Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers

A12 / A120 route based strategy January 2013

An executive agency of the Department for Transport A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Document history

A12/A120 route-based strategy

Highways Agency

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Version Date Description Created Verified by Approved by by

1.0 25/3/13 Final for publication D Abbott A Kirkdale M Fellows

i A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Executive summary

Introduction

The A12/A120 was chosen to be one of the first strategies to be developed by the Highways Agency because of its importance as part of a Strategic National Corridor and known issues. This strategy has clearly shown that the A12/A120 has national, regional and local significance. It supports the national and regional economy through providing the link between London and the South East to the ports at Harwich and Felixstowe, and then into Europe. Locally it is used as a commuter route, serving the growing towns of Chelmsford, Colchester and Ipswich.

Current capacity and future capability of the route

The strategy shows that the A12/A120 is an ageing route which has several key maintenance issues. It will also be functioning above capacity by 2021 and will clearly struggle to keep up with demand if the large amount of growth proposed for the towns and cities is built. There is a significant level of growth planned along the route both in terms of jobs and houses. The key areas are around Chelmsford and Colchester. The port of Harwich is also expected to expand in the future. All this will increase the level of traffic using the route both for commuting and long- distance travel purposes.

The main concern of stakeholders is the resilience of the route when an incident occurs. Currently there are very few alternative routes which users can take to avoid incidents and because of the variable standard of the route, clear up time following an incident can be lengthy. There is also a limited amount of technology used on the route to ensure that drivers are aware of issues on their journey and due to the variable nature of the route, it can be difficult for emergency services to attend incidents and consequently the clear up time is lengthened.

Route strategy

The strategy, whilst not identifying specific schemes, has identified key areas that need to be reviewed and investigated both in the short and long term. These include assessing the capacity required at key junctions such as the A12/A14 Copdock interchange and the capacity of those junctions that will be affected by the planned growth. It also suggests that sections of the route need to be brought up to current standard and the high number of direct accesses onto the route be reviewed. More immediate interventions such as investigating whether the technology used can be improved and the introduction of traffic officer patrols has also been included.

A key recommendation of this strategy is the better working of partners to provide a more transparent process for levering funding into the route in order for its future priorities and needs to be achieved.

ii A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Scope 2 1.3 The route 2

2 Capacity and capability of the route 6 2.1 Route operation and performance 6 2.2 Existing characteristics 10 2.3 Non-motorised usage 11 2.4 Operations management 11 2.5 Current asset condition 13 2.6 Stakeholder and customer information 14

3 Future route requirements 16 3.1 Future priorities 16 3.2 Future maintenance requirements 18 3.3 Stakeholders view of the future 18

4 Route strategy 20 4.1 Overview 20 4.2 Short term 20 4.3 Longer term 22 4.4 Improvements for non-motorised users 22 4.5 Facilitating future growth 22

Appendices 25 Appendix A 26 Appendix B 27 Appendix C 30 Appendix D 32

iii A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Alan Cook’s report A Fresh Start for the Strategic Road Network, published in November 2011, made a number of recommendations, one of which was that the Highways Agency, working with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, should initiate and develop route- based strategies for the strategic road network.

1.1.2 In the Secretary of State’s response to the Cook review, published in May 2012, accepted the recommendation for route-based strategies, stating that it would enable a smarter approach to investment planning and support greater participation in planning for the strategic road network from local and regional stakeholders.

1.1.3 The Highways Agency has begun this process by developing three route-based strategies including the A12 from the M25 to the A14 and A120 between A12 and Harwich within the East of England. The routes were selected as they form a Strategic National Corridor and because of known road based issues, but with as yet limited solutions identified. The strategy seeks to address road based issues, provide a mechanism to engage with local partners, and ultimately bring together the national and local priorities to agree the needs of the route.

1.1.4 This strategy aims to pull together the numerous national and local studies that have already been carried out on this stretch of road to inform investment decisions. Local stakeholders have also been involved in developing the strategy to ensure that their priorities have been taken into account. The impact of development on the route has been investigated as well as local business needs.

1.1.5 The route-based strategy does not outline a ‘shopping list’ of potential schemes, but rather presents a higher level consideration of which parts of the corridor will become most stressed and when this will occur, as well as a consideration of how these stresses and demands can be managed.

Page 1 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

1.2 Scope

1.2.1 The purpose of the route-based strategies is to inform the investment strategy for the network on a route by route basis, including operations, maintenance and any enhancements. It looks to facilitate economic growth, continue to manage journey time reliability and safety performance and maintain a resilient asset. The key objectives for the strategy are to: test the approach to inform how they will be implemented in the future; address road based issues on the strategic road network, forming the basis for making decisions on funding for the next spending review period; be a mechanism to engage with local stakeholders, to bring together national and local priorities and deliver tangible results that are strategically focused and realistic.

1.2.2 This route-based strategy covers: how to achieve the strategic road network objectives on the A12 and A120, and the local priorities agreed with stakeholders; investigation of an initial five year period plus a longer term horizon (a further 10 years); considers opportunities for innovation, the role of other networks and other techniques; maintenance, operational activities and improvements including both capital and operational costs; and the impact on local roads in surrounding areas that interface with the route. The route-based strategies do not cover other forms of transport (although recognising that the strategic road network does not operate in isolation, rail stations, ports, airports all have an influence). Engagement with local stakeholders has been focussed on the strategic road network.

1.3 The route

1.3.1 The route is shown in figure 1.0 below. It is a total of 78 miles, 109 km in length (A12 – 52 miles, 83km; A120 – 16 miles, 26km,). It passes through the local highway authority areas of Essex and Suffolk County Councils, and the local planning authorities of Brentwood, Chelmsford, Braintree, Colchester, Babergh, Maldon and Tendring District Councils.

