Luton and Bedford are all on the National Rail network. Milton Keynes is served by Virgin West Coast services as well as the regional London Midland Trains which serve Northampton and other smaller towns. However, the pressure of longer-distance demand on Virgin peak period services to and from Euston means that there is no peak service for Milton Keynes. Connectivity northbound from Milton Keynes has also been reduced with the new December 2008 timetable. London Midland Trains provide valuable links within the sub-region as well as to the West Midlands and London.

2.4.15 Recent and committed improvement plans to MML have reduced the frequency for travellers from Kettering to London and Northamptonshire. Northampton is also relatively poorly served by longer-distance services given its size, although opportunities to change this in the short to medium term are limited by the local rail geography and current service patterns. However the development of HS2 may offer opportunities for more fundamental changes in service patterns in the area.

2.4.16 Midland Main Line services (East Midland Trains) and Thameslink services (First Capital Connect) provide high levels of connectivity for Luton and Bedford, and elsewhere on the MML route stations benefit from one or other service. However, we note that the recently introduced Corby to St Pancras service suffers from irregular timings and waits at Kettering which for some trains can be as much as 30 minutes. In the longer term, the connectivity northbound from Wellingborough and Kettering may be reduced as increasing emphasis in timetable planning is put on speed and frequency to the more northerly destinations.

2.4.17 Recent DfT publications also highlight that the DaSTS rail priorities relevant to mksm include:
HS2- a new plan for a high-speed line on a new alignment from London to the West Midlands/North is being considered by DfT. No route alignment is known at this stage, but the scheme will almost certainly reduce high-speed traffic on the WCML passing through the sub-region, and give a major opportunity for the reshaping of the ‘classic’ services on the WCML to benefit the mksm sub-region.
Potential electrification of the MML north of Bedford. 2.4.18 The RUS process of the DfT establishes aspirations, options and proposals for implementation, through consultation, option definition and appraisal. However, only the ECML and Freight RUS are current. WCML is a couple of years away with scope definition underway, East Midlands RUS is currently at Option Appraisal stage and appears to be placing heavy emphasis on the key East Midlands Cities. The West Midlands and Chiltern RUS are at the Gap Analysis stage and focus heavily on the Birmingham city region.

2.4.19 Recent work on commuter service crowding carried out by TfL through its Rail corridor Plans and Rail 2025 Strategy suggest that most services in mksm will not experience severe overcrowding in the period to 2021, assuming currently committed capacity enhancements are delivered.

2.4.20 The WCML RUS is likely to consolidate the Virgin High Frequency (VHF) timetable and will inevitably draw on the years of timetable analysis led initially by the SRA which has culminated in the current timetable for Passenger and Freight. Any further changes during CP4 and CP5 will of necessity be limited to fine tuning and squeezing incremental additional outputs from the upgraded infrastructure. The route has achieved Steady

30 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

State, with limited opportunities for significant enhancement of services in mksm beyond the capacity, frequency and journey times now being provided.

2.4.21 There is clearly an aspiration within mksm for more long distance trains to serve the major growth centres. There is limited connectivity on WCML and MML to the Midlands and the North as a result of DfT policy which has seen long distance trains making less calls in the sub-region in order to reduce journey times to destinations further north, in particular Birmingham, Manchester, North Wales and Scotland.

2.4.22 The level of fast services at Milton Keynes compares unfavourably with locations such as Reading, despite Milton Keynes being a comparable journey time from London.

Figure 2.3: mksm rail network

East-West Rail 2.4.23 East-West Rail is a plan to create the necessary remaining infrastructure and introduce a reasonable passenger service between Oxford and Bedford via Bletchley and Milton Keynes, and to introduce a service from Aylesbury north to join the line for Bletchley and Milton Keynes. The delivery of this is assisted by recent decisions by Chiltern Railways and DfT to develop a new Chiltern service via Bicester round to Oxford by extending the London Marylebone via High Wycombe to Bicester service. There are longer term aspirations to link the service through to Cambridge.

31 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

2.4.24 The infrastructure works have been scoped to GRIP3, and a GRIP4 study has recently been let. The infrastructure Functional Specification will be designed to enable 100 mph running between Bletchley and Oxford, with the section from Bletchley to Bedford at 60mph. It will also be designed for W12 freight gauging.

2.4.25 Network Rail and Chiltern Railways are fully engaged with the process, and the EW Rail Consortium and Chiltern have entered into an MoU while NR (Network Rail) is taking full account of the EW Rail project through the RUS process. Under the MoU, Chiltern will deliver the Bicester Chord, upgraded infrastructure and providing two new north-facing bay platforms at Oxford. EWR will undertake further engineering studies to GRIP 4. The MoU also facilitates the funding by Chiltern of third party enhancements including Wolvercot Tunnel track doubling to the North-East of Oxford.

2.4.26 The proposed future Chiltern specification enables 5 minute headways and a basic hourly service pattern of 6 trains each way on the section from Bicester into Oxford: - 2X Chiltern, 2X EWR, 1 Cross-Country, 1 Freight.

2.4.27 A key issue will be the trade-off between serving Milton Keynes and achieving a faster end to end journey time. There is an aspiration for a service linking Aylesbury and Milton Keynes in addition to the 6 trains per hour standard pattern described above..

2.4.28 Of itself, EW Rail provides a much-needed east-west rail connectivity within the sub- region, while also linking four important and currently unconnected main line corridors - Great Western, Chiltern, West Coast and Midland. If a link to Cambridge is eventually provided, then the main lines connected would include the East Coast and Great Northern. The potential strategic significance of this - and what it can offer to rail freight and to cross-country passenger services - is considerable, and is now being factored into the business case.

Rail freight 2.4.29 The Freight RUS was established in 2007 and looked forward 10 years. Most freight traffic in mksm is passing through, primarily on WCML with 30+ freight trains per day. The MML has 10 – 12 freight trains per day, mainly aggregates flows to London, while the Chiltern and ECML routes in mksm have relatively low levels of freight movements, between 5 and 10 trains per day.

2.4.30 The Freight RUS compares current Access Rights held by Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) with actual usage. This varies by commodity due to market requirements. On some sections of route, Access Utilisation can be as low as 52%. On WCML, access utilisation tends to be nearer 90% and can exceed 100% on occasions due to short term planning services.

2.4.31 The freight RUS does not identify traffic volumes by terminal. Rather, it identifies the capacity required by route to meet current demand and goes on to forecast likely future demand for train paths on the network. This reflects the variable nature of some rail freight traffic over time.

2.4.32 The establishment of the rail freight terminals Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) 1 and 2 at Daventry provides a key strategic intermodal freight hub for the mksm sub-region. It is adjacent to the WCML and the motorway network. Prologis has been granted planning consent to expand the current facility to provide 6 million square feet of storage. Prologis, in partnership with Bee Bee Developments and Astral also plans to develop a further intermodal freight hub known as Eurohub at Corby with 3 million square feet of warehousing and linkage to the rail network at Corby. The proposed Sundon Intermodal freight terminal near Luton will provide a further 2 million square feet of storage adjacent to the MML.

32 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

2.4.33 Completion of the Western section of EW Rail would link the Strategic Freight route from Southampton to the West Midlands via Cherwell Valley with the Chiltern, West Coast and MMLs. This would provide a valuable alternative which could ease some of the capacity constraints on key route sections, particularly on WCML. It would also have the benefit of opening new freight routing opportunities between the South-West, the Midlands and the North-East as well as London and the Midlands/North-West. East-West rail would enhance the attractiveness at new freight facilities in the sub-region e.g. Bicester MoD site and Corby Euro Hub.

Inter-urban bus 2.4.34 There is an extensive network of mostly limited-stop express bus services, linking the towns in the sub-region to each other and to destinations outside, supplemented by other services running between the towns which call at intervening villages, some of which are provided by other local operators. The main operators are Stagecoach, predominantly in the northern part of the sub-region, and Arriva, based in Luton, predominantly serving the southern area. National Express provide longer-distance services, including to main airports.

2.4.35 Figure 2.4 shows the shape of the current network and the pattern of off-peak bus frequencies for strategic direct inter-urban bus services between key points within the study area, as well as services to neighbouring major settlements outside the study area. (All data was taken from the Traveline Southeast website as this is the service passengers are directed towards. In general limited-stop services with frequencies of 1 or more per hour through the working day was used as the definition. Where a preceding journey arrives after the next service, the preceding service was not included in the frequency).

2.4.36 The most common frequency is hourly, with half-hourly services becoming more prevalent between the major towns. Given the commercial nature and operational limitations of inter-urban express bus services, the network already provides a reasonable degree of east-west connectivity, as well as north-south along the M1 corridor and the A6.

2.4.37 The more ‘strategic’ services include:
X4 (Milton Keynes–Northampton–Wellingborough–Kettering–Corby–Peterborough)
X5 (Oxford–Bicester–Buckingham–Milton Keynes–Bedford–St Neots–Cambridge)
X31 Service (Milton Keynes–Dunstable–Luton)
X88 Service (Oxford–Northampton)
100 (Aylesbury–Milton Keynes)
300 (Aylesbury – High Wycombe)
VT99 Virgin bus-rail link (Milton Keynes–Luton)
X1 (Kettering – Corby)
X7 (Northamptonshire – Leicester)
D1/2 (Northampton – Daventry)
61 Aylesbury-Luton Airport
280 Aylesbury-Oxford
P1 Bedford-Northampton together with National Express services to London’s main airports passing through the sub-region. 2.4.38 Service reliability is affected by traffic congestion in the towns served. While the services are generally well used, in general the travel times, service quality, information and marketing are at this time not sufficiently attractive to enable inter-urban buses to compete strongly with private cars for movement across the sub-region. Later in the study we consider the opportunity for improvements in the network and service delivered,

33 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

and for a longer term more ambitious vision for what inter-urban express services could contribute to mobility and accessibility, and to modal shift, in the sub-region.

Figure 2.4: mksm 2009 inter-urban bus network

Smarter Choices 2.4.39 All of the authorities dealing with transport in the sub-region are implementing Smarter Choices measures, including the regions, Counties, unitary authorities and the Highways Agency. These have an important role to play in delivering sustainable growth, at both a local and an inter-regional level, particularly when the latter is combined with e.g. inter- urban bus. Some authorities are already co-ordinating efforts (e.g. Bedford and Milton Keynes on information) but we believe there is scope to work closer together for added value. The potential for this is described later in this report.

34 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

3 Patterns of travel in mksm

3.1 General 3.1.1 This section highlights some travel issues from analysis of data from the EERM and other sources. Data from this multi-modal model was made available from the Highways Agency, and a brief summary of the model is given in Appendix B.

3.1.2 Excluding through traffic, some 70% of all sub-regional travel occurs within the sub-region i.e. with both origin and destination within the area, as shown in Figure 3.1 for the am peak movements. A further 21% is to and from sectors adjoining mksm e.g. those containing Peterborough, Oxford etc., while the remaining 9% is to sectors further afield. Later sections of this report analyse the types of trips making these longer-distance movements.

Figure 3.1: Summary of am peak highway trip patterns

9% national

21% external (near)

30% other mksm

40% within urban area/district

3.1.3 As shown in Figure 3.2, in a typical morning peak hour, some 36% of all travel is for commuting, 37% for ‘other purposes (leisure, education, personal business, retail etc.), 18% is for employers business and 8% are heavy goods vehicles.

35 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 3.2: EERM Am peak vehicle mksm journey purpose (%)

HGV, 8%

Commuting, 36%

Other, 37%

Business, 18%

3.1.4 The car dominates travel movement in the sub-region, and the recent mksm Modal Shift study found that for the ‘Top 20’ journey to work movements, only three had a rail and bus mode share higher than 6%.

3.1.5 In respect of the origins of travel in the morning peak:
some 34% of all travel is generated by the 3 main urban areas of Milton Keynes, Luton/Dunstable and Northampton
a further 25% is generated by the other large urban centres and
the remaining 40% is generated by smaller towns and rural areas 3.1.6 Figure 3.3 shows the patterns of travel by trip purpose in mksm in the morning peak hour, classified by the types of travel and the geography of the networks used. The decline in importance of ‘commuting’ and ‘other’ - as we move from local travel within a ‘sector’ to ‘mksm’ sub-region, to ‘near’ destinations just outside the sub-region and finally to destinations reached on the national networks – is striking. And this is countered by the rising importance of freight and business travel as we move to the regional and national networks.

3.1.7 This reinforces the intuitive belief that good connectivity to and through the regional and national networks is critical for competitiveness and business success.

36 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 3.3: Am peak travel movements to/from mksm

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% HGV 50% Business 40% Commute Other 30%

20%

10%

0% in sector in mksm near national Type of travel

3.1.8 The 2001 Census indicates the following broad mode shares for journey to work in (i) all of mksm and (ii) for journeys excluding within-district journeys (a proxy for inter-urban travel). The public transport mode share increases from 8% in total to 11% for inter-urban travel due to an increase in inter-urban rail mode share.

Table 3.1: mksm Journey to Work mode share Census (%)

Mode mksm Journey To mksm Inter-Urban Work Mode Share Journey To Work Mode Share

Train 3% 8% Bus 5% 3% Taxi 1% 0% Car 77% 86% Motorcycle 1% 1% Bicycle 3% 1% Walk 10% 1% Other 0% 0% Total 100% 100%

3.1.9 Appendix A also contains diagrams showing the current traffic flows AADF (Annual Average Daily Flow)) and HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicles) flows in the sub-region. These diagrams exclude the motorways and show clearly the dominance of flows around Bedford, Luton/Dunstable and Milton Keynes, and the flows using the A45/A43 to/from Northampton.

37 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

3.2 Employment travel patterns 3.2.1 The mksm business plan noted that the sub-region has a high level of employment ‘self- containment’, with around 84% of the employed residents of the sub-region working within the sub-region (653,000 out of 780,000 employed residents in the 2001 census). The same pattern is evident within the mksm area, with generally around 70% and over of residents working in their respective areas.

3.2.2 Focusing first on the links with external employment, the key destinations for employment outside of mksm from the 2001 census are shown in Figure 3.4. There is a relatively wide spread of destinations, but with a concentration in the south-west of the mksm sub-region (Wycombe. South Oxfordshire, Cherwell), the south-east (Dacorum, North Hertfordshire, St, Albans, Stevenage, Welwyn Hatfield), Central London and the Peterborough/ Huntingdonshire area.

3.2.3 These movements outside of the sub-region are small in relation to the movements of those working within the sub-region, described in more detail below.

Figure 3.4: Workplace of mksm residents (excl. mksm, 2001)

3.2.4 In respect of employment flows into the mksm area from external areas, Figure 3.5 shows that the inward flows are spread fairly evenly around the study area boundary.

38 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 3.5: Residence of mksm workers (excl. mksm, 2001)

3.2.5 The Modal Shift study noted that in all mksm authorities apart from Wellingborough, over 60% of local employment is taken up by local residents from within that authority area.

3.2.6 In respect of commuting flows within the mksm area, the ‘top 20’ journey to work flows are shown in Figure 3.6 (mksm Modal Shift report, Arup, 2009). The major commuting ‘draws’ of Northampton (from Daventry, Wellingborough and Kettering), Milton Keynes, Bedford and Luton/Dunstable are clear, as is the fact that the major commuter flows are relatively short distance i.e. between neighbouring urban areas or from their immediate catchment area, rather than for example between Northampton and Luton. The flows also highlighted the pressures around the “Northampton Arc”, to Milton Keynes, Luton/Dunstable and flows to/from Bedford.

39 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 3.6: mksm “Top 20” journey to work corridors ( 2001 census)

Source – mksm Modal shift report, Arup, 2009

40 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

4 Employment and sustainable growth

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 Our primary concern is the successful delivery of the growth agenda and role of transport in enabling that. Our proposition is that businesses will only come and invest and grow if they have good access to labour, good access to business centres and markets, and (depending on their sector) good freight access to ports, terminals and logistics centres. And that housing development will only be successful if there is good access to jobs.

4.2 ‘Local’ versus ‘sub-regional’ employment 4.2.1 We believe that it is very important to distinguish between employment that is essentially ‘local’, in that it serves the local residential population; and employment that is ‘regional’, which serves much wider areas.

4.2.2 ‘Local’ employment grows to service the needs of a local population, in rural areas, villages, towns and cities. Broadly, we believe that data from mksm shows that every thousand residents generate 300-400 local jobs – in service businesses, shops, garages, pubs etc. As new housing is provided and population grows, it is expected that these local jobs will grow too; planning policy needs to and does provide for this. Their transport needs are relatively local.

4.2.3 ‘Regional’ employment is in business-to-business markets – manufacturing, ICT, creative industries, logistics and warehousing – and in public and other organisations which serve much wider areas – government offices, large regional hospitals, for example. We believe that such employment is fundamentally ‘footloose’, and for new and growing organisations they have real choices about where they locate. Such decisions will inter alia be influenced by accessibility – to labour, to business centres, and to freight depots, gateways and markets – and the relative importance of these factors depends on the industrial sector concerned. ‘Regional’ organisations and businesses have greater need of access to strategic networks, and generate more traffic and travel on inter-urban and strategic networks.

4.2.4 There will be good reasons why businesses operating in regional or national markets locate where they do – local skills, where the owners live, access to facilities or raw materials or supplier businesses. But they could move; and many do. More to the point, new businesses have real choices as to where they locate, and accessibility as defined above is one of the factors.

4.2.5 Certain locations tend to develop into higher order employment centres (i.e. with higher proportions of ‘regional’ employment); usually in the case where they have higher accessibility, and where there is agglomeration of similar and complementary businesses. Typically we would expect that such locations are the focus of in-commuting and are the generator of the highest business-to business travel flows.

4.2.6 We have set out to identify where the main centres of ‘regional’ employment are by looking at the amount and location of ‘local employment’. Figure 4.1 shows the estimated 2008 employment (Y-axis) and population (X-axis) of the main broad geographic ‘sectors’ of the mksm sub-region. The graph also shows a line along which there is a ‘matching’ of employment to population for the smaller settlements and rural areas of the sub-region. This line shows a relationship of about 1 job per 2.5-3 resident population.

4.2.7 The figure highlights the fact that there are several ‘outliers’ above the ‘line of local employment’ - in particular Milton Keynes, Northampton and Luton/Dunstable, the three

41 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

principal urban areas of the sub-region. Clearly these centres have developed an employment base far in excess of that necessary just to support their local population, and other evidence supports this, with these centres attracting significant in-commuting and business travel. There are also a number of other centres, such as Bedford town, Corby, Wellingborough and to a less extent Kettering where local employment is more than would be ‘expected’ for the local resident population.

4.2.8 The understanding of these relationships helps to guide a sub-regional transport strategy in relation to:
the nature of travel to/from centres
the relative importance of centres and
the ability of centres to sustain future growth.

Figure 4.1: 2008 Employment and population estimates

160,000

Milton Keynes

140,000

Northampton Luton/Dunstable 120,000

y = 0.4x 100,000

80,000 2008 emp

60,000 Bedford town Mid Bedfordshire

Aylesbury Vale CorbyWellingborough Kettering 40,000 Aylesbury townEast Northants South Northants Leighton Linslade Daventry district Bedford - rest UA 20,000 Daventry

Towcester Marston Vale etc 0 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2008 pop

4.2.9 Figure 4.2 shows the anticipated growth of employment and population between 2008 and 2021. Growth in the same ‘direction’ (i.e. parallel to the current position in relation to the ‘local employment line’) indicates that the present pattern of employment/population is expected to remain the same.

