ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITIES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

4 March 2015

INFORMATION REPORT: Congestion on the A40 West Of

1.0 Background

At the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting on 12 November 2014, members asked for a discussion regarding the A40 West of Gloucester, aimed at resolving the congestion experienced on this route, particularly during am peak periods.

The A40, from Junction 11 of the M5, west towards the County Boundary, is a trunk road, and is part of the Government’s Strategic Road Network. This means that the Highways Agency (HA), on behalf of the Government, looks after the road, including maintenance and improvement.

Traffic flows on the A40 are the second highest in the County, (second only to the A40 Golden Valley Bypass), with high congestion levels. Congestion is experienced most morning peak hours, with queues frequently stretching down the A48 towards and west of Highnam roundabout on the A40. The HA are currently constructing a capacity improvement scheme at the Over roundabout, as part of its ‘pinchpoint’ programme of congestion reducing schemes. This will be completed by the end of March 2015 and is designed to make improvements to the capacity of the roundabout.

The following plan, taken from the Local Transport Plan consultation document 2015-2013 (Cabinet version) shows the traffic flows on key routes within the Forest of Dean and shows a flow of 38,508 on the A40 at the Over Roundabout.

2.0 Current Strategy for the A40 The following outlines the current strategy for resolving the congestion issues on the A40.

2.1 Local Transport Board (GLTB) scheme at Over roundabout In addition to the HA’s improvement scheme above, the County Council is developing a more comprehensive improvement to this junction. As part of the devolution of major scheme funding from central Government to Local Highway Authorities the County Council submitted a bid to the GLTB for an improvement to Over roundabout. The bid was for £2.23m of funding to improve the roundabout and also to investigate the removal of the hatching that is currently in place at Highnam Lodge. As a result of ongoing discussions with the Highways Agency, about the removal of the hatching, this has now been dropped from the GLTB scheme. The removal of the hatching will be discussed further later in this report.

The table below sets out the details of the schemes, which are currently programmed for construction in 2017/18

Location Description of improvement Over Rbt – A40W Signalise the A40W entry to the roundabout, from Ross-on-Wye and circulatory carriageway Over Rbt – A417S Signalise the A417S entry to the roundabout and circulatory carriageway Over Rbt – A40E Widening of the A40E entry to provide three lanes at the stop line Over Rbt – A417N Widening of the A417N entry to provide three lanes at the stop line Over Rbt Adding a third circulating lane on the roundabout

Traffic modelling indicates that, without intervention, delays could increase significantly - by up to 156%, on the A40 eastbound approach, AM peak, in a 2022 forecast year compared to a 2007 base (see Tables below).

Increased journey times and congestion would have an adverse impact on achieving the LTP goals – in particular, it would constrain the delivery of sustainable economic growth, with deterioration in the quality of strategic transport connections between the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, and beyond. The lack of capacity would act as a constraint to planned growth, compromise the efficient movement of people and goods and have a detrimental impact on the attractiveness of the area to businesses. Access to jobs, including at Gloucester and major employment sites such as Innsworth, would be compromised.

As congestion increases, there are also likely to be greater environmental challenges from increased carbon emissions and deterioration in local air quality.

The following tables set out the results of the traffic modelling of Over roundabout at a base year of 2007 and a forecast year of 2022, without any improvements made to the roundabout. The table shows the queue on the approach to Over roundabout increasing from 273 to 695 in the am peak, with delay increasing from 9 minutes to nearly 25 minutes. Modelled traffic results at Over Roundabout (2007 base year)

Source: A40 Over and Longford Roundabouts: Improvement Assessment Report (2007)

Modelled forecast traffic results at Over Roundabout (2022 base year)

Source: A40 Over and Longford Roundabouts: Improvement Assessment Report (2007)

2.1.1 Highnam Lodge Hatching The initial scope of the A40 Over roundabout scheme included the removal of lane restrictions at Highnam Lodge, locally known as ‘Linton Lodge hatchings’. These are located on the eastbound A40 (Highways Agency [HA] maintained) between the A40/A48 roundabout and the B4215 junction. The hatchings run for approximately 300m on the inside lane of the dual carriageway.

It was believed that the hatchings were originally installed by the HA to allow the safe entry and exit of vehicles from the Linton Lodge residential property owing to the high A40 eastbound approach speeds and poor forward visibility (or stopping sight distance) offered by the left lane. By hatching out a section of this nearside lane and forcing all traffic into the adjacent offside (right) lane, a greater forward visibility distance is attained which is more suited to the speed of road.