Page 2 A 6 09 7

A1 A1121 A612 A1 A149 A153 A17 A52 A52 A52 A52 25 CITY OF A16 A148 A46 FigureA52 1.0NOTTINGHAM THE ROUTE Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers

GT PONTON 24a A149 A149 STOKE A148 24 A607 ROCHFORD

A60 A606 A151 A15 A151 A6006 23a A140 A46 A17 A GRANTHAM 1078 SOUTH A151 Spalding King’s Lynn A1067 Bourne A M1 THRUSSINGTON 1062

23 A1101 A149 A607 A1 RAM JAM LEICESTERSHIRE A16 A47 Norwich 64 A1065 10 A606 A1073 A Caister-on-Sea Coalville LEICESTER Acle 22 Market Wisbech Norwich Deeping Dereham A47 BLOODY OAKS Stamford CITY OF Swaffham Great Yarmouth LEICESTER A47 Downham A1122 21a A47 RUTLAND Market NORFOLK A6121 A1122 Wymondham WITTERING A146 A12 21 A605 A47 A 6 A47 A1139 BEESTHORPE Leicester 0 Peterborough March A1101 0 A1075 A11 3 A134 A10 A43 Lowestoft 2 A6 17 CITY OF Attleborough A143 PETERBOROUGH Corby A605 16 PETERBOROUGH Beccles A427 A140 A146 Market Harborough A427 M69 A426 A1(M) A141 Chatteris A144 M1 Littleport A1065 A145 20 A143 A616 15 ABBEY HEATH A4304 ROTHWELL CAMBRIDGESHIREA142 A1066 A1101 Thetford Diss A14 3 4 THRAPSTON 7 Thrapston Ely M6 1 19 2 1 8 12 13 11 ALCONBURY A5199 14 A1088 KETTERING 10 14 A14 9 A1 A14 A141 A11 Southwold 15 16 A1123 A143 A45 17 Huntingdon A142 BARTON MILLS Rugby 18 18 23 A12 19 20 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE RAUNDS SPALDWICK 21 22 Royal 24 A134 Leamington 17 BRAMPTON HUT 25 FENSTANTON A45 WATFORD GAP A43 26 Spa A508 27 A140 A14 ABBOTS A14 A10 A14 Rushden 38 39 40 Bury St Edmunds Northampton 28 37 41 A428 NEWMARKET 42 43 Saxmundham CAMBRIDGE 28a A1 29 46 Framlingham A45 Cambridge 44 45 47 30 47a A1120 A6 A428 31 32 33 A14 St Neots 14 34 Newmarket TOT HILL 36 49 16 35 13 50 Wickham A428 BEDFORD A428 A10 A5 15a Cambridge Stowmarket Market 94 WYBOSTON A361 12 Aldeburgh ROTHERSTHORPE Figure 1.0 The route A143 BEACON HILL 15 51 A1198 11 A11 Bedford Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers A603 WORSTED A14 A12 A603 SUFFOLK

TOWCESTER A509 FOURWENTWAYS A1141 52 MILTON A134 Woodbridge Towcester A508 A422 53 10 KEYNES A1 Haverhill Ipswich NEWPORT A421 A505 A1307 54 PAGNELL A1071 A413 A1092 A5 A421 A600 ORWELL BRIDGE A43 9 55 33 Sudbury 57 58 BRACKLEY 14 CENTRAL Saffron 56 A134 32b NORTHWAY Royston Walden CAPEL ST MARY A14 BEDFORDSHIRE A1017 Orwell Milton Keynes A505 32a Bridge A422 13 59 A507 60 10 A10 BALDOCK A12 61 Letchworth 31 A421 M1 Baldock 62 A421 A131 A507 30 Felixstowe Hitchin 9 M11 COLCHESTER A137 A4146 A5 BAYNARD’S 12 A6 A1124 GREEN A4421 BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 28 29 Harwich 10 A41 TODDINGTON A505 CHERWELL VALLEY 3 Leighton Buzzard 8 London Braintree 27 A120 Luton Stansted 26 Bishop’s Bicester Stevenage 25 11 LUTON 7 Stortford London A602 A120 8 Colchester 24 10a Luton BIRCHANGER A120 A133 9 A418 A1(M) GREEN DUNMOW Dunstable 10 WITHAM A41 23 A131 FAMILY A4146 HERTFORDSHIRE6 Ware 22 FARM 9 Welwyn Garden Clacton-on-Sea Aylesbury 21 5 City 20b Hemel Hertford A1060 A130 20a A418 St Albans 4 A414 Oxford Hempstead Hoddesdon 19 CHELMSFORD Hatfield A10 A41 8 Chelmsford OXFORD 3 7 A40 7 A414 2 A414 8a A413 1 18 A414 A40 Epping 8 Thame 21 17 7 A4010 6a 21a 22 A416 Potters Bar M25 Chipping 15 20 6 Ongar 14 16 A130 ESSEX A329 23 24 27 A12 A405 1 25 6 OXFORDSHIRE 19 26 13 5 SOUTH MIMMS A113 A4074 6 High Brentwood 5 A40 M1 12 Burnham-on-Crouch Wycombe 18 A1 5 Billericay M40 17 4 LONDON GATEWAY (SCRATCHWOOD) 28 Watford A1 M11 11 2 4 A355 M25 2 8 3 4 Rayleigh Wallingford 2 A127 A404 A40 Ilford 29 Basildon 1 16 1 A4130 M4 1a © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey 100030649 A A308(M) 40 London THURROCK Southend-on-Sea 74 Henley- Slough Dagenham City A13 Canvey Island SOUTHEND-ON-SEA on-Thames 9b 7a M4 7 30 9a8 6 A1089 A4 15 4 THURROCK 9 5 4b 3 2 1 A404(M) 4a HESTON Dartford Tunnel 14

© Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance 13Survey 100030649 Highways Agency Media Services s120456 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

1.3.2 The A12 trunk road links the M25 to the A14 Copdock interchange at Ipswich and provides a crucial link between the communities along the route. It also acts as a major transport link between London and the East to the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe and serves as an abnormal load route. The A120 trunk road is an east-west route running from the M11 near to Stansted Airport to Harwich. This strategy focuses on the eastern section of A120 between Colchester and Harwich, although the strategy inevitably impacts upon the remaining western sections and vice versa.

1.3.3 The A12 (south) and A120 (east) serve several functions.

As a strategic route they:

 Link the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich for the movement of freight  Form part of the Trans-European Network carrying international traffic;  Act as major transport links between London, the South East and the East of England;  Provide access to holiday destinations within the region and to mainland Europe.

1.3.4 Regionally they:

 Link the major regional centres along the route; and  Provide for the distribution of goods and services.

1.3.5 Locally they:

 Provide the only means of access to some communities along the route; and  Bypass towns along the route.

Page 4 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

1.3.6 Although not technically within the study area the London Borough of Havering and Ipswich Borough Council lie immediately beyond each end of the study area to the extent they significantly influence and are influenced by the study routes.

1.3.7 The areas of Colchester and Chelmsford are recognised as the key focal points of current/future growth in the corridor, but several smaller communities are, nonetheless, expected to experience significant growth.

1.3.8 The A12 corridor is closely paralleled by the Greater Anglian rail line, connecting to Ipswich and Norwich to the north and serving as a major commuter line to London, connecting all the major settlements along the corridor.

