London to South Midlands Multi

Transcription

Executive Summary
1.
Introduction
The London to South Midlands Multi Modal Study (LSM) is one of the largest transport
studies to have been commissioned in recent years. Its geographical focus is an area
north of the M25 which extends just west of the M1, just east of the M11 and north of the
A14.
The population of the LSM Study Area is currently 3.6 million people. It is one of the most
prosperous regions in the Country, and has no obvious structural problems in the economy
which indicate any slowdown or faltering in its continuing long-term growth. The
consequence of this continuing and growing prosperity will therefore be a continuing
long-term growth in the demand for movement both within the Study Area and between
the Study Area and other regions.
In addition to locally generated movement, the Study Area is also the vital bridge for
movement between London, the South East and Channel Ports to the Midlands, the North
and Scotland.
This long-distance, inter-regional and international movement is
concentrated on a limited number of strategic corridors, most notably the West Coast,
Midland and East Coast Main Line rail corridors, the M1 and the M11.
Of a lesser scale, but nevertheless increasingly important, is the role which the Study Area
plays in facilitating east-west movement between East Anglia and the Haven Ports with
the rest of the Country. On roads, this movement is primarily routed via the M25 or the A14,
partly due to the lack of suitable standard alternatives elsewhere in the region. On rail,
freight from the Haven Ports currently travels via the North London Line to access the West
Coast Main Line, due to the inadequacy of the more direct routes to the Midlands and
North.
Finally, the location of the Study Area immediately to the north of London means that
there are very strong economic links which have been formed with the capital over a long
period. The result is a pattern of infrastructure through the Study Area, which as indicated
above, is predominantly radial to London. The completion of the M25 as a high-quality
orbital route has complicated the economic linkages in recent years by overlaying this
radial commuting movement with a smaller, but nevertheless, significant movement to the
outer areas of London.
2.
Influence of Other Studies
The Study Area directly abuts or is influenced by a number of other strategic studies being
undertaken within broadly similar timescales. These include the following multi modal
studies:
•
ORBIT – Orbital movements around London;
•
North-South Movements on the M1 in the East Midlands (Junctions 21-30); and
•
Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi Modal Study (CHUMMS) – A14 between
Cambridge and Huntingdon.
-I-
In addition to this, the Study has incorporated the conclusions from the Roads-Based Study
of M1 Junction 19.
The Study is also influenced by two major planning studies, namely:
•
Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-Regional Planning Study; and
•
London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Planning Study.
Finally, the Study Area is likely to be significantly influenced by the outcome of the South
East and East of England Regional Air Services Study which is currently reviewing options for
air passenger and freight growth over the next 30 years.
As far as possible, the Study Team either incorporated the approved outcomes from these
studies where they were available or maintained a dialogue with the other studies to
incorporate plausible scenarios into the base position for LSM.
3.
Baseline and Future Travel Conditions
LSM is concerned primarily with inter-urban movement and how best this can be
accommodated and managed on the different transport networks. The most important
feature of inter-urban travel in the Study Area is that it is dominated by the private car,
which accounts for some 92% of all movement. For inter-urban movements which are
wholly internal to the Study Area, the private car represents 96% of all travel; for movement
to other regions, 92% of all travel; and for ‘through’ movements, just under 60%. Of the
traffic on the sections of M1, M11 and A1(M) immediately north of the M25, a relatively
small proportion is destined for Central London.
Whilst rail makes virtually no contribution to wholly internal movements, it features much
more strongly for travel to and from London which either starts within the Study Area or
from beyond. For example, rail is the dominant mode for trips to Central London, and in
the case of through movements rail accommodates over 30% of all trips.
The role of the bus is less easy to define. Within the Study Area it accommodates about 4%
of all inter-urban movement, whereas it represents just over 1% of travel to other regions.
Its contribution to through movements, however, is greater at about 10%. The volume of
local urban bus travel has not been quantified, because although it is important that use
of such modes is encouraged to grow, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the
strategic movements which are the focus of this Study.
Forecasts for the Study Area are that, in the absence of targeted policies or specific
measures to reinforce the role of public transport over and above those already
committed, car travel will grow at a greater rate than rail or bus travel. Car travel is
forecast to grow by 60% over the next 30 years compared to bus at 37% and rail at 54%
On the freight side, a similar situation is anticipated. Over 90% of freight traffic to, from and
through the Area is carried by road. Even if the Government’s 10-Year Plan forecasts of
increased freight by rail are realised, road freight traffic will increase substantially over the
Study period.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the existing, overwhelmingly dominant, roles of the
private car and heavy goods vehicle are likely to be reinforced through time in the
absence of any concerted strategy to counter these trends.
- II -
4.
Existing and Future Problems
The Study Team’s understanding of the Study Area, its characteristics and problems, both
existing and forecast, was discerned from a combination of public consultation and data
analysis. Consultation covered a wide range of stakeholders and users throughout the
Study Area. The data analysis made use of a multi-modal transport model of the Area.
A consequence of the Study Area’s locally generated movement overlain by a
requirement to carry a high proportion of long-distance through movement is that there
are competing demands for use of the strategic transport networks. This is currently most
evident at the following locations:
•
the southern sections of the M1 immediately north of the M25 (the section
between Junctions 6 and 10A was remitted to the Study);
•
the A5 through Dunstable (Dunstable Eastern Bypass was remitted to the Study);
•
Junctions 6-8 of the A1 (remitted to the Study);
•
the A421 east of the M1; and
•
the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon (the subject of the recent
CHUMMS study).
There are a number of other locations where major problems currently occur on a regular
basis but these are either due to extraordinary and short-lived circumstances such as
roadworks, for example M11 at Junction 8, or where other studies are already defining a
course of action, for example at M1 Junction 19. Needless to say, there are also many
urban areas within the Study Area where there are transport problems and, equally, a
number of local problems on the inter-urban network, but both types of problem are
beyond the scope of the current Study.