However, more recent research, including a meeting with the owner of Linton Lodge (22/10/14) and further conversation with the HA, has revealed that this A40 nearside lane hatching was in existence prior to Linton Lodge being developed, and continued eastwards past the site access towards the A40/B4215 traffic signals junction.

It is now evident that the hatching was originally introduced by the HA for safety reasons, to protect vehicles queuing back from the traffic lights owing to the substandard visibility on the approaching bend in the vicinity of Linton Lodge. Whilst the Linton Lodge access benefits from the hatching, it is not and was never the primary reason for their installation. Removal of the hatching, to allow vehicles to utilise both eastbound carriageway lanes, would require resolution of the afore mentioned forward visibility issues concerning the queue for the B4215 traffic lights as well as access to Linton Lodge. Simply moving the Lodge access to another location along this road section, or providing an additional set of traffic lights at the access (originally promoted as part of the GLTB scheme) is therefore no longer considered a safe or satisfactory solution.

Options appraisal Based on current ordinance survey plans, the following options for removal of the hatching may be considered.

1. Provide a forward visibility splay sufficient for the current speed of the road (50mph). This could require the purchase of land. 2. Realign the carriageway by widening into the central reserve, provide a merge lane for the lodge, remove vegetation and reduce speeds to 30mph. 3. Realign the carriageway by widening into the central reserve, provide a merge lane for the lodge, remove vegetation, purchase land, demolish and rebuild Linton Lodge boundary wall, and reduce the speeds to 40mph.

All of the above options would have significant budget implications and Options 1 & 3 would require land purchase (and possible CPO should the Lodge owner be unwilling to negotiate on any sale).

In addition, an informal discussion with the Police, (as part of the Highways Agency’s A40 Route Congestion Study 2011) suggests that they would be unwillingly to support a TRO to reduce the speed limit to 40mph as it would be difficult to enforce. This is because the existing carriageway is of a high standard and barriers are present. This causes a driver perception that even the existing speed limit of 50mph is unnecessarily low for the road. Furthermore, in recent meetings with GCC Officers, HA representatives have indicated that they are unlikely to support the lowering of the speed limit on the trunk road given its arterial status.

On site observations and previous traffic modelling (done by both GCC and the HA) give a high level of confidence that the average eastbound journey time from the Forest of Dean to A40/A417 Over roundabout would not be reduced during the morning peak period by the removal of the hatching at Linton Lodge. This is primarily because vehicle queues currently block back into Highnam roundabout and regularly extend back well beyond the roundabout on both the A40 (towards Birdwood) and A48 (towards Minsterworth) approaches. While the queues would obviously be shorter on the A40 and A48 if the hatching was removed, average journey times would not be reduced as any gaps that occur in this queue for any reason are always filled well before Over roundabout, so the roundabout always operates at full capacity.

Previous traffic modelling and observations undertaken both by the GCC and the HA on the A40 corridor from West of Severn towards Gloucester have shown that while delay and congestion occurs at the A40/B4215 traffic signals junction during the AM weekday peak period, the A40/A417 Over Roundabout is the cause of the queues into Gloucester, with traffic regularly blocking back upstream affecting the A40, A48 and B4215. This is due to the insufficient capacity of the existing A40 Over junction, the level of opposing traffic turning movements on key approach arms, the limited junction visibility and poor management of existing traffic movements (lack of road markings, signing etc.).

To summarise, at present, contrary to driver perception, the hatching has little to no effect on the vehicle journey times from the Forest of Dean into Gloucester during the morning peak period. However, future capacity improvements to A40/A417 Over Roundabout are planned for early 2015 (HA’s western arm widening scheme) and our proposed scheme for Spring 2017 (GCC’s GLTB Major Improvement Scheme, widening of approaches and possible signalisation), the latter of which should significantly reduce queuing and delays on this route into Gloucester.

Following the improvements at Over Roundabout, the expectation is that traffic would be more free-flowing through the hatching section of the dual carriage.

2.2 Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP 3) Review Feedback LTP3 is currently being reviewed. As part of this review a number of consultations have taken place with stakeholders. The following sets out some of the issues that have been raised relevant to the A40 and how LTP3 review intends to address these.

Issues of the A40 pinchpoint and congestion at Over were raised during the LTP Stakeholder consultation process.

The following is included within the LTP3 consultation report for consultation between 16 February and 27 March 2015.