1.3.9 Several previous studies have been carried out on the route – these include the A12 Commission Inquiry (2008), London to Ipswich Multi Modal Study (LOIS) (2002), A12 Route Management Strategy (June 2001), and two DASTs studies; London to Haven Ports study (September 2010) and the Substantial Transport Options for the Growing A12/GEML corridor towns (May 2010). See Appendix A for outlines of, or links to, these documents.

1.3.10 There are also local studies carried out by local authorities and groups such as the A120 Project Group and A12 Alliance which need to be taken into account.

1.3.11 The A12 Commission in particular gave an opportunity to understand the various users/stakeholders concerns regarding road travel on the A12, and these mainly related to reliability, the perceived poor safety record, and lack of heavy goods vehicle parking. The parallel A12 Corridor Towns Study also provides an important insight into the views of users and travellers to and from the key settlements in the corridor.

Page 5 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

2 Capacity and capability of the route

2.1 Route operation and performance

2.1.1 The A12 carries heavy traffic flows, is often congested, vulnerable to accidents and incidents which often disrupt traffic over a wide area and is generally regarded as stressful for drivers1. The reported traffic flows for the A12 range from nearly 60,000 to over 80,000 vehicles per day, in both directions, depending on the location, heavy goods vehicles account for between 10 - 15% of the total flow. When compared to roads within the East of England, the A12 is amongst the most heavily trafficked. Within the region only the A14 around Cambridge and the short stretch of the A120 coming off the M11 to Stansted Airport carry anything like the same volume of traffic. The A120 however, carries much less traffic than the A12 with up to 30,000 vehicles per day in some sections. A large proportion of the heavy goods vehicles using this route are travelling to and from the port of Harwich.

2.1.2 Key stress points2 and issues are shown on figure 2.0 and figure 2.1.

2.1.3 Current and forecast future stress levels as shown on figures 2.0 and 3.0 are based on modelling undertaken nationally by the Department for Transport. The forecast stress levels at 2020 are based on estimated build-rates of local authority development plans as collated by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

2.1.4 Department for Transport statistics show that the A12 performs poorly in terms of reliability and delay compared to other trunk roads – the high volumes using the routes combined with the slow journey times make

1 A12 Commission of Inquiry Report

2 Stress is measured as the relationship between traffic volume and the capacity of the road - if the road is at 100% stress level it theoretically has no spare capacity to accommodate more vehicles, however it is possible to exceed this but in practice this results in a reduced level of service with increased queuing and congestion and decreased journey reliability.

Page 6 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

total vehicle delay well above the average for all trunk A roads and above the average for most motorways.

2.1.5 Safety is often expressed as the main concern along the route by users. Whilst the accident rate (see figure 2.1) is below the average for rural A- roads, clear up times significantly affects journey reliability. Major factors in this are the lack of alternative routes and variability in the standard of the road. There are however, sections with significantly higher accident rates, in particular north and east of Colchester (see figure 2.1).

2.1.6 Having explained that alternative routes are limited, the route via A130 and A127 is used as an alternative route from Chelmsford to the M25 if an incident occurs in this section. However if an incident occurs on the A130/A127, then the pressure on the A12 increases because this then acts as an alternative for customers travelling from London to Chelmsford and further afield. The A120 west from Marks Tey to Braintree can also act as an alternative route; previous modelling using the East of England Regional model (EERM) demonstrated that it attracted significant strategic diversionary traffic but commented that is wholly unsuitable for the purpose.

Page 7 A14 Fig 2.0 Ipswich Current Flows and Stress 48,750 2228 / 2259 Babergh DC 33 A14 2418 / 2047 Felixstowe

57,500 2 Harwich 2521 / 3209 1

2714 / 2215 A12A A120 87,800 A120 29 3224 / 3752 Colchester 3499 / 3281 A133 DC Tendring DC Stansted A120 Colchester 39,700 14,000 25 1634 / 2570 322 / 508

1861 / 1185 499 / 308 Braintree DC AM peak analysis of journey purpose on A12 Network Stress in 2010 Witham Port passengers 1% Peak period ‘Stress’ levels A130 LGV 10% (based on DfT’s NTM 2010 AM v/c reference case) HGV 16% >100%

Car Employer’s 80% – 100% Chelmsford DC Business 7% 73,300 60% – 80% Car Other 19 Maldon DC 2476 / 3236 70,500 Chelmsford 33% 0% – 60% 3526 / 2390 2395 / 3344 50,500 2-way AADT 3148 / 2397 17 Car Home Based 2500 / 3500 EB AM / PM peak 68,300 15 Work 33% 3500 / 2500 WB AM / PM peak 2187 / 3146 Brentwood 2803 / 2146 69,200 DC Key junctions 2 3078 / 3545 1 3874 / 3016 M25 A12A 11 M25 J28 ‘Brook Street’ A130 15 A414 ‘Three Mile Hill’, Chelmsford BP (W) 17 Brentwood A127 Southend A130 Southend Road 11 19 A130 Boreham Interchange 25 London Basildon DC A120 Marks Tey A127 29 A12/A120 ‘Crown’ Interchange 33 A14/A12 ‘Copdock’ Interchange M25 HA Media Services, Manchester N120525 A14 J31 Four Sisters Fig 2.1 Issues: Ipswich • Substandard bends Issues and Challenges • Poor junction geometry 33 Babergh DC A14A14 Felixstowe 2 1 A12A Braiswisk Lay-by Issues: Harwich • Carriageway settlement A120 • Lay-by currently closed as a result A120 29 A120 Little Bentley Colchester Issues: DC A133 • At-grade junctions close to end of dual carriageway Tendring DC Stansted Colchester Rivenhall Junction (unnumbered) 25 A120 Issues: • Substandard compact GSJ ( ) Braintree J24 to J25 Gore Pit to Marks Hey Issues: DC J19 (Boreham) • Older style dual standard • Numerous frontagers and accesses Issues: Witham Legend • Significant peak period congestion • Ipswich-bound diverge • London-bound mainline A130 Personal Injury Accident Rates per billion vehicular Miles Chelmsford Maldon DC (average from 2008 to 2010 accident data inclusive) 19 Ingatestone – Mountnessing J20B to J21 Hatfield Peverel to Witham 50 to 100 Issues: Chelmsford Issues: 100 to 150 • Bend radii below current standards DC 17 • Short weaving sections (recently improved but still has resilience risk) 150 to 200 Brentwood Bypass Issues: 15 200 to 250 • Gradients • Regular congestion Chelmsford Bypass 2 Issues: Key junctions Brentwood 1 • Series of geotechnical defects requiring A12A ongoing treatment M25 DC 11 M25 J28 ‘Brook Street’ A130 15 A414 ‘Three Mile Hill’, Chelmsford BP (W) 17 A130 Southend Road J12 (Marylands) A127 Southend 11 BrentwoodIssues: 19 A130 Boreham Interchange • London-bound merge 25 London A120 Marks Tey A127 29 A12/A120 ‘Crown’ Interchange Basildon DC 33 A14/A12 ‘Copdock’ Interchange M25 HA Media Services, Manchester N120525 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

2.2 Existing characteristics

2.2.1 As seen in Appendix B, the routes are of varying quality and switch between dual two and three lane carriageway standards at various points along the study length; they are derestricted (i.e. subject to the national speed limit of 60 or 70 mph) along their entirety. The piecemeal creation and following improvements, to the A12 in particular, over the past 50 years have contributed to a varying level of standard and carriageway layout.