Analysis of the movement patterns indicates that a large amount of traffic is travelling on a
primarily south-east to north-west axis, using the M25 and M1 or the M11 and A14. On the
M1, approximately 50,000 vehicles per day travel between the M25 (Junction 6A) and the
A14 (Junction 19), representing between 30% and 50% of total traffic.
There are also problems in accessing a number of the major urban areas from the
motorway and trunk road network, in particular:
•
Cambridge;
•
Stevenage;
•
Milton Keynes/Bedford;
•
Luton/Dunstable; and
•
Corby/Kettering/Wellingborough/Northampton.
The problems of east-west access are particularly relevant in regard to the two major
airports in the region, Stansted and Luton, both of which are now the subject of
consideration for significant expansion.
- III -
Through time, problems on the inter-urban highway network will increase significantly. In a
north-south direction, operational problems are forecast for:
•
the M1 between the M25 and at least as far as Junction 13;
•
the M11 between junctions 8 and 14; and
•
A1(M) between Junctions 6 and 8.
In an east-west direction operational problems are forecast for:
•
A421/A428, which will be required to take an increasing proportion of long
distance movements; and
•
A14, for the whole of its length between Cambridge and the M1.
On the strategic rail network, the problem is one of overcrowding although the scale of
this tends to increase with proximity to London. Through time, rail passenger demand will
increase significantly, such that the longer-distance services, principally the West Coast
and East Coast Main Line inter-city services destined for London, are virtually full as they
enter the Study Area. The passenger upgrade on West Coast Main Line will facilitate an
increased number of train paths and new rolling stock will permit higher speeds, thus giving
a significant improvement to journey times and service frequency within this corridor.
Outer-suburban commuter services will suffer progressive overcrowding until improvements
such as Thameslink 2000 provide additional capacity in some corridors, as well as
improved accessibility to rail for some locations in the Study Area.
For east-west travel by public transport the problem is different in that although there are
inter-urban bus services, there is currently no east-west rail facility with the exception of the
Bedford-Bletchley branch line. The consequence of this is that east-west rail movements
can only be achieved by going into and out of London on different lines. East-west public
transport is therefore characterised by a lack of provision and hence poor accessibility.
The analysis for this Study was not confined to the problems of moving people but to
freight problems also. In general, these tended to mirror the types of issues identified for
moving people but, in addition, highlighted the key point, that freight is very often
constrained to use the strategic transport corridors (eg M1 and West Coast Main Line) to a
much greater extent than for person movement. It is therefore more important for freight
that these corridors provide the appropriate level-of-service because there is little, if any,
opportunity for alternative actions on behalf of the operators.
5.
Planning Scenarios
In considering the location of future development, it was recognised that there is limited
land availability in the southern half of the Study Area and that, as a result, development
pressures will migrate northward. For example, there is strong growth potential in the arc
between Cambridge and Oxford. Account was taken of the findings of the Milton Keynes
to South Midlands and London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Planning Studies in
developing the future land-use scenarios for this Study.
- IV -
A set of three planning scenarios to 2016 and 2031 were prepared for a number of the key
socio-economic variables that impact on travel behaviour. These include: households,
population, employed population, economically active population and employment. The
timescales are, of course, well beyond the horizons of conventional economic forecasting
models, but the aim of this work was to produce a set of alternative future scenarios
which:
•
were internally consistent, reasonably plausible and not in obvious conflict with
major established national and local policy commitments; and
•
covered a sufficiently broad range of outcomes that they reflected the likely
nature and scale of future transport problems which the Study Area may face.
The starting point for this work was the construction of a consistent baseline for 2001 at
District and Ward level using a range of data sources, including: Ward-based Census of
Population data for 1991, the Department for Transport’s TEMPRO 4.2 projections, the
Labour Force Survey and the Annual Business Inquiry Survey. Not surprisingly, the use of
such diverse sources pointed to some inconsistencies, suggesting in particular an
implausibly large fall in net out-commuting from the Area over the preceding decade. In
the absence of good evidence on how commuting patterns actually changed over this
period, adjustments were made to hold net out-commuting steady at 1991 levels.
Three separate scenarios were developed, as described below.
Scenario A – Base Scenario. This is effectively a ‘business as usual’ scenario in which the
projections of additional dwelling numbers in current Regional Planning Guidance are
simply rolled forward for a further period to 2031. This then determines the other
demographic variables and, via the labour supply constraint, levels of employment.
Scenario B – Balanced Development. The demographic variables follow Scenario A to
2016 but, thereafter, it is assumed that opposition to housing development results in a
reduction of 25% for additional dwellings compared to Scenario A. Throughout the
projection period the pattern of employment growth follows the changes in labour supply
so that there is no growth in net commuting between Districts relative to the 2001 baseline.
The reduction in rates of housing development and the matching of growth in
economically active population and jobs at District level is intended to provide a ‘best
foreseeable’ land-use planning case, so far as future travel growth is concerned.
Scenario C – Market Driven. Under this scenario, policy is more accommodating to growth
resulting, inter-alia, in more rapid increases in the socio-economic and land-use drivers of
travel growth after 2016. Specifically, general rates of housing development are increased
by 50% in the northern districts of the Study Area – excluding Cambridge where constraints
on housing development are tighter – and by 25% in the remainder of the Area. Specific
provision is also made for additional employment growth in Luton (regeneration policies
and airport related growth), Uttlesford (Stansted Airport related growth), parts of
Cambridgeshire (growth in the high technology cluster) and Corby (regeneration
initiatives).
The Department for Transport’s Consultation Document The Future of Air Transport in the UK
(July 2002) forecasts a three-fold increase in air passenger movements in the UK up to
2030. The Consultation Document was published late in the LSM timetable and a decision
was made not to evaluate the options put forward as they were consultative in nature.