4.2.10 So for example for Milton Keynes, Northampton and Luton/Dunstable, growth of employment and population are expected to continue on the same pattern as existing; Bedford Town and Kettering are expecting to gain additional ‘ non-local’ employment.

4.2.11 Our analysis has therefore identified that in the mksm Business Plan ‘regional’ employment and its planned growth is indeed concentrated in the main towns – Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton/Dunstable, and to a lesser extent Bedford, Aylesbury and Daventry. This is an important finding because the better availability of local bus services in these towns, and the better access to the rail network for commuting and business travel, means that the transport consequences of this pattern of growth are more sustainable than if the jobs growth were distributed differently. Later in this report we discuss how these growth projections relate to the accessibility of the different areas.

42 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 4.2: 2008-2021 – Change in population and employment

200,000

180,000 Milton Keynes

160,000 Northampton

140,000 Luton/Dunstable

y = 0.4x 120,000

100,000 Emp

80,000

Bedford townMid Bedfordshire 60,000 Corby Aylesbury Vale Wellingborough Kettering Aylesbury town 40,000 East Northants LeightonSouth Linslade Northants Daventry district Bedford - rest UA 20,000 Daventry Towcester Marston Vale etc 0 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Pop

43 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

5 Accessibility

5.1 Methodology 5.1.1 This section analyses the accessibility of the geographic sectors within the region i.e. an index of the sector’s sum of opportunities to access either employment or population compared to that of other sectors. For example, the accessibility of a sector to population (a proxy for the labour market) would mean calculating the sum of that sectors’ journey time to each other sector and taking into account the time to reach that sector and the population there. In this way all ‘opportunities’ are summed, and the index takes into account the time to reach them and the size of the opportunity there. Further information of the method used is given in Appendix C, and this also contains graphs comparing the accessibility of each area between 2008 and 2021 by road and rail.

5.2 Accessibility of businesses to labour 5.2.1 The first analysis looks at the accessibility of businesses (change in employment) to the labour market. Figure 5.1 shows the change in employment (2008 to 2021) on the Y-axis against the 2021 estimated access to population (index). The further to the right on the Y- axis, the more opportunities are available to access the population i.e. the labour available to businesses.

5.2.2 The figure shows that the three growth points with the largest projected employment growth (Luton/Dunstable, MK and Northampton) all have the highest accessibility by road – Luton’s growth looks relatively low compared to its accessibility, while Milton’s Keynes looks relatively high. There is then a ‘cluster’ of towns (Kettering, Bedford, Wellingborough and Corby) with relatively similar growth projections and accessibility.

Figure 5.1: Employment change 2008 to 2021 vs. population (road)

35,000

30,000 Milton Keynes

25,000

Northampton

20,000

15,000 Corby

Luton/Dunstable

Change in (2021-2008)emp 10,000 Aylesbury Vale Kettering WellingboroughBedford town Mid Bedfordshire

Aylesbury town 5,000 Leighton Linslade Bedford - rest UA South NorthantsEast DaventryNorthants district Daventry MarstonTowcester Vale etc 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2021 access to pop (index) by road

5.2.3 Figure 5.2 shows that the rail accessibility of Luton/Dunstable, Bedford, Milton Keynes and Northampton are the highest - the towns also have substantial employment growth.

44 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

The growth in Milton Keynes appears to much higher than its relative access to labour by rail while that in Leighton Linslade appears lower.

Figure 5.2: Employment change 2008 to 2021 vs. population (rail)

35,000

30,000 Milton Keynes

25,000

Northampton

20,000

15,000 Corby

Luton/Dunstable

Change in emp (2021-2008) 10,000 Aylesbury Vale Kettering Wellingborough Bedford town Mid Bedfordshire

Aylesbury town 5,000 Leighton Linslade Bedford - rest UA SouthEastDaventry Northants Northants district Daventry MarstonTowcester Vale etc 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2021 access to pop (index) by rail

5.3 Accessibility of businesses to other businesses 5.3.1 The next analysis in Figure 5.3 focuses on the accessibility of businesses (change in employment) to the business market (employment elsewhere) by road and rail – in this case we have focused on ‘regional’ or ‘non-local’ employment i.e. the employment over and above that likely to be necessary to cater for a resident population. Milton Keynes is clearly expected to continue its role as a regional employment centre, and projected growth here is far higher than in Northampton and Luton/Dunstable.

5.3.2 The projected growth in Kettering, Aylesbury Vale and mid-Bedfordshire employment looks high compared to business access to regional employment, and may be harder to achieve within the plan period.

45 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 5.3: Employment change 08-21 vs. reg employment (road)

35,000

30,000 Milton Keynes

25,000

Northampton

20,000

15,000 Corby

Luton/Dunstable

Change emp in (2021-2008) 10,000 Aylesbury Vale Kettering Wellingborough Bedford town Mid Bedfordshire

Aylesbury town 5,000 Leighton Linslade Bedford - rest UA East NorthantsSouth NorthantsDaventry district Daventry Marston ValeTowcester etc 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2021 access to regional emp (index) by road

5.3.3 Figure 5.4 shows the same accessibility by rail. Luton/Dunstable, Bedford, Milton Keynes and Leighton Linslade all have relatively high access by rail to regional employment (the index uses projected train frequencies in 2021, which explains Bedford and Luton’s’ accessibility). Northampton and Corby have relatively low accessibility by rail compared to the growth in employment predicted.

Figure 5.4: Employment change 08-21 vs. reg employment (by rail)

35,000

30,000 Milton Keynes

25,000

Northampton

20,000

15,000 Corby

Luton/Dunstable

Change in Changeemp (2021-2008) 10,000 Aylesbury Vale Kettering Wellingborough Bedford town Mid Bedfordshire

Aylesbury town 5,000 Leighton Linslade Bedford - rest UA SouthDaventryEast Northants Northants district Daventry MarstonTowcester Vale etc 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2021 access to regional emp (index) by rail

46 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

5.4 Accessibility of housing to employment 5.4.1 This section reviews the accessibility of the housing growth points (change in population) to the employment market. Figure 5.5 shows the change in population (2008 to 2021) on the Y-axis against the 2021 estimated access to employment by road (index). The further to the right on the Y-axis, the more opportunities are available to access employment.

5.4.2 The figure shows that Milton Keynes, Northampton and Luton/Dunstable have the best access to employment of the growth areas, and that Luton’s growth looks relatively low in relation to its accessibility to employment.

Figure 5.5: Pop change 08-21 vs. employment (road)

80,000

70,000 Milton Keynes

60,000

50,000

40,000 Northampton

30,000

Change in pop (2021-2008) Corby Kettering Luton/Dunstable 20,000 Aylesbury Vale

Aylesbury town Wellingborough Bedford - rest UA East Northants Mid BedfordshireBedford town 10,000 South NorthantsDaventry district Leighton Linslade Marston Vale Daventryetc Towcester 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2021 access to emp (index) by road

5.4.3 Figure 5.6 shows the same accessibility of population to employment, but this time by rail. As before, Luton/Dunstable, Bedford, Milton Keynes and Leighton Linslade all have relatively high access by rail to regional employment. Northampton appears to have high population growth relative to its rail accessibility, while Leighton Linslade’s is low.

47 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 5.6: Population change 08-21 vs. 2021 employment (by rail)

80,000

70,000 Milton Keynes

60,000

50,000

Northampton 40,000

30,000

Change in pop Change (2021-2008)in pop Corby Kettering Luton/Dunstable 20,000Aylesbury Vale

AylesburyWellingborough town Bedford - rest UA East Northants Mid Bedfordshire Bedford town 10,000 SouthDaventry Northants district Leighton Linslade MarstonDaventry Vale etc Towcester 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2021 access to emp (index) by rail

5.4.4 Figure 5.6 shows a comparison of the accessibility to employment by rail (Y-axis) compared to road (X-axis). Luton/Dunstable clearly has very high road and rail accessibility, while the remaining very large urban areas (Milton Keynes and Northampton) have very high road accessibility and reasonable rail accessibility, but less rail accessibility than Bedford town and Leighton Linslade.

Figure 5.7: 2021 Rail vs. Road access to employment

140

Luton/Dunstable

120

100

80

60 Bedford town

40 Leighton Linslade Milton Keynes 2021 accessto emp (index) by rail

20 Northampton WellingboroughKettering Mid Bedfordshire Aylesbury Vale SouthMarstonEastAylesbury NorthantsBedford Northants ValeTowcester DaventryetctownDaventry - rest district UA Corby 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2021 access to emp (index) by road

48 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

5.4.5 The main conclusions are that:
For its modest jobs growth, Luton has very high road accessibility to labour and business centres, and very good rail accessibility.
The key to Luton’s growth is probably not inter-urban transport, as it has excellent external accessibility.
Northampton has relatively low accessibility by rail compared to the growth in employment predicted.
Elsewhere, jobs growth seems to balance access by road to labour and to business centres.

5.5 Accessibility of housing to employment 5.5.1 Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 show the accessibility of the housing growth areas to employment by road and rail respectively. Figure 5.8 shows the cluster of the 3 core urban areas (Milton Keynes, Northampton and Luton/Dunstable) with excellent road access, while there is a further cluster of sectors that appear to have projected population high in relation to their access to jobs by road (Aylesbury Vale, Mid-Bedfordshire) and below what could be expected due to their accessibility (Leighton Linslade, Corby).

Figure 5.8: 2021 Access of population to employment (by road)

350,000

Milton Keynes 300,000

Luton/Dunstable

Northampton 250,000

200,000 2021pop 150,000 Mid Bedfordshire Aylesbury Vale

Kettering Bedford town

East Northants Wellingborough 100,000 Corby SouthAylesbury Northants town Leighton Linslade Bedford - rest UA Daventry district

50,000 Daventry Towcester Marston Vale etc

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2021 access to emp (index) by road

5.5.2 Luton/Dunstable has excellent access by rail, while Bedford Town and Leighton Linslade have good rail access. Milton Keynes and Northampton have projected growth higher than their rail accessibility.

49 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 5.9: 2021 Access of population to employment (by rail)

350,000

Milton Keynes 300,000

Luton/Dunstable

Northampton 250,000

200,000 2021 pop 150,000Mid Bedfordshire Aylesbury Vale

Kettering Bedford town

East NorthantsWellingborough 100,000Corby SouthAylesbury Northants town Leighton Linslade Bedford - rest UA Daventry district

50,000 Daventry Towcester Marston Vale etc

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2021 access to emp (index) by rail

5.6 Accessibility conclusions 5.6.1 The main conclusions drawn are that:
In general the mksm strategy of locating growth in the and around the major urban areas matches the much better accessibility of these areas for both businesses and labour – there is far more likelihood of housing growth and business growth succeeding in the three core urban areas of Milton Keynes, Northampton and Luton/Dunstable than elsewhere. However it is worth noting that transport is only one element in the successful growth of urban areas, and other factors will also be influential.
In general Luton/Dunstable appears to have higher accessibility for business and housing than the other towns, although growth here is expected to be lower.
Some growth points (e.g. Aylesbury, Mid-Bedfordshire) are likely to find the growth agenda challenging – their accessibility is lower than other urban areas in the mksm sub-region.

50 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

6 Corridor flows

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 The next stage of the strategy development was to identify corridors relating to mksm where (i) movement flows were the highest and (ii) where future travel times were expected to increase the most - this gives an indication of future stresses in the sub- region. Given that detailed rail and bus flow data was not available for the study, and is only a small proportion of sector to sector movements as shown in the modal shift study, the analysis used the available highway data – we expect this to represent typically 90% or more of the relevant inter-urban flows.

6.1.2 Outputs from the EERM for 2008 and 2021 were obtained – the assumptions regarding implemented schemes for these scenarios are given in Appendix C. While not all land- use and network assumptions precisely match current mksm assumptions, we believe they are the best available to us in the timescale to look at the broad strategic impact of growth.

Figure 6.1: Indicative Corridors flows 2021

51 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

6.2 Results 6.2.1 Appendix E contains a 'Top 40' summary of the sector to sector movements (ignoring intra-sector movements) in relation to volumes and decreases in speeds.

6.2.2 We then summarised this data, focusing mainly on urban to urban movements, and using a range of <1,000 2-way trips for low, 1-2,000 trips for medium and >2000 for high flows. We assumed any increase in journey time over 10% was significant, and compared this to the flow volumes on corridors. In some cases we ‘combined’ movements e.g. east Northants to Northampton and Wellingborough to Northampton, which were likely to use the same ‘corridor’

6.2.3 Figure 6.1 shows the level of flows expected in 2021. It highlights the intensity of flows between Luton and Leighton and Leighton and Milton Keynes and to a lesser extent between Luton and Milton Keynes, and between Luton and many other places such as Bedford, Hitchin/Stevenage, Welwyn, Hatfield and St Albans. It also shows the strength of flows to and from Milton Keynes and Northampton.

Figure 6.2: Corridor priorities 2021

6.2.4 We used the sector data (as described in appendix C) to focus on sector-sector analysis, giving us a picture of corridor flows (rather than individual network link loadings) - we ignored trips with origins and destinations wholly outside mksm

52 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

6.2.5 From the different model runs we also extracted times and generalised times for each sector pair, by mode and by peak/interpeak/off-peak (built up from the networks). This has enabled us to build a picture of all the corridors, not only in terms of flows, but of changes in generalised time against changes in flow (giving an indication of saturation/congestion).

6.2.6 Figure 6.2 shows in red the potential ‘problem’ corridors - that is corridors with heavy flows and significant deterioration in travel speeds and times. The darker red shows movements with decreases in speed and ‘high’ flows from Figure 6.1, the lighter red those with ‘medium’ flows.

6.2.7 The main problem corridors identified using this method are:
Leighton Linslade to Luton town/Dunstable
Northampton to Milton Keynes
Leighton Linslade to Milton Keynes
Leighton Linslade to Aylesbury to High Wycombe
The ‘Northampton ‘arc’ – Daventry, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby and adjacent areas links to Northampton and each other
Daventry district to Northampton
Welwyn Garden city and area to Luton town/Dunstable
South Northants to Northampton 6.2.8 It is recognised that this ‘macro’ corridor analysis may not highlight some individual corridors where flows may be in the ‘low’ range used to describe corridors, but where the combination of strategic connectivity and local pressures also make these important. Two corridors highlighted during consultation on the report include:
The A421 corridor between Bedford and the east, in particular where it crosses the A1, which is identified using our method as having medium flows and decreases in journey time lower than those highlighted in figure 6.2 - this is discussed in 7.3.27.
The link between the M1 and the A505 north of Luton, which is one of the few east/west routes in the southern part of the study area – this is discussed in 7.3.20. the flows between the Luton area and general Stevenage/Welwyn Garden City area are highlighted as medium flow corridors, with that to Welwyn being high priority as listed above.

53 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

7 Issues and challenges

7.1 The growth agenda

Regional employment is in the right place 7.1.2 In this study we have introduced the concepts of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ employment. ‘Local’ employment grows to service the needs of a local population, in rural areas, villages, towns and cities - their transport needs are relatively local.

7.1.3 ‘Regional’ employment is in business-to-business markets and in public and other organisations which serve much wider areas and for new and growing organisations they have real choices about where they locate. Such decisions will inter alia be influenced by accessibility – to labour, to business centres, and to freight depots, gateways and markets – and the relative importance of these factors depends on the industrial sector concerned. ‘Regional’ organisations and businesses have greater need of access to strategic networks, and generate more traffic and travel on inter-urban and strategic networks.

7.1.4 Our analysis has identified that in the mksm Business Plan ‘regional’ employment and its planned growth is indeed concentrated in the main towns – Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton/Dunstable, and to a lesser extent Bedford, Aylesbury and Daventry. This is an important finding because the better availability of local bus services in these towns, and the better access to the rail network for commuting and business travel, means that the transport consequences of this pattern of growth are more sustainable than if the jobs growth were distributed differently. The DaSTS goals, however, require us to consider whether sustainability can be further enhanced, and our review of inter-urban bus potential and of East-West Rail is covered below.

However, accessibility varies and there are hotspots 7.1.5 Nevertheless, we have shown that accessibility to labour, to business centres and to freight nodes does vary significantly between areas within mksm, and between modes. We cannot argue definitively that the jobs growth will not happen in areas of lower accessibility, but it may take longer. And growth is more likely if the economic sectors targeted for growth area by area are those most suited to the particular pattern of accessibility in that area.

7.1.6 The primary focus of our study, however, is to identify where transport interventions are most needed in order to address poorer accessibility. We have also identified where planned growth is increasing the load on the sub-regional networks, so that congestion and service levels offered to all the existing population and businesses are deteriorating as well.

7.1.7 Broadly our findings are that
Northampton has an ambitious target for regional jobs growth. The cluster of towns round Northampton (Corby, Daventry, Kettering and Wellingborough are dependent on this growth, and access to the town is likely to be increasingly important. While Northampton has good accessibility to the M1 and to regional services on the West Coast Main Line, the corridor linking these towns and to the M1 is becoming increasingly congested, and rail accessibility to Northampton is low for its projected job growth. The corridor is also affected by significant quantities of longer-distance traffic (especially HGVs) ‘cutting off the corner’

54 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

between M1 and A14 – worsened by the lack of south<>east movement at M1 J191.
Milton Keynes’ plan for ‘regional’ jobs growth is well in line with its accessibility, with its proximity to M1 and access to the West Coast Main Line and (slightly compromised) Virgin’s long distances services as well as the LM (London Midland) regional services. However analysis shows the M1 Corridor is under considerable pressure from longer-distance traffic, and measures adopted by the Highways Agency to address this may affect mksm travel2.
The Luton/Dunstable urban area offers high accessibility both for business and for residents; the 2021 measures reflect the completion and use of the A5-M1 link and the Luton-Dunstable busway. However, the M1 Corridor and other corridors east and south-east of Luton demonstrate the same growing pressure as further north, and deserve further study with the Highways Agency.
Aylesbury shows lower accessibility than the larger towns, although its growth target is lower. The issue is more to do with the road speed and capacity offered by the existing modest road network than by congestion as such – particularly in the critical north-south corridor to Milton Keynes and High Wycombe. The recent completion of the bypass for Leighton Linslade has made a noticeable difference in the time to reach Milton Keynes from Aylesbury.

Growth beyond 2021 7.1.8 Our analysis is to 2021. Growth aspirations in some areas have been made to 2026 or 2031, but are unspecified at a local level. On the basis of the different accessibility measures across the sub-region, and given the need for sustainable and deliverable patterns of growth, we would advise that the distribution of jobs growth beyond 2021 should reflect the different levels of accessibility, and opportunities to make good use of public transport in and between the sub-region and the rest of Britain. While the population and employment of all towns are expected to grow beyond 2021, certain towns, by virtue of their higher accessibility, are likely to be able to sustain higher future levels of growth than other towns.

7.1.9 Towns recommended for the higher levels of growth beyond 2021 therefore include:
Luton/Dunstable, targeting economic sectors in locations with capacity which make good use of the public transport capability (bus and rail), as well as access to M1; but we recognise Luton’s acute shortage of land for development
Bedford – recognising that it has a significant town congestion problem, nevertheless with excellent access to London by rail, and by the A421 improvements linking to M1 and to A1 and beyond
Milton Keynes, which has good road and reasonable rail access

7.2 The DaSTS goals and mksm 7.2.1 DfT have set out their goals and the planning processes that will help their delivery. The goals are3:
to support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks

1 Appendix F contains a paper prepared by Colin Buchanan and submitted by mksm Partnership, in response to the DaSTS consultation in early 2009, making the case for designating as part of the strategic national network the A43/A45 from M40 J10, via M1 J15A, to A14 at Thrapston. 2 Appendix G contains a paper prepared by Colin Buchanan making the case for joint studies of the M1 corridor (between J6A and J19) to be carried out by mksm partnership and the Highways Agency, to consider how best to meet the needs of sub-regional as well as long distance traffic. 3 Delivering a Sustainable Transport Strategy Department for Transport, November 2008

55 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

to reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change
to contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy by reducing transport risks, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health
to promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens and
to improve quality of life and to promote a healthy natural environment 7.2.2 We need to indicate how the emerging transport strategy is informed by these goals and to what extent it satisfies them at a strategic level.

