DOCSLIB.ORG

Reducing Congestion on Our Roads

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reducing Congestion on Our Roads House of Commons Transport Committee Out of the jam: reducing congestion on our roads Ninth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/transcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 September 2011 HC 872 Published on 15 September 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £23.00 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Marek Kubala (Second Clerk), David Davies (Committee Specialist), Tony Catinella (Senior Committee Assistant), Edward Faulkner (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Roads: who’s in charge? 6 What is congestion? 7 2 Maximising the capacity of existing road space 8 Shared space 8 Managed motorways 11 3 Information 13 Information for managing the network 13 Information for drivers 16 4 Minimising the number and impact of events on our roads 19 Road and street works 19 Incidents 24 5 The relevance of the Highway Code and road user behaviour 26 6 Responsibility for managing the road network 29 Current situation 29 Alternative approaches 32 The Highways Agency 33 7 Conclusion 35 Conclusions and recommendations 36 Formal Minutes 40 Witnesses 41 List of printed written evidence 42 List of additional written evidence 43 List of unprinted evidence 43 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 44 3 Summary For car drivers on their way to work, for lorry drivers delivering goods from the warehouse to the shop, or for families going on holiday, the road network is a single continuous entity. But when it comes to the operation of the network, this is not the case: responsibility for managing different parts of the network in England is currently split between the Secretary of State, through the Highways Agency, and local highway and traffic authorities. This complicates road and traffic management: but ensuring that the road network runs smoothly is vital to the prosperity of the nation and congestion on the road network should be seen within the wider context of a general transport policy. Our previous inquiry Transport and the Economy cited evidence that showed that the rising cost of congestion would cost the UK economy an extra £22 billion per annum by 2025. One option for reducing road congestion—road pricing—has been ruled out by the Government. Extensive investment on new roads is also unlikely given the current economic climate. In our inquiry we looked at other ways in which road congestion could be reduced by focusing on improvements to road and traffic management. There is also no single cause of road congestion. Problems may occur on any road, in any part of the country, at any time of the day or night, depending on traffic conditions, the design of the road or junction, planned or emergency road and street works, accidents or incidents. Congestion can be very localised, or can involve the strategic road network. Our inquiry highlighted the diverse nature of factors contributing to congestion and showed that solutions for tackling congestion involve using a varied range of techniques and policies in the most appropriate contexts, and in a co-ordinated and coherent way, in order to get the most out of our road network. They include, among other things: • maximising road capacity, making better use of information and communication technology; • minimising disruptions on the road; • better links between agencies and authorities with responsibility for various sections of the road network; • the sharing of road management best practice; • providing more reliable information for travellers; • and improved driver behaviour, based on better understanding of and adherence to the Highway Code. We have suggested numerous ways in which the Government can get the most out of the existing road network. The Government has taken steps in this direction in relation to the major roads managed by the Highways Agency, but more should be done to help ensure that local authorities co-ordinate their road and traffic management activities with other highways authorities, and have access to existing technology and make use of current best practice. The Government’s commitment to localism needs to be seen in the wider strategic context so that traffic management can be effective across the country. 5 1 Introduction 1. The cost of road congestion in the United Kingdom is astonishingly high. The Eddington Transport Study of 2006 was widely quoted in evidence; this estimated that a 5% reduction in travel time for all business travel on the roads could generate around £2.5 billion of cost savings, for example relating to missed appointments and delayed delivery times.1 The Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) written evidence estimated that the cost of congestion to business is set to rise by £10–12 billion over the period from 2003 to 2025 (expressed in 2002 prices). Adding in the value of the lost time experienced by other travellers raises this figure to £23–24 billion per annum.2 2. Tackling congestion should be viewed in the wider context of transport policy; indeed, it is one of the main priorities for the DfT. Its Business Plan for 2011–15 sets out numerous aims in this area: • to improve traffic flow and remove bottlenecks on the strategic road network; • to introduce Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) road user charging; • to review the operation and structure of the Highways Agency; • to switch to more effective ways of making roads safer; • to encourage sustainable local travel and economic growth by making public transport (including light rail) and cycling and walking more attractive and effective, reducing carbon emissions; • to tackle the causes of local traffic congestion, and giving more flexibility to local authorities to tackle traffic problems; • to reform the management of road works.3 Missing from this list, however, is road pricing (other than for HGVs), which some organisations continue to argue would be the most effective means of reducing congestion.4 We decided to look at how, without road pricing, the Government could better manage the existing road network and the traffic that uses it to reduce congestion. The range of policy interventions at national level is mirrored at the level of local highway and traffic authorities. Transport for London, for example, outlined the Network Operating Strategy that it is developing, in recognition of the fact that “the efficient management and operation of the road network is of significant economic importance”.5 Many local highway authorities have developed network management plans covering similar ground. 