DOCSLIB.ORG

Welsh Infrastructure Alliance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Welsh Infrastructure Alliance REPORT BY THE WELSH INFRASDTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (WIA) PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IN WALES Introduction This short report from the Wales Infrastructure Alliance (WIA) is a focussed response to the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales’ (NICW) Call for Evidence relating to Transport issues, as set out in their 1st Annual Report “The Future Prosperity and Well-Being of Wales and the role of Infrastructure” published in November 2019. It sets out some general areas for consideration as well as specific responses to Issues 6 to 10 (inclusive) and should be read in conjunction with the WIA’s previous report to the NICW in Autumn 2019. The Welsh Infrastructure Alliance The Welsh Infrastructure Alliance draws together like-minded organisations representing over 600 member companies and over 10,000 individual members from across the infrastructure sector. The Alliance sees itself as a source of advice and potential solutions to enable the deliver “world class” infrastructure in Wales to drive our future wellbeing as a nation. Overview Wales needs a world class, sustainable, integrated and resilient transport network that delivers greater prosperity, keeps Wales connected and provides genuine choices. It must support the well-being of our future generations as well as addressing climate change and the challenge of decarbonising Wales by 2040. The current Climate Change Emergency should not be seen as a reason to not invest in transport infrastructure. It is an opportunity to fundamentally change our infrastructure and prepare ourselves for a world with net zero carbon vehicles across all modes of transport. Insufficient investment in new and existing transport infrastructure, combined with a lack of positive decision-making for major interventions, is the biggest threat to undermining these aspirations and widen the gap between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. The challenges we face from the Climate Change Emergency are demanding but not so insurmountable that we should not invest in infrastructure. The future role of Transport for Wales (TfW), particularly in respect of the delivery of infrastructure improvements across all modes, needs to be clearly defined and a clear forward programme of investment published to give certainty and confidence to the public and potential investors. TfW needs to be given sufficient budgets to deliver the programme of improvements needed across all modes. Widespread investment in BIM and digital asset management by the Welsh Government and other public authorities will lead to efficiencies in the operational management of assets and cost savings to owners. The Welsh Government needs Welsh Infrastructure Alliance to adopt the technological advances taken forward by other UK Governments and share best practice. There is potential to take the lead in developing these further due the smaller size and reduced complexity of assets in Wales. The adoption of the rail network in Wales provides both challenges and opportunities for Transport for Wales as the new owner. Future investment in infrastructure needs to focus on increased capacity on the Valleys Lines and improved transport hubs. Wales’ strategic road and rail network appeared to cope with the recent flooding events. However, it is vulnerable and it is unclear how resilient some parts of the network really are to climate change. All forms of Welsh infrastructure are critical to our daily life and recently only just managed to deal with the heavy winter storms. Infrastructure during the 2013/2014 floods was at the point of being disrupted severely. With sea level rise, more intense rainfall and stronger winds due to climate change, the road and railway network will be disrupted for ever increasing periods. For example, the loss of Newgale shingle bank and the severance of the trunk road showed this vulnerability and there will undoubtedly be major disruption to the coastal rail network, in particularly on the firmer Cambrian coast. It remains to be seen how the recent outbreak of Coronavirus will impact on our infrastructure needs and general travel patterns across society, but they will change. Funding of Infrastructure Interventions Transport infrastructure investment in Wales falls well short of what is needed. Budgetary challenges over the last decade are well known but this shouldn’t prevent investment, particularly as it is shown to provide positive economic and social benefits. The Welsh Government needs to be encouraged to invest in alternative and more innovative forms of investment – both public and private sector – to bring forward critical infrastructure improvements. These could include more extensive use of Mutual Investment Model (MIM) financing currently proposed for the final sections of the A465 Heads of the Valleys dualling but also the increased use of Government borrowing, increased rail access charges and Increased use of government borrowing, innovative funding solutions With the growth of non-fossil fuel powered vehicles, increased prosperity, and the demand for greater social mobility, it is inevitable the propensity for people to travel in personalised vehicles will increase, even if vehicle ownership doesn’t. Serious consideration needs to be given to increased use of road pricing or taxation as a means to suppress demand and raise funds for infrastructure investment across all modes of transport. In any event we can no longer put off important investment decisions in our strategic road and rail network. The NICW should establish a working group to explore alternative and innovative forms of funding linked to the Welsh Government’s Infrastructure Investment Plans. Welsh Infrastructure Alliance Issue 6 – Strategic Connectivity: Road and Rail – Improve Links The lack of strategic road and rail capacity and resilience in the south-east and north-east of Wales has long been known by the Welsh Government and there have been proposals to address these problems since the inception of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999. More committed investment and certainty in delivering major transport infrastructure is essential to improving East-West links in both North and South Wales as well as North and South links to central Wales. Investment in longer distance bus/coach transport in these corridors linked to local bus networks at interchanges with M4 Motorway and A55, including more park and ride facilities, will reduce travel distances and provide alternatives to private car users. Solutions to address congestion on the M4 Motorway corridor in south-east Wales have been under consideration for nearly 30 years. Alternatives to the construction of a new motorway around the south of Newport have been considered and discarded on several occasions, including as part of the Public Inquiry in 2018 for a new Motorway. The Welsh Government’s decision to not proceed with this new Motorway was understandable at the time but since then no real alternative have been announced. The proposed South East Wales Metro will provide some positive benefits but will not adequately address the current congestion problems. Investment in a SMART motorway or ‘Expressway’ could relieve pressure in the mid- term and should be investigated although this should be treated with caution until the findings of the Highways England review of SMART motorways has been published. At this time the only long-term solution remains some form of new road infrastructure and the case for infrastructure investment in improving the M4 Motorway in south- east Wales, including how to address concerns raised by the Climate Change Emergency, needs to be revisited urgently. This should include options for alternative and innovative funding mechanisms, including the use of MIM financing. The A55 across North Wales continues to suffer from a lack of investment with long- delayed decisions at Deeside, the Third Menai Crossing and Junctions 15/16 resulting in increased congestion and delays, particularly for tourist and business travellers to north-west Wales. The development of the A55 to ‘Expressway’ standards, with robust alternative diversion routes to provide greater network resilience needs to be investigated further. The intervention to improve the A55/A494/A548 in Flinthshire should be given priority funding due to its key interaction with the bordering English regions which are also receiving investment. Electrification of the mainlines across and north and south Wales (west of Cardiff) will bring journey reliability and time reduction benefits as well as carbon reductions and air quality improvements. The case for demonstrating improvement in connectivity along these corridors is however not proven but this should not detract from making these investments for other sustainability reasons. The delivery of Metros in south-east, south-west and north Wales will all bring significant benefits to their regional and local economies. However, the Welsh Government needs to demonstrate the benefits these will being and provide more Welsh Infrastructure Alliance certainty on the measures that will be implemented. This will allow regional and local authorities, as well as the private sector, to plan and invest thereby maximising the benefits of this infrastructure investment. It is evident from investment in the strategic and local road network in areas such as the Heads of the Valleys, Newtown and Caernarfon can not only stimulate local economic growth but improve air quality, reduce carbon emissions and bring benefits to local communities
Recommended publications
  • The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, C1750-C1850