Nevertheless, it was acknowledged that some options, including one for three additional
runways at Stansted, would obviously have profound implications for the Study Area. It
-V-
was felt, however, that evaluating the impact of these options would need to be the
subject of a separate exercise once the LSM strategy had been developed and there was
more certainty on a reduced number of options.
Notwithstanding this, the central growth option of the London-Stansted-Cambridge SubRegional Study makes specific provision for additional growth from direct jobs generated
by the expansion of Stansted Airport to accommodate 40 mppa by 2026. In employment
terms, this was projected to generate 28,000 jobs by 2026. Taking forward the figures set
out in this option, employment was expected to grow by 43% between 2001 and 2016,
and by another 43% between 2016 and 2031. To reflect the additional growth projected
under this option, further adjustments were made to Scenario C.
The higher growth scenario set out in the Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-Regional
Planning Study makes provision for the success of major regeneration initiatives at Corby,
Bedford and Luton as regional priority areas. Under the higher growth scenario, an
additional 24,000 jobs are projected for Corby (80% growth), 19,000 in Luton (22% growth)
and 14,000 in Bedford (33% growth). To ensure consistency with the projections made
under the Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-Regional Planning Study scenario,
adjustments were again made to Scenario C.
The majority of the strategy development and appraisal work for 2031 was undertaken in
relation to the Base Scenario (A). The Balanced and High Growth scenarios were used as
sensitivity tests to explore the robustness of the Preferred Strategy.
6.
Strategy Options
The Consultant Team has undertaken a wide range of testing and consultation to
determine, first, the type of strategy that would be most successful and acceptable in
tackling the problems identified and, second, the precise content of such a strategy.
From the initial rounds of consultation and brainstorming within the Study Team and
Steering Group, a long list of potential schemes and options were identified. These were
subjected to a sift process, which identified the schemes (or types of schemes) that would
be taken forward for further consideration.
In terms of the strategy type, the Consultant Team then tested a number of approaches
which placed a different emphasis on each of the Government’s five overarching
objectives relating to environment, safety, accessibility, economy and integration. The
tests included:
•
creation of major new rail capacity but with no new road capacity;
•
wholesale change in capacity for both road and rail;
•
restraint of growth using urban or area wide congestion charging, as well as
access charges; and
•
a number of variants from the above which tested the impact of different scales
of infrastructure for different corridors.
- VI -
The overwhelming conclusions from the testing work were as follows:
•
no single mode can solve the problems of the Study Area;
•
in a similar vein, demand restraint measures alone cannot solve the problems of
the Area;
•
even under the most optimistic assumptions there would be no acceptable
solution without increasing road capacity in strategic corridors; and
•
a combination of measures is required which must provide ‘balance’; first, to
ensure that road improvements do not undermine parallel rail investment and,
second, that investment on one part of the road network does not create a
problem elsewhere.
The process of strategy development itself sought to reflect the Government’s priorities
whereby the options presented by measures other than expansion of the road network
were considered first. This work demonstrated the very useful contribution which
investment in public transport, ‘soft measures’ and restraint could make but confirmed the
conclusion above, that selective investment in new road capacity was also required.
7.
Preferred Strategy
The Preferred Strategy resulting from the above development work was one which sought
to address the strategic problems identified, in a manner which was consistent with the
Government’s five overarching objectives. It includes a number of interventions which are
summarised below.
Policy
The strategy is based on an overarching policy which considers the role of all modes in
developing solutions to specific problems. In that respect, the Study has assumed a
continuation of current Government policy insofar as it:
•
promotes the slow modes of walking and cycling for short distance intra-urban
trips and re-allocates road space in pursuit of this objective;
•
promotes public transport for longer distance intra-urban movements, gives
priority where this is possible through re-allocation of road space and pursues a
range of other ‘quality’ initiatives designed to make public transport more
attractive;
•
continues to promote and support travel awareness campaigns and other ‘soft
measures’ to influence travel behaviour; and
•
pursues low cost engineering and safety measures across the highway network, in
pursuit of safety objectives or very localised congestion.
In the main, this continuation of policy could not be modelled explicitly, except for
changes in public transport accessibility, which were assumed to improve relative to car,
so that access times to rail stations reduced by half.
- VII -
Infrastructure
The main emphasis of the strategy development work has been to assess and appraise the
need for new infrastructure and recommendations have been made for both rail and
highway infrastructure. In considering the balance between rail and highways in the
recommendations it must be borne in mind that the Reference Case contains a
considerable number of rail schemes which are expected to be completed in the short to
medium term.
The rail and highway infrastructure can be summarised as that required to satisfy a number
of objectives:
•
reducing highway congestion and rail passenger overcrowding on the northsouth routes;
•
providing a significant increase in train paths to facilitate freight transfer from road
to rail;
•
improving facilities for east-west travel, particularly for rail ; and
•
providing the necessary strategic connections so that the road and rail
infrastructure can be managed more effectively as networks rather than as
individual corridors.
This latter point was particularly important as it recognised the problems caused by a
temporary loss of capacity and the limited ways in which such loss can be mitigated under
current arrangements. Such a loss can result for a variety of reasons such as maintenance,
accidents, incidents or asset renewal. A key aspect of the proposals was therefore to
provide the necessary infrastructure for better management within each individual
network and also between the networks.
The infrastructure which would deliver these objectives is summarised in Table 1 and Figure
1.
It should be noted that whilst the level of highway infrastructure required to
accommodate a given flow is relatively simple to define, there may be several solutions for
providing the required increase in rail capacity.
Table 1 therefore sets out
recommendations by which the Study objectives could be achieved and, crucially, within
a framework where no user of the rail network would receive a worse level of service in the
Preferred Strategy than existed in the Reference Case.