Area wide initiatives applying to the Forest of Dean CPS and to other parts of the County Initiative Transport Initiative description Delivery type mode Mechanism Bus Upgrade of facilities (RTPI, shelters, o County Council Bus Flags and information availability) funded Freight Introduction of Multi-operator SMART Highways bus ticket across county (local) Explore signing up to Freight Gateway Operational Scheme to advise Freight operators of preferred routes Local Highway Improvement - Ongoing delivery of prioritised road safety improvements (inc. A4136)

A40 Strategic Corridor initiatives Initiative Transport Initiative description Delivery type mode Mechanism Operational Bus Local park and ride facilities on (A40, o Subject to feasibility A48, B4215 and A417) to reduce work demand at A40 Over Roundabout Highways A40 Over Roundabout Phase 1 - o Growth Fund (strategic) junction capacity improvements approved Highways A40 Over Roundabout Phase 2 - o To be developed (strategic) westbound segregation, with with the Highway Physical ‘Hamburger’ style junction arrangement Agency - prioritising A40 through traffic Highways A417 Maisemore flood resilience o Growth Fund bid (local) scheme Lydney initiatives Initiative Transport Initiative description Delivery type mode Mechanism Thinktravel Travel Plan o LSTF funded 2015/16 Behavioural Thinktravel Business (work place) Travel Planning o Lydney Transport Thinktravel School Travel Planning Strategy Rail Lydney Railway Station car park o Growth Fund bid Rail expansion (linked to Lydney transport strategy) Operational Lydney station enhancements Bus Review of bus routes/timetables o Developer / County including rerouting of bus services to Council serve new development Physical Active Improved access to Lydney railway o Growth Fund Travel station-station underpass approved Active Cycle link from town to railway station Travel

A40 Strategic Corridor initiatives – initiatives included in draft LTP3 review

A number of other schemes were assessed through the LTP scheme appraisal process and proposed to be put on hold:

A40 Strategic Corridor initiatives – initiatives put on hold, with no scheme progression, and for reconsideration at a later date

Initiative Initiative description type  Park and Ride - West of Severn Park & Ride and associated bus Operational priority - New scheme. See note a below

 Active Travel Physical - Improved cycle linkages with Gloucester network (A40 Churcham – Longhope Maisemore- Hartpury Highnam-Newent)  Local Highway Improvement - new Severn Crossing linking A48 with Highways A38

Note A: A strategic park and ride facility at Highnam has historically been promoted, but with increased pressure on revenue funds a lower cost alternative has been identified. This would involve a number of smaller local park and ride facilities at locations already serviced by existing bus services on the A40 and A48 as well as extending the car parking facilities at Lydney station. The location and scale of local park and ride facilities would be subject to a feasibility study, but they would provide safe and accessible facilities for car and bike parking within the vicinity of existing bus stops. The passenger waiting facilities provided at the sites would also be updated to improve the experience of using the service. The primary differences between local and conventional park and ride facilities is the absence of a dedicated park and ride bus service, the use of existing higher frequency bus services and the absence of a constructed dedicated park and ride car park. The car parking will be provided on existing hard standing including car parks and residential roads. A number of other schemes were assessed through the LTP scheme appraisal process and proposed to delete:

A40 Strategic Corridor initiatives – initiatives not being progressed, with no reconsideration during the life of the LTP3 review

Initiative Initiative description Comments type  Bus Services - Quality Bus Corridors - Lydney – Gloucester / Lydney-Coleford- Preference for partnership Bus Cinderford /Coleford-Cinderford-Gloucester / working with bus operators Newent-Gloucester

Elsewhere in the LTP3 review consultation document states:

LTP3 Policy 7.2 - Promoting the use of road-based public transport 7.2.3 - Maintaining the phased introduction of traffic signal based bus priorities measures linked with MOVA signal improvements at highway network pinchpoints.

7.2.5 - Maintaining the phased introduction of Real Time Passenger Information where it is technically and financially viable to do so and; Improving the quality of information provided at passenger waiting facilities, the Thinktravel travel information portal and via other travel applications that may be provided through mobile phone based technologies.

7.2.6 - Encouraging the provision and use of bus services through workplace and school Travel Plans.

2.3 Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) At the beginning of July 2014 the SEP settlement was announced by Government. In total £45.5m was awarded to transport schemes within the County. Those relevant to the A40 west of Gloucester are as follows:

2.3.1 A40 Over roundabout improvement £2.23m awarded for this scheme (see section 2.1 for details).

2.3.2 Lydney Transport Strategy In round 1 of the SEP process £1m was awarded to the Lydney Transport Strategy. In the SEP1 ‘top up’ round a further bid was submitted but was unsuccessful. The 2nd bid has now become a ‘pipeline’ scheme and will be funded if the LEP is able to access further growth funds. The elements of both schemes are shown in the table below. Elements shown in brackets have committed funding through the SEP1 bid; the additional schemes (not in brackets) are part of the currently unfunded pipeline scheme.