1 Ev 104 and Ev 113 2 Ev 120 3 dft.gov.uk/about/publications/business/plan2011-15 4 For example, Ev w36, Ev w48 5 Ev 187 6 3. Our inquiry was launched in autumn 2010. We sought written evidence on: • the extent to which the Government and local authorities should intervene to alleviate congestion, and the best means of doing so; • the extent to which road user culture and behaviour undermine effective traffic management, including the relevance of The Highway Code to road users; • intelligent traffic management schemes that can help to alleviate congestion, such as the ‘managed motorway scheme’ on the M42; • the effectiveness of legislative provisions for road management under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and the Traffic Management Act 2004; • and the impact of bus lanes and other aspects of road layout.6 4. We held four oral evidence sessions and received 56 written submissions: we thank all those who gave written and oral evidence. We also visited a National Grid road works on Regents Street, London and the Transport for London’s Street Traffic Control Centre in Southwark, London.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Questions to the Mayor
    Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on 14 October 2009 South London Line Question No: 2651 / 2009 Jenny Jones Will you express your support for the retention of the South London rail service from Victoria to London Bridge via Denmark Hill, and oppose any reduction in this service that is carried out for financial reasons rather than capacity reasons? Oral response given Missing Updates Question No: 2932 / 2009 John Biggs Are there any unusual, novel, or contentious issues that have arisen since the last Mayor’s Question Time meeting, which you have failed to include in either your last written report or your oral update today? Oral response given Limousines and chauffeurs for the Met’s senior officers Question No: 2939 / 2009 Dee Doocey Following your comments at last months MQT, where you said that cars that ferry around Ministers, civil servants, and other people on the ‘taxpayer’s payroll’ should be got rid of, will you be taking action to abolish limousines and chauffeurs for senior MPS officers? Oral response given London Plan Question No: 3106 / 2009 Steve O’Connell What does the Mayor consider to be the most important aspects of the latest draft of the London Plan and how do they reflect his priorities for London? Oral response given 1 Young People Question No: 2745 / 2009 Joanne McCartney What recent initiatives have you delivered for young people in London? Oral response given Congestion Charge Question No: 3072 / 2009 Victoria Borwick Further to your answers to questions 3014/2008 and 1053/2009 on helping the retail economy the Mayor said he would re-look at bringing forward the post-Christmas Congestion Charge-free days to before Christmas.
    [Show full text]
  • Vehicles and Infrastructure the Fourth of Eight Reports from the Transport Visions Network
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UWE Bristol Research Repository Transport Visions Vehicles and Infrastructure The fourth of eight reports from the Transport Visions Network Authors Greg Marsden, Glenn Lyons, Mark Beecroft and Kiron Chatterjee Transportation Research Group, University of Southampton Editorial Board Jennifer Abley Cranfield University Mags Adams Lancaster University Simon Barnett Suffolk County Council Gary Burnett University of Nottingham Ali Clabburn Liftshare.com Richard Clegg University of York Matthew Frost Nottingham Trent University Simon Hubbard Peter Brett Associates Toby Rackliff Dumfries and Galloway Council Andrew Salkeld Leicester City Council The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as sponsors of the Transport Visions Network, are very gratefully acknowledged. The views of individuals conveyed in this report are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of their respective employers. TRANSPORT VISIONS Vehicles and Infrastructure 1 Published by Landor Publishing Ltd Quadrant House 250 Kennington Lane London SE11 5RD First published February 2002 © Landor Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. ISBN 1 899650 28 8 No responsibility for any loss as a consequence of any person relying upon the information or the views contained in this publication is accepted by the authors, contributors, or publishers. TRANSPORT VISIONS Vehicles and Infrastructure 2 Contents Preface ................................................................................5 Introduction........................................................................9 1. Today's Vehicles and Infrastructure ............................ 13 2. Tomorrow's Vehicles and Infrastructure..................... 23 3. A Vision: Control Culture............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Road and Traffic Management: Memoranda Received