It is acknowledged, however, that the rail industry may be able to design more costeffective means of providing the same capacity in some cases and further detailed
analysis will be required in this respect. Thus, the additional capacity proposed on the
West Coast Main Line could be achieved by providing six tracks between Watford
Junction and Berkhamsted, but it is possible that this could also be achieved at a lower
cost by providing a series of passing or dynamic loops. This is an area of investigation
where the SRA and Network Rail may be able to find a more cost effective solution
through revised train formation and timetabling arrangements.
Nevertheless the
underlying requirement remains that extra capacity is required- it is the specific means of
achieving it which requires further, more detailed, investigation.
- VIII -
Table 1 Proposed Infrastructure Improvements
Corridor
Section
Rail
WCML/MML/M1
Watford Junction -Berkhamsted
6 tracks or equivalent capacity
M1 Junctions 6A-131
Dual 4-lane standard
Rugby – Birmingham
Dunstable Northern Bypass1
Kings Langley and Apsley
Increase platforms to
accommodate 12-car trains
Luton Northern Bypass
M1 Junction 12
Closure
Bedford – Northampton
Re-open as extension of
Thameslink
M1 Junction 131
Re-modelling to separate eastwest movement from that
gaining access to/egress from
the M1
A1, Brampton-Alconbury
A1, Sandy to Beeston
Dual-2 lane standard bypass
A1, Junction 6-8
Climbing lane only northbound
and associated ATM.
Alternative 3-lane dual
carriageway, only if associated
with other measures for the
corridor to downgrade its role.
ECML/A1/A1(M)
WAML/M11
Recommendation
Section
Road
Recommendation
Bedford – Leicester
4 tracks throughout or
equivalent capacity
Bedford Station
Re-model, including
electrification of fast tracks
Welwyn Garden City –
Knebworth
4 tracks throughout (including
Welwyn Viaduct) or equivalent
capacity
Huntingdon – Peterborough
equivalent capacity
Kings Cross and Finsbury Park
area and north of Peterborough
Additional modifications as
necessary
Tottenham Hale – Bishops
Stortford
equivalent capacity
M11 Junctions 8-91
Stansted Airport
Additional tunnel
M11 Junctions 9-14
Cambridge Station and Ely
Station
Additional platforms and
tracks
- IX -
A14
A421/A428
Note: 1.
Bicester – Bletchley
Re-open rail link
Bedford – Cambridge
New link
M1 Junction 19 – Ellington A1
B1047-A11
A421 immediately west of M1
A421 from M1 to Bedford
Bypass1
A428 east of A1 to Caxton
Gibbet
New alignment south of St Neots
Dual 2-lane standard plus offline improvement to Dual 2-lane
standard
These schemes are expected to be delivered within the 10-Year Plan.
-X-
Figure 1 Preferred Strategy
- XI -
In this respect, the SRA’s Network Capacity Utilisation Review will be a more appropriate
means of identifying those parts of the network for which a net benefit can be achieved
by allowing some loss in level-of-service at certain stations to facilitate greater benefits
elsewhere.
It would therefore be useful to review the infrastructure recommendations in the near
future, when:
•
the results of the Network Capacity Utilisation Review and individual Route
Utilisation Strategies are known; and
•
the rail industry has given more detailed consideration to alternative mechanisms
by which the objectives for each corridor, and the connectivity of the network as
a whole could be achieved.
In the meantime, the infrastructure schemes set out in Table 1 have been used in the
evaluation of the Preferred Strategy. These schemes could, therefore, be considered to
present a ‘worst-case’ scenario of the requirements, both in terms of their cost and their
impact on the environment. Nevertheless, they do deliver the step-change improvement
in level-of-service which is desirable and the benefits which will flow from such
improvement. However, they also require a step-change in costs and thus exploring less
expensive mechanisms to capture these benefits will be an essential next stage of work
beyond this Study. Given that the majority of improvements are proposed beyond the 10Year Plan, this provides a particularly valuable intervening period for detailed planning
and evaluation.
With regard to the highway infrastructure recommendations, further work will be required
in order to finalise designs and costs such that the recommendations can be added to the
Highways Agency’s Targeted Programme of Improvements. This must be done as a matter
of great urgency as capacity improvements to strategic highway corridors represent the
majority of work within the 10-Year Plan period.
Pricing
In support of an objective that the benefits from new infrastructure must be protected
from erosion, the strong recommendation from the Study Team is that comprehensive,
area wide, road user charging should be implemented approximately half way through
the Study period (approximately 2016). This will follow the major highway investment
designed to eliminate congestion on the strategic network and create a much better
balance, in terms of a more consistent level of service.
Technology
The development of technology is really beyond the scope of this Study, but the strategy
nevertheless assumes and supports:
•
continuing development of Intelligent Transport Systems, such as Active Traffic
Management, variable message signs and ramp access controls, which will allow
the network to be managed more efficiently and effectively;
•
continuing development of information systems which will assist users to make
optimal choices before setting out on a journey or even during a journey; and
- XII-
•
8.
continuing development of techniques and processes to reduce emissions and
improve safety for cars, buses and rail.
Appraisal
Strategic Benefits
In addition to resolving local congestion problems, a fundamental characteristic of the
strategy is the improved connectivity within the strategic transport networks. This is
intended to give travellers a choice of route, but more importantly to provide sufficient
flexibility to maintain an operational network if one section suffers a loss in capacity for any
reason. For example, if roadworks or an accident cause disruption on the M1, then the
M11 and A14 will be better able to act as an alternative route for some strategic traffic
between London, the South East and the West Midlands. Similarly, if a blockage occurs on
any of the north-south rail routes, the improved east-west linkage will allow trains, or at
least passengers, to divert to another route.