2.2.2 Along the route, there are junctions with other major routes and many local roads. The junctions along the routes vary from fully grade separated interchanges to rural give ways.

2.2.3 In addition there are many private accesses and businesses that directly join the A12 and A120. For example, over a distance of 44 miles (71 km) in Essex, there are 49 private accesses, six service stations with frontage access onto the road and a further five service stations located on or very close to A12 interchanges. In addition there are 9 miles (15 km) of cycle ways and footpaths alongside the road and 39 public rights of way across different parts of the road3.

3 Information provided by the A12 Report of Commission Inquiry

Page 10 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

2.3 Non-motorised usage

2.3.1 In terms of non-motorised usage of the A12, presently there is:

(a) A two way cycletrack between Marks Tey and Feering/Kelvedon turn off;

(b) A two-way cycle/footway between Kelvedon and Witham turn off through Rivenhall;

(c) A two-way cycle/footway between Witham on slip and Hatfield Peverel off slip;

(d) No cycle facilities south of Hatfield Peverel

(e) There are no cycle facilities on Witham and Kelvedon bypasses. Cyclists are assumed to use the old road through the villages

2.3.2 There are also a number of public rights of way crossing the route.

2.4 Operations management

2.4.1 The management of the route through the National and Regional Traffic Control Centres, the Traffic Officer Service (including response by on- road traffic officers) and the use of technology play a key role in the reliability and safety of the network. This section aims to consider some of the operational management issues on the route.

Events / seasonal issues 2.4.2 There are no planned major events along this route nor is the operation of the route influenced by seasonal changes.

Climate / weather 2.4.3 The route is not adversely affected by bad weather. There have been some instances of localised flooding, however this is largely due to run- off from adjacent fields or blocked culverts. The river Widd has been identified by the Environment Agency as a risk location – this may affect junctions 12 to 13 of the A12 and the River Chelmer may affect junctions 18 to 19 or the A12.

Page 11 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

2.4.4 The ports are obviously affected by bad weather and may close if they can not operate.

Traffic mix 2.4.5 At present there is no operation ‘stack’ system at Harwich because the size of the port does not warrant it. However if the planned growth does take place, this may need to reviewed and consequently, there may be an impact on the A12/A120. At Felixstowe, the ‘stack’ operates on the A14, so whilst it does not affect the A12, it may affect freight traffic.

Route characteristics 2.4.6 The A12 contains sections of road which do not meet current standards, particularly in Suffolk. There are frequent sections of dual carriageway without hard strips. Appendix B shows link and major junction standards.

2.4.7 Lay-by provision has been improved in recent years during major maintenance schemes but overall provision and layout of lay-bys is below current standards4. Targeted improvements to lay-by provision should be investigated where they could support quicker incident clear up rates, through providing safe places for vehicles to be moved to.

Technology provision 2.4.8 Technology does not feature highly along the route. Currently the national roads telecommunication system (also known as NRTS) is present only along a short (approx. 1 mile) section east of the M25. An earlier route management scheme had identified technology as part of a route management approach and was supported by Department for Transport, however due to funding constraints this was not implemented.

Incidents 2.4.9 In terms of incidents, between December 2010 and November 2011, there were on average 20 recorded incidents a month with an average impact time of 103 minutes (see table 3.0). However it should be noted that the A12 and A120 are not routes regularly patrolled by the Traffic Officer Service so the number of incidents may actually be higher. The main causes of the recorded incidents were road traffic collisions (RTC) (44%) broken down vehicles (27%) and debris (17%).

4 Data taken from A12 Report of the Commission Inquiry.

Page 12 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

2.4.10 The number, location of incident and the time of recovery have a major impact on route performance. Recovery time is affected by the variability in standard of the route. For instance the sections of dual 2 carriageway with a hard strip at current standards, is still able to accommodate two lanes of traffic when minor incidents occur; however where there is no hard strip, complete closure may be the only option. This is critical when noted alongside the lack of alternative routes. Therefore overall journey reliability is affected.

2.5 Current asset condition

2.5.1 A considerable amount of the A12 is made up of concrete pavements, the majority of which are typically between 40-50 years old and may require structural maintenance or surface treatment to remedy significant substandard texture and wet-skid resistance. Current work has focussed on repairing spalled and significantly cracked concrete to prevent further deterioration.

2.5.2 The condition of much of the Tensioned Corrugated Beam (TCB) safety fence is poor. Extensive lengths of this product were put up in the 1980’s and much of it has been identified as nearing the end of its theoretical design life.

2.5.3 A12 Chelmsford bypass has a series of geotechnical defects that are being prioritised and managed through the forward and bidding programme.

2.5.4 At the A12 Braiswick lay-by (Colchester Bypass), continued settlement of the north and south bound road pavement has resulted in a number of resurfacing schemes. The lay-by is currently closed as a result of the defects.

2.5.5 In terms of carrying out maintenance to the A12, this is particularly difficult to implement due to there being very few suitable diversion routes on either the county or strategic road networks for either planned or unplanned maintenance.

Page 13 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

2.6 Stakeholder and customer information

2.6.1 A summary of the issues discussed at the stakeholder workshop on 31 October 2012, can be found in figure 2.2.

2.6.2 In general the stakeholders felt that the A12 has a poor reputation for journey reliability and high levels of congestion. A perceived lack of investment in the East of England is having a detrimental effect on the whole infrastructure system, with a lack of coordination between the different modes of transport. The route was felt to be of an inconsistent mix of standards, with certain sections needing to be brought up-to-date with respect to traffic capacity and road safety.