The competitiveness goal 7.2.3 The first goal is at the heart of the mksm Business Plan and the transport strategy and interventions needed to deliver it. Our focus on the accessibility and connectivity of the different growth areas, and the highlighting of issues to address, provides a critical insight into their deliverability.

The carbon emissions reduction goal 7.2.4 Carbon emissions reduction is a specific feature of the wider sustainability agenda, driven by the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008. We have to acknowledge there is some tension between improving accessibility (to facilitate growth) and containing and reducing carbon emissions. The best prospect for aligning these goals requires that:
‘regional’ employment growth is located where public transport accessibility is high – both locally for employees travelling to work and strategically for business travel, and where there is relatively good and uncongested access to strategic networks for freight and business travel
employment growth outside these centres is balanced with population growth so that it is as far as possible ‘local’ employment
housing growth takes place in areas of high local public transport accessibility and where walking and cycling is strongly facilitated 7.2.5 As we have seen, the first condition so far as location is concerned is well met in the mksm Business Plan, and there is good access to regional and strategic rail services; but there are significant issues of road congestion affecting Northampton and Milton Keynes.

7.2.6 Our analysis suggested the second condition is well met too. The third condition is more about local accessibility and local transport, which is outside the scope of this study. However, it is worth restating the general principle that getting the location of new homes ‘in the right place’ in relation to jobs and services, and in relation to local transport, is a much more effective way of reducing carbon emissions than trying to change travel behaviour once they have moved in.

7.2.7 Government policies for transport to fulfil the requirements of the targets set for carbon reduction envisage a heavy dependence on technological ‘routes’ – efficiency improvements to vehicles, hybrid engines, new fuels – with fiscal incentives and regulatory measures to encourage the purchase and use of lower carbon-emitting vehicles. Whatever opportunities there are to change travel behaviour over the longer term, we believe that local authorities can seriously influence the take-up of technology change initiatives for vehicle users within their areas – cars, lorries, vans – through their own local powers. There could be some value in a coordinated review of opportunities across the mksm sub-region as the government’s plans in this area become clearer.

56 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Carbon emissions reduction, equality of opportunity, health, quality of life 7.2.8 The polycentric nature of the mksm sub-region means that there will inevitably be considerable demand for movement between the towns as well as within, which is demonstrated in our analysis of travel in section 3 above. Serving four of the DaSTS goals require that the use of public transport – bus and rail – is maximised for inter-urban movement within mksm.

7.2.9 We have already seen how the rail network offers good centre-to-centre access along the relevant corridors. The implementation of East-West Rail will be a welcome transformation of connectivity by rail between the key towns of Bedford, Milton Keynes/ Bletchley, Aylesbury and Oxford.

7.2.10 Elsewhere the demand can only be met by inter-urban bus/coach services. Our analysis of the current inter-urban network – see 7.5- suggests that:
There is already an extensive network across mksm, mostly hourly, but it suffers unpredictable journey times due to congestion mostly within the towns served
The two operators (Stagecoach and Arriva) already work with the local authorities, and changes and improvements have been made in some towns to help improve service quality, passenger information and facilities
The opening of the Luton/Dunstable busway opens major new opportunities for inter-urban services as well as for local services
The operators are keen to raise their game, to invest in service and marketing, and partner with the local authorities and mksm on a sub-regional basis to address some of the wider issues (such as practical traffic management measures, RTI (real-time information), etc) 7.2.11 Such improvements will be welcome and worth pursuing, and any service improvements will benefit particularly those who do not have access to a car.

7.2.12 Given that current inter-urban bus mode share (certainly for journeys to work) is estimated at some 3%, with inter-urban rail at 8%, it seems likely, with a much higher quality bus service approaching the quality of rail, that inter-urban bus can approach the latter’s mode share. In practice this would mean at least a doubling of inter-urban bus patronage over (say) the next 10 years. This will be a significant increase, although it will still be a relatively modest share of total inter-urban travel. The geographical dispersion of so much of the inter-urban car travel within and to/from mksm, and the time disadvantage of bus, exacerbated by the effects on service reliability of congestion within the towns, probably constrains overall inter-urban bus potential to some extent. The latter in particular can be addressed with policies favouring bus movement in the allocation of road space in towns, while other measures to discourage the use of cars in towns through pricing and other measures, will also have a significant impact. The location and density of new development around high quality bus corridors can help address the issue of dispersal of origins and destinations.

7.2.13 Policies to promote travel-enterprise uses with the town centres or other locations which are well served by public transport will also help these DaSTS goals.

Conclusion 7.2.14 mksm is well placed to make a significant contribution to the first DaSTS goal, and has an appropriate pattern of growth to support it. This also supports the second goal on carbon reduction, which will additionally benefit from a coordinated effort across the local authorities to reinforce locally the technology measures and fiscal and regulatory policies being adopted by government.

57 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

7.2.15 While the potential to contribute to the last four DaSTS goals for travel within towns is substantial, because of the opportunities for alternatives to the private car, it is more limited for inter-urban travel. Overall, the crucial elements are to get the spatial distribution of housing and jobs growth ‘right’; to pursue specific opportunities for worthwhile improvement in the inter-urban public transport network – such as East-West Rail and inter-urban bus – while making good use of infrastructure or facilities improvements within the towns.

7.3 National networks - road 7.3.1 Following the analysis of corridor flows and future journey times, this section summaries the key ‘hotspots’ or stress points identified in this analysis.

M1 7.3.2 The M1 corridor is a critical sub-regional link for mksm as well as a national link. The improvements proposed for the M1, which is the main highway ‘artery’ of mksm are welcome. The planned ‘managed motorway’ regime is likely to involve ramp-metering to control the entry of traffic to maintain smoother and undisrupted flows on the motorway itself. However, we understand from discussions with the HA that they are contemplating the use of more aggressive forms of ramp-metering - imposing delays of up to 5 minutes or more on joining traffic to discourage short distance ‘hops’ travelling two or three junctions, giving priority to longer-distance journeys.

7.3.3 Understandable though this may be from the perspective of meeting long distance traffic needs, this will directly affect the use of M1 as an essential part of the sub-regional network linking the three largest towns. It could have an impact on public transport using the relevant junctions as well. The current version of the EERM model assumes 4 lane widening between J10 and J13, rather than HSR – even with this improvement, projections who a worsening of journey times in the future.

7.3.4 It is for this reason that we are recommending that mksm and the relevant local authority partners should seek to join with the DfT and Highways Agency to carry out joint studies of the management of demand on the M1 corridor - that is the M1 itself together with the parallel roads - having regards for the different patterns of movement that need to be catered for in the corridor and their economic significance. This study should be among those proposed by June 2009 for consideration by DfT as part of the DaSTS planning process. Colin Buchanan have already drafted and submitted a paper to the mksm team for their consideration with the relevant stakeholders, giving the rationale for such studies and the some suggested objectives and deliverables. This paper is also attached as Appendix G

7.3.5 Appendix G also shows the Highways Agency's projected speed levels on the M1 in the sub-region in 2025 compared to 2003 – even with programmed improvements, speeds are expect to drop significantly.

A14 7.3.6 Improvements are also planned for this key route which runs east/west along the north of the mksm area, including widening around Kettering, an improvement scheme between Ellington and Fen Ditton and traffic management measures along the route). The traffic management regime is considering ‘traditional’ ramp-metering. We recommend that the mksm partners also review the use of those techniques with the HA on this strategic route, and understand that discussions are underway between the HA, DfT and the

58 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

County Council. The implementation of these improvements is critical to the delivery of the growth agenda around Kettering and for the sub-regions’ wider links.

Sub-regional networks 7.3.7 Section 6.2.7 highlighted the following as problem corridors:
Leighton Linslade to Luton town/Dunstable
Northampton to Milton Keynes
Leighton Linslade to Milton Keynes
Leighton Linslade to Aylesbury to High Wycombe
The ‘Northampton ‘arc’ – Daventry, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby and adjacent areas links to Northampton and each other
Daventry district to Northampton
Luton eastwards to Stevenage, Hitchin, etc
Luton town/Dunstable south east to Welwyn and beyond
South Northants to Northampton
The A421 corridor between Bedford and the east 7.3.8 In Bedford, the Bedford Western Bypass first section is being completed on the basis of forward funding supplied by the Homes and Communities Agency, to be recouped from developer contributions. For the purposes of this study, the full Western Bypass has been treated as a committed scheme, although we understand this is not currently the case. A funding solution for the subsequent section is yet to be agreed and will need to be reached in order to address corridor pressure and local congestion.

7.3.9 It is no surprise to also find pressure on the east-west corridors across the sub-region, where the road network (with notable exceptions) is indirect, and of low speed and low capacity. The three main east/west routes are the:
A14 though North Northants
A505 between Dunstable and the Stevenage area via Hitchin and Luton and
A428/A421 from Cambridge to Milton Keynes via Bedford, and on to the M40. 7.3.10 There are plans for improvements to the A14 described in relation to national networks above. The A505 route has committed improvements for some of its length, but the link between the M1 and A505 (Luton Northern Bypass) is not committed. The A421 between Bedford and Milton Keynes is committed, but the links to the east and west of this are not yet committed.

7.3.11 The A43/A45 corridor round Northampton to/from the north-east is under pressure from long distance through traffic (and significant HGVs), local traffic in Northampton, and significant movements from Kettering and Wellingborough into the larger town. It is also the focus of new growth in housing.

7.3.12 Included in the RFA are a number of schemes which will reduce pressure on certain key corridors:
In the Bedford area, the Bedford Western Bypass and the A421 Bedford to M1 (J13) schemes.
In Luton the Luton-Dunstable Busway, A5-M1 Link Road, and Luton Town Centre Scheme.
In the Northampton/Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby corridor the A509 Isham Bypass, the A43 Corby Link Road, the A509 Isham to Wellingborough Improvement and the A45 Stanwick to Thrapston Dualling.
In the Milton Keynes area the A421 Milton Keynes to M1 and the central MK Public Transport Access Improvements. 7.3.13 The link between Aylesbury and the Leighton Linslade bypass (to reach Milton Keynes) – the A418 – has recently been the subject of a study by consultants on behalf of

59 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Buckinghamshire County Council, which concluded that a roads-based solution to this corridor was the least well performing option. However the issue of longer term accessibility in a north/south direction from Milton Keynes through Leighton Linslade and Aylesbury to the Thames Valley is still regarded as an important issue, and we understand that the South East Partnership Board are supporting a study of this.

7.3.14 For locations not covered in the above RFA schemes, there will be a need to engage with the regions in the processes they are going through right now to propose studies which will contribute to the 2012 transport plan process (as set out in DaSTS).

Northampton Arc 7.3.15 This consists of the A43/A45 M1J15A - A14 corridor near Northampton, which is an area of growing pressure and, around Northampton particularly, conflict between local, sub- regional and national movement. The A43 is the key route linking the north of the County with the M1, and reducing congestion on this road would strengthen the inward investment potential of Northampton, Kettering and Corby. On our recommendations mksm made representations to the DaSTS consultation about including this and the A43 section from M40 to M1 on the strategic national network. Its strategic significance is heightened by the recent HA decision in February to make J19 on M1 (M1/M6/A14) a limited access junction, with no south to east movement allowed. While the present junction does not make this movement easy, it does not prevent it; removing the possibility altogether will put even more north-east/south-west traffic from the A1/A14 going to the A34/West Country onto the A43/A45 arc. And during April, DfT announced the results of the DaSTS consultation, and that this link would not be included on the strategic network. The partnership should, where possible, continue to make this case.

7.3.16 While the Corby Link road and Isham bypass are now going forward, there is little planned for Northampton itself. While we have noted some inter-urban bus possibilities, and the County are pursuing a BRT scheme, these are not expected on their own to make major inroads into the expected congestion and delay problems on this corridor and around Northampton. Careful consideration will be required of proposals to balance the needs of local versus regional versus longer-distance travel on this arc, and to identify more solutions here. Although these roads will remain a regional responsibility for planning and prioritising, they continue to be Highway Agency roads, and the HA should be engaged in a wide-ranging examination of the options to address the issues, along with Northamptonshire, with the support of mksm and the East Midlands regional agencies.

7.3.17 The emerging grown options for Northampton and review of the Core Spatial Strategy for North Northamptonshire and the partial review of the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy will have client relevance for any “arc” study which will need to show that growth can be accommodated.

7.3.18 While we are aware this is a widely recognised problem in Northamptonshire, our study draws attention to the challenge which the expected congestion on this corridor offers to the prospect of achieving the ambitious agenda of business and jobs growth in Northampton, due to its effect on accessibility as we have measured it. We cannot quantify this risk, or indicate what the ‘worst case’ scenario might be; we can only comment that this remains probably the most challenging of the growth nodes in the mksm sub-region.

7.3.19 At the client’s request, proposals for studies of the Northampton Arc – the rationale, the issues and options to be addressed and the possible scope of studies, have been prepared and submitted (see Appendix H).

60 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Luton – east and south east 7.3.20 The corridor analysis suggests significant pressure on roads between Luton and Stevenage (via Hitchin), Welwyn/Hatfield/St Albans. With the exception of part of the A505, here again the issue is largely one of inadequate single carriageway roads limiting capacity and speed. Destinations beyond are better served by M1 and M25, although the longer term sees pressure on these motorway links too.

7.3.21 Luton’s plans for the Northern Bypass, linking the M1 with the A6, and on to the A505 provide a crucial east/west link outside of central Luton between the M1 and the Stevenage area, and is regarded by the council as critical to enable internal public transport changes within the conurbation to deliver growth in Luton and south Bedfordshire. The first section of this planned link (between the M1 and A6) is closely associated with housing development with the intention of this as a source of funds. However, the next section (between the A6 and A505) is likely to be more challenging to achieve, because of difficulties of topography (and therefore cost) and the environmental sensitivity of the area to be traversed.

7.3.22 Initial modelling by Luton indicates that while this road also performs a local function in enabling development, a significant proportion of traffic using it is likely to be of a more strategic nature – and therefore may play a key role in the strategic inter-urban networks for the sub-region.. The broad corridor to Stevenage is identified in this study as carrying large volumes with future worsening of journey times. The potential contribution of this link to sub-regional strategic connectivity requires more analysis."

Dunstable 7.3.23 The link between Dunstable and Luton and to Leighton Linslade were also highlighted as priority areas in 7.3.7. We are not aware of any current proposals to deal with these issues, although the Luton-Dunstable busway should offer alternatives for travellers. We recommend that the link between Leighton Linslade and Dunstable could be considered as part of the proposed north/south route study proposed by the South East Partnership Board and Buckinghamshire mentioned below.

Aylesbury – North And South 7.3.24 As noted previously, Aylesbury does not score highly on the accessibility measures, because of the historic nature of the road network, the limited rail network and the pattern of settlement across the county. Delivering the growth agenda may be compromised without significant accessibility improvements. Priority should be given to those corridors which most affect accessibility and where travel demands are likely to increase substantially – which means northwards towards Milton Keynes and Luton/Dunstable, and southwards towards High Wycombe and the Thames Valley.

7.3.25 North-facing accessibility has been improved by the opening of the A4146 bypass round Leighton Linslade. However, addressing the issues raised by the A418 – including the conflict of through movements and the rural and village environments – has presented challenges and caused considerable debate locally. Opportunities to improve accessibility by road to High Wycombe and the Thames Valley are equally constrained, although we understand that the South East Partnership Board has supported a study of this corridor looking at potential solutions. While the current rail network plays an important though south-facing role, the EW Rail development will open rail access to the north. Meanwhile, recent and prospective investment in bus facilities in Aylesbury and High Wycombe, together with a good response by the main operator Arriva, has seen and will continue significant growth in inter-urban bus/coach traffic.

61 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

7.3.26 Nevertheless, our role in this study is to point out that successful delivery of the growth agenda for Aylesbury (for housing and for jobs) will require inter-urban ‘accessibility’ to be improved, and this will depend to a considerable extent on addressing the level of service (in its most general sense) offered by the road network. In this respect our findings support the case of the South East Partnership Board for work looking at future strategic connectivity on the north/south corridor between the M1 and Thames Valley via Aylesbury.

Bedford 7.3.27 Recent and committed road improvements such as the A421 link to the M1 will improve the inter-urban accessibility of Bedford, although the remainder of the link to Milton Keynes is not yet committed. The TEES study (2008) identified the A421/A428 Cambridge-Bedford-MK as a stressed route in the worst traffic congestion change group, and regarded it as an ‘economic priority corridor for future intervention’. This study identified ‘medium range’ flows between Bedford and the east on this corridor, and noted decreases in journey time (although lower than those highlighted in Figure 6.2, reflecting the different analysis methods used). The key issues relate to the A421 from Bedford to the A1, and the section of the A1 including junctions to the A428 to Cambridge. The corridor remains one of few east/west links between the M1 and A1 and the east in the mksm area, and should be regarded as important in these terms.

7.3.28 It is noted that the modelling used for this study assumed that the Bedford Western Bypass was a committed scheme, although we understand that this is not currently the case and there is little prospect of developer funding alone delivering this link.

7.4 National networks - rail

Overview 7.4.2 The principal towns in mksm are well located on the WCML and the MML, with the exception of Aylesbury at the end of a slow but high performing commuter service to London. For the WCML and MML, recent and committed improvement plans bring sufficient capacity and frequency for the next 10-15 years to provide for commuters and for business travellers to London, and reasonable access to destinations to the north/north-west of mksm – using the long distance express services and the regional services on each route.

7.4.3 The one major concern continues to be the access to Virgin long distance services at Milton Keynes and Northampton, given its size and strategic economic importance. The problem is familiar and longstanding, and current trends in rail traffic along the WCML make the prospects for improvements less and less likely; we have investigated the current situation in some depth with DfT and Network Rail. Northampton station is also recognised as being in need of investment.

7.4.4 Recent and committed improvement plans to MML has reduced the frequency for travellers from Kettering to London and Northants.

7.4.5 As with the road network, the predominantly radial pattern from London leaves poor east- west connectivity by rail both within mksm and to the towns and cities either side of the sub-region. The East-West Rail project makes a substantial contribution to this.

7.4.6 Since this study was initiated, government has announced the formation of the High- Speed 2 company, with a specific remit to identify a route and prospective business case and delivery plans for high-speed rail from London to the West Midlands. A substantial opportunity for mksm lies in the consequential reshaping of services on the existing

62 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

WCML. Additionally, there may be an opportunity to bid for an intermediate station on HS2 itself, but in our view this has a low chance of being adopted and should not be pursued at the expense of ensuring that mksm gets the full benefit of the consequential reshaping.

West Coast Main Line 7.4.7 There is limited access from Milton Keynes and Northampton to longer-distance Virgin trains serving the WCML, but it appears unlikely that this will be changed until the WCML service pattern can be substantially altered, probably as a result of HS2 plans.

7.4.8 Provided planned improvements take place, passenger capacity on LMT (London Midland Trains) services is expected to be sufficient to 2021, and these will be new high aspect express trains.