    The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, C1750-C1850

    The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, c1750-c1850 Carolyn Dougherty PhD University of York Railway Studies November 2018 Abstract Transport and economic historians generally consider the change from moving goods principally on roads, inland waterways and coastal ships to moving them principally on railways as inevitable, unproblematic, and the result of technological improvements. While the benefits of rail travel were so clear that most other modes of passenger transport disappeared once rail service was introduced, railway goods transport did not offer as obvious an improvement over the existing goods transport network, known as the carrying trade. Initially most railways were open to the carrying trade, but by the 1840s railway companies began to provide goods carriage and exclude carriers from their lines. The resulting conflict over how, and by whom, goods would be transported on railways, known as the carrying question, lasted more than a decade, and railway companies did not come to dominate domestic goods carriage until the 1850s. In this study I develop a fuller picture of the carrying trade than currently exists, highlighting its multimodal collaborative structure and setting it within the ‘sociable economy’ of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century England. I contrast this economy with the business model of joint-stock companies, including railway companies, and investigate responses to the business practices of these companies. I analyse the debate over railway company goods carriage, and identify changes in goods transport resulting from its introduction. Finally, I describe the development and outcome of the carrying question, showing that railway companies faced resistance to their attempts to control goods carriage on rail lines not only from the carrying trade but also from customers of goods transport, the government and the general public.
  • A Call Against the Decline in Local Bus Services