Framework Analysis
A Framework Analysis for the full strategy against the 2016 Reference Case shows the
following conclusions:
•
Environment; there is an overall reduction of about 1% in car person-km. and 2% in
HGV-km. as a result of the strategy.
•
Accessibility; accessibility by all modes is improved whether for person-related or
employment-related purposes for trips originating in the Study Area. Similar
benefits are enjoyed for virtually all through movements.
•
Safety; again the strategy delivers major safety benefits with a reduction of traffic
on all classes of road in the Study Area and the biggest reduction occurring on
those classes of road with the highest accident rates. Savings of over 1,000
deaths or injuries per year are forecast.
•
Integration; all integration objectives are improved by the strategy. Integration
between modes is improved through better access to both major airports by all
modes; integration with social policy improves through better access to jobs in
relatively deprived areas; land-use policy is also reinforced and integration with
economic and regeneration policy is improved through better access to jobs for
those not having a car.
•
Economy; the key economy indicators all improve; average speeds across the
highway network improve and access to the major economic centres improves
by almost all modes to all centres. A separate economic evaluation also
demonstrates a very healthy benefit/cost ratio for schemes proposed within the
10-Year Plan.
A similar analysis at 2031 gives the following conclusions.
•
Environment; the reduction in travel as expressed in car person-km. and HGV-km.
support this objective with a significant reduction of 6% in HGV-km. resulting from
rail investment and the freight transfer which this facilitates.
- XIII-
•
Accessibility; accessibility within the Study Area is improved for social and
employment trips for both car and rail. In terms of through movements, there is a
general improvement on all axes but with some occasions where the cost of
travel increases. Whilst showing a net benefit therefore, satisfying this objective
does not perform as well as it did at 2016 levels.
•
Safety; the reduction in traffic on all road types is a clear benefit from a safety
perspective as is the reduction in the proportion of time spent in overcrowded rail
conditions. It is forecast that over 1,200 deaths or injuries per year will be saved.
•
Integration; all the integration objectives are improved by the strategy at 2031
with the exception of trips made by bus which show a slight deterioration.
•
Economy; again the indicators generally support this objective. A separate
economic evaluation over the full 30-year period demonstrates a more marginal
benefit/cost ratio for the full strategy rather than the 10-Year Plan schemes alone,
but this is not surprising, given the very substantial investment in rail which
traditionally gives lower economic rates of return than road.
The results from the Framework Analysis demonstrate that the strategy performs very well
against each of the Government’s overarching objectives at 2016 levels of demand.
Whilst it still performs well at 2031 against a Reference Case for the same year, the
performance is not as overwhelmingly beneficial as for the earlier year. The conclusion to
be drawn, therefore, is that at the higher levels of demand the strategy benefits start to be
eroded and locational problems re-appear.
Operational Analysis
It is clear that operationally, the highway network will not be capable of returning to
current levels of performance given the high levels of traffic increase forecast over the 30year period. Even allowing for some peak spreading in response to increased traffic
volumes at the forecast year relative to the Base Year, the analysis shows that demand will
reduce peak period levels of service for car users. Thus, whilst the strategy has delivered
undoubted benefits against the Government’s five objectives, it is nevertheless clear that
further work must be done to ensure that the investment can deliver operational benefits
for most hours of the year on the strategic highway network.
The two measures seen to offer most potential in this respect are Active Traffic
Management and road user charging. In the case of Active Traffic Management, the
underlying proposition is that it can increase traffic throughput by controlling usage of the
available road space and managing the traffic demand more effectively, particularly at
times of very high demand or when some capacity is lost because of accidents or
incidents.
Road user charging is more problematic in that it is not currently a part of Government
policy and even if policy were to change, it could not be adopted with full functionality
within the short term for various legal, institutional and technical reasons as well as for
reasons of public acceptability. Nevertheless, road user charging does offer a mechanism
for:
•
reducing overall levels of traffic growth;
- XIV-
•
encouraging a shift from private to public transport; and
•
effectively targeting congestion (depending to an extent on the particular
technique used).
All of these outcomes sit very comfortably within Government’s policy framework even if
the principle itself has not been adopted. Equally, the revenue from such a policy could
either create new, additional, revenue streams to accelerate improvements in transport
provision or, as a revenue-neutral outcome, allow some re-basing of current fiscal
measures related to transport.
The debate on road user charging, the form it could take, the precise charging
mechanisms and the possible implications for existing fiscal measures are all beyond the
scope of this Study. Nevertheless, it is incumbent to highlight the benefits such a policy
could deliver. To this end the transport model has been run assuming a charge of
10p/km., a scale of charge often cited as a reasonable starting point for testing such
regimes.
The outcome from that work has been to show considerable operational benefits at 2031
for the highway network as well as a modal shift towards public transport. In view of these
strategic benefits, the Study recommends that road user charging should form an integral
part of the strategy at approximately the mid-way point of the Study period to safeguard
the infrastructure investments. However, the strategy is not critically dependent upon user
charging from a highway capacity viewpoint, given the additional capacity which can
be achieved through Active Traffic Management. Nevertheless, road user charging offers
a rational basis for tackling congestion which has significant benefits not achievable
through other mechanisms and for that reason it is strongly supported as a pivotal
component of the strategy after about 2016.
If both these recommendations, road user charging and Active Traffic Management, are
accepted, then a key issue will be to ensure that the technology will allow a transition from
one to another as the primary means of bringing traffic volume and highway capacity into
balance. Equally, the technology must allow both regimes to function in tandem since this
will possibly be required at times of accidents, incidents or extreme traffic demands.
9.
Implications for 10-Year Plan Targets
Table 2 summarises the contribution which the Preferred Strategy will make to the target
indicators in the Government’s 10-Year Plan for transport. Where possible, a quantitative
measure has been used to demonstrate performance against the targets, and these
measures are shown in the Table.