MML 7.4.9 The major Thameslink project will deliver 12-car trains, and higher frequency to Luton and Bedford. Capacity on these lines is likely to be sufficient for demand growth to 2021 and beyond. In addition the possible introduction of electrification beyond Bedford will improve journey times to the north. The latter will also offer the potential to improve all services to Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough.

Chiltern Line 7.4.10 The proposed ‘Evergreen 3’ scheme will introduce a new service from Marylebone to Oxford via Princes Risborough and Bicester - the main significance for mksm is that the works between Bicester and Oxford and at Oxford Station will directly benefit the potential East-West Rail project.

HS2 7.4.11 The timescale for this project is beyond 2021, but there are opportunities for mksm to engage with this project at an early stage. The principal mksm benefit is likely to be relief of traffic and pressure on existing main lines, which would permit complete service reconfiguring. The question of stops between London and the West Midlands is under active consideration – there is an opportunity fro mksm to lobby in relation to this.

East-West Rail 7.4.12 This scheme has widespread support from regional and mksm partners, and is a plan for a new Oxford/Bicester/Bletchley/Milton Keynes/Bedford rail corridor with a connection to Aylesbury. There is also a possible extension to Cambridge, with alternative routes out to consultation.

7.4.13 The EW Rail Consortium is well embedded with key agencies and partners, and the project is now entering GRIP 4 planning, providing the opportunity to update the Benefit Cost Ratio (B CR), including taking account of Evergreen 3 as well as latest mksm growth estimates. Timetable and service patterns will be tested and validated, including whether all trains can/should serve MK.

7.4.14 There is also a growing ‘strategic’ interest in EW Rail as a possible cross-country passenger route, and possible strategic freight route, with a possible opportunity to develop further the Bicester MoD site as well. The GRIP 4 study is investigating the opportunities offered by a new Cross-Country service from the South Coast to

63 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Manchester via MK, utilising EW Rail and the newly four-tracked Trent Valley route of WCML. Utilising this routing, time-savings of some 30 min may be possible on rail journeys from Manchester to Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke and Southampton. This service could also allow the Milton Keynes-Manchester market to be served by Cross- Country.

7.4.15 For freight, the GRIP 4 study is looking at the value of EW Rail not only as a deep sea container freight route from the Port of Southampton to the WCML at Bletchley, but also as a route to the MML at Bedford. The latter may fit with possible plans to develop the MML for container freight as a means of relieving the ECML.

7.4.16 Consultation was recently undertaken on a number of route options for the ‘missing link’ of E/W Rial between Bletchley and Cambridge. The options investigated were as follows:
a northern route via Bedford, Kettering, Corby, Manton and Stamford to Peterborough
a central route via Bedford, Sandy and the ECML, or via the former Bedford-Hitchin railway alignment
a southern route via a new link to the Midland Main Line in the Stewartby area, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway and a new alignment from there to Stevenage 7.4.17 As with the road network, the predominantly radial pattern from London leaves poor east- west connectivity by rail both within mksm and to the towns and cities either side of the sub-region. The East-West Rail project makes a significant contribution to this, offering connections between the WCML and MML as well as northwards from Aylesbury. The project also supports the Regional Spatial Strategies for the South-East and East of England, and has strategic benefits for freight and cross-country services. The cost and engineering requirements have now been confirmed through the continuing work as part of the GRIP4 process, and the overall value of the project and potential to contribute to the above more strategic roles, as well as the ‘missing link’ options are currently being investigated. It is important to secure the necessary funding to progress this significant project for mksm.

7.5 Inter-urban bus networks 7.5.1 There are real opportunities for short term improvements to the performance and attractiveness of inter-urban services, but there needs to be concerted action by the local authorities with the operators across the mksm sub-region. We also believe in a longer term vision for a step-change in the role of inter-urban express buses, including extensive application of park-and-ride.

7.5.2 An improved inter-urban bus network can make an important contribution to transport accessibility within the sub-region. It will supplement the improvements of local bus services, and by providing improved connectivity for those without access to a car it will contribute to the DaSTS goals of equality or opportunity and quality of life,.

7.5.3 Our thinking on the shorter and longer term possibilities is set out in Appendix I, and the following is a summary.

7.5.4 Congestion on the road network – particularly in and out of many of the towns in the sub- region – is probably the key factor holding back the reliability and journey time performance of the inter-urban express bus network. Any concerted attempt to ‘raise the game’ with inter-urban bus has to address this as a priority issue. There needs to be a focus at the local level on changing the management and/or design of parts of the road networks to give priorities to buses over other vehicles. From discussions with the operators and local authorities, measures can include 1. parking enforcement on critical corridors

64 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

2. traffic signal prioritisation with transponders 3. selective road geometry and road surface markings to make bus entry into the traffic stream easier We recognise that in many cases it will be necessary to have regard for the ability of local buses to benefits from these sorts of measures as well.

7.5.5 The vulnerability of longer routes to congestion and disruption – coupled with the headways of 30 minutes to 1 hour and the effect on waiting times for passengers – make it essential to address running time predictability on a whole route basis, and that means across local authority boundaries. A route’s reliability is only as strong as its weakest section.

7.5.6 There is a particular need for better information – particularly RTI which for these can be of considerable benefit to passengers. The technology solutions exist, and funding has been made available in some areas to equip vehicles and to invest in the back office functions to generate and distribute information to potential passengers. There are some commercial and institutional barriers to be addressed, and some systems integrations issues, all of which would benefit from leadership at the mksm partnership level. There is also the opportunity to exploit new methods for distributing this information to mobile phones, PDAs and generally via the web – including to fixed installations as well as to personal media.

7.5.7 The two main operators are willing to engage in a sub-regional ‘strategic partnership’ with the local authorities to progress a number of these matters. This is a clear role for the mksm partnership.

7.5.8 We believe that a longer term, more ambitious vision for inter-urban express bus should be seriously considered and progressed by the mksm partnership and the key local authorities. The local authorities and the operators are already considering what new service developments can be facilitated with the Luton-Dunstable busway; Northamptonshire County Council has committed to a project to explore ‘rapid transport systems’ to achieve transformational objectives, with particular reference to the Northampton Arc. The new MK Coachway will generate new opportunities at the nearest M1 junction, while in Buckinghamshire new ‘coachway’ facilities are planned at M40 J4 for the High Wycombe area. The High Wycombe Coachway is an excellent exemplar of a multi-purpose multi-mode car/bus/coach interchange.

7.5.9 A clear set of aspirations should be set, against which initial examination of potential on a corridor basis can be examined. We suggest that for a network linking all the towns of the sub-region, and with key towns and cities outside the sub-region, those aspirations should consist of - A frequency of not less than 3 buses per hour (20 minutes frequency) - Running times centre-to-centre which are competitive with the private car (targets to be set on each corridor), based on bold provision of practical bus priority or stand-alone facilities - Multi-purpose Park-and-Ride facilities on the edge of towns (e.g. Coachways) - Real-time information widely available to electronic media, and main stops and bus stations - Comprehensive marketing of services, supported by good street and bus station facilities - Smart card ticketing - Common high quality standards of vehicle and their passenger environment.

65 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

7.6 Local transport issues 7.6.1 Within the urban areas there are significant congestion and accessibility problems, and this can also have an important impact on the location decisions of employers and residents. It is important that investment in ‘local' transport therefore keeps pace with growth.

7.6.2 There is much that the respective authorities are doing in relation to encouraging walking, cycling and buses, and other improvements to reduce congestion. The Smarter Choices work at this local level is also highly important – Aylesbury for example has shown what a concerted effort on encouraging cycling can achieve. The travel issues within towns are also highly important for inter-urban travel:
The exact location and density of development, particularly where accessible to good inter-urban bus corridors, can significantly influence modal share; in other cases (e.g. in the Northampton Arc), development can impact on other inter-urban travel between towns
Higher density development around sub-regional ‘hubs’ (such as that planned at Station Quarter, Kettering) can encourage sustainable travel
Congestion on key corridors can have a significant impact on the reliability and attraction of inter-urban bus services – these services are only as strong as their weakest link
A focus on improving the quality and catchments of the key local interchanges providing access to the inter-urban networks
Common standards across authorities and a focus on travel behaviour change by encouraging the appropriate mode for the different types of travel can reduce intra- urban congestion which helps improve inter-urban public transport accessibility
There is also scope for considering the linkages between development and travel in relation to major travel generators such as educational and health facilities, which serve wider catchments
In addition at the local level we believe that local authorities can seriously influence the take-up of technology change initiatives for vehicle users within their areas – cars, lorries, vans – through their own local powers, helping achieve climate change goals 7.6.3 We believe that an aspirational target of doubling the current patronage using inter-urban bus within 10 years can be achieved.

7.6.4 In terms of rural accessibility, this has not been a major focus of the study, but we recognise the fact that access to public transport in the rural areas of the sub-region is vital to the DaSTS goals of quality of life and promotion of equal opportunity. The emphasis within the strategy of promotion of high quality–inter-urban bus services should help to strengthen the overall quality of rural accessibility.

7.7 Planning within mksm 7.7.1 No purpose-designed transport planning model exists for the mksm sub-region. A number of local authorities have – or are renewing – their own more granular transport models, but we understand that none ‘connect’ with adjacent models to enable policies and scenarios wider than one local authority to be tested reliably. While there is (understandably) no appetite for a sub-regional transport model as such, there is a case for exploring what would be involved in developing a common model architecture, and common formats and data structures for networks, zones and so on, for the various local authority models. This would enable linking between models and the opportunity to properly test scenarios over parts or the whole of the mksm sub-region. The mksm partnership could lead a project with this objective.

66 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

7.8 Conclusion - priorities for networks/modes 7.8.1 Based on our analysis, the recommended priorities for the national networks are therefore: 1. M1 Corridor – an urgent joint study needed between mksm partners, regions and the HA 2. Milton Keynes – rail connectivity and service issues 3. HS2 – mksm to pursue the implications for reshaping the WCML network post- HS2, and if relevant, the possibility for an intermediate station 7.8.2 The priorities for the sub-regional networks are: 1. Detailed study of Northampton Arc, led jointly by Northampton County Council, the DfT and the Highways Agency, with regional partners 2. Consideration of improvements of the A421/A428 links between Bedford and areas to the east 3. Consideration of options for linking the M1 to the A505 to the north of Luton. 4. A study of north/south links between the M1 and Thames Valley, currently proposed by the South East partnership Board 5. EW Rail which is already well embedded in local structures, but will require additional funding for GRIP 5 6. Inter-urban express bus, where we recommend that mksm partnership takes the lead through a strategic partnership involving the local authorities and the bus operators, in developing a coordinated package of measures to improve performance in the shorter term, and to consider adopting a longer term set of aspirations and exploring the implications and means of delivery of that. These improvements to the network can be facilitated through LTP3 and possible kick- start funding. 7. Carbon reduction initiatives, particularly those which relate to the government’s vehicle technology strategy, and which can be leveraged and incentivised by local authorities within a strategy coordinated within the sub-region. 7.8.3 We note in 7.6 the priorities for local transport, which include supporting inter-urban transport through interchanges, location of development and reduction of congestion and Smarter Choices and carbon reduction policies.

67 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

8 A strategy for mksm

8.1 Purpose of the strategy 8.1.1 mksm sits within three regions which already have their own spatial and transport planning processes and their own plans. mksm is special in bringing together the towns and settlements which share a common destiny of substantial growth; it provides a platform and a collective voice for evidencing and advocating the transport plans and policies specifically needed to support the growth agenda, and to sustain the economic activity and quality of life of the people and businesses already there.

8.1.2 Although mksm as a sub-regional partnership formally sits outside the local, regional and national transport planning processes put in place by DfT (including the DaSTS process), government recognises the need to have particular regard for those transport interventions necessary to deliver the mksm growth agenda – which was itself prescribed by government.

8.1.3 Nevertheless, mksm is not itself an agency with powers, so the delivery of its strategy depends on persuading others of the merits of its case.

8.1.4 This is not to say that the case for transport interventions evidenced by current and prospective transport demand is not made, recognised and acted on by the partner authorities and agencies and by others not involved in mksm: the substantial investment in transport networks both recently completed and committed for the near future demonstrates the wide recognition of the challenges and pressures facing the networks which mksm depends on.

8.1.5 A transport strategy for mksm therefore is not the only statement of need and ambition for the networks serving mksm. What it must do is to articulate the particular perspective which the growth agenda brings to understanding of transport needs. Here we believe our accessibility analysis provides unique insights into the relationship between the plans for growth and the quality of transport access (or connectivity) of the various networks, and some observations about the relative importance of transport interventions focussed on attracting footloose businesses to come and invest.

8.1.6 This is supported by our understanding of the difference between ‘regional’ employment and ‘local’ employment, which not only gives a geographical focus on where access to strategic networks is most important, but it gives a framework for judging how sustainable the growth plans. And our conclusion is that they are well formulated to meet the sustainability agenda – so justifying recognition and support for the accompanying measures needed to deliver the growth agenda.

8.1.7 This type of analysis enables mksm to make a unique contribution to the wider objectives of regional transport planning – to enable the growth agenda to be pursued in the most sustainable way.

8.1.8 The other particular contribution of this strategy arises from the fact that mksm as a growth area straddles three regions – one consequence of which is the potential difficulty of achieving a weight of consensus on issues which while central to mksm are on the periphery of each of the three regions. The problems of the M1 corridor are a prime example of this. With the M1 so critical for movements within and to/from all three major towns in mksm (each of which sits in a different administrative region), we believe that drawing attention to the potential conflicts between the needs of national and regional traffic on the whole corridor between the M25 and the A14/M6 allows and an important issue to receive the attention it deserves.

68 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

8.2 Elements of the strategy 8.2.1 Therefore the mksm Integrated Transport Strategy should
Acknowledge the priorities and plans now adopted by the three regions and by the relevant national agencies draw attention to the gaps or lack of priority suggested by evidence arising from analysis of the unique features and characteristics of the growth agenda and its transport needs
Identify a sub-regional network which interfaces with the national and local networks
Propose specific action where the case can be made for what needs to be done and why
Where it cannot at this stage, propose areas of further examination and study where and advocate those with the appropriate partners
Identify areas for action which the mksm partnership and its key partners are particularly well placed to pursue

8.3 Strategy issues 8.3.1 Our report identifies that
mksm is well placed to deliver its growth agenda of homes and jobs. Committed transport interventions on road and rail will be helpful in catering for much of the anticipated growth, and in providing accessibility improvements which will in general encourage and enable that growth.
The different parts of mksm are highly inter-related in terms of travel patterns, and the inter-urban travel is of critical importance to business.
Overall, the planned growth to 2021 is located appropriately and sustainably for the planned transport infrastructure (not always the case in growth areas).
The current plans make a good contribution to DaSTS goals; improvements are possible with further interventions that we identify. 8.3.2 This is because ‘accessibility’ offered by the transport networks to enable and encourage investors to deliver homes and jobs growth is higher where the growth plans are most ambitious. However, we express concern however about the effect of pressure on the ‘Northampton Arc’ on the longer term prospects for growth in this area; and we note the lower accessibility of Aylesbury – and the difficulties of significantly improving it – in relation to its growth plans. Meanwhile, Luton stands out as a place which in accessibility terms would be able to attract much higher employment than is planned, if other factors (such as town congestion and land availability) allowed it. Bedford will also have excellent rail access following Thameslink completion.

8.3.3 But there are significant challenges affecting connectivity for the sub-region:
The M1 is critical to future accessibility for the mksm sub-region, but future management strategies for this road by the HA could adversely affect access to M1 for the three largest towns; joint studies are recommended with the HA and the local authorities, to be brokered by the mksm partnership.
The A43/A45 corridor – the ‘Northampton Arc’ covering Daventry/Towcester to Northampton and to Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby and Rushden/A14 – is under particular pressure through the combination of local, regional and national traffic movements. Current transport plans envisage only limited transport interventions. A comprehensive review is required, considering options of strategic traffic management and public transport improvements as well as infrastructure investment; we note Northants CC have already initiated a rapid transport study. If the longer term growth aspirations of the corridor and Northampton in particular are to be delivered without adverse impacts on the existing communities then these issues must be addressed.

69 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Aylesbury’s growth agenda is ambitious given its relatively constrained accessibility, due to its location, the historic nature of its road network and its limited rail connectivity. Any improvements to the inter-urban road network are sensitive; however, the substantial improvements to bus and coach facilities within the town, coupled with the prospect of EW Rail opening new access northwards, make a valuable contribution. Nevertheless, the overall accessibility may limit the ability to achieve the targeted growth, and the opportunity to improve access on the north/south corridor form the Thames Valley to the M1 requires consideration. 8.3.4 At the same time, there are a number of opportunities for enhancement in the transport networks which will not only help deliver the growth agenda but make useful further contribution to DaSTS goals, especially those concerned with equality of opportunity and quality of life, as well as modestly to carbon reduction.
The recognition within mksm of a sub-regional network of importance, and the focus of future attention and investment in protecting and enhancing this network as a means of accessing the national networks and connecting the sub-region.
There is potential to co-ordinate and develop common Smarter Choices policies and measures across the sub-region. While these will obviously have greater impact at the local level, the sharing of expertise and best practice across the sub- region, a focus on a common ‘message’ to travellers, co-ordination of policies for travel to e.g. major health and educational facilities, and encouragement of car share and sustainable freight initiatives will also have an impact on inter-urban travel.
East/west links, in particular those of the A421/A428 through Bedford and those linking the A505 to the M1 have been identified as carrying significant sub-regional volumes and will have future decreases in journey times, and various improvements are being considered for these.
The East-West Rail proposals will make an important contribution to east-west connectivity in a sub-region dominated by north-south links (including Aylesbury as well as Bicester, Bletchley, Milton Keynes and Bedford), and to Oxford and Cambridge outside mksm. Prospects for its use for rail freight and for (national) cross-country services will benefit the sub-region too.
The role that inter-urban bus plays in connecting mksm can be enhanced by concerted action by local authorities within the sub-region, with the bus operators, to address a range of practical issues affecting service reliability, access to town centres, passenger information and infrastructure facilities; a longer term, more ambitious vision for inter-urban bus, including use of park-and-ride, could make a strategic contribution on certain corridors.
The possibility of rail electrification beyond Bedford – raised in the recent Network Rail RUS on electrification – holds the opportunity for projecting the Thameslink service to Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby.
HS2 – the vision for high-speed rail from London to the West Midlands – offers the possibility of radical reshaping of the existing WCML servicers to serve the mksm towns, especially Milton Keynes, more effectively.

8.4 A sub-regional network 8.4.1 A proposed conceptual sub-regional network is shown in Figure 8.1, and is described below.

70 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure 8.1: Conceptual Sub-regional network

National Networks 8.4.2 The national highway networks are shown in Figure 8.1. Previous sections have highlighted the significant improvement planned for these networks, in particular the M1 and A14. However it is clear that these improvements alone will not be sufficient to maintain current network performance, and it is critical for the future of mksm that the interaction with the national networks be maintained.