    A Call Against the Decline in Local Bus Services

    A call against the decline in local bus services Resolution Shortlist Briefing Notes A call against the decline in local bus services Over the last decade there has been a massive decline in the number of bus services, particularly of those in rural and semi-rural areas. In order to alleviate loneliness, improve health and wellbeing, as well as promoting sustainable development, the NFWI calls on the Government and local authorities to increase subsidies and work in partnership with bus companies and community transport operators to enable an adequate provision of services. Proposer’s position The proposer would like the importance of a local sustainable bus service, particularly in rural areas, to be more widely recognised. In light of the falling coverage of bus services and the wide-spread impact on communities, this resolution calls on local and national government to take action. The scale of the problem Since 2010, local authorities have faced budgets cuts which have put pressure on the delivery of local services such as health centres, post offices and libraries. Those without access to a car rely heavily on public transport, and the loss of a bus service can reduce access to services and facilities and contribute to social exclusion and loneliness. According to the Campaign for Better Transport, council bus budgets have been cut by 45% since 2010. Local authorities across England and Wales were found to have taken £182 million away from supported bus services over the decade, affecting more than 3,000 bus services in England and 259 in Wales. According to Rural England, about half of people in smaller villages do not have access to any public transport and young people's access to education is being impacted by poor public transport provision.
  • 'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of

    'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of

    Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’ February 2018 Peter O’Briena* Andy Pikea and John Tomaneyb aCentre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU. Email: peter.o’[email protected]; [email protected] bBartlett School of Planning, University College London, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 620 Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, UK WC1H 0NN. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author 1 Abstract The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, oovercoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives.
  • London to Wales Route Strategy March 2017 Contents 1

    London to Wales Route Strategy March 2017 Contents 1

    London to Wales Route Strategy March 2017 Contents 1. Introduction 1 Purpose of Route Strategies 2 Strategic themes 2 Stakeholder engagement 3 Transport Focus 3 2. The route 5 Route Strategy overview map 7 3. Current constraints and challenges 9 A safe and serviceable network 9 More free-flowing network 9 Supporting economic growth 10 An improved environment 10 A more accessible and integrated network 10 Diversionary routes 14 Maintaining the strategic road network 15 4. Current investment plans and growth potential 17 Economic context 17 Innovation 17 Investment plans 17 5. Future challenges and opportunities 21 6. Next steps 27 i R Lon ou don to Scotla te nd East London Or bital and M23 to Gatwick str Lon ategies don to Scotland West London to Wales The division of rou tes for the F progra elixstowe to Midlands mme of route strategies on t he Solent to Midlands Strategic Road Network M25 to Solent (A3 and M3) Kent Corridor to M25 (M2 and M20) South Coast Central Birmingham to Exeter A1 South West Peninsula London to Leeds (East) East of England South Pennines A19 A69 North Pen Newccaastlstlee upon Tyne nines Carlisle A1 Sunderland Midlands to Wales and Gloucest M6 ershire North and East Midlands A66 A1(M) A595 South Midlands Middlesbrougugh A66 A174 A590 A19 A1 A64 A585 M6 York Irish S Lee ea M55 ds M65 M1 Preston M606 M621 A56 M62 A63 Kingston upon Hull M62 M61 M58 A1 M1 Liver Manchest A628 A180 North Sea pool er M18 M180 Grimsby M57 A616 A1(M) M53 M62 M60 Sheffield A556 M56 M6 A46 A55 A1 Lincoln A500 Stoke-on-Trent A38 M1 Nottingham
  • The Need for Indigenous Aggregates Production in England