2.6.3 Stakeholders also considered a number of junctions along the A12 were considered to be at or over capacity, and the opinion was that this is down to poor or outdated junction design. A number of specific examples such as the Rivenhall (unnumbered junction between junctions 22 and 23) and Four Sisters (A12 junction 30) junctions were cited as being of extremely poor geometric standard.

2.6.4 Stakeholders felt that congestion was often unnecessarily caused by poor driver behaviour, with issues concerning weaving traffic, driver distractions and overtaking by heavy goods vehicles in busy conditions.

2.6.5 The recent customer satisfaction survey did not highlight any specific concerns with the A12, however the respondents using the A12 generally used it out of peak times. In previous studies, customers using the A12 have expressed concern about journey reliability, the lack of alternative routes when an issue arises and the safety of some junctions – in particular the heavily trafficked Copdock junction and the junction with the M25.

2.6.6 Some stakeholders highlighted noise issues along the route. We are currently consulting with local authorities on the noise action areas that have been identified by DEFRA.

Page 14 A14

Fig 2.2 Copdock junction congestion – Ipswich 1000s commute via Manningtree station: need to allow for future growth Good car park achieves modal shift Summary of Issues Brought A14 Babergh DC 33 Forward During Stakeholder Four Sisters junction Felixstowe Workshop 31/10/12 substandard

Harwich

A120 Colchester DC High proportion of 29 freight traffic on A120 A120 A120 has no alernatives Marks Tey parkway system 2 1 therefore very important – unspecified issues Tendring DC AA12 A133 Colchester Hare Green – Stansted Feering – Congestion issues A120 Older standard D2 25 Rivenhall slip road is dangerous, busy and substandard

Braintree DC Kelvedon Bypass – Poor road condition. Breakdown = instant congestion Witham A130

Chelmsford DC Witham Bypass – Legend Inconsistent mix of standards Maldon DC Poor standard dualling around Chelmsford Development / growth issues 19 Boreham – Chelmsford Congestion issues Engineering / standards issues 17 Environmental issues

Poor standard dualling Sustainable transport issues Noise issues in 15 around Chelmsford Mountnessing Brentwood DC Southend Airport Key junctions Noise issues in increases stress on A12 2 Ingatestone M25 1 11 M25 J28 ‘Brook Street’ A12A A130 15 A414 ‘Three Mile Hill’, Chelmsford BP (W) Noise issues in Brentwood Southend 17 A130 Southend Road Brentwood A127 11 19 A130 Boreham Interchange Basildon DC London 25 A120 Marks Tey Expected growth from A127 29 A12/A120 ‘Crown’ Interchange Lakeside (Thurrock) 33 A14/A12 ‘Copdock’ Interchange M25 HA Media Services, Manchester N120525 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

3 Future route requirements

3.1 Future priorities

3.1.1 It is expected that local priorities for the route will remain unchanged in the future – the route will still be used as a commuter road; carry freight traffic between London and the ports, and act as a local means of access between the towns and villages. It will remain critical to the towns and communities that it serves.

3.1.2 However, the pressure on the route will grow due to a significant amount of development planned by the local authorities as well as the growth of the ports. This is shown in figure 3.0 below which sets out the future growth in terms of housing and jobs.

3.1.3 Stakeholders have also suggested that the growth of both Stansted and Southend Airport will impact on the route, although no recent studies have been carried out to investigate whether this is the case or not.

3.1.4 A list of stakeholder priorities for the route can be found at Appendix C.

3.1.5 The future strategic priorities will also remain similar to the current ones. In the absence of any new road being built, the corridor will remain the only strategic route directly linking London and the South East with the main towns of Ipswich, Brentwood, Colchester and Chelmsford as well as providing access to the Haven Ports and the rest of East Anglia.

3.1.6 The importance of the ports to the UK economy continues to increase - the Haven ports are important links between the UK and the global supply chain. It is expected that by 2030 the Haven ports will have 37%5 of the UK’s total deep sea capacity. It is clear therefore that a significant and growing portion of the UK’s trade of goods, particularly in containers, will continue to use the Haven ports. Ensuring effective distribution to and from these ports is critical to future UK competitiveness.

5 Data taken from National Networks, London to Haven Ports Study Sept 2010

Page 16 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

3.1.7 There are real concerns from local business stakeholders that the route at its current standard will not have the capacity to cope with this increased level of growth and increasingly will act as a barrier.

3.1.8 It should be mentioned that the economic downturn experienced in the country may encourage an increase in the public holidaying in the UK. This may increase levels of seasonal traffic to coastal locations and other tourist locations; thereby partly offsetting reduced demand on the A12 caused by the downturn on routes in the East. This however can not yet be quantified.

3.1.9 Figure 3.0 shows the future stress levels on the route – it demonstrates very clearly that demand along large sections of the route will be more than its operating capacity before 20216.

3.1.10 The operation of the A12 corridor can not be considered without investigating the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML). This rail link runs parallel to the A12 thus creating a close relationship between road and rail. Currently there appears to be limited potential for modal shift from road to rail, particularly for international container traffic7 for three main reasons; A proportion of the goods being moved (e.g. some perishables) are extremely time sensitive; the scarcity of intermodal terminals in Greater London would require rail access directly to logistics sites currently being served by road, and these are very limited and even where intermodal transfer can be effected; the distances of less than 93 miles (150km) from the Haven ports could make it uneconomic to make the main leg by rail and then to have to transfer to road for the final stage, compared with road all the way from the port.

3.1.11 It should also be noted that the Network resilience and adaptation report (June 2010) for the Highways Agency identified the GEML as a hotspot. While it has some sections of four-track, it is basically a double track railway with low levels of ability to provide services when one part of the system fails and a lack of availability of realistic diversionary routes.

6 Data taken from the London to Haven Ports study and the Highways Agency Regional Network Report 2010 – East of England

7 London to Haven Ports Study Sept 2010

Page 17 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

3.1.12 Having said all this, stakeholders commented that there may be potential to shift commuter traffic from road to the railways, but this needs to be investigated. It should also be noted that the Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail line is currently being upgraded to allow for rail freight traffic to be re- routed avoiding London. This may affect the GEML and free-up capacity allowing for modal shift, however this also needs to be investigated.

3.2 Future maintenance requirements

3.2.1 The Wellington Bridge at Hatfield Peverel has suffered a couple of bridge strikes causing a significant amount of damage. Following an initial strike to the deck in 2010 which was programmed to be repaired in summer 2012 the bridge was subject to a second strike in May 2012 in a similar location. The initial scheme was therefore modified and repairs are now to take place in 2013.