8.4.3 The key national gateways are identified below – the shaded items refer to locations where improvements schemes are believed to be committed or planned in RFA bids.
M1 J10/10A – Luton and airport
M1 J11 (Luton/Dunstable)
M1 J13 (Bedford/MK)
M1 J14 (MK)
M1 J15/15A/16 (Northampton/Daventry)
M1 J19 (A14/M6)
M40 J4 (High Wycombe, gateway to Aylesbury)
A14 junctions around Kettering (J7 to 10)
Junctions of A14 with the A45 (13) and A1 (21) 8.4.4 The stations within mksm assumed to be of national significance, primarily based on their location on national networks and the volumes of passengers using these (see Appendix A for summary) include:
Luton
Luton Airport
Milton Keynes and

71 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Northampton. 8.4.5 The remaining areas of concern for mksm on the national networks are:
The status of the A43/A45 between the M40 and A14, as per the mksm response to the DaSTS consultation.
The M1 ‘managed motorway’ status and the potential impact on mksm movements using the M1 to access the 3 main urban settlements, and to cross the M1.
Similar concerns relate to the anticipated widening of the A14 in the vicinity of Kettering and future traffic management, where once again a joint study with the DfT and HA would be beneficial, and we understand such discussions are underway.
The future configuration of M1 J19 (A14/M6), where the current preferred HA option prevents south/east movement between the M1 and A14. 8.4.6 In terms of national rail networks, planned improvements should result in sufficient capacity for mksm growth to 2021. However there are opportunities to:
Participate in the HS2 process, to ensure that mksm aspirations are recognised in any potential reconfiguration of services
Lobby for improved rail access ( frequency) to Milton Keynes
Lobby for the East-West Rail project, which has some strategic implications for national rail.

Sub-Regional Corridors 8.4.7 The next element of the sub-regional strategy is to identify the sub-regional corridors providing access to the national gateways. The most important sub-regional corridors (once again highlighting those which have committed or planned improvements) are regarded as:
The A1
The A5, which is a key resilience element of the sub-region, as it parallels the M1
A505/A5065 – linking Luton/Dunstable with the M1
A421 linking Bedford and Milton Keynes to the M1 and A1
A4146 linking MK to M1 J14
A43 link between M40 and M1
A43 between Northampton and Corby
A45 link between M1, A14 and A1
A45 between Daventry and Northampton
A509 between Milton Keynes, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby
A413/A4010 linking Aylesbury to High Wycombe and J4 of the M40
A413/A4010 linking Aylesbury to the M25
A421/A428 linking Milton Keynes via Bedford to the east

8.4.8 The railway stations believed to be of sub-regional importance include:
Leighton Buzzard
Aylesbury
Kettering
Wellingborough
Bletchley
Corby. 8.4.9 It is recommended that the member authorities confirm the sub-regional networks, and work together to identify ways in which these networks can be enhanced and protected to maintain the sub-region’s gateways to the national networks.

72 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

8.5 Strategy summary 8.5.1 The Transport Strategy for mksm therefore 1. Recognises the close inter-relationship of the towns and areas of the mksm sub-region, as shown by sub-regional travel patterns.

2. Recognises the generally high level of connectivity for mksm offered by the strategic and regional networks, and emphasises the critical nature of the planned improvements on these networks for future growth.

3. Recognises that generally the pattern of growth planned across the sub-region is located appropriately and in areas of higher accessibility (including rail), and overall contributes to the first two DaSTS goals.

4. Requires, in order to sustain the growth agenda, that attention be given to the key challenges of the M1 Corridor, the Northampton Arc, and the north-south connectivity for Aylesbury.

5. Identifies opportunities for enhancements to public transport connectivity; these are worth pursuing both in their own right and for their wider contribution to DaSTS goals of equality of opportunity and quality of life, as well as to carbon reduction. Some, such as inter-urban bus development, the backing for EW Rail, and the longer term benefits of reshaping the WCML services in the wake of HS2, will benefit from concerted action which should be led by the mksm partnership; others require pressure and advocacy with the relevant agencies.

6. Recognises the key role that individual authorities need to play to improve travel and accessibility within their areas, and how decisions made here can have a significant impact on inter-urban travel.

7. Involves the mksm partnership in an important continuing role to. - keep this agenda in front of government – both DfT and CLG – and the national agencies it needs to influence (Highways Agency and Network Rail).

- inform the regional spatial plan review process currently being led by the regions, and engage the regions in supporting the transport agenda identified, both for the regional DaSTS process generally and for the recommended DaSTS studies in particular – emphasising the particular aspects of the transport plans which are essential to support and sustain the ambitious growth agenda for the sub-region.

- inform the LTP3 process led by the local transport authorities, identifying the connections with the sub-regional agenda, and supporting those aspects of the local transport plans which contribute to connectivity across the sub- region.

- provide leadership for the issues, identified above, which need concerted sub-region-wide action.

73 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix A – Current RFA priorities

Table A.1: RFA schemes in mksm sub-region

Region Funding Scheme Period EERA RFA1 Bedford Western Bypass EERA RFA1 A421 Bedford to M1 (J13) EERA RFA1 Luton-Dunstable Busway EERA RFA1 A5-M1 Link Road EERA RFA1 Luton Town Centre Scheme EMRA RFA1 A509 Isham Bypass EMRA RFA1 A43 Corby Link Road EMRA RFA1 A509 Isham to Wellingborough Improvement SEERA RFA1 A421 Milton Keynes to M1 SEERA RFA1 Central M.K Public Transport Access Improvements SEERA RFA2 Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Access Improvements (Milton Keynes)

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure A 1: RFA and HA schemes in mksm

A further scheme that has the support of the South east Region is the East/West Rail project described above. This was not included in RFA 2 as funding is being sought from other sources.

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix B - mksm travel, population & employment

Figure A 2: Where (non-mksm employed) workers are employed (2001)

Where mksm residents work

12000

10000

8000

6000 Series1

4000

2000

0

e n y y h n m r ty ns be e ire ld rd it o u hi h e o C tern ug t rwell s tf l o g e d lba om md a in h r A c a ons gh Rugb Oxford C ster Ci y C Hatfi W Chi Isl Dacor rtfo in St. W tevenage ndon City n rou Hillingdon e S o ingd Oxfordshire tm L lwy Harbor H e terbo Hunt W outh Wes S Pe North

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure A 3: Where (non-mksm resident) workers live (2001)

where mksm workers live

6000

5000

4000

3000 Series1

2000

1000

0

e ll y e e A e r e b b r g ld hi w U hire UA am e ug m h er corum R rough o es Barnet h a c oventry Chiltern ngh dons C D bo fordshi tevena C tland St. Albans Wy S u icester UA irmi Har Ox boroug R B nting r Le u e H rth Hertfordshire outh et Cambridg South Kesteven Welwyn Hatfi S P h No Sout

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure A 4: 2001 census journey to work within and from mksm

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure A 5: Sub-regional AADF flows

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure A 6: Sub-regional daily HGV flows

Station Name District or Unitary Authority Entries Total (2006-7)

Milton Keynes Central Milton Keynes 2,271,540 Luton Luton 1,644,886 Bedford Bedford 1,506,663 Harpenden St. Albans 1,392,856 Luton Airport Parkway Luton 1,176,174 Northampton Northampton 1,066,958 Leagrave Luton 757,217 Leighton Buzzard South Bedfordshire 689,077 Flitwick Mid Bedfordshire 593,236 Aylesbury Aylesbury Vale 544,299 Kettering Kettering 501,276 Wellingborough Wellingborough 436,707 Bletchley Milton Keynes 344,839 Biggleswade Mid Bedfordshire 341,517 Haddenham & Thame Parkway Aylesbury Vale 232,728 Sandy Mid Bedfordshire 209,486 Wendover Aylesbury Vale 201,030 Arlesey Mid Bedfordshire 180,449 Harlington Mid Bedfordshire 159,043 Stoke Mandeville Aylesbury Vale 155,437 Wolverton Milton Keynes 142,795 Long Buckby Daventry 71,328 Cheddington Aylesbury Vale 36,543 Woburn Sands Milton Keynes 19,119 Ridgmont Mid Bedfordshire 14,484 Bow Brickhill Milton Keynes 13,385 Lidlington Mid Bedfordshire 10,286 Stewartby Bedford 9,590 Fenny Stratford Milton Keynes 8,275 Millbrook (Bedfordshire) Mid Bedfordshire 6,723 Aspley Guise Mid Bedfordshire 5,173 Kempston Hardwick Bedford 2,179 Bedford St Johns Bedford 370 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix C – EERM data

Summary of EERM

EERM is a strategic model developed by Faber Maunsell/AECOM on behalf of the Highways Agency and BAA (British Airports Authority) Stansted – V1 was the model used to obtain data for this study and was used for the accessibility analysis.

EERM is actually a suite of model components incorporating:
the East of England Regional Highway Assignment Model (EERHAM);
the East of England Regional Demand Model (EERDM);
the East of England Regional Bus Assignment Model (EERBAM); and
generalised costs from the DfT’s PLANET rail model. In simple terms, the highway demand for a particular future year and land-use scenario is initially calculated from planning data, and assigned to an appropriate future year network in EERHAM, assuming the demand is not influenced by any changes in congestion or network provision. The highway network and speed/flow relationships from this assignment are then extracted and, together with generalised costs for the bus and rail networks, input to EERDM. Within EERDM, a revised level of demand for each mode appropriate to the network conditions is calculated, taking into account responses such as:
trip generation or suppression;
trip redistribution;
mode transfer; and
changes to the time of travel. In the case of highway demand, the revised trip matrices are then re-assigned to the EERHAM network, to give final forecasts of traffic flows and delays.

Applicability for mksm There was limited time available to obtain and interrogate a model in the mksm study, and the EERM was regarded as a reasonable input based on its geographic coverage and its recent validation. While some flows may be less accurate on the edges of the EERM study area, and urban flows are not validated, for the strategic purposes of understanding broad travel movements and accessibility, it was the best available tool. A number of schemes have been coded into the model for the 2021 scenario, and these are shown on the attached sheet.

A sector plan was developed by CB (see attached) and data on trips, time, distance, costs in the form of matrices were obtained. These were then analysed by CB.

EERM Planning assumptions

Population Employment CB_Sector 2003 2008 2021 2031 2003 2008 2021 2031 1 58,876 62,922 75,953 83,848 29,860 31,784 36,735 40,440 2 95,164 97,026 105,660 111,337 50,825 53,708 61,203 67,186 3 5,611 6,190 8,259 9,594 1,795 1,938 2,308 2,602 4 184,337 183,070 178,924 177,024 90,263 94,417 105,480 112,566 5 52,954 60,212 83,476 97,770 23,088 23,123 23,215 23,361 6 129,404 140,702 177,805 201,094 86,640 93,510 111,219 124,526 7 88,304 97,456 127,732 146,869 46,908 51,358 62,845 71,500 8 194,669 206,569 245,021 269,429 115,866 124,086 144,957 160,241 9 13,303 13,748 14,806 15,432 5,956 6,229 6,758 6,959 10 22,109 23,208 25,217 26,102 13,812 14,453 15,716 16,188 11 55,422 62,541 84,558 98,121 34,044 39,258 52,546 62,382 12 83,439 89,559 110,142 123,472 34,106 37,139 44,850 50,519 13 73,091 77,233 90,654 99,029 37,309 40,191 47,510 52,880 14 62,108 63,810 69,143 72,614 24,005 25,494 29,366 32,452 15 106,234 111,636 128,804 139,627 41,947 45,264 53,460 59,036 16 50,102 52,917 59,895 64,188 22,356 23,507 26,087 27,561 17 121,698 126,120 134,780 141,728 50,914 53,571 60,480 66,008 18 77,324 82,510 93,039 99,314 28,833 30,231 32,891 33,896 19 66,797 69,423 75,718 79,650 26,340 27,539 29,878 30,759 20 47,114 51,788 63,652 71,322 18,011 19,078 21,856 24,070 21 150,990 162,035 185,272 198,346 92,645 97,645 110,645 121,040 22 153,121 156,694 161,427 164,840 75,604 80,369 92,753 102,618 23 243,476 260,732 324,229 372,926 153,194 163,468 190,181 211,417 24 421,830 439,602 483,796 519,091 208,087 214,614 231,592 245,446 25 223,973 225,511 232,255 236,037 103,582 107,523 117,769 126,061 26 137,369 140,731 152,442 159,460 72,323 74,664 80,749 85,712 27 609,833 614,827 639,846 661,929 356,565 370,422 421,684 428,382 28 650,376 665,721 700,358 723,580 404,783 440,192 514,728 546,526 29 309,423 311,800 320,349 325,348 154,196 168,083 197,625 210,003 30 368,647 381,158 410,522 432,501 214,080 227,815 261,182 274,942 31 68,986 72,492 80,273 86,169 35,021 37,307 42,887 45,236 32 63,607 66,644 73,351 78,473 36,337 38,717 44,494 46,917 33 383,252 388,217 408,874 418,796 202,240 211,568 226,182 234,377 34 499,769 510,582 531,216 543,624 256,724 265,753 278,917 285,036 35 3,543,896 3,642,925 3,906,351 4,115,142 1,554,939 1,618,544 1,795,338 1,913,647 36 577,562 596,752 657,943 689,173 1,548,323 1,581,439 1,706,279 1,838,495 37 6,060,855 6,175,159 6,697,270 6,908,803 2,543,968 2,643,840 2,986,957 3,049,261 38 4,032,634 4,146,015 4,415,275 4,625,486 1,832,070 1,916,363 2,135,237 2,222,974 39 6,885,914 7,093,439 7,643,891 8,025,044 3,483,420 3,672,857 4,022,576 4,204,066 40 2,893,603 2,948,168 3,052,462 3,090,388 1,267,664 1,305,563 1,352,687 1,380,244 41 4,846,091 4,906,774 5,073,428 5,169,444 2,284,181 2,372,912 2,507,261 2,586,189 42 3,027,092 3,093,101 3,236,332 3,324,942 1,372,200 1,414,083 1,489,425 1,522,262 43 6,679,007 6,732,622 6,897,187 6,971,179 3,095,226 3,186,900 3,276,052 3,348,404 44 12,375,144 12,392,118 12,505,629 12,436,750 5,563,001 5,752,712 6,047,938 6,227,884 List of EERM forecasting schemes and opening years

Scheme Included in Scheme Opening Included in CORE Scheme Coded Opening Year INCREASED SUPPLY Scheme Coded Number 2015 2021 2030 Number Year 2015 2021 2030 1 A14 J7 (Kettering) Imp. Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 121 M25 Junction 30 Improvements Yes 2008/15 Y Y Y 2 A47 Thorney Bypass Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 48 A130 / A131 Chelmsford NE bypass Yes 2020 N Y Y 3 M25 J12-15 Widening Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 50 A1 Sandy/Beeston Bypass Yes 2030 N N Y 4 A10 Wadesmill to Collier's End Bypass Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 51 Luton Northern Bypass - Sect. 1 (M1-A6 Link) Yes 2030 N N Y 5 A11 Attleborough to Roudham Dualling Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 52 Luton Northern Bypass - Part 2 (A6-A505) Yes 2030 N N Y 6 A120 Stansted to Braintree Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 66 A12 M25 to A414 Chelmsford widening Yes 2030 N N Y 7 A14 Rookery Crossroads - Grade Separated Junction No By 2005 Y Y Y 68 A12 A414 Chelmsford to A120 Colchester widening Yes 2030 N N Y 8 A142 Fordham Bypass Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 71 Biggleswade Eastern Relief Road Yes 2030 N N Y 11 A4071 Rugby Western Relief Route No By 2005 Y Y Y 72 A120 Improvements A10 to Bishop's Stortford Yes 2030 N N Y 12 A4146 Stoke Hammond Northern Link Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 73 A6 Dualling Wilstead to A421 Yes 2030 N N Y 13 A428 West Haddon Bypass No By 2005 Y Y Y 75 M1 Junction 10A Improvements Yes 2030 N N Y 14 M11 J8 Slip Road Improvements Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 76 M11 Junctions 7 & 8 Yes 2030 N N Y 15 Norwich Cringleford Park & Ride Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 77 A1 Widening Brampton to Alconbury Yes 2030 N N Y 16 West Thurrock Regeneration Route Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 78 A14 Widening Kettering Bypass Yes 2030 N N Y 123 Ipswich: Martlesham Park & Ride Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 79 A510 Wellingborough Eastern Relief Road Yes 2030 N N Y 126 Norwich: Sprowston Park & Ride Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 80 B4034 Bletchley Link Road and Bridge No 2030 N N Y 122 M6 Toll (Birmingham Northern Relief Road) Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 81 A47 Acle Straight Yes 2030 N N Y 125 Norwich: Harford Park & Ride Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 82 A509 Isham to Wellingborough Improvement Yes 2030 N N Y 129 Bedford: Elstow Park & Ride Yes By 2005 Y Y Y 83 A120 Bishop's Stortford Bypass Dualling Yes 2030 N N Y 17 A421 Great Barford Bypass Yes 2006 YYY 84 A602 Ware to Stevenage Improvements Yes 2030 N N Y 18 A505 Baldock Bypass Yes 2006 YYY 85 A428 Widening (A1 to Caxton Gibbet) Yes 2030 N N Y 19 M11 J8 / A120 Slip Road Imp. Yes 2006 YYY 86 A43 Moulton Bypass Yes 2030 N N Y 20 M42 J3-7 ATM Yes 2006 YYY 87 A43 Moulton to Broughton Dualling Yes 2030 N N Y 21 South Lowestoft Relief Road and Related Measures Yes 2006 YYY 88 A10 West Winch Bypass Yes 2030 N N Y 124 Chelmsford: Sandon Park & Ride Yes 2006 YYY 89 A127 Improvements (M25-A1159) Yes 2030 N N Y 22 A11 Attleborough Bypass Dualling Yes 2007 YYY 90 A13 M25-A130 Improvements Yes 2030 N N Y 23 A1198 Papworth Everard Bypass Yes 2007 YYY 91 A14 Felixstowe to Cambridge Improvements Yes 2030 N N Y 24 A4146 Linslade and Stoke Hammond Bypass Yes 2007 YYY 92 A14 Junction Improvements West of A1 Yes 2030 N N Y 25 A428 Caxton Common to Hardwick Yes 2007 YYY 93 A140 Improvements Yes 2030 N N Y 26 A131 Dualling between A120 - A131 near Braintree (Great Notley) Yes 2007 YYY 94 A148 Rudhams Bypass No 2030 N N Y 34 A5134 Bedford Western Bypass Yes 2008 / 2010 Y Y Y 95 A414 Harlow Bypass Yes 2030 N N Y 27 A1 Peterborough to Blyth Grade Separated Junctions Yes 2008 YYY 96 A47 Completion of Dualling between A1, Norwich & Great Yarmouth Yes 2030 N N Y 28 A1081 Luton South Circular Improvements (East Luton Corridor) Yes 2008 YYY 97 A47 Middleton to East Winch Local Bypasses & Improvements Yes 2030 N N Y 29 A12/M25 Brook Street Interchange Yes 2008 YYY 98 A47/A1 Sutton Roundabout Improvements Yes 2030 N N Y 30 A14 Haughley New St, Stowmarket Yes 2008 YYY 99 North Lowestoft Access Project No 2030 N N Y 31 A507 Ridgmont Bypass and Woburn Link Yes 2008 YYY 100 Norwich Southern Bypass Junction Improvements Yes 2030 N N Y 32 M1 Dual 4 Junctions 6A-10 Yes 2008 YYY 101 A120 Dual 2 Hare Green to Harwich Yes 2030 N N Y 33 M25 J1B-3 Widening Yes 2008 YYY 102 A418 Leighton Buzzard to Aylesbury Dualling Yes 2030 N N Y 128 Cambridge: Cowley Road Park & Ride re-location Yes 2008 YYY 103 A45 Stanwick to Thrapston Dualling Yes 2030 N N Y 35 A1073 Spalding to Eye Yes 2009 YYY 36 Stowmarket B1115 Relief Road No 2009 YYY Note: Schemes 80, 94 and 99 are not included as EERM does not contain the level of network detail for these local schemes. 127 Colchester: Eight Ash Green Park & Ride Yes 2009 YYY 38 M1 J19 Improvements Yes 2010 YYY 39 M1 J25-28 Widening Yes 2010 YYY 37 A421 Dualling M1 to Bedford Yes 2011 YYY 40 A12/A134 New Junction Yes 2011 YYY 42 A43 Corby Link Road Yes 2011 YYY 43 A509 Isham Bypass Yes 2011 YYY 44 M1 J10-13 Widening Yes 2011 YYY 74 A12 Hatfield Peverel to Witham Link Road Yes 2011 YYY 46 M25 Widening to Dual 4 Junctions 27-30 Yes 2012 YYY 47 A13 Sadler's Farm Junction Improvements Yes 2012 YYY 49 M54 to M6 Birmingham Northern Relief Road Link Yes 2012 YYY 63 M25 Widening to Dual 4 Junctions 16-23 Yes 2012 YYY 45 M25 J5-7 Widening Yes 2014 YYY 53 Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5-M1 Link) Yes 2014 YYY 54 Dunstable Spine Road No 2014 YYY 55 A11 Fiveways to Thetford Yes 2015 YYY 56 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Yes 2015 YYY 57 A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling Yes 2015 YYY 58 M1 J21-25 Widening Yes 2015 YYY 59 M1 J28-30 Widening Yes 2015 YYY 60 M1 Junction 14 improvement Yes 2015 YYY 61 M1 to M69 Link Roads and Widening to M1 J21A Yes 2015 YYY 62 Norwich Northern Distributor Road Yes 2015 YYY 64 M25 Widening to Dual 4 Junctions 23-27 Yes 2015 YYY 65 A421 Milton Keynes - M1 Widening Yes 2016 N Y Y 67 A120 Dual 2 Braintree to A12 Yes 2018 N Y Y 41 A142 Ely Southern Bypass No 2020 N Y Y 69 M11 J9-14 Widening Yes 2020 N Y Y 70 M11 Dual 3 Lane Junctions 8-9 Yes 2024 N N Y