    The Need for Indigenous Aggregates Production in England

    The need for indigenous aggregates production in England Open Report OR/08/026 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN REPORT OR/08/026 The need for indigenous aggregates production in England T J Brown, F McEvoy and J Mankelow (BGS) with J Ward, S Bloomfield, T Goussarova, N Shah and L Souron (cebr) Keywords England, aggregates, economy, construction. Front cover Dowlow Quarry, Derbyshire C Mitchell, BGS © NERC Bibliographical reference BROWN, TJ, MCEVOY, F AND MANKELOW, J (BGS) WITH WARD, J, BLOOMFIELD, S, GOUSSAROVA, T, SHAH, N AND SOURON, L (CEBR). 2008. The need for indigenous aggregates production in England. British Geological Survey Open Report, OR/08/026. 74pp. Copyright in materials derived from the British Geological Survey’s work is owned by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and/or the authority that commissioned the work. You may not copy or adapt this publication without first obtaining permission. Contact the BGS Intellectual Property Rights Section, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, e-mail [email protected]. You may quote extracts of a reasonable length without prior permission, provided a full acknowledgement is given of the source of the extract. © NERC 2008. All rights reserved Keyworth, Nottingham British Geological Survey 2008 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY The full range of our publications is available from BGS shops at British Geological Survey offices Nottingham, Edinburgh, London and Cardiff (Welsh publications only) see contact details below or shop online at www.geologyshop.com BGS Central Enquiries Desk Tel 0115 936 3143 Fax 0115 936 3276 The London Information Office also maintains a reference collection of BGS publications, including maps, for consultation.
  • Transport Investment and Economic Performance

    Transport Investment and Economic Performance

    9/10/14 Transport investment and economic performance: Implications for project appraisal* Anthony J. Venables James Laird Henry Overman * Paper commissioned by UK Department for Transport. Thanks to referees, contributors to the seminar and the call for evidence, and staff of the Department for their inputs. 0 Transport investment and economic performance: implications for project appraisal Executive summary and recommendations Transport and economic performance Transport is an essential input to income generation, and to consumption and wider domestic life. Estimates suggest that if all other drivers of growth were to increase by 10% and transport infrastructure were to stay constant, then realised growth in income would be just 9%, i.e. 1% point less than it otherwise would have been. Studies of particular projects or types of transport improvement point to positive impacts on a wide range of economic variables including city size and employment. The increases in land values associated with urban transport projects are well established. While these effects are well documented, the research literature has not been able to provide good estimates of the ex-post benefit-cost ratios (or rates of return) on particular transport investments that have been undertaken. This is partly because the benefits of a transport improvement can be quite diffuse, affecting many different individuals and firms, and partly because of the difficulty of establishing a good counterfactual; what would have happened if the project had not been built? Projected benefit cost ratios are generated by ex ante project appraisal, using techniques that are well-grounded in economic principles and empirics. For the UK, even taking a fairly narrow view of benefits, these indicate BCRs greater than two for more than 90% of projects undertaken.1 The impacts of a transport improvement are wide-ranging, particularly for large projects.
  • What Light Rail Can Do for Cities

    What Light Rail Can Do for Cities

    WHAT LIGHT RAIL CAN DO FOR CITIES A Review of the Evidence Final Report: Appendices January 2005 Prepared for: Prepared by: Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD [t] +44 (0)20 7919 8500 [i] www.steerdaviesgleave.com Passenger Transport Executive Group Wellington House 40-50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE What Light Rail Can Do For Cities: A Review of the Evidence Contents Page APPENDICES A Operation and Use of Light Rail Schemes in the UK B Overseas Experience C People Interviewed During the Study D Full Bibliography P:\projects\5700s\5748\Outputs\Reports\Final\What Light Rail Can Do for Cities - Appendices _ 01-05.doc Appendix What Light Rail Can Do For Cities: A Review Of The Evidence P:\projects\5700s\5748\Outputs\Reports\Final\What Light Rail Can Do for Cities - Appendices _ 01-05.doc Appendix What Light Rail Can Do For Cities: A Review of the Evidence APPENDIX A Operation and Use of Light Rail Schemes in the UK P:\projects\5700s\5748\Outputs\Reports\Final\What Light Rail Can Do for Cities - Appendices _ 01-05.doc Appendix What Light Rail Can Do For Cities: A Review Of The Evidence A1. TYNE & WEAR METRO A1.1 The Tyne and Wear Metro was the first modern light rail scheme opened in the UK, coming into service between 1980 and 1984. At a cost of £284 million, the scheme comprised the connection of former suburban rail alignments with new railway construction in tunnel under central Newcastle and over the Tyne. Further extensions to the system were opened to Newcastle Airport in 1991 and to Sunderland, sharing 14 km of existing Network Rail track, in March 2002.
  • M4 Smart Motorway Faqs