The Table refers to 2016, which is the closest year modelled to the end of the 10-Year Plan
period. The assessment of the contribution is based on the full strategy even though some
elements will not be implemented until considerably later than 2016.
- XV-
Table 2 Contribution of the Preferred Strategy to the 10-Year Plan Targets
10-Year Plan
Measurement
2001 Base
2016 Reference
Target Indicator
Year
Case
Reduce road
congestion below
current levels
Increase rail passengerkilometres by 50%
Delays in Study Area in
average morning
peak hour
Average delay per trip
in morning peak hour
Rail passengerkilometres per day in
Study Area
Increase rail freight
tonne-kilometres by 80%
Increase bus use by 10%
Double light rail use
Cut journey time on
London Underground
47,304
PCU-hours
(+73%)
434 seconds
(+31%)
14,548,910
17,906,083
(+23%)
18,739,295
(+29%)
N/A
Implicitly assumed in
Reference Case
demand that
sufficient capacity
would be provided to
increase rail usage by
80%
As Reference
Case, but large
number of
additional rail
freight paths
made available
4,629,974
5,564,750
(+20%)
5,641,355
(+22%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
331 seconds
None
Reduced
congestion likely to
represent less of a
deterioration than
Reference Case,
but likely to remain
worse than Base
Year levels
Reduced
represent less of a
deterioration than
Reference Case,
but reductions
below 1990 levels
dependent on
increased fuel
efficiency of
vehicle
N/A
Severe deterioration
likely in line with large
growth in traffic and
congestion
None
Emissions
generally
greater than
1990 level
congestion although
effect could be
mitigated by
increased fuel
efficiency of vehicles
Fatalities per year in
Study Area
222
308
(+39%)
305
(+37%)
Serious injuries per
year in Study Area
3,414
4,765
(+40%)
4,684
(+37%)
None
N/A
Similar effect to
above likely
Similar effect to
above likely
Improve air quality
None
Reduce greenhouse
gases by 12.5% from
1990 levels
Reduce number killed
and seriously injured on
roads by 40%
48,671
PCU-hours
(+78%)
445 seconds
(+34%)
27,339
PCU-hours
None
Bus passengerkilometres per day in
Study Area
None
2016 Preferred
Strategy
Reduce children killed
and seriously injured by
50%
The contributions to these targets are discussed in more detail in the paragraphs which
follow.
Reduce Road Congestion
The growth in traffic forecast between 2001 and 2016 is such that a very large increase in
congestion is predicted for the Reference Case. Whilst this will be somewhat mitigated by
the Preferred Strategy, a return to 2001 levels is not expected (even for the motorway
- XVI-
network). Therefore, whilst the proposed infrastructure will be one mechanism for reducing
the congestion predicted in the Reference Case, it will need to be reinforced by one or
more of the following measures:
•
Active Traffic Management;
•
road user charging; and/or
•
traffic restraint in urban areas.
It should be noted that, in general, the locations where congestion is predicted under the
Preferred Strategy are not those where major infrastructure works are proposed. Therefore,
additional junction improvements at the remaining ‘hotspots’ could result in a significantly
greater reduction in congestion.
Increase Rail Passenger-Kilometres
The large amount of investment in the Study Area rail network as part of the Reference
Case (principally the WCML upgrade and Thameslink 2000), together with the underlying
growth, are forecast to increase passenger-kilometres by 23% from 2001 to 2016. With
implementation of the Preferred Strategy a total increase from 2001 of 29% is forecast.
This increase occurs in a number of ways, notably:
•
passengers changing their trip origin or destination;
•
transfers from highway trips; and
•
entirely new (generated) trips.
The model does not, however, take account of existing air passengers who would transfer
to rail following investment in the network, either as part of the Reference Case or the
Preferred Strategy. Since additional long-distance services are being provided (and in the
case of WCML journey time reductions), the value of 29% could be a significant
underestimate.
Furthermore, forecasts have assumed that fares will remain constant in real terms. In
practice, the investment is likely to leave some free capacity on trains, particularly during
off-peak periods. The Train Operating Companies could be expected to introduce various
cheap fare offers to fill this capacity with passengers who would not otherwise be
attracted to use the rail network.
It is reasonable to predict, therefore, that the total increase in rail passenger-kilometres will
be close to, or even in excess of, the 50% target.
Increase Rail Freight Tonne-Kilometres
The Reference Case assumes that sufficient additional freight capacity will be provided on
the rail network to facilitate the Government’s target of an 80% increase in tonnekilometres by 2011.
- XVII-
The Preferred Strategy provides a further increase in the number of freight paths available
in each corridor. It has therefore been assumed that the rate of rail freight growth
achieved between 2001 and 2011 will continue throughout the Study Period, and hence
the 80% target will be significantly exceeded.
Increase Bus Use
Increasing congestion on both the road and rail networks, together with the introduction
of various ‘soft’ measures to improve the quality of services are forecast to increase interurban bus usage by 20% in the Reference Case. A further small increase (to 22%
compared with 2001) is forecast with implementation of the Preferred Strategy. The
Government target of 10% is, therefore, clearly exceeded.
Whilst bus services in urban areas are not explicitly modelled, the Preferred Strategy
recommends bus priority where appropriate in urban areas, and improved ‘feeder’
services connecting with the rail network. An increase in local bus patronage can,
therefore, also be expected.
Double Light Rail Use
The inter urban nature of this Study is such that no light rail schemes are recommended.
Cut Journey Time on London Underground
The London Underground is wholly external to the Study Area and hence measures to
reduced journey times have not been considered.
Improve Air Quality
Air quality can be expected to change in line with the growth in traffic and the change in
congestion levels. Therefore, air quality is likely to deteriorate between 2001 and 2016
(Reference Case), but will be improved by implementation of the Preferred Strategy. This
improvement is, however, unlikely to return air quality to 2001 levels.