Note: Schemes 7, 11, 13, 36, 54 and 41 are not included as EERM does not contain the level of network detail for these local schemes. mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix D – Accessibility analysis

The accessibility analysis used the following methodology:
Data on population and employment per sector was obtained from EERM
Minor changes were made to population and employment in 2021 to reflect the nature of some urban extensions
Luton/Dunstable and MK UA/MK West sectors were combined using a weighted average
For highway accessibility, generalised time data was obtained from EERM and weighted according to AM, IP and PM flows
Accessibility was calculated using a formula summing the opportunities weighted by the costs of accessing these
An index was created of the results
For rail accessibility, available journey times and frequencies were used together with an assumed access time (for urban and rural areas) and generalised time from the PDFM was used to derive a total time

Legend mksm local authorities

mksm zones

EastEast Mids,Mids, YorkshireYorkshire etcetc PeterboroughPeterborough

EastEast AngliAngliaa MarketMarket HarboroughHarborough andand LeicesterLeicester EastEast AngliAngliaa

CorbyCorby

EastEast NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire KetteringKettering

Ruugbygby andand CoventrCoventryy

HuntingdonshireHuntingdonshire

DaventryDaventry -- RestRest ofof DaventryDaventry districtdistrictdistrict (outside(outside(outside DaventryDaventryDaventry town)town)town)

WellingboroughWellingborough DaventryDaventry

NorthamptonNorthampton BedfordBedford -- restrest ofof BedfordBedford UAUA gghamham andand WestWest MidlandsMidlands

BedfordBedford -- BedfordBedford towntown BedfordBedford -- BedfordBedford towntown CambCamb

MiltonMilton KeynesKeynes -- MiltonMilton KeynesKeynes towntown centrecentre andand restrest ofof MKMK UAUA yy TowcesterTowcester BedfordBedford -- MarstonMarston ValeVale /// TheTheThe WixamsWixamsWixams

SouthSouth NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire MidMid BedfordshireBedfordshire (outside(outside(outside Towcester)Towcester)Towcester) MiltonMilton KeynesKeynes -- MiltonMilton KeynesKeynes WestWest (W(W ofof A5)A5)

AylesburyAylesbury ValeVale LeightonLeighton LinsladeLinslade andand restrest ofof SouthSouth BedsBeds

DunstableDunstable andand HoughtonHoughton LutonLuton -- BicesterBicester RegisRegisRegis (South(South(South Beds)Beds)Beds) LutonLuton towntown

WWestest andand SWSW W AylesburyAylesbury -- AylesburyAylesbury towntown

HemelHemel etcetc OxfordOxford etcetc Hatfield,Hatfield, StSt AlbansAlbans etcetc HighHigh WycombeWycombe WatfordWatford etcetc GreaterGreater LondLondoo mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix E – Corridor flows

2021 am all demand 2-way - excluding intra-sector Top 40 (MK and Luton/Dunstable combined)

Change % change Zone 1 Zone 2 Flow in time in time Welwyn etc Mid Bedfordshire 2,706 2 8% High flows Leighton Linslade Luton town/Dunstable 2,412 2 23% Northampton Milton Keynes 2,400 4 13% Leighton Linslade Milton Keynes 2,357 3 15% Aylesbury Vale Milton Keynes 2,315 2 8% Daventry district Northampton 2,252 2 12% Welwyn etc Luton town/Dunstable 2,213 3 15% Mid Bedfordshire Milton Keynes 2,155 0 0% South Northants Northampton 2,075 2 14% Mid Bedfordshire Bedford town 1,895 1 3% Medium flows East Northants Northampton 1,846 6 16% Kettering Corby 1,789 1 19% Hatfield etc Luton town/Dunstable 1,788 4 21% Kettering Northampton 1,776 2 9% Wellingborough Northampton 1,734 3 15% East Northants Wellingborough 1,675 1 7% Hemel Luton town/Dunstable 1,635 6 30% Bedford - rest UA Bedford town 1,615 -1 -10% South Northants Milton Keynes 1,612 4 19% Aylesbury Vale Aylesbury town 1,567 0 2% Wellingborough Kettering 1,464 3 20% Milton Keynes Bedford town 1,462 -5 -15% Daventry district Kettering 1,352 2 12% Milton Keynes Luton town/Dunstable 1,285 4 17% East Northants Kettering 1,198 1 6% Mid Bedfordshire Luton town/Dunstable 1,134 1 7% Aylesbury Vale Leighton Linslade 1,099 1 10% High Wycombe etc Aylesbury town 1,055 4 13% rest Greater London Luton town/Dunstable 1,043 9 17% Huntingdon East Northants 1,012 2 7% Hemel Aylesbury town 1,007 4 24% High Wycombe etc Aylesbury Vale 976 3 7% Lower flows Rugby, Coventry Daventry district 903 0 1% Cambridge Mid Bedfordshire 875 1 4% Hemel Aylesbury Vale 852 3 10% West Midlands Milton Keynes 824 9 10% East Northants Daventry district 814 5 12% Huntingdon Mid Bedfordshire 781 2 9% Hemel Leighton Linslade 772 2 9% Bedford - rest UA Mid Bedfordshire 767 0 1% % Change in JT 2021-2008 2-way - excluding intra-sector Top 40 (MK and Luton/Dunstable combined) %Change Change Zone 1 Zone 2 in time in time Flow Hemel Luton town/Dunstable 30% 6 1,635 Wellingborough Corby 24% 6 500 Hemel Aylesbury town 24% 4 1,007 NW London Luton town/Dunstable 23% 8 678 Leighton Linslade Luton town/Dunstable 23% 2 2,412 Hatfield etc Luton town/Dunstable 21% 4 1,788 South Northants Luton town/Dunstable 21% 9 47 Wellingborough Kettering 20% 3 1,464 South Northants Milton Keynes 19% 4 1,612 Huntingdon Marston Vale etc 19% 6 33 Kettering Corby 19% 1 1,789 Peterborough Marston Vale etc 19% 9 6 Towcester Milton Keynes 19% 5 465 Daventry Milton Keynes 18% 8 149 Daventry district Towcester 18% 3 91 Central London Luton town/Dunstable 18% 9 166 Milton Keynes Luton town/Dunstable 17% 4 1,285 Daventry Luton town/Dunstable 17% 9 8 South Northants Daventry 17% 5 268 rest Greater London Luton town/Dunstable 17% 9 1,043 East Northants Northampton 16% 6 1,846 Leighton Linslade Daventry 15% 9 80 Wellingborough Northampton 15% 3 1,734 Leighton Linslade Milton Keynes 15% 3 2,357 Daventry district Wellingborough 15% 5 153 Daventry district Leighton Linslade 15% 7 50 NW London Aylesbury town 15% 6 171 Corby Milton Keynes 15% 8 45 Welwyn etc Luton town/Dunstable 15% 3 2,213 Peterborough Bedford town 14% 6 69 Welwyn etc Kettering 14% 10 46 Towcester Luton town/Dunstable 14% 6 7 Peterborough Mid Bedfordshire 14% 6 194 Hemel Daventry 14% 10 4 South Northants Northampton 14% 2 2,075 Daventry district Milton Keynes 14% 5 336 South Northants Daventry district 14% 3 467 NW London Daventry 13% 12 10 Cambridge Luton town/Dunstable 13% 8 171 Northampton Milton Keynes 13% 4 2,400 High/medium flows in 2021 and high % change in JT 2021-2008 - excluding intra-sector (MK and Luton/Dunstable combined)

Change % change Zone 1 Zone 2 Flow in time in time Leighton Linslade Luton town/Dunstable 2,412 2 23% Northampton Milton Keynes 2,400 4 13% Leighton Linslade Milton Keynes 2,357 3 15% Daventry district Northampton 2,252 2 12% Welwyn etc Luton town/Dunstable 2,213 3 15% South Northants Northampton 2,075 2 14% East Northants Northampton 1,846 6 16% Kettering Corby 1,789 1 19% Hatfield etc Luton town/Dunstable 1,788 4 21% Wellingborough Northampton 1,734 3 15% Hemel Luton town/Dunstable 1,635 6 30% South Northants Milton Keynes 1,612 4 19% Wellingborough Kettering 1,464 3 20% Daventry district Kettering 1,352 2 12% Milton Keynes Luton town/Dunstable 1,285 4 17% Aylesbury Vale Leighton Linslade 1,099 1 10% High Wycombe etc Aylesbury town 1,055 4 13% rest Greater London Luton town/Dunstable 1,043 9 17% Hemel Aylesbury town 1,007 4 24% mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix F –Response to DaSTS consultation

DaSTS - Delivering A Sustainable Transport System: Consultation on Planning for 2014 and Beyond

Response to Consultation by mksm Strategic Transport Board 22 February 2009

Introduction This consultation document, published by the Department for Transport as one of a suite of DaSTS documents, sets out a clear framework of goals, challenges and networks for progressing the planning process to 2014, and these are welcomed. In particular, in Chapter 6 it sets out the definition of national networks by mode within the Strategic National Corridors.

Question 9 asks whether respondents would like to see any significant changes to the strategic road infrastructure list, giving relevant supporting evidence.

In this paper, mksm wishes to • draw attention to the particular dependence that the mksm sub- region - with its ambitious growth agenda - has on the effective performance and service levels offered by the national networks north of London, and will want to suggest that the examination of medium/long term (ie post 2014) strategies to be led by the DfT for the M1, A14 and the two rail corridors WCML and MML should be the subject of joint studies involving the mksm sub- region. • argue that a critical element missing in the definition of the strategic road infrastructure is the concept of resilience and the need to relate this to capacity considerations on key corridors within the Strategic Network; • argue that on grounds both of geography and of strategic resilience/capacity the two stretches of trunk road forming what we call the ‘South Midlands Arc’ - the A43 and A45 linking the M40/A34 junction with the A14 at Thrapston in Northamptonshire - should be designated as part of the Strategic National Road Network.

1

mksm and the Growth Agenda Milton Keynes-South Midlands (mksm) is the sub-region designated by government for the largest single growth plan for homes (224,000 - equivalent to 400,000 population increase) and for jobs (192,000) in the UK. This represents a 25% growth in population and 27% in jobs in the sub-region.

As in any growth area, successful delivery of the targets depends on businesses making decisions to locate and invest, and on housing developers deciding to invest and create homes, in the designated areas. Of the many factors influencing these decisions and driving success in delivery, the ability for businesses to access labour, business centres and markets continues to be critical, as is the ability for housing developers to offer excellent access to jobs and good local services and facilities. The quality and reliability of service offered by the local and inter-urban transport networks is therefore critical to success. mksm and the national networks Prima facie, mksm sub-region would appear to offer excellent access for businesses and residents because it straddles key national networks - the M1, West Coast Main Line, Midland Main Line, and the A14 - and is bounded by the M40 and the Chiltern Line to the west, and the A1(M) and East Coast Main Line to the East, as well as the M25 to the south.

Not only does the presence of these national networks provide ready access to major business centres and to international gateways (ports and airports), but they also provide important links within the sub- region. Yet it is because they are so significant in the sub-region that the presence of these important national networks has a potentially two-edged effect.

The long term concern, frankly, is about the level of overcrowding and congestion on these national networks (road and rail) which not only would inhibit access to national and international destinations but may also compromise movements within the sub-region. The location of the mksm sub-region relatively near to London means that the key radial routes into London - road and rail - are reaching their maximum loadings as they pass through the sub-region. And in the review of options which DfT/HA will be carrying out for the long-term management of (for example) the M1 and A14 there may be strategies which control or limit access to the network. Such strategies could have serious impacts on mobility within/to/from the sub-region.

2

We would therefore welcome participation by the mksm team with the DfT and HA - and indeed DfT Rail - in developing and reviewing options for the national infrastructure affecting the mksm sub-region. We are minded to suggest in the DaSTS work programme requested by DfT by June 2009 that there should be joint studies involving key regional or sub-regional partners of critical strategic national corridors and the relationship between national network links and the surrounding regional and local road networks. This would be particularly important where there are forecast to be serious capacity and overcrowding issues.

The approach to national networks designation lacks the concept of resilience In support of this, we wish to point out that there is one critical concept missing from the definition of the Strategic National Networks - that is resilience. Much is made of the resilience of networks in the Eddington report, and indeed the DaSTS document itself, as well as the DfT’s general thinking, recognizes that what personal travelers and business travellers and shippers value most as our networks become more and more loaded is the reliability and predictability of journey times, rather than just average journey times.

We introduce the concept of resilience not just in a tactical sense, such as “where are the diversionary routes in the event of major incidents” (important though those are). We mean resilience in a strategic network capacity sense, that is the extent to which those strategic national corridors likely to be under particular ongoing pressure can readily offer more than one route on the national network - or force the choice of one if they don’t..

This concept matters greatly to mksm, because of our closeness to so much of the national road network, and the vulnerability of movement within and from the sub-region to the performance of the national networks; and it matters also because of the potential effect of diversions from the national networks at times of major incident or sustained congestion onto the sub-region’s own network.

Strategically, it matters to mksm because where longer distance business and commercial traffic on the national network choose - in the face of steadily mounting congestion - to find and use alternative routes, those ‘obvious’ alternative routes may impact on local and regional movemebt. Under these circumstances they too may need to be considered as part of the national network

3

This is the background for consideration of designating the A43/A45 corridor between M1 and A14 as part of the national network.

The case for designating the South Midlands Arc as part of the Strategic National Infrastructure The Annex shows the diagram of Strategic National Corridors taken from the DaSTS documents: we believe it is an appropriate and correct derivation of corridors and a good starting point for designating the specific networks which comprise them. Next to it is the strategic national road network which derives from the corridors, using criteria set out in the DaSTS document: “..(roads) need to be linked to a Strategic Destination and show evidence of substantial long-distance flows. They therefore needed to show consistently high levels of traffic, which meant being in the top 20% of GB trunk roads for either all traffic or HGV flows for the whole, or a subsequent part of, their length”

The geographical map of the road infrastructure fig 6.2 shows the A34 coming from the Southampton ports complex to the M40; it also shows the A14 from the Haven ports to the M1/M6 junction.

However, there is no obvious link from the Southampton ports to the M1 except via the M40/M42/M69 - which are themselves heavily loaded with local West Midlands and sub-regional traffic over most sections.

Equally there is no link from the A14 to the south or south west or the west except - again - via the M6/M42/M5. Traffic from the Haven ports for the south, south west and west would otherwise be obliged to use the A12 and M25 around London - again, heavily loaded and forecast to increase.

We conclude that looked at from the point of view of these two international gateways there is insufficient resilience offered by the national network - nor indeed a direct enough link for certain of their key strategic destinations.

The absence and presence of a “South Midlands Arc” in the geographical maps shown in the Annex is striking.

The obvious route of such an arc is the existing A43 • from M40 Jn 10, just up from Jn 9 with the A34 • across the A5 • to M1 Jn 15A through to the Northampton bypass then A45

4

• from the Northampton by-pass across the A6 to the A14 Jn 13 (Thrapston)

While we believe the principal justification is about strategic resilience and the geographical logic, we have also analysed the vehicle flows and HGV% along sections of the South Midlands Arc route, and compared them with the A34 north of Newbury (designated now as part of the national network) and M11 north of Stansted.

18% 000's vehicles/day vs. HGV% for successive 16% sections of road 14% A43 (M40 to M1) 12%

10% A45 (M1 to A14) HGV % 8% A43 (Nhampton ‐ A14)

6% M11 (S tans ted to A14) 4% A34 (M4 to M40) 2%

0% 0 102030405060708090 Total vehicles 000's per day

The chart demonstrates that the A43 links have flows in the 35k- 40k/day range and HGV% in the 11-15% range. The HGV% is on average higher than the A34 although the total flows are lower; comparison with M11 shows the latter has both higher flows and higher HGV%. For the A45 from Northampton to the A14 at Thrapston, some of the flows are higher but the HGV% is lower than the A43 link.

In passing, there seems to be no case for designating that part of the A43 from Northampton to A14 at Kettering, as an alternative to A45..

It should be noted that the existing nature of the road will have an impact on flows – so for example, the M11 with motorway standard alignment, carriageway widths and grade separated junctions is likely intrinsically to attract higher flows, compared with the A43 north of the M40 which - while of relatively high standard - still has a number of at- grade junctions. Again, in comparison, the A34 south of the M40 has no at-grade junctions.

5

This chart shows the vehicle flows and absolute HGV flows for the same selection of roads and sections.

16 000's total vehicles/day vs. HGV 000's/day for successive sections of road 14 15%

12 A43 (M40 to M1) 10 10% A45 (M1 to A14) HGV 000's8 per day A43 (Nhampton ‐ A14) 6

M11 (S tans ted to A14) 4

2 A34 (M4 to M40)

0 10% 0 102030405060708090100 Total vehicles 000's per day

Conclusion We believe there is a case for national designation for these two sections, based on the need for strategic resilience, looking at the Strategic Road Network as a whole. This case is supported by data which suggests that while their volumes are lower than comparable nearby links on the strategic network, their HGV% indicate a strategic economic importance.

A43 – M40 J10 to M1 J15A

A45 – M1 J15A/Northampton to A14 J13

6 DaSTS Consultation - Annex Response by mksm Strategic Transport Board

With South Midlands Arc

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix G – Proposal for M1 Corridor Studies

16096-01-1 mksm – Integrated Transport Strategy

Note by Colin Buchanan on proposals for a joint study mksm/Highways Agency on the M1 Corridor J6-J19

12 May 2009

Introduction The mksm integrated transport strategy – currently being developed with the mksm partners by Colin Buchanan – will inter alia inform the response by the mksm partnership and by the three regions to the opportunities for further transport studies indicated by DfT in their DaSTS Draft guidance to regions.