    This bundle: 55 & 56 Effective road and traffic management: Memoranda Received No. Author 28 National Grid plc 01 Leornard Wells 28a Supplementary from National Grid plc 02 David Nelsey 29 National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) 03 English Heritage 29a Supplementary from NJUG 04 Ken Todd 30 Stagecoach Group plc 05 Urban Traffic Management & Control (UTMC) 31 Road Haulage Association (RHA) 05a Supplementary from UTMC and the IHE 32 Capita Symonds 06 Intelligent Transport Systems (UK) 33 Donald Bowler 06a Supplementary from ITS (UK) 34 Stephen Plowden 07 Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) 35 City of London Corporation 08 David Metz 36 Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) 09 London TravelWatch 36a Supplementary from CILT 10 Passenger Focus 37 Jonathan Smith 11 Surrey County Council 38 Tony Wyer 12 ADEPT 39 Institution of Engineering and Technology 13 Cambridge Cycling Campaign 40 Transport Planning Society 14 Institute of Highway Engineers (IHE) 41 AA 15 Martin Cassini 42 Joint Authorities Group (UK) 16 Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg) 43 CTC, the national cyclists' organisation 16a Supplementary from pteg 44 Halcrow 17 RAC Foundation 45 Chris Leithead 18 Campaign for Better Transport 46 Sustrans 19 liftshare 47 Freight Transport Association (FTA) 20 MIRA 48 Living Streets 21 Local Government Technical Advisers Group 49 Motorcycle Action Group (UK) 22 Chartered Institute of Highways and Transport 50 Cadence Driver Development 23 Network Rail 51 Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCI) 24 Kapsch TrafficCom 52 Greater London Authority 25 Department for Transport 53 Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) 26 Michael Coles 54 London Councils 26a Further evidence from Michael Coles 55 Cycle Sheffield 27 Green Light Group (GLG) 56 Nottinghamshire County Council Written evidence from Leonard Wells (ETM 01) I am a 70 year old pensioner.
    [Show full text]
  • Heathwick” Is Not Viable
    One hub or none The case for a single UK hub airport November 2012 Contents 1 Introduction p1 2 Executive summary p2 3 What is a hub airport? p5 4 What is the value of a hub airport to the UK? p11 5 Why aren’t two hubs better than one? p19 6 What does the UK require to maintain its hub airport status? p29 7 Conclusion p33 1 Introduction We are living through an era of profound In setting up its Airports Commission, chaired by change. The balance of the global economy Sir Howard Davies, the Government has recognised that maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status is critical is shifting to the ‘emerging markets’ of the to future economic success. Jobs and growth in the world: places like China, India, Brazil, Russia, UK depend on international connectivity. Mexico, South Korea, Indonesia and Turkey This document addresses the following questions: whose populations and economies are What is a hub and why is it different from other airports? growing rapidly. What is the value of a hub airport to the UK? Is it possible to have two hubs, or to split a hub over more than one location? And what type of hub will the UK At the same time the UK’s economy is burdened need in future? by debt and faces the prospect of weak economic growth for years to come. Government is focussing It concludes, by reference to international experience, on paying debt back, which will mean less government that only a single airport can operate as a successful hub spending, and in turn will make economic recovery in the UK and that the choice for Britain is not between even more difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Travel Demand Applying European Perspectives to U.S
    MANAGING TRAVEL DEMAND APPLYING EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES TO U.S. PRACTICE SPONSORED BY: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration IN COOPERATION WITH: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials National Cooperative Highway Research Program INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM MAY 2006 NOTICE The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Govern- ment, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Stan- dards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodical- ly reviews quality issues and adjusts its pro- grams and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-PL-06-015 4. Title and Subtitle Managing Travel Demand: Applying European 5. Report Date Perspectives to U.S. Practice May 2006 7. Author(s) 6. Performing Organization Code Wayne Berman, Douglas Differt, Kurt Aufschneider, 8. Performing Organization Report No. Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Ann Flemer, Lap Hoang, Robert Hull, Eric Schreffler, Grant Zammit 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) American Trade Initiatives P.O. Box 8228 Alexandria, VA 22306-8228 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-99-C-005 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of International Programs Office of Policy Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 14. Sponsoring Agency Code National Cooperative Highway Research Program 15. Supplementary Notes FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter #186 8/2/11 Researching Into, and Reviewing Comment On, Sustainable Transport
    Transport Newsletter #186 8/2/11 Researching into, and reviewing comment on, Sustainable Transport Congestion Tax for Melbourne? “The God in Australia, of course, is the motor car; it is worshipped by every government, and no government in the past, now, or in the future would break the commandment. … It is hard to think of any government in Victoria that did anything serious about giving us more railway lines. Former premier Sir Henry Bolte could have been the worst: he loved tearing up railway lines. They have all been car worshippers, every last man and woman, Jack and Jill of them. “Now I am going to suggest a fearful heresy, which will cause great wailing and gnashing of teeth. We need a congestion tax. You know what it is like driving in peak hour to the city – and peak hour is almost every hour. The average speed of travel in your motor cars, which will do up to 200 km/h, is under 20 km/h. You can do it much faster on a bike. Cities using or having used a congestion tax are London, Singapore, Rome, Stockholm and Milan. San Francisco has decided to give it a go in 2015. The top enthusiasts are London and Stockholm. At first, the protests were huge. Businesses in the CBD would all go broke. It was hideously unfair on low-income people and getting to town by car was absolutely a life-and-death matter. “The businesses didn't go broke, thousands of people found that trips to town often weren't necessary and rarely was it a life-and-death matter, anyway.