3.2.2 Delivery of significant infrastructure measures to mitigate the impact of proposed developments including the A12/A14 Copdock Mill interchange and port of Felixstowe roundabouts (to support the expansion of growth at the port of Felixstowe) and A12 junction (to support growth in north Colchester) continue to manage the anticipated demand generated by the improvements.

3.2.3 More detail on cost and major maintenance schemes can be found in Appendix D.

3.3 Stakeholders view of the future

3.3.1 The A12, in its current state, is felt to inhibit growth in the area, both due to the issues of congestion and journey unreliability which prevent businesses from moving to the area.

3.3.2 A particular issue was raised in respect of growth in the Brentwood area being constrained by the proximity of the A12/M25 junction.

3.3.3 The ability to deliver improvements along the A12 to accommodate growth was questioned, with the scope of the recent improvements at Hatfield Peverel believed to have been constrained by third party land issues.

Page 18 Babergh DC AA1414 Felixstowe South Ipswich DC Reconfiguration J30 (Stratford St Mary) 1.56m TEU extra capacity – 600 new jobs Fig 3.0 A31 (East Bergholt) J32 (Copdock South) 4134 Planning Data J33 (Copdock) Ipswich Felixstowe J17 (A1114) J18 (A414 Maldon Road) 33 J33 (Copdock) Proposed growth in housing & jobs between J19 (Boreham) 4626 12141 2006 – 2021 centres of significant status & AA1414 Babergh DC Harwich planned improvements Colchester Northern 8953 Approach Road Ph3 (ECC) supporting development, to be implemented by 2014 A120 Bathside Bay 1.7m TEU extra capacity – 770 new jobs Wellington Bridge (Hatfield Peverel) Repairs following bridge strikes, 2013 Colchester DC 29 A120 A133 Hare Green to Harwich Major upgrade as condition of Braintree DC 2 Tendring DC Bathside Bay planning permission 1 J19 (Boreham) J21 & J22 (Witham) A12A J23 & J24 Colchester Stansted (Gore Pit) 4208 Tendring DC A120 J25 (Marks Tey) 25 A12 J31 (East Bergholt) Colchester DC A120/A133 (Hare Green) 5422 A120 (Little Bentley) A120/B1035 (Horsley X) 6207 Chelmsford DC A120/Clacton Rd (Wix) A120/B1352 Braintree DC 5512 J25 (Marks Tey) 12093 J14 (Mountnessing) Witham J26 (Eight Ash Green) Legend J15 (A414) J27 (Colchester West) J16 (B1007) 12054 J28 (Severalls) J17 (A130) Maldon DC J29 (Stratford St Mary) New homes (each row = 1000) J18 (A414 Maldon Road) A130 A120/A133 (Hare Green) J19 (Boreham) 9495 New jobs (each row = 1000) Maldon DC (development quanta based on East of England Plan (RSS)2010)) 8105 19 J18 (A414 Maldon Road) Contains regional centre Chelmsford J20A/B (Hatfield Peverel) 1601 J22 (Witham) Brentwood DC Chelmsford DC 17 Contains Priority Area for 2220 Regeneration J11 (M25 J28) J12 (Mountnessing) 2505 15 J18 (xxx) Key route linkage to district J13 (Ingatestone) A12 J19 Boreham 2 Major junction improvement as condition of Southend Airport planning permission to be implemented by 2019 Planned improvements 1 2m passenger capacity to be 4649 A12A delivered by 2020 – 300 new jobs

M25 Brentwood Network Stress 2020 Forecast DC Basildon DC A130 Peak period ‘Stress’ levels (based on DfT’s NTM 2020 AM v/c reference case) A127 Southend 11 Brentwood >100%

9194 80% – 100% J12 (Mountnessing) London J16 (B1007) 60% – 80% J17 (A130) Basildon DC A127 0% – 60% 8057 M25 HA Media Services, Manchester N120525 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

4 Route strategy

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 In order for the route to keep up with the planned growth and maintain its function as a strategic route from London to the ports, operational intervention and targeted investment will be required. These can be split between short-term (within the next 5 years) and long term (within the next 15 years).

4.1.2 It should also be highlighted that the recommendations below all need to support the Government’s response to the Cook report in that they should support economic growth through the development of a resilient network, support a greener network and ensure that the route is maintained in a good physical condition and supports the safety and security of the users.

4.1.3 Figure 4.0 summarises the key recommendations which are set out below.

4.1.4 Appendix C sets out stakeholders views on the specific areas of the route which may need to be improved.

4.2 Short term:

4.2.1 In order to reduce the number of incidents and improve journey reliability, the strategy has identified four key areas in the short term to improve:

(a) Improved management of the route: We should investigate whether there is a case to deploy traffic officers or use other techniques such as ‘MinuteMan’ (a fast-response service for clearing minor incidents such as breakdowns or very minor collisions in order to reduce consequent delays) along the route. Gates within barriers which facilitate the re-routing of traffic should be reviewed.

(b) Improvements to technology along the route – in particular between the M25 junction and junction 29 where it is most heavily trafficked and frequently congested. Various forms of technology are available that should be investigated at specific

Page 20 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

points along the route for both capacity and information management. These might include ramp metering and adaptations of managed motorway techniques such as variable speed limits; and variable message signs.

(c) Improvements to lay-by and road user facilities – the removal, replacement or improvement of sub-standard lay-bys and the provision of customer facilities including roadside services. More and better services for heavy goods vehicles should also be investigated to ensure that they are able park both securely and safely when required to take breaks.

(d) Collision reduction and incident management – campaigns to educate drivers on good practice and strong enforcement preventing illegal driving behaviour should be implemented in conjunction with Essex and Suffolk Police and local highway authorities. This should be complementary to the measures identified above with the aim of preventing the incidents caused by driver taking place. Working in partnership with emergency services, staging areas for disabled or recovered vehicles and recovery equipment need to be reviewed.

(e) Maintenance – Improvements to the carriageway and vehicle restraint systems to allow for increased resilience when an incident occurs e.g. provide a hard strip where it currently does not exist along the route where opportunities arise. Opportunities have already been taken where major maintenance has taken place to address some standard deficiencies – this should be continued.

4.2.2 Other short term actions include:

(a) Junction improvements – quick-win schemes should be identified to increase capacity at key stress points on the route.

(b) Development of an investment strategy for the route – working primarily with the local enterprise partnerships to develop an A12/A120 corridor delivery partnership which could then provide a more transparent and effective process for levering in private-sector contributions through S.106/CIL, as well as develop strong evidence for funding from other pots such as the regional growth fund and the newly-announced Infrastructure funding.