DfT have asked that regions’ agreed priorities for a programme of such studies should be submitted by the end of June; two regions at least are already known (at the time of writing) to be well advanced in their consideration of candidate studies, so the opportunity for the mksm partnership to propose studies to one or more region is already becoming limited. However, DfT have already indicated that in their own work on national programmes they are willing to consider the involvement of regional stakeholders where it seems appropriate, given the subject matter.

The work by Colin Buchanan so far on the mksm integrated transport strategy suggests there may be some major issues in the Highways Agency’s long term management of capacity on the M1 (between M25 and M6) which could deeply affect the access to and utilization of the M1 by the towns and communities adjacent to it, and their mobility within and to/from the sub-region; and it could divert shorter distance traffic to parallel roads, including A5, A43, A508, A4146, A505, A1081 and A5183, with consequential impacts. For the purpose of this paper and the proposed studies, we define the M1 Corridor as the M1 together with the network of closely parallel roads between J6 and J19.

CB believes that there is a strong case for a collaborative joint study between the HA and the affected local authorities to examine these issues comprehensively, along what we define as the M1 Corridor; at working level HA have indicated a willingness to engage in this way. It is for consideration how – if agreed – such a joint study should be best defined, progressed and advocated.

The purpose this note is to present the evidence of concern about the M1, the case for a joint study with the HA, its possible scope, and recommendations as to how proposals for a study of the M1 Corridor should be progressed.

1

The M1 The M1 between J6a (M25) and J19 (M6-A14) is one of Britain’s most heavily loaded stretches of motorway. The J6a to J10 stretch has recently been widened to dual 4-lane (D4), and it was announced in January 2009 that Hard Shoulder Running (HSR) with ‘managed motorway’ techniques will be brought in for J10 – J13 instead of the previously planned straightforward widening to D4.

Nevertheless, M1 will still be under considerable pressure in the future; this map extracted from the DfT’s recent document1 shows that (even with these two improvements) more than half this southern section of the M1 will have peak period average speeds of less than 50 mph; this indicates heavy traffic congestion, unstable running conditions and unpredictable journey times.

J19

M1

J6A

Not provided for in this map is the longer tem intention over the next 10-15 years to roll out HSR and ‘managed motorway’ for the remaining stretch from J13 to J19.

The managed motorway

1 Britain’s Transport Infrastructure: Motorways and Trunk Roads; DfT January 2009

2 The ‘managed motorway’ concept occupies a central part of DfT’s and HA’s plans to increase capacity by facilitating HSR, and by managing speeds to achieve smoother flows, greater capacity, and fewer accidents. This is much in line with the Eddington priorities, and the value of addressing journey time unpredictability. The DfT’s document says little, however, about the wider range of techniques which we understand are being actively considered not only to deliver these objectives but to favour longer distance traffic over shorter distance traffic.

As pressure on the motorway network increase, and it is known that some of the most congested parts of the network are caused by significant amounts of traffic ‘hopping’ only one or two junctions, it is natural for the HA to consider what measures could be taken to discourage such shorter distance traffic. This would benefit longer distance traffic for whom the motorway network was and is intended in the first place.

Ramp metering ‘Ramp metering’ is already in use at some 30 locations on the motorway network, including some sites on the M1. This concept – using traffic signals to control the movement of vehicles from the slip road onto the motorway itself – is used to reduce the disruption of joining traffic and to maintain smooth running conditions for motorway traffic (travel times have benefitted by an average 9%). Joining vehicles usually experience some small delays.

While this does not itself act as much disincentive to joining traffic, a more aggressive version of ramp metering is also being considered. Joining traffic would be held on the slip road not just to make the merge smoother but for much longer periods of time (up to 5 minutes or more?) as a disincentive to joining the motorway at all. The idea is that the resulting smoother and faster flows on the motorway itself will benefit longer distance traffic more than shorter distance traffic; the initial time penalty is compensated only on longer journeys.

There would be opportunities to apply this regime selectively – for example buses or High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) could bypass the ‘gate’. There are currently no examples in the UK of this more aggressive form of ramp metering; there could be issues of enforcement and public acceptability.

The M1 and mksm mksm, one of the UK’s most successful growth areas, sits astride the M1 and A14, with its three largest towns Milton Keynes, Luton/Dunstable and Northampton immediately adjacent to the M1 itself. Their very accessibility to the national motorway network as well as two principal rail corridors has helped ensure their successful growth and development. Each town has a substantial amount of ‘regional’ employment, requiring good access to the nation’s strategic networks, major cities and international gateways, and generates significant amounts of ‘business transport’ – HGVs, light vans and business travel by car and rail.

3

It is this platform of growth that led the government to designate the Milton Keynes/South Midlands area (mksm) as an area of further major growth under the Sustainable Communities Plan. Nearly half a million population growth and some 200,000 jobs are planned for the sub-region (see map in Annex 1) by 2021, and good progress is already being made against those targets.

Analysis of travel demand, together with the forecasts for 2021 embodying these growth assumptions, shows substantial mksm originating/destinating movements along the M1 corridor, both moving within the mksm sub-region and movements between the sub-region and the outside world.

The significance of the movements along the M1 itself are indicated as follows: % of interurban journeys wholly within mksm which use M1 10% % of interurban journeys between mksm and ‘near’ destinations just outside the sub-region, which use M1 8% % of interurban journeys between mksm and ‘further’ destinations beyond the sub-region, which use M1 2 15%

For the major towns directly served by M1, their dependence is higher % of all interurban journeys to/from Northampton which use M1 17% % of all interurban journeys to/from Milton Keynes which use M1 26% % of all interurban journeys to/from Luton/Dunstable using M1 18%

The significance of mksm journeys on the critical section of M1 running through the sub-region - J10 to J16 - is illustrated by estimating the vehicle miles of mksm-originating/destinating journeys as a percentage of all vehicle-kms along this section of M1 % of all vehicle-kms on M1 J10-J16 which are on inter-urban journeys wholly within mksm sub-region 6% % of all vehicle-kms on M1 J10-J16 which are on journeys between mksm sub-region and places outside 3 6%

It is important to note that of these mksm journeys taking place on the M1, about one third are business-related journeys – HGV’s, light vans and individuals travelling on business. This reflects the different pattern of journey purposes for journeys of different length within the sub-region (see Annex 2). When journeys to work are added as well, the economically significant journeys made to/from/within mksm on the M1 accounts for about 75% of all mksm journeys which use the M1.

These are the journeys which would be most affected by managed motorway techniques such as aggressive ramp metering. Were this to be implemented with a 5 minute delay on entry ramps, the disbenefit to mksm traffic joining

2 Data extracted from East of England Regional Model (EERM) - all journey purposes, all day 3 EERM and DfT data on AADF on motorways by section

4 the M1 between J10 and J16 could be as much as £20m per annum4 in additional journey time. If it is argued that those travelling longer distances will recoup this time loss elsewhere on their M1 journey (but the shorter distance traffic will not), then the net cost to the mksm-related traffic could be some £10m per annum. This assumes no diversion to parallel roads, or other behaviour change.

Our conclusion is that use of the M1 is particularly significant for movement to, from and within mksm, and especially so for the major towns alongside it; and measures adopted to favour longer distance traffic on M1 at the expense of shorter distance traffic may well have an impact on the mobility and potentially the attractiveness and competitiveness of these towns as economically thriving locations.

Implications for parallel roads within the M1 Corridor The disincentive of aggressive ramp metering on the M1 is likely to divert traffic to alternative routes parallel to the M1 between J6 and J19. These include the A5 along the length of this corridor; A43, A508, A4146, A505, A5183 and A1081. Such diversion would confer disbenefits on other road users and on the communities on these other roads, as well as on the diverted travellers themselves. The extent of diversion caused by such strategies will depend on the O-D pattern of the journeys concerned, and can really only be analysed through modelling of the networks.

The HA are very conscious of the possible consequences of such diverted traffic, and have indicated their wish to take them into account in any evaluation of such policies.

The need for joint studies The particular circumstances of the mksm sub-region are • The ambitious growth agenda, including in the three towns immediately adjacent to the M1 • The significant use of the M1 Corridor for sub-regional and inter-regional journeys and the dependence of the economies of these towns on it • The preponderance of business-related journeys to and from these towns Alongside this are the particular challenges of the M1 • Forecasts of seriously deteriorating service levels within 15 years due to traffic pressure and overcrowding • Difficulties of increasing capacity • Its critical role for longer distance traffic in the economic geography of Britain And the emergence of ‘managed motorway’ strategies by government and HA begins to present some options for addressing these challenges: all this suggests the need for a strategic consideration of the most appropriate balance of measures and priorities.

4 using values of time as used in EERM, applied by journey purpose

5

This should recognize the role of the motorway network in providing for longer distance traffic, as well as the critical nature of the growth agenda shared by these three towns and their dependence on the M1 corridor for mobility, access to each other and to the outside world to enable their growth to be achieved.

And it should be ‘owned’ by the Highways Agency and by the mksm partnership and the relevant local authorities.

Scope of studies A possible scope of such studies could be • To forecast the growth of traffic and deterioration of service levels on the M1 between J6a and J19, and to identify the amount, location and characteristics of shorter distance traffic on the motorway on this section, including the origins and destinations • To identify the significance of this traffic in the total movements to, from and within the major towns and economic activity areas in mksm • To forecast the traffic levels and service level effects on the parallel local and sub-regional road networks • To develop, characterise and test some management options for the motorway junctions (including ramp metering), as well as potential measures to mitigate the effect on adjacent roads and local networks, • to forecast the effects of such measures on route choice behaviour, and network loadings on the parallel networks • for different management options, to estimate the overall time advantages for through motorway traffic, and the time and cost penalties of the delays imposed on, and the effects of diverting local/sub-regional traffic; • to consider the disincentive effects for the prospective businesses, investors and developers who are the instruments of delivering the growth agenda for these towns • to consider and recommend an overall strategic approach for the M1 and the adjacent road networks, and where appropriate a basket of measures which could be used and the best circumstances for doing so.

Taking it forward The choice is to engage each of the three regions (for they are potentially all affected, albeit on their edges!) in supporting this proposal for studies.

Or to advocate to the DfT and to the HA that these studies – which are driven in the first place by the characteristics of a significant part of the national motorway network – should be led by DfT/HA, with the deep engagement of the relevant mskm partners; these could be Northamptonshire County Council, Milton Keynes Council, Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire, Luton Council, and Hertfordshire CC should be invited to join as well. While the three regions would not, by the latter approach, be in a lead sponsor role, their support should be invited and secured.

6 It may be that the latter approach has a better chance of success in getting these studies going.

7 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix H – Proposal for Northampton Arc Study

mksm Integrated Transport Strategy

Note by Colin Buchanan on proposals for studies of the ‘Northampton Arc’

8 June 2009

Introduction Colin Buchanan have been retained to prepare the mksm Integrated Transport Strategy, and the main report, having been considered in its final draft stage, is almost complete. The primary concern of the study is the successful delivery of the mksm growth agenda and the role of transport in enabling that. The basic assumption is that businesses will only come and invest in growth and new economic activity if their accessibility to labour, to business centres and to freight nodes and gateways is good enough; and that housing developers need to know there is good accessibility to jobs and other services to ensure balanced and successful housing development.

The focus of the study has been the interurban movement within the sub- region and to and from the rest of the country.

The approach has therefore included the following questions • How accessible are the different employment growth areas to labour, business centres and markets? • How accessible are the different housing growth areas to jobs? • How are the accessibility ‘indices’ for different areas within mksm influenced by the performance of the various transport networks they depend on, and how will they perform in the future? • In which corridors are there particular pressures and costs due to congestion and service levels? • What network issues - road and rail - therefore require further consideration to sustain accessibility, support the growth agenda, and ensure that existing population and economic activity is not disadvantaged by all the growth coming along? • What transport interventions will be most beneficial in addressing these issues, having regard to the five DaSTS goals?

During the course of the study, a number of issues have come together for one particular corridor within the mksm sub-region - what we call the ‘Northampton Arc’. This is the corridor centred on Northampton - stretching west across the M1 on A45 to Daventry and south west on A43 to Towcester; and to the north

1

east along the A45 to Wellingborough, Rushden and Thrapston on A14, and along A43 and A509 to Kettering and Corby. This is shown on the map below.

Fig 1 Northampton Arc and its context in the national and regional networks

In our view, based on the analysis which follows, the facts and forecasts about this corridor justify a holistic and comprehensive consideration of issues, challenges and options, and merits consideration for one of the regional DaSTS studies for which DfT is inviting proposals from regions this month.

The characteristics of the Northampton Arc are, briefly, • Major growth in the towns along the arc (125,000 population and 100,000 jobs by 2026) - putting pressure on current and planned infrastructure, especially around Northampton • Employment concentration in Northampton (145,000 total in 2021) - in- commuting will increase • Rail is radial and has no little contribution to make to this issue • Interurban express bus (for example X4) is visible and not infrequent but slow and affected by congestion • A45/43 corridor already under considerable pressure (nearly 100,000 vehs/day in 2007/8 on certain sections – similar to M1 traffic levels), handling conflicts of local, regional and national traffic movement which also cause significant delays at key junctions

2

• Emergency growth proposals, particularly for Northampton, but also for the other towns, involved significant urban expansion to 2026 • Limited transport investment planned for next plan period • Significant deterioration in travel times forecast over the period to 2021 as demand continues to grow

There is a risk that the failure to address the deteriorating service level on the transport networks will impact on existing communities, businesses and competitiveness and will also inhibit the planned growth, or at least stretch the timescale for its successful delivery

The growth agenda and accessibility Population growth of more than 170,000 is forecast in Northampton and the five other towns and their hinterlands from 2009 to 2026, with a further 60,000 overall in the subsequent period to 2031.

The accessibility analysis for Northampton shows that - in spite of a reasonable ‘regional’ rail service provided by London Midland Trains on the West Coast Main Line, and some railfreight facilities - accessibility for new businesses to labour, business centres and freight nodes will be dominated by road-based modes of transport. A substantial amount of in-commuting will be expected, due to the significant number of ‘regional’ jobs over and above those needed to service the local population. Much of this will reinforce existing flows, from the rural hinterland, and from Wellingborough, Kettering and Daventry.

Accessibility to jobs for the new homes to be built in Northampton will be largely within the town, depending on road-based modes (car and bus), with some out-commuting to Milton Keynes.

The Core Spatial Strategy growth options for West Northamptonshire are now emerging, and the growth options may not yet have been captured in the existing EERM strategic model. The Arc study will need to review and consider this.

A45 between M1 J15 to A14 at Thrapston This corridor dominates the Arc. It handles significant national, regional and local movements, especially around Northampton itself. In the main study we have not analysed traffic and travel patterns on a link basis, as we estimated travel demand at a corridor level, not assigned to specific networks.

This map shows from DfT sources the current average daily flows on different sections of the corridor (2007 and 2008 data). The A45 round Northampton already reaches nearly 100,000 vehs/day, which is as much as the busiest part of the M1. Elsewhere traffic levels vary between 20,000 vehs/day east of Higham Ferrers and up to 60,000+ vehs/day near Northampton . This could suggest, very broadly, that national movements on the Arc account for up to 20,000 vehicles per day, regional movement between the towns on the Arc

3

and Northampton itself between 20,000 and 40,000, and local movements on A45 around Northampton a further 30,000-40,000 per day.

Fig 2 The Northampton Arc with current traffic flows

The national network perspective: this corridor links the A14 with the M1 and then on to M40, cutting off the corner where A14 meets M1 and M6 (M1 J19). It provides an obvious alternative route to the M25 for freight vehicles from the Haven Ports to the M4 corridor, the south coast and the West Country. This situation is now exacerbated by the adoption of a design for the new J19 on M1, whereby south<>east movements cannot be made; with access to local roads removed as well by the new design, vehicles can no longer make that movement ‘unofficially’ (see Annex1). On CB’s advice, mksm made representations to the DfT as part of the formal consultation on the DaSTS document to designate this A43/A45 link as part of the Strategic National Network; this was not accepted.

Regionally: this corridor serves to link Northampton with the four towns mentioned; Daventry, Wellingborough and Kettering are particularly dependent on it in economic terms, Corby less so.

Locally: local traffic lifts A45 volumes to nearly 100,000 vehicles a day between the London Road and Lumbertubs interchanges. While through traffic is well catered for by grade separated interchanges (which itself helps to

4

attract the longer distance traffic) certain key junctions give rise to substantial delays for traffic into and out of Northampton.

Generally, movement along the corridor as a whole is determined in part by the speed and capacity limits of single carriageway roads, by dual carriageway roads with adequate capacity, and by some dual carriageway roads heavily loaded with particular problems at junctions.

Committed transport interventions So far as RFA2 is concerned, the approved list included Isham Bypass (A509) and the Corby Link Road, both in North Northants. RFA2 considered a range of other proposals around Northampton and linking with Wellingborough and Kettering, but did not prioritise any other schemes in Northamptonshire for this planning period.

CIF funds were applied for - and recently approved - for a Northampton- Wellingborough BRT package comprising a number of junction improvements offering priority for buses (and in one case for HOV) approaching and within Northampton. This recognizes that junctions are currently the most significant source and nature of delays facing buses - particularly the interurban express buses.

For national networks within the sub-region, DfT announced earlier this year that there would be Hard Shoulder Running (HSR) on the M1 between J10 and J13 with associated Motorway Management techniques (in place of a previously planned D4 widening); with the longer term possibility of HSR also from J13 to J19; a comprehensive traffic management strategy for the whole of the A14; and widening of the A14 around Kettering.

Effects of growth on network service level Although not all these interventions are reflected in the modelled demand and cost estimates, the following analysis of worsening journey times on a zone- zone basis can be taken as strongly indicative of the impact of growth on the network.

Table 1 Interzonal flows and the increase in journey times 2008-2021 Increase in average journey Between* and* AADT both directions times 2008-2021 Daventry district Northampton 19,247 27% Kettering Corby 19,601 22% Kettering Northampton 17,602 15% Wellingborough Kettering 13,164 14% Daventry district Wellingborough 871 14% Wellingborough Northampton 12,659 13% Wellingborough Daventry 259 13% South Northants Daventry district 4,416 12% Wellingborough Corby 4,058 11% Daventry Northampton 5,404 10% Daventry district Daventry 4,690 9%

5

Northampton Milton Keynes 18,091 9% Corby Northampton 1,837 9% South Northants Northampton 18,729 8% South Northants Daventry 1,698 6% East Northants Wellingborough 15,539 6% East Northants Daventry 288 6% Northampton Bedford town 3,255 4%

* zones as defined in CB’s mksm Integrated Transport Strategy Report Source: CB analysis of EERM outputs

Conclusion so far There has long been recognition of the challenges facing this corridor - the impact of the high traffic volumes, the pressures of new growth in homes and jobs, and the challenge of conceiving and developing modal shift or demand management solutions which could contribute to improving network levels of service as well as wider goals.

A small number of modest measures already mentioned and approved - the Isham Bypass, the Corby Link Road, and the Northampton-Wellingborough BRT package - will bring locally important and valuable improvements, but they have a small impact on the Arc as a whole.