    M4 Smart Motorway Faqs

    Transport for NSW M4 Smart Motorway FAQs Here are some of our top questions about the M4 Smart Motorway project. Which motorway is the M4? The M4 Motorway is a 35km long motorway that opened in Sydney in the 1960’s. It stretches from Concord in the inner west to Lapstone in the Blue Mountains. The M4 Motorway connects to the M5 WestConnex at Haberfeld and also intersects the Westlink M7 at Eastern Creek. What is the M4 Smart The M4 Motorway will become frst smart motorway in Motorway Project? NSW with new road structures and technology being installed from Parramatta to Penrith. What is a Smart Motorway? A Smart Motorway, also known as a Managed Motorway in Victoria, use real-time information, communication and trafc control systems in and alongside the road to improve trafc fow. Variable road signs and messages communicate to drivers how to best travel along the motorway for a safer, more consistent journey with less congestion. roads-maritime.transport.nsw.gov.au Page 1 of 3 M4 Smart Motorway FAQs Where else is this technology Smart motorway technologies are being used on Melbourne’s being used in Australia? M1 motorway and introduced in southern Queensland on several roads including the Ipswich Motorway. Some individual elements of the technology are already in place on Sydney roads including the M1, M2, M5 and M7 Motorways. Has this system delivered Yes, studies have reported a signifcant reduction in improvements in other motorway incidents and improved trafc fow. On locations? Melbourne’s M1 Motorway reports have shown: • Travel times have been reduced by up to 42 percent • Crash rates have decreased by 30 percent • Vehicle emissions have been reduced by 11 percent How does the Smart There are a number of diferent parts that work together to Motorway work? ensure trafc fow and safety along the motorway.
  • The M49 Motorway and M4 Motorway (Junction 22) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014

    The M49 Motorway and M4 Motorway (Junction 22) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2014 No. 2283 ROAD TRAFFIC The M49 Motorway and M4 Motorway (Junction 22) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014 Made - - - - 27th August 2014 Coming into force - - 30th August 2014 WHEREAS the Secretary of State for Transport, being the traffic authority for the M49 Motorway (“the M49”), the M4 Motorway (“the M4”) and connecting roads, is satisfied that traffic on lengths of those roads and some of those connecting roads in the City of Bristol and South Gloucestershire should be prohibited because works are proposed to be executed thereon: NOW, THEREFORE, the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984( a), hereby makes the following Order:- 1. This Order may be cited as the M49 Motorway and M4 Motorway (Junction 22) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014 and shall come into force on 30th August 2014. 2. In this Order – “the M49” means both carriageways of the M49 between M5 Junction 18A and the southern edge of the M4 Junction 22 interchange roundabout; “the slip roads” mean the eastbound and westbound exit and entry slip roads at M4 Junction 22; “the works” mean resurfacing, white lining, drainage repairs and surveying works; “a works period” means a period of 10 hours starting at 20.00 hours on Monday 1st September 2014 or on any subsequent day and ending when the said works have been completed; and a reference to an article followed by a number is a reference to the article in this Order which bears that number.
  • Joint Spatial Plan Joint Transport Study Final Report October 2017