Bream Road/High Street Junction Signalisation. Construction 2016/17. (200,000)

Cyclelink from Town to Railway Station Construction 2017/18 (150,000)

Station underpass Design & consultation with stakeholders, liaison (70,000) with Network Rail 2015/16. Construction 2017/18. (530,000)

Roundabout at the north access to Lydney from the A48 Construction 2016/17. 600,000

New/Extension of the Railway Station Car-park Design & consultation with stakeholders, liaison (50,000) with Network Rail 2015/16. Planning, land assembly, procurement 2017/18. 100,000 Construction 2018/19. 400,000

New Newerne Street link to provide a replacement route for Newerne Street Detailed design work 2017/18 200,000 Planning application 2018/19 210,000 Construction 2018-20. 4,000,000

Parkend to Lydney multi use track Construction 2016/17 500,000

Lydney revolutions-cycle and pedestrian route improvements. Construction 2015/16-2018 984,510

2.3.3 Rail station bid In addition to the Lydney Transport Strategy bid a County wide Rail station bid was submitted to the LEP as part of the SEP1 ‘top up’ round. This bid was not successful and has become a ’pipeline’ scheme along with the other unsuccessful schemes. The following table sets out the section of the bid relevant to Lydney station.

Lydney Covered and increased cycle parking at mainline Improved signage to town centre and DFR Improved lighting to footpaths in the park Good quality bus shelters with real time information Temporary improvements to passenger facilities – shelters, toilets, warm waiting room Sub-total 100,000 Lydney station car park expansion 40,000 TOTAL 140,000

2.3.4 A417 Maisemore flood resilience scheme

During high river levels the A417 north of Gloucester is susceptible to flooding and closure when it is unsafe for vehicles to travel through the flood water. When the road is closed this affects over 9000 vehicles per day (2.6% HGV) and the signed diversion route resorts to the M50, M5 and then A40 which is lengthy and inconvenient. As a result local traffic will take opportunities to divert onto local routes to avoid the closure. A number of these local routes are not suitable for additional traffic and would therefore benefit from improvements to deal with increased traffic flows and to also ensure that these routes remain open during high river levels. The closure of the road has an obvious impact on the A40, adding to the congestion and queuing. The proposed improvement (s) would reduce the impact of the flood water and enable the A417 to remain open during weather events.

Proposal: The proposal comprises 2 separate packages of measures: In the short term, to implement a number of improvements to the routes that are used instead of the A417 when it is closed due to flood water. Improvements to these local roads will allow them to remain open when the rivers are in flood, (some of the roads on the diversionary routes are also affected by flooding and suffer from closures). The scheme also involves safety improvements to cater for the increased traffic flows during the A417 closure periods.

In addition a longer term proposal is to physically raise the A417 road, to prevent it being affected by high river levels. This would prevent its closure due to the volume of water on the carriageway, and reduce the need for traffic to divert elsewhere.

Both schemes are considered to be essential to reduce flooding impact on the large network of roads including and surrounding the A417.

Scheme 2: A417 Maisemore flood 200,000 resilience scheme. Short term proposal-Feasibility/design Scheme 2: A417 Maisemore flood 2,800,000 resilience scheme. Short term proposal-Construction Scheme 2: A417 Maisemore flood 400,000 resilience scheme. Long term proposal-Feasibility/design Scheme 2: A417 Maisemore flood 9,600,000 resilience scheme. Long term proposal-Construction

This bid was not successful and has become a ’pipeline’ scheme along with the other unsuccessful schemes. Officers are now considering the opportunity to make a bid to the recently announced DfT Challenge Fund to support this project.

2.4 Detrunking The Highways Agency (HA) raised the issue of detrunking the A40 west of M5 junction 11 a number of years ago, and at the time was keen to make progress. However, in the last few years the arrangements for detrunking have altered; the Government previously had the power in terms of promoting detrunking, but now the onus now lies with the Local Highway Authority (LHA) to determine whether it should take place. If the LHA does not wish for detrunking to take place the Government cannot force it through. When GCC last looked at detrunking it calculated that a sum of over £20m would need to be secured as a commuted payment, to cover the liability of improvements needed at and Walham viaduct. Discussions did not progress further. 2.5 Bus lane usage The bus lane was constructed ahead of a west of severn park and ride site, as an opportunity arose at that time to construct the bus lane at the same time as the HA was undertaking significant carriageway works. It saved the County Council both resources and disruption by undertaking the bus lane construction and maintenance scheme at the same time. The park and ride site is currently not being progressed and is being revisited as part of the LTP3 review; Given the capital and revenue implications of both constructing and maintaining a park and ride site and subsidising bus services, it is being recommended that a conventional park and ride service is not pursued. More information about this can be found in section 2.2.