Page 21 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

4.3 Longer term

4.3.1 Develop and deliver a junction optimisation strategy – this will aim to solve the operational issues on the route and investigate the potential for releasing land for growth. See section 4.5 below which sets out some ideas for unlocking land for development through the review of several key junctions.

4.3.2 Direct accesses to the route – these should be reviewed and rationalised where possible to either be removed or relocated to address the safety needs of users and reduce interruptions to free flow.

4.3.3 Modal shift – opportunities to shift demand from road to rail should be investigated, though this could require ongoing resource expenditure and would need to be implemented in cooperation with other responsible bodies.

4.3.4 Improvement to local roads – for instance, to provide reasonable alternative routes in cases where the traffic needs to be diverted, or to relieve some unsuitable local routes.

4.3.5 Investigate a major upgrade to the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey – although this will be the focus of another route-based strategy it is clear that this route section acts as a significant diversion route for the A12 despite being very unsuitable for the purpose. Bringing it up to the standard where it is suitable as a strategic diversion route would significantly increase network resilience within the sub-region, however it is recognised this would require substantial investment.

4.4 Improvements for non-motorised users

4.4.1 Whilst cyclists tend not to travel long distances along the route, stakeholders have long sought higher quality provision where there are no alternative parallel cycle-friendly routes; attention to detail when it comes to dropped kerbs, maintenance and conflict points with slip roads; and a system of local directional signing which shows how you navigate using A12 cycle tracks between local destinations.

4.5 Facilitating future growth

4.5.1 Whilst the A12/A120 can act as a barrier to growth, if the operational issues on the route are resolved, sites that may have previously been rejected or not even considered as potential growth locations may then

Page 22 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

become feasible. For instance, at Harwich new access arrangements plus some localised widening may provide an opportunity for port related industry to be considered. Such sites would need to be considered with partners alongside the investment strategy referred to above.

4.5.2 The A120/A133 junction currently causes problems particularly on the local road network due to the inability to turn between the A133 and the A120 further east. The provision of these missing movements could also allow for land to be considered for employment/residential use and improve access to south east Colchester.

4.5.3 As shown in figures 2.0 and 3.0, demand between junctions 28 and 29 is very heavy. Localised capacity improvements should be investigated as this would help facilitate growth north of Colchester.

4.5.4 Although improvements have been made to the Copdock junction with the A14, it remains a key junction along the route and therefore continued assessment of it should take place to ensure it is able to accommodate the current and future growth plans.

4.5.5 Several junctions along the route allow only limited movements but can cause significant local difficulties and, in some cases, stifle new development. The potential to provide for these missing movements should be investigated to relieve local bottlenecks and/or provide for new growth sites.

Page 23 A14 New interchange required Fig 4.0 Ipswich (developer funded) to serve Pond Copdock Interchange: Review Hall Farm employment area Route Strategy further capacity improvements A14 Babergh 33 Felixstowe Bring selected sections up to DC current standards as part of major maintenance programme 2 Review capacity between J's 28 & 1 A12A 1. Review recent improvements 29 to support future development in A120 2. Additional capacity: keep under north Colchester Harwich A120 review in light of port and 29 associated expansion A133 Potential for developer funded Colchester DC upgrade / relocation for Junction 25 Tendring DC associated with A120 upgrade plans Legend

Stansted A120 Provide missing turning movements Short term (to 2020) issues to be addressed Colchester to improve resilience. May also 25 create further development Technology measures opportunities Incident management measures Investigate major upgrade of A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey for Braintree DC Investigate capacity improvements needed to ‘Physical’ improvements Strategic diversion capability and to enable planned growth at Stanway improve regional network resilience Witham Medium term (2020 to 2030) issues to be addressed A130A Review of laybys to improve 1 3 standards where feasible Potential for further development 0 Technology measures once planned improvements are complete Remove / relocate / rationalise Incident management measures direct frontage accesses where 19 ‘Physical’ improvements Chelmsford DC feasible and bring to current Maldon DC standards where possible Chelmsford 17 Junction optimisation / growth opportunities (typically linked to Investigate introduction of Traffic junctions allowing only limited 15 Officer patrols, MinuteMan service movements) 2 A130 1 or other incident management Brentwood DC A12A improvements Key junctions

M25 1. investigate safety signage 11 M25 J28 ‘Brook Street’ @ Mountnessing bends 15 2. investigate speed limits, VMS & A414 ‘Three Mile Hill’, Chelmsford BP (W) Managed Motorway techniques 17 A127 Southend A130 Southend Road 11 Brentwood 19 A130 Boreham Interchange 25 London Basildon DC A120 Marks Tey A127 29 A12/A120 ‘Crown’ Interchange 33 A14/A12 ‘Copdock’ Interchange M25 HA Media Services, Manchester N120525 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Appendices

Page 25 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Appendix A

List of studies used as part of this strategy:

 London to Ipswich Multi Modal Study (LOIS) (2002),

o www.lois-mms.co.uk

 A12 Commission to the Inquiry Report (2008)

o Available via Google or similar from the Essex Partnership Portal website (search: “A12 Inquiry Report”)

 Transport and the Economy in the East of England study (TEES) (2008)

o http://www.insighteast.org.uk/viewResource.aspx?id=16361

 A12 Route Management Strategy (June 2001) – (unpublished)

 London to Haven Ports study (Sept 2010) – (unpublished)

 Sustainable Transport Options for the Growing A12/GEML corridor towns (May 2010).

o http://www.insighteast.org.uk/viewResource.aspx?id=18238

Page 26 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Appendix B

Table 1.0: A12/A120 link standards

Link section North / eastbound South / westbound M25 – J12 D2 D2 J12 – J13 D2 D3 J13 – J15 D3 D2 J15 – J16 D2 D2 J16 – J17 D2 D2 J17 – J18 D2 D2 J18 – J19 D2 D2 J19 – J20a D3 D3 J20a – J20b D2 D2 J20b – J21 D2 D3 J21 – J22 D2 D2 J22 – J23 D2 D2 J23 – J24 D2 D2 J24 – J25 D2 D2 J25 – J26 D3 D3 J26 – J27 D3 D3 J27 – J28 D2 D2 J28 – J29 D2 D2 J29 – A14 D2 D2 A120, A12 – A133 D2 D2 A120, A133 – L.Bentley D2 (with short S2) D2 (with short S2) L.Bentley - Parkeston S2 S2

Page 27 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Table 2.0: A12/A120 major junctions along the route