Reviewing various county and regional planning documents over the last decade, we have not yet found any overall strategic review of the transport networks supporting these key Northamptonshire towns, nor of what interventions or practical policy changes might be needed to successfully address these challenges. Northamptonshire County Council’s Transport Strategy for Growth (Consultation documents 2007) rightly focused on policies to support sustainable growth within the relevant towns, but to our knowledge did not develop a deliverable set of plans and projects to address the interurban movement between the towns which is - among other things - so critical for business growth and success (as our main report demonstrates).

In 2004 the Highways Agency published a Route Management Strategy for the A43/A45 corridor between M40-M1-A14, and consulted extensively on it. However, we understand the Route Management Strategy approach has now been superceded within the Highways Agency.

The A43/A45 trunk road corridor – leading and funding studies This particular route of the A43/A45 (Towcester-Northampton-Wellingborough- Rushden-Thrapston) is a Highways Agency trunk road, but not part of the Strategic National Network. While the HA manage and maintain these roads, and would be able to spend up to £5m per scheme on modest refurbishments and minor improvements, any plans for major development or improvement must be championed and led within the regional process of transport planning and funding, not by the DfT.

6

The preliminary consideration of problems on this corridor, and any ‘optioneering’ of alternative solutions, requires planning and development resources which may or may not be available from the HA; at the same time, counties and unitaries may not necessary feel such resources should be found by them or from within the RFA process. And the cost of any significant investment on this corridor is likely to overwhelm the typical annual RFA provision.

These circumstances lead us to recommend strongly that any serious study of this corridor to be funded through the DaSTS regional studies fund.

Public transport solutions A critical element in the overall mksm transport strategy is the developing vision for what interurban express bus services can do to improve accessibility between the towns in the mksm sub-region. This would be based on developing bold measures and changes which significantly shift the relative time advantage of a high quality express bus service vs travel by car; it would also be important to address some of the institutional and commercial factors which may inhibit improving facilities and features of interurban express bus to make them significantly more attractive to passengers.

We suggest that such radical opportunities to improve the interurban express bus services in the Northampton Arc should be considered in the wider studies of the corridor. For example, the Coachway plan at High Wycombe on M40 J4 is a good example of an imaginative park and ride scheme serving both local buses and interurban express services.

We are pleased to note that Northamptonshire CC has indicated they are already now engaged in initial work for an integrated rapid transport system. This will seek to transform connectivity within the Northampton Arc as part of a ‘Big Idea’ package of strategic transformational projects. Although it is too early for any outcomes from this work, this project clearly seeks to address similar challenges to those identified in the mksm transport strategy, and should be a most valuable input to the studies we are now recommending.

Proposed study of the A43/A45 Corridor The scope of a study to be proposed to DfT as part of the regional DaSTS studies could be • To model and forecast the growth of traffic and the effect on network service levels (including journey time predictability) on the different elements of the corridor as defined in Fig 2 above, ie o The A45 between Daventry and M1 J16 together with the A43 between Towcester and M1 J15A o The A45 between M1 J15 and J15A and A14 at Thrapston, together with the A43 between Lumbertubs Interchange and Corby, and A509 between Wellingborough and Kettering

7

o having particular regard for the movements on and off the corridor at key junctions, and the delays experienced on the busier parts of A45; The demand forecasting should be properly multi-modal, encompassing travel by interurban express bus as well as rail. • Shorter term action: for the critical sections of the A45 around Northampton, to generate, consider and evaluate a range of traffic management and minor schemes, including junction improvements, speed management, advance driver information, together with bus priority and other policy measures so as to o Improve reliability of journey times, both of journeys along the corridor as well as into and out of Northampton, by measures which ‘lock in’ individual scheme benefits o Achieving modal shift to interurban express bus along the corridor, and to local buses (and other modes) for journeys from the immediate Northampton hinterland and within the town larly Achieving a more sustainable balance of modes and more efficient use of the road network through techniques to ‘lock in’ benefits • To consider the implications for bus movement and facilities within Northampton • Longer term action: o To consider (with the bus operators as appropriate) the opportunities for radical measures to improve interurban express bus services, relating to the operating environment, the nature of the services themselves, and improved marketing, information, interchange, ticketing etc, as a BRT-style service, also to include strategic park and ride; the new strategic studies into a ‘rapid transport system’ by Northants CC will be a critical input into this. o To review and consider the case for major road scheme improvements on the A43/A45 corridor, including (but not exclusively) those previously considered in the RFA2 process. • To consider from all of this the implications for future growth (including the preferred growth strategy for West Northamptonshire and its release) • To identify the potential contribution of such measures to the five DaSTS goals • To identify the potential contribution of such measures to place making and local authorities as attained in the Northamptonshire Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Northamptonshire CC consider that the Arc study should also aim to gain the various Transport models or that there is one Northamptonshire model – this work has already commenced.

A study with these objectives will be in line with the conclusions and strategy emerging from the mksm Transport Strategy report, in that it is informed by an understanding of the importance of transport accessibility to growth, it focuses on a key corridor which is known to be under pressure already and

8

where network service level is expected to deteriorate, and the options for addressing it will involve a radical and transformative view of what contribution can be made by interurban express buses operating on ‘BRT’ lines.

Taking this forward The principal stakeholders in such a study are Northamptonshire County Council and the Highways Agency, together with East Midlands Region who overview regional priorities and will drive the regional DaSTS process. It seems to us that the proposed study of this corridor must fully engage all three parties, with the region coordinating what would be a DaSTS Regional Study.

Appendix 1

Design adopted by Highways Agency for M1 Junction 19, 2009

Note the lack of south<>east movement at the junction;

Note also the removal of access to local roads which have up to now offered ‘unofficial’ access via the A5 for making the movement between A14 East and M1 South, with undesirable impacts on local communities.

9

The effect of this junction design is to force traffic moving from A14 East to M1 South and vice versa to use the A45 between Thrapston A14 and M1 J15 or J15A

10 mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Appendix I - Inter-urban bus networks

Inter-urban bus accounts for a small proportion of all non-local travel originating or destinating (or both) in the mksm sub-region. The current network is shown below

Figure A 7: Current inter-urban bus services

The extensive network of inter-urban, mostly limited-stop, bus services linking the towns to each other and to key destinations outside is provided largely by Stagecoach based in Northampton and Arriva based in Luton; National Express provides links to Gatwick and Stansted Airports; and a local independent operator Centrebus has services between Luton/Dunstable and towns to the east, south and south-west.

The most common frequency is hourly, with half-hourly services becoming more prevalent between the major towns. The higher frequencies on the M1 Corridor reflect the strength of demand as well as the competitive speeds offered by the motorway. We have already seen that there is a strong corridor demand on the Daventry /Northampton /Wellingborough /Kettering corridor, due largely to the prominence of Northampton and the high proportion of ‘regional’ employment there, which manifests as high demand for inter-urban express bus as well as high and congested levels of road traffic. We understand that the half-hourly X1 Corby-Kettering Station service is likely to be removed when the full East Midlands train service is introduced into Corby.

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

Given the commercial nature and operational limitations of inter-urban express bus, the network already provides a reasonable degree of east-west connectivity to compensate for the railways north- west/south-east orientation. The most striking example is the X5 Oxford-Cambridge service via Milton Keynes and Bedford, half-hourly for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Combining frequency with the range of destinations available, there is good connectivity offered in Bedford, Northampton, Wellingborough, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Luton, although journey times continue to be relatively slow.

Coherence and a ‘common’ product? Although the diagram gives the appearance of a coherent network, there is considerable variation between operators (and within their operations) in the branding and marketing of the services, in the information available, the designation of services at stops, and in the standards and facilities of vehicles.

Some of this variation reflects the steady but progressive implementation of initiatives in response to market demand and growth – such as new higher standard vehicles, and improved quality of information. Some reflects the different relationships that operators have with different local authorities, and the willingness and resources they have to respond to specific initiatives such as information provision and bus stop facilities. While ‘coherence’ and co-ordination are desirable policy objectives, at the end of the day all these services are run to commercial criteria with decisions made by the individual operators. The inter-urban express bus ‘business model’ does not make it easy for operators to justify investment in facilities or other initiatives which do not have a relatively short-run commercial return, nor for local authorities to invest significantly – even where public value is evident – where there is no contractual commitment or guarantee that services will be sustained or developed so that the realisation of public value is assured.

That said, we were keen to explore with the two main operators Stagecoach and Arriva whether there were issues which could usefully be explored at a sub-regional level, where a ‘whole is more than the sum of the parts’ potential could deliver worthwhile changes and improvements across the network. We were pleased to receive an informed, positive and pro-active response from both companies.

Areas for sub-region-wide improvement - service reliability The reliability and predictability of bus services are vulnerable to traffic conditions and congestion along their routes, especially within the towns served. The nature of inter-urban services makes them particularly vulnerable because conditions in any one of the towns served can affect passengers far away on a long route. And the delays suffered by passengers on half-hourly and hourly services will be greater than on more frequent local services. It was therefore no surprise that the most important issue raised (separately) by each operator was the journey time variability, due to traffic congestion and other aspects of town operation.

It is difficult for a local authority to justify priority measures for inter-urban express buses in isolation, and the best potential lies where local bus services will benefit as well. While there is currently no appetite among the local authorities for radical bus priority measures which would disadvantage other road users, it is clear there is a range of measures which can and are being adopted which yield individually modest but cumulatively well worthwhile improvements.

Such measures would include
Parking enforcement along critical corridors. Practice varies between different local authorities, both as to the designation of parking restrictions and the degree to which they are enforced. We suggest a coordinated mksm-wide review for all the towns, carried out by each local authority against a common template, of

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

parking restrictions and their enforcement practices. Such a review, with which we believe the bus operators would cooperate, should focus on the main radial roads and the key roads used by buses around the town centre, analysing at the same time any problems of bus running times, and considering opportunities to address specific problems.
Traffic signal prioritisation with transponders. Providing practical priority for buses at traffic signals, such as extending green time, is a well established technique which in the right locations can deliver significant benefits, requiring investment both in bus transponders and in the signal control system. We understand that Stagecoach and Arriva inter-urban express buses are equipped; different local authorities are at different stages of considering or implementing packages, with Aylesbury, Luton, Bedford and Milton Keynes all mentioned. We believe that such a programme delivered across the sub-region would deliver cumulative benefits for inter-urban services as well as helping the larger number of local buses where equipped.
Minor geometry and road marking improvements. Small scale though this is, both operators believe there is scope in a number of places for minor works and/or road marking changes to enable buses leaving bus stops to get back into the traffic flow more easily. We understand that Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Luton plan to enter into Bus Punctuality Improvement Partnerships with Arriva to cover many of these sorts of issues; such devices provide a good framework for giving visibility, organising funding and providing a degree of accountability for delivery; while not mentioned by Stagecoach we have no reason to believe that a similar approach would not be welcomed for Bedford and the Northamptonshire towns.

We cannot emphasise sufficiently the value of carrying forward such initiatives on a sub-region-wide basis. The reliability performance of the inter-urban express bus network - fundamental to its attractiveness to passengers and its potential to contribute to the goals of the transport strategy – is only as strong as the weakest part of the network. While operators can (and do) build in increasing amounts of recovery time into the schedules, the additional resource costs undermine the economics of the service, while the longer journey times and the loss of clockface timings this often entails all works against the quality of service.

Areas for sub-region-wide improvement – information and marketing Given the journey time predictability issues for these long routes, and headways between 30 minutes and 2 hours, it should be a particular priority to provide RTI to passengers at the stops and via electronic media such as the web and mobile media. Travellers are known to attach especially high values to the consequent reduction of uncertainty, and cost benefit studies typically show very high benefit/cost ratios for real-time information projects.

Today technology makes it relatively straightforward to capture bus location and running performance and to interpret and distribute predicted arrival times to different locations and electronically. But there are commercial and institutional barriers which often make this difficult. The emerging business model for RTI is one in which operators install the necessary bus-borne equipment (and increasingly this is packaged up with other bus-borne ICT applications such as voice radio, traffic signal transponders and broadband channels for operational and ticketing data), while the local authorities receive location data and process, interpret and distribute it to stops. Often local authorities will fund the bus-borne as well as fixed equipment and software.

As with other measures mentioned, inter-urban services face particular challenges because of the many local authorities along a typical route, who may have common or different systems, and rarely have the ability to communicate to each others’ display networks. So for example if an X5 is seriously delayed leaving Cambridge, it is not yet possible to advise passengers in Bedford (although Bedford

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

and Cambridgeshire use the same systems), while the prospect of advising passengers in Milton Keynes faces even higher barriers. The passenger used to this information on the railway cannot understand why it cannot be provided for inter-urban express buses – and until it is, the express bus will remain a lower quality product.

Development in the distribution of this information to personal media (mobile phones, PDAs and websites) can circumvent these difficulties and place the information directly with the digitally connected passenger; these channels can be used to inform distant fixed roadside information sites as well.

Again, this is a classic challenge for the mksm partnership, to enable the development of commercial and institutional solutions to what is certainly not a technology barrier. It might be useful to take the X5 as a pilot for study.

We also believe there is room for improvement in the consistency of static information and marketing of services across the sub-region. Standards of provision and presentation at bus stops vary, as do the marketing and information distribution activities of the local authorities and the two companies. The individual companies take different approaches to branding and on-journey information too. It could be argued that inter-urban services in mksm are a ‘network’ only in the eyes of planners and policy-makers, and that what matters is coherence for the few services that any one passenger might use. However, we would argue most strongly that to ‘raise the game’ for inter-urban express bus services in mksm needs to see the kind of mainstream, coordinated commercial, branding and marketing effort that is absolutely commonplace in the consumer economy and indeed elsewhere in transport (air and rail).

Areas for sub-region-wide improvement – facilities and infrastructure for inter-urban express buses We were encouraged to hear of the many initiatives to improve facilities and infrastructure which, in spite of the challenges, have been progressed collaboratively between bus operators and local authorities. Mention was made of the ring road, bus hub and the ‘superstops’ in Aylesbury, including the railway station; and of the priority and other measures being introduced in Milton Keynes.

The Luton/Dunstable busway will offer the most dramatic improvement in infrastructure in the sub- region; this will not only transform the attractiveness of local bus services for Houghton Regis, Dunstable and Luton in an urban area of high density and significant congestion, but it offers real potential for current and new inter-urban express services. Services from the west and north-west – such as from Milton Keynes, Leighton Buzzard and Aylesbury and all places beyond – will be able to secure substantial running time and (notably) reliability benefits. They stand to effect a noticeable modal shift towards inter-urban express bus travel for these corridors. The continuation of a protected – though not wholly segregated - route through to the airport extends the commercial potential for such services, although airport-only services will also benefit from the opening of the Luton Eastern Corridor Improvement from M1 J10.

Delivering sub-region-wide improvement Many measures are already being taken collaboratively between the two main operators and individual local authorities to improve the inter-urban express bus ‘offer’, in many cases as part of packages to benefit local bus services as well. We continue to emphasise and illustrate the way in which really raising the game for the inter-urban express bus network in mksm needs not only all these local initiatives to be progressed but a consistent and coordinated approach across the sub- region.

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

We believe that a coordinated approach across the sub-region would be greatly facilitated by the creation of at least a forum – and hopefully a strategic partnership - which brings together the two main operators (and possibly others such as Centrebus and National Express) together with the six local transport authorities (Northamptonshire, Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire, Luton, Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire) – to review and progress an agreed agenda of items which would benefit from a sub-region-wide approach. Some of these items might become the subject of formal voluntary partnerships as provided for in the Local Transport Act 2008. We can confirm that both main operators would be willing and keen to join and contribute to such a strategic partnership.

The preceding sections have clearly indicated the areas which might be covered in such a mksm inter- urban bus Strategic Partnership; in summary they include
Bus punctuality. A collaborative, sub-region-wide review of parking restrictions and enforcement as they influence bus running and reliability. Review of the scope and achievements of Bus Punctuality Improvement Partnerships, and promoting ‘best practice’ across mksm, including practical measures such as traffic signal transponders
Real-Time Information for inter-urban services. A review of the technical, commercial and institutional barriers and opportunities, and the way in which these might be overcome to enable route-length RTI to be provided, including extending the use of mobile radio and internet channels for distributing real-time information to fixed site as well as mobile media; possible use of X5 as a pilot study
Information and marketing. Development of a vision for a consistently branded and marketed network of inter-urban services with good access to pre-journey and static information
Major bus-related infrastructure developments – review the opportunities for the wider network to benefit
Keep under review the growth and contribution of inter-urban express bus services to the transport agenda and strategy of mksm

A longer term, radical vision for inter-urban express bus Addressing the DaSTS goals of carbon emissions reduction, of equality of opportunity and of quality of life demands consideration of a more radical vision for inter-urban bus – one which has the capability to attract a significant modal shift from private car for inter-urban journeys. All the improvements and developments mentioned above have a key role to play in a more ambitious vision for what inter-urban express buses can do.

There are some corridors within the mksm sub-region where inter-urban bus already provides at least a well used half-hourly service – in spite of some significant congestion issues within the towns served. A step-change in the running environment for buses – approaching BRT type of conditions - could dramatically reduce both journey times and the variability of journey times, at least for the direct express services (less so for those inter-urban services which make calls at local towns and villages en route). With improved control, better RTI for passengers, higher quality buses and more frequent services provided on the back of increased demand, a virtuous circle of improvement could be made.

The Luton-Dunstable busway is a good example of new infrastructure which will provide a step- change in the journey times and reliability not only for local buses but for inter-urban buses from west and north of Luton to the town centre – and onwards to the airport. The ability to use disused railway infrastructure is a rare opportunity; other approaches will need to be considered elsewhere in the region.

The Coachway project at High Wycombe is a good example of a strategically located multi-purpose park-and-ride site (M40 J4) which will not only provide parking for those travelling on by bus into the town centre, but also for those travelling via inter-urban express buses, for example to London or other

mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy Connecting the mksm sub-region

cities. The Milton Keynes Coachway at M1 J14 – currently being substantially redeveloped from a previously more modest facility - will offer similar connectivity and facilities.

We have already raised the need to examine a more substantial role for inter-urban express bus in addressing the challenges of the Northampton Arc, where there are major flows between Northampton and the nearby towns to east and west, but where much of the main road network – and particularly the junctions - are under severe pressure.

Northamptonshire County Council have recently won CIF (Community Infrastructure Fund) funding for a BRT-badged project consisting of a number of linked bus priority and junction improvements on the Wellingborough-Northampton corridor. And Northants have recently indicated their intention to develop proposals for a ‘rapid transport system’ along the whole of the Northampton Arc, with a clear transformational objective.

We believe that an aspirations should be set across the sub-region to develop, with the operators, an inter-urban express bus network linking all the towns of the sub-region along the main corridors, and with key towns and cities outside the sub-region, with the following features - A frequency of not less than 3 buses per hour (20 minutes frequency) - Running times centre-centre which are competitive with the private car (targets to be set on each corridor), based on bold provision of practical bus priority facilities (which will benefit local services too) - Multi-purpose ‘Park-and-Ride’ facilities on the edge of the towns - Real-time information widely available to electronic media, and main stops and bus stations - Comprehensive marketing of services, supported by good street and bus station facilities - Smart card ticketing - Common high quality standards of vehicle and passenger environment If realised, this vision could, we believe, begin to make significant in roads into private car use for these journeys, so easing congestion and reducing carbon emissions, and also enable the progressing of related transport policies in these towns.

london bristol BIRMINGHAM cardiff edinburgh glasgow manchester newbury belfast dublin shanghai madrid

Colin Buchanan 10 Eastbourne Terrace London W2 6LG T 020 7053 1300 E [email protected] W colinbuchanan.com