In terms of the services using the bus lane, there are close to 100 vehicles per day using the facility. This figure is made up as follows: 56 commercial services, 10 school buses, The remainder SEN/ taxis/ minibuses.

Any removal of the bus lane will clearly have an impact on these services and passengers.

2.6 Bus service proposals The Monday to Saturday day time bus services are provided without County Council subsidy by Stagecoach and provide 6 journeys an hour in each direction; details of which are provided in the table below.

In addition to these services, three subsidised shoppers’ buses run once a week between various communities in the Forest of Dean and Gloucester.

While nothing has been said formally about their viability, there has been a slight reduction in the number of commercial journeys operated during the past year.

The key issue is the very high time penalty caused by traffic delays that in practice cost additional buses and drivers to maintain the current frequencies. Eliminating these delays for buses could deliver the following outcomes: -

1. Higher frequency services at rush hour times, possibly providing an additional 240 seats per hour.

2. Reduced operational costs if not reinvested in frequency as suggested in option 1 above - estimated cashable benefits circa £200k annually.

3. Funding for fares promotions to stimulate demand if neither options 1 nor 2 exercised. Bus Monday - Saturday Daytime Service Route Frequency Number Coleford - Bream - Lydney - Elton Corner - 23 Hourly Gloucester 24 Joys Green - Mitcheldean - Huntly - Gloucester Hourly Every 30 minutes - alternate 30/31 Coleford - Cinderford - Elton Corner - Gloucester journeys serve The Dilke Hospital 3 journeys every two hours; combines with service 132 (see Newent - Gloucester (Alternate journeys extended 32 below) to provide a 30 minute to/from Ross-on-Wye) frequency between Newent & Gloucester 33 Hereford - Ross-on-Wye - Huntly - Gloucester 2 hourly 132 - Newent - Gloucester 2 hourly

2.7 Local Sustainable Transport Fund 2 (LSTF2) LSTF2 revenue funding of close to £1m has been secured for 2015/2016 as part of the 2nd tranche of LSTF funds. Lydney Station, together with Gloucester and Stations has been identified as pivotal to Gloucestershire's economy and key regeneration areas. The LSTF 2 project will encourage access to Lydney Station through targeted promotion and marketing campaigns. LSTF proposes to link Lydney Station to the "Growth Zone" identified in the SEP by promoting GLTB and SEP schemes, in particular along the A40 corridor.

2.8 Third Crossing In 2006 a high level desk top study was undertaken which looked at options for a Third River Severn Crossing.

Further work: Further work would be required to enable the information contained within the 2006 report to be used with any real level of confidence. The type of work required would include:

1. Outline design. To undertake a more realistic costing exercise some outline design would be required. This is likely to be a significant revenue cost for a scheme of this size (likely to be £100,000s). 2. Business case development. To undertake a full business case for a third Severn crossing significant resources would be required. Perhaps between £5m and £10m for a scheme of this size. 3. Traffic modelling. Further traffic modelling would be required, using the County’s Saturn traffic model to update the traffic flow patterns. This could be completed for approximately £50k as an initial modelling exercise. 4. Environment Agency. Discussion with the EA is essential to understand the requirements for the design, such as embankments and viaducts. Flood plain modelling would be required to understand the impact on it. The cost of this is unknown, but could be upwards of £100k. 5. Assessment of improvements required to current crossings. Over Bridge and Walham viaduct are currently maintained by the Highways Agency, as part of the trunk road network. It is understood that significant improvements are needed to these structures to continue to provide a resilient network. £20m has previously been estimated in terms of the sum required to bring those structures up to standard. 6. Adopted policy. The policy for a Third River Severn Crossing would need to be included within relevant policy documents such as the County’s LTP, but also Local Plans, such as District and Forest of Dean plans. Currently there is no policy reference to a Third River Severn Crossing in either document.

The Highways Agency’s view on the life of the existing Severn crossings, a possible new bridge across the Severn and an update on Oldbury power station is contained within the Director’s briefing that accompanies the 4 March Scrutiny papers.

Conclusions - Action Plan.

In summary, the following is the recommended action plan to resolve the A40 congestion issues

HA A40 Over improvement scheme

GLTB A40 improvement scheme

Lydney station car parking expansion

Lydney strategy-improved cycle and walking facilities

Local park and ride promotion

Bus service promotion/increased frequency

LSTF 2 promotional activities

A417 Maisemore flood scheme

Investigation of Third River Severn Crossing

Investigation of the benefits of a large scale improvement at Over roundabout