Reduce Greenhouse Gases
Similarly, greenhouse gases are likely to increase in line with traffic to 2016, but reduce with
implementation of the Preferred Strategy. Levels of greenhouse gases will be further
reduced as vehicles are designed with greater fuel efficiency.
Reduce Road Fatalities and Injuries
Between 2001 and 2016, fatalities and serious injuries are predicted to increase by around
40%, although this increase would be reduced to 37% with implementation of the Preferred
Strategy. Since a high proportion of accidents occur on minor roads or in urban areas,
further road improvements by the appropriate Local Authorities would make a significant
contribution to accident reduction.
Reduce Child Fatalities and Injuries
Accidents involving children are not explicitly modelled, but could be expected to follow
a similar pattern to that for accidents in general (described above). However, since a
- XVIII-
higher proportion of trips involving children are within urban areas, there is a greater
dependence on Local Authority schemes to achieve this target.
`
10.
Immediate Actions
The strategy presents a framework of recommendations for implementation over the next
30 years. Clearly, these cannot all be implemented in the short term. Indeed, the priorities
may change to some extent in line with changing economic and demographic
circumstances over the period. However, it is clear to the Study Team that certain
elements of the strategy should be taken forward at the earliest possible opportunity.
First, the M1 is clearly the primary highway axis through the Study Area. The widening
between Junctions 6A and 10 and then between Junctions 10 to 13, will benefit a large
proportion of the population. The Highways Agency has well-developed proposals for
these schemes, which should now be implemented.
Second, given the pressures to implement the 10-Year Plan, there are a number of other
highway schemes which can be fast tracked to deliver early benefits. These include
Dunstable Northern Bypass, A421 from M1 to A1 and M11 Junctions 8-9.
Third, the East-West Rail Link has been under discussion for considerable time. Whilst the
eastern section will be expensive to construct and there are still design issues to resolve,
the Bicester to Bletchley section can be implemented relatively quickly. This will facilitate
services between Bristol, Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford and the Strategic Rail
Authority should consider advancing construction of this route. East of Bedford, it is
recommended that a combined corridor is used in conjunction with improvements to the
A421 and A428. Whilst this scheme features shortly after the 10-Year Plan period, it is vital
that a commitment to the scheme is made now, so that all future design work can take
into account the needs of both the road and rail schemes.
Finally the other new section of railway connects Bedford and Northampton. Construction
of this link is programmed beyond the 10-Year Plan. However, any undue delay could
result in land being taken for other purposes. A commitment should therefore be made to
the project, with sufficient design work to protect the appropriate land, even if
construction does not commence for a number of years.
- XIX-
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Introduction
Study Approach
Study area and it’s Environment
Baseline Network Conditions and Travel Patterns
Socio Economics and Land Use
Modelling Framework
Problems and Issues
Strategy Development Process
Developing the Strategy
Preferred Strategy
Appraisal of the Preferred Strategy
Delivering the Strategy
Summary of Study Recommendations
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Terms of Reference
Steering Group Representation
Wider Reference Group
Consultant Team Representation
Modelling Framework
Corridor Assignment Validation
Scenario B&C Reference Case Framework Analyses
Strategy Themes for Option Development
1
Introduction
1.1
Background to the Study
The London to South Midlands Multi Modal Study (LSM) is one of the largest transport
studies to have been commissioned in recent years.
The need for such a study was identified as part of the Government’s 1998 review of
the Trunk Road Programme. The findings of this review were published as ‘A New
Deal for Trunk Roads in England’1 in July 1998 which announced that, whilst some
road schemes would be taken forward in a Targeted Programme of Improvements,
other schemes would be subject to further study.
This resulted in a total of 27 studies, of which 17 were termed multi-modal studies and
10 roads-based studies. The presumption for the roads-based studies was that the
preferred solution would almost inevitably focus on road improvements, whereas for
the multi-modal studies there was a presumption that other modes and other policy
instruments, such as land-use policy or transport pricing, could have a more profound
contribution than had been acknowledged in the past.
In the case of LSM, ‘A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England’ summarised the Study as
being:
“……………to consider congestion problems in the
area based on M1, A1(M)/A1 and M11 corridors.
Particular issues to be addressed will be development
pressures, access to major urban areas and the scope
for modal shift.”
This Report sets out the results of the Consultant Team’s investigations to address these
complex issues and their recommendations as described through an overall strategy
and plan of specific interventions.
1.2
Study Area
The geographical coverage for this study is shown in Figure 1.1. It extends from
immediately north of the M25 to north of the A14 and from west of the M1 and West
Coast Main Line (WCML) to east of the M11 and West Anglia Main Line (WAML).
The area contains a population of almost 4 million people. In transport terms, it is the
vital ‘bridge’ connecting London and the South East with the Midlands, the North and
Scotland.
Its strategic corridors are therefore of national importance and
accommodate some of the heaviest volumes of long-distance movement in the
United Kingdom.
1
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (July 1998): A New Deal for Trunk Roads in
England
-1-
Figure 1.1 Geographical Coverage of the Study Area and Wider Area of Influence
-2-
This is in addition to the very substantial volumes of passenger and freight movement
which both begin and end their trip within the Study Area, or which travel to another
region, such as London, the Midlands or the Southeast.
At the Study outset, it was recognised that because of the Study Area’s strategic
importance, a wider Area of Influence should be recognised and this is also shown in
Figure 1.1. Although recommendations were not expected for this area, it was
nevertheless important to recognise the significant impact which schemes and
policies from this wider area could have on the core Study Area. For the purposes of
transport modelling, it should be noted that model coverage included the whole of
mainland UK, although with progressively coarser coverage with increasing distance
from the Study Area.