    [Show full text]
  • Institution of Civil Engineers Record
    Crossrail delays exposed p12 Future of tunnels p27 Las Vegas' roads revamp p42 New Civil Engineer FEBRUARY 2019 ORCHESTRAL MANOEUVRES THE INNOVATIONS DESIGNED TO KEEP HINKLEY POINT C ON TRACK BIM. ACCURATE PIPE DESIGN at your fingertips FREE! CONNECT TO BETTER FEATURING REVIT CONTENT • Quickest way to a complete ‘as built’ pipe system PACKAGE • Precise designs with intelligent assistance Download yours today! • Fully integrated Bill of Materials Download now at wavin.com/bim CONNECT TO BETTER New Civil Engineer INDUSTRY MUST RISE AGAIN AFTER CROSSRAIL DEBACLE MARK HANSFORD EDITOR his month’s New Civil Engineer was intended to be fu- It is also extraordinary because it is blatantly not fact. Because ture looking as we explore innovations in our Future of Europe’s two most recent and fast-paced high speed rail projects: Bor- Tunnelling special. We are still doing that. But we also deaux-Tours and Montpelier-Nîmes opened on time and on budget. We T find ourselves dedicating many column inches to tun- have written about both repeatedly in New Civil Engineer, so Meggs did nelling past, as we learned this month the full scale of not have to look far for his research. the delays still afflicting Crossrail and the “many, many thousands of He could also have looked closer to home where projects such as hours” of work still needed to complete the civil engineering. the London 2012 Olympics, London’s Lee Tunnel, the M25 upgrade and The revelations emerged from the project’s latest boss Mark Wild Heathrow’s Terminal 5 all immediately jump out as complex major pro- – the third man in a year to take charge of the former “Fifteen billion jects that were delivered on time and on budget.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Quality in the City Regions a Transport Toolkit
    Air Quality in the City Regions A Transport Toolkit Produced for: Developed By: Overview 1 About this document This document has been produced in response to the health and economic impacts of poor air quality in the UK’s city regions. It has been written for the public authority professionals who do not work day-to-day in a local air quality management or environmental health function, but do have a role to play in improving matters. This could be through transport, planning, energy efficiency, fleet management or procurement functions. It contains a comprehensive set of guidance, references, signposts and case study examples relevant to managing local air pollution in the UK city regions. Purpose The document provides a toolkit of resources in an easily accessible form to aid understanding, co-operation, decision making and action. The aim of the toolkit is to provide information to guide local authorities and city region authorities in selecting actions to manage sources of local air pollutants, while supporting their other corporate and community goals. A note on definitions Throughout this document the term ‘city region authorities’ is used to encompass the varying How it works and evolving governance arrangements in place across the city regions. The term covers: The main sections of the toolkit provide an overview of: - Combined Authorities (now in place across five of the six Metropolitan areas) or other Why air pollution is important, summarising transport’s contribution to air leader bodies. These bodies are led by District Council Leaders for the purposes of pollution and impact on health. collaborating more closely on strategic issues like transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan June 2012
    Wokingham Borough Council Proposed Submission Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) (MDD DPD) INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN JUNE 2012 Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the Proposed submission Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (MDD DPD) June 2012 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to ensure that Local Plans plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles, and policies of the NPPF. 1.2 The Borough’s Local Development Framework includes the Core Strategy and Proposed Submission Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (MDD DPD). These are the Local Plans for the Borough. 1.3 Wokingham Borough’s spatial strategy, which reflects the Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy, is set out in the adopted Core Strategy (January 2010). The Core Strategy was found sound following an independent Examination in Public in 2009. The Core Strategy identifies four Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) which will meet the majority of the Borough’s housing requirements to 2026. Policies CP18, Arborfield Garrison SDL, CP19 South of M4 SDL, CP20 North Wokingham SDL and CP21 South Wokingham SDL and Appendix 7 of the Core Strategy set out the strategic and local infrastructure requirements necessary to develop these areas as sustainable communities. 1.4 Further guidance on this approach and how the infrastructure set out in Policies CP18-CP21 and Appendix 7 should be provided is set out in the Council’s adopted Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions Supplementary Planning Documents for the Strategic Development Locations (SPD) (October 2010 and October 2011). 1.5 The Core Strategy and the Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions SPDs were subject to independent viability testing and the approaches were found to be viable.