    Joint Spatial Plan Joint Transport Study Final Report October 2017

    WEST OF ENGLAND “BUILDING OUR FUTURE” West of England Joint Spatial Plan Joint Transport Study final report October 2017 NOVEMBER 2017 9 www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for the West of England authorities’ information and use in relation to the West of England Joint Transport Study. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 120 pages including the cover. Document history Job number: 5137782 Document ref: Final Report Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 First Draft JFC TP, SG RT, TM JFC 05/05/17 Rev 2.0 Second Draft JFC, TP 26/05/17 Rev 3.0 Third Draft JFC BD, SG RT JFC 07/06/17 Rev 4.0 Fourth Draft JFC SG RT JFC 21/06/17 Rev 5.0 5th Draft (Interim Version) JFC 27/06/17 Rev 6.0 Sixth Draft JFC SG RT JFC 28/06/17 Rev 7.0 Final Draft JFC RT RT JFC 07/07/17 Rev 8.0 Revised Final Draft JFC JFC 01/09/17 Rev 9.0 Final JFC SG RT JFC 19/10/17 Client signoff Client West of England authorities Project West of England Joint Transport Study Document title Final Report Job no. 5137782 Copy no. Document 5137782/Final Report reference Atkins West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report | October 2017 West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report Table of contents Chapter Pages 1.
  • The M4 Motorway (West of Magor to East of Castleton) and the A48(M) Motorway (West of Castleton to St Mellons) (Variation of Various Schemes) Scheme 201

    The M4 Motorway (West of Magor to East of Castleton) and the A48(M) Motorway (West of Castleton to St Mellons) (Variation of Various Schemes) Scheme 201

    WELSH STATUTORY INSTRUMENT S 201- No. (W. ) HIGHWAYS, WALES The M4 Motorway (West of Magor to East of Castleton) and The A48(M) Motorway (West of Castleton to St Mellons) (Variation of Various Schemes) Scheme 201- EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Scheme) This Scheme removes the special road classification from various parts of the M4 motorway in the City of Newport and the County of Monmouthshire and from various parts of the A48(M) motorway in the City of Newport and the City and County of Cardiff. The parts removed will continue to be trunk road. The Scheme comes into force on such day or days as may be appointed by the Welsh Ministers and specified in a notice in the London Gazette. WEL SH STATUTORY INSTRUMENT S 201- No. (W. ) HIGHWAYS, WALES The M4 Motorway (West of Magor to East of Castleton) and The A48(M) Motorway (West of Castleton to St Mellons) (Variation of Various Schemes) Scheme 201- Made 201- Coming into force 201- The Welsh Ministers, in exercise of powers conferred by sections 16, 17, 19 and 326 of the Highways Act 1980(1), and of all other enabling powers(2), make this Scheme. Title, Interpretation and Commencement 1. This Scheme may be cited as The M4 Motorway (West of Magor to East of Castleton) and The A48(M) Motorway (West of Castleton to St Mellons) (Variation of Various Schemes) Scheme 201- and shall come into force on such day or days as may be appointed by the Welsh Ministers and specified in a notice in the London Gazette.
  • The M4 Motorway (Hillingdon and Hounslow) (Speed Limits) Regulations 1998

    The M4 Motorway (Hillingdon and Hounslow) (Speed Limits) Regulations 1998

    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1998 No. 1708 ROAD TRAFFIC The M4 Motorway (Hillingdon and Hounslow) (Speed Limits) Regulations 1998 Made - - - - 10th July 1998 Laid before Parliament 16th July 1998 Coming into force - - 30th October 1998 The Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 17(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(1), and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, and after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with section 134(2) of that Act(2), hereby makes the following Regulations: Citation and commencement 1. These Regulations may be cited as the M4 Motorway (Hillingdon and Hounslow) (Speed Limits) Regulations 1998 and shall come into force on 30th October 1998. Prohibitions 2.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding 40 miles per hour on the lengths of road specified in Part II of the Schedule to these Regulations. (2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding 50 miles per hour on the lengths of road specified in Part III of the Schedule to these Regulations. (3) Part I of the Schedule to these Regulations shall have effect for the interpretation of the Schedule. Revocation 3. The Motorways Traffic (M4) (Speed Limit) Regulations 1971(3) are hereby revoked. (1) 1984 c. 27; section 17(2) was amended by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c.