1.3
Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference for the Study were defined at two levels in terms of general and
specific objectives. At the higher level, the key requirements were as follows:
“The overall aim of the Study is to make recommendations
for a long-term strategy to meet passenger and freight
needs within an area based on the M1, A1(M)/A1 and M11
corridors.”
“The Study should make recommendations on the
problems of east-west travel across the Study Area, both in
terms of the difficulties of east-west movement and the
impact that east-west movement has on north-south
congestion. Of particular relevance is the role of the A14,
the lack of a strategic east-west route between the A14
and the M25 and the lack of an east-west railway.”
At a more specific level, the Study was required to make recommendations on road
improvements remitted from the Trunk Road Programme Review. These comprised:
•
M1 Junctions 6A-10;
•
A1(M) Junctions 6-8 widening; and
•
A5 Dunstable Eastern Bypass.
In conducting the Study, the Terms of Reference strongly emphasised the need to
consider a comprehensive raft of possible measures and interventions which could
assist in overcoming existing deficiencies. It also highlighted the need to ensure that
both the Study recommendations and the processes and analyses which
underpinned the recommendations, were guided by the Government’s National
Transport Strategy. This strategy is embodied within two key documents, the White
Paper “A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone” 2 and The Ten Year Plan3.
2
Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (July 1998) A New Deal for Transport: Better
for Everyone. The Government’s White Paper on the Future of Transport.
3 Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (July 2000): Transport 2010 The 10-Year Plan
-3-
The full Terms of Reference are given as Appendix A to this document.
1.4
Management of the Study
1.4.1
Steering Group
The size of the Study Area and complexity of issues to be tackled meant that the
Steering Group needed to represent a broad spectrum of interests and perspectives.
The Steering Group composition is given as Table 1.1. Since the names of some
organisations changed during the course of the Study, the name at Study completion
is given. The role of the Steering Group was to give strategic guidance and overall
direction.
Table 1.1 Steering Group Composition
Organisation
Government Office for the East of England
(Go-East)
Government Office for the South East
(GOSE)
Government Office for the East Midlands
(GOEM)
Multi Modal Studies Unit (Department for Transport)
(MMSU)
Strategic Rail Authority
(SRA)
Railtrack/Network Rail
(NR)
Highways Agency
(HA)
BAA Plc
(BAA)
Northamptonshire County Council
(NCC)
Bedfordshire County Council
(BCC)
East of England Local Government Conference
(EELGC)
East of England Development Agency
(EEDA)
East Midlands Transport Activists Round Table
(EMTAR)
Council for the Protection of Rural England
(CPRE)
RAC Foundation for Motoring
(RAC)
Freight Transport Association
(FTA)
Individual representation within the Steering Group is given as Appendix B.
-4-
1.4.2
Wider Reference Group
Supporting the Steering Group was a Wider Reference Group (WRG) whose role was
to act as a ‘sounding board’ to the Consultant Team. This function was performed as
part of the Consultation process when the WRG advised on key issues and problems
which the Study had to address, their possible causes and the direction to be taken in
developing solutions. A full list of the WRG composition is given as Appendix C.
1.4.3
Consultant Team
The companies represented in the Consultant Team and their responsibilities, are
given as Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Consultant Team
Company
FaberMaunsell
Role
Project Management
Transport Planning (including modelling)
Engineering
Consultation (from March 2002 onwards)
Ecotec
Economic Forecasting
Socio-Economic Analysis
David Lock Associates
Strategic Land-use Planning
Environmental Resources
Management
Environmental Appraisal
Sinclair Knight Merz
Freight
Air Transport
Projects in Partnership
Consultation (to February 2002)
Count-on-Us
Data Collection
Individual representation within the Consultant Team is given as Appendix D.
1.5
Structure of the Report
The remainder of this Report is divided into 12 chapters which describe the full scope
of technical work undertaken. This allows the work to be described as a logical
progression from data collection and model development, through to problem
identification, option generation, option appraisal, preferred strategy and
implementation plan. Each of the chapters is described and discussed below.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the Study approach. As such, it describes the
overall programme of work and its underlying rationale, the linkages between various
analyses and the wider links established with other studies and the delivery agencies.
-5-
The Study Area and its environment, which sets the background to the study and
presents a number of constraints on future development, are described in Chapter 3.
Understanding how the Study Area functions at the current time is described in
Chapter 4. This covers the current transport networks and movement patterns by
different modes for passengers and freight.
Chapter 5 then contains a description of the baseline economic and land-use
conditions, and how alternative future scenarios for land-use and economic growth
were developed. Arising from these alternative scenarios are different patterns and
intensities of movement which form the basis for identifying future problems and
solutions.
Having set the context for the Study in Chapters 2 to 5, Chapters 6 to13 then describe
the work involved in developing a strategy and detailed implementation plan.
Chapter 6 describes the work undertaken in modelling and forecasting transport
demand. This comprises three elements:
•
developing the transport model for the Study, which is described in outline,
with more detail given in Appendix E, and the assumptions used in
forecasting;
•
the definition of the Reference Case transport networks, incorporating the
best estimate of committed schemes that will have been implemented by
the forecast years;
•
a summary of the growth in travel that is forecast for the future years.
Chapter 7 focuses on problem identification at the Base Year (2001), 2016 and 2031,
identified through a combination of consultation and the various technical analyses.
The strategy development process is described in Chapter 8, which concentrates on
the rationale adopted for the process, and describes the various different analyses,
frameworks and measures used to assess whether key objectives had been satisfied.
The development of the strategy itself, the schemes and policies taken forward
through various stages, and those rejected, is set out in Chapter 9. This includes the
reactions to the emerging strategy from the public consultation that was conducted
in various locations in the Study Area.
The Preferred Strategy is set out as