    [Show full text]
  • M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures Alternatives Considered Workbook – User Guide
    M4M4 CorridorCorridor EnhancementEnhancement MeasuresMeasures AlternativesAlternatives ConsideredConsidered MeasuresMeasures discardedfalling outside from of the the M4 M4 CEM CEM Programme Programme 1 Contents Page Workbook User Guide 2 Key information and Glossary 3 Alternatives considered and discarded Key information sheet 4 Page Measure 1: New M4 lagoon barrage 22 Alternatives considered and could be delivered outside Measure 2: Corporation Road Link 23 of the M4 CEM Programme Measure 3: Celtic Springs and Rogerstone link 24 Page Measure 4: M48 and Second Severn Crossing link 25 Measure 1: B4245 and M48 link 6 Measure 5: Hard shoulder running lanes on M4 26 Measure 2: Cardiff Peripheral Distributor Road 7 Measure 6: Upgrade Steelworks Access Road to 3 lanes 27 Measure 3: Sustainability checklists for developments 8 Measure 7: On-line widening of M4 to dual 3 lanes 28 Measure 4: School Travel Planning 9 Measure 8: Motorway access westbound at J25 29 Measure 5: Workplace Travel Planning 10 Measure 9: Introduce climbing lanes at High Cross 30 Measure 6: Car sharing scheme 11 Measure 10: Introduce climbing lanes at St Julian’s Hill 31 Measure 7: Town centre development planning 12 Measure 11: Bus priority on M4 32 Measure 8: Flexible working arrangements 13 Measure 12: Intercity bus services 33 Measure 9: Travel education programme 14 Measure 13: Reduce public transport fares 34 Measure 10: ICT investment 15 Measure 14: Reregulate commercial bus services 35 Measure 11: Maintain or increase Severn Crossing Tolls 16 Measure 15: Increase
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Fit
    Transport Fit for Future Generations By the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, in partnership with the Centre for Transport and Society (CTS), University of the West of England, Sustrans and New Economics Foundation. September 2018 1 Transport Fit for Future Generations Contents Foreword.......................................................................................................................................................3 The Well-being of Future Generations Act............................................................................5 Our Partners...............................................................................................................................................7 Statistics.....................................................................................................................................................10 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................11 1. Building a transport system fit for future generations...........................................14 1.1 What’s being proposed?..........................................................................................15 1.2 Is road building fit for future generations?.................................................16 1.3 Transport Poverty.........................................................................................................20 1.4 Current uncertainty and future trends...........................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Transport Scenarios for South East Wales
    Alternative Transport Scenarios for South East Wales Building for a Sustainable Transport Future For the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales Prepared by Dr William Clayton Dr Ben Clark Professor John Parkin Professor Graham Parkhurst Centre for Transport and Society University of the West of England, Bristol Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK Contents 1 Context ................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Planning for an uncertain future ........................................................................ 6 1.2 Decide and provide .......................................................................................... 8 1.3 Building a transport system for future generations .............................................. 9 2 Traffic forecasts for the M4 corridor around Newport ............................................... 10 2.1 Motorway traffic volumes ................................................................................ 10 2.2 Journey times ................................................................................................ 13 3 Potential for motorway traffic management strategies ............................................. 14 3.1 Smart motorway measures ............................................................................. 14 3.2 Ramp metering .............................................................................................. 14 3.3 Junction closure ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]