Junction Local name Description J11/M25 Brook St 3 level GSJ, all movements J28 J12 Marylands GSJ, all movement J13 Trueloves GSJ, 3 slips (no e/b onslip) J14 Furze Hill GSJ, 2 slips (west/south facing) only J15 Webbs farm GSJ, all movements J16 Galleywood GSJ, all movements J17 Howe Green GSJ, all movements J18 Sandon GSJ, all movements J19 Boreham GSJ, all movements J20a Hatfield Peverel S GSJ with west-facing-only slips J20b Hatfield Peverel N GSJ with east-facing-only slips J21 Linfields GSJ, 3 slips (no w/b offslip) J22 Coleman’s GSJ, all movements J23 Kelvedon S GSJ with west-facing-only slips J24 Kelvedon N GSJ with east-facing-only slips J25 Marks Tey GSJ, all movements, complex slips J26 Eight Ash Green GSJ, all movements J27 Spring Lane GSJ with west-facing-only slips J28 Severalls GSJ, all movements J29 Crown 3-level GSJ, all movements J30 Stratford St Mary Priority junction J31 Four Sisters Compact GSJ, all movements J32 Capel St Mary S GSJ all movements, ‘extended’ J32a Capel St Mary junction with local connections / accesses J32b Bentley Long Wood GSJ, all movements J33/A14 Copdock Mill GSJ all movements (A14 priority) J55 (A) A120 Hare Green GSJ with west-facing-only slips (B) A120 Little Bentley Staggered crossroads (C) A120 Horsley Cross At-grade roundabout (D) A120 Ramsey Roundabout (E) A120 Parkeston At-grade roundabout

Page 28 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Table 3.0: carriageway impact data for the period December 2011 – November 2012

Number of A12 (J11-J33) and A120 (A12 to Harwich) Average impact carriageway impact Incident types duration (minutes) incidents Road traffic collision – damage only 72 106.9 Breakdown – in live lane 61 81.7 Debris 40 96.9 Road traffic collision – serious injury 21 155.6 Road traffic collision – minor injury 13 93.8 Event / incident (off network) - unplanned 7 91.9 Other obstruction (excl. breakdown) 6 40.2 Breakdown - hardshoulder 4 66.3 Observation – infrastructure problem 4 270.8 Vehicle fire 3 123.8 Non-hazardous spillage 2 104.3 Road traffic collision – fatal 2 174.0 Animal on network 1 13.2 Anti-social behaviour with vehicle 1 100.7 Heavy rain 1 210.0 Observation – police / VOSA intelligence 1 40.2 Total 239 102.8 Note: A12/A120 not routinely patrolled by Highways Agency Traffic Officers – not all incident statistics will be reported to Highways Agency

Page 29 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Appendix C Table 4.0 stakeholder priorities for the route

Theme Issues Suggested Interventions Government policy  Lack of investment in the East of  Long term government policy; England; and strategy  Transparent decision-making;  Lack of continuity through successive  Local authority policies on Governments/ Secretaries of State; growth would follow;  Lack of transparency in decision-  As would private-sector making; investment and developer  Perceived as inhibiting private-sector contributions. investment and hence growth.

Upgrading the route Links and junctions of poor geometric  Develop a structured programme of measures to standard, with road safety, capacity and address these deficiencies other issues (in no particular order): and bring the route up to a  Rivenhall slip road: substandard, consistent, modern standard; dangerous and very busy;  Solutions to key problems  Copdock junction: congestion now, so should be prioritised, with a little scope for future growth view to having projects ready  Poor dual two-lane carriageway around to deliver when funding is Chelmsford; released;  Four Sisters junction substandard;  Conversion to motorway  High levels of congestion at Hare (seen as unlikely). Green;  High levels of congestion at Boreham;  Hatfield Peverel northbound: third party land issues hampering widening like southbound;  Witham bypass: inconsistent mix of standards;  Kelvedon bypass: poor road condition;  High levels of collisions on Suffolk section of A12;  Lack of and poor standard of lay-bys;  Noise issues at Brentwood, Ingatestone and Mountnessing. Achieving modal shift  Lack of co-ordination between road and  Improvements to station car rail investment strategies. parks (e.g. at Manningtree) bring good relief to A12;  Potential to achieve same effect elsewhere, e.g. Marks Tey.

Page 30 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Local road issues  Congestion from other roads affects  Measures to address the lack A12; of alternative routes;  A120: no alternative route;  Clearer road markings and  Local village roads poor alternative for signage. local journeys.

Active traffic  Traffic lights programmed inefficiently;  Variable speed limits; management  Information boards often perceived as  Minimum speed limits; out of date  Variable message signs;  HGV overtaking ban;  Average speed cameras;  Prohibition of certain vehicle classes during peak periods;  Active enforcement.

Driver behaviour  Issues such as weaving, frequent lane-  Driver education changing, undertaking and lane hogging.

Emergency response  Delays following accidents and  Prioritise vehicle recovery and incidents. traffic management following accidents and incidents Foreign vehicle drivers  Left-hand drive vehicles.  Provision of lenses/ mirrors adjacent to the carriageway.

Page 31 A12/A120 route-based strategy March 2013

Appendix D

Table 5.0 A12 major maintenance schemes

Year Location Length Actual Route Km Cost 1997/98 Mountnessing 2.32 £7m 1998/99 Boreham 3.59 £6.1m 999/00 Stanway 1.69 £5.6m 2000/01 Brentwood phase 1 3.11 £11.2m 2001/02 Hatfield Peverel 1.49 £6.9m 2002/03 Brentwood phase 2 4.25 £11.2m 2003/04 Witham phase 1 4.08 £11.9m 2004/05 Marks Tey to Kelvedon 5.00 £8.5m 2005/06 Ingatestone 2.38 £8.3m 2008/09 Kelvedon phase 2 2.29 £7.5 m 2009/10 Witham phase 2 1.92 £9.7 m

The forward programme indicates allocations to similar funding levels based on previous financial years. The list is based upon need and is reviewed every year. If the condition of a section deteriorates, it will be moved up the priority list.

Marks Tey to Stanway is structurally in good condition. The ride quality is poor and is further highlighted by the improvements carried out either side at Stanway and Marks Tey to Kelvedon. Proposed maintenance aims to address the ride quality of this section of the A12 by overlaying asphalt.

In summary, there have been nine major maintenance schemes carried out since 1997 at a cost of £77m covering approximately 17 route miles (28 km). This represents 33% of the total length which has been improved. Total length from M25 to A14 Copdock Interchange is 52 miles (84 km).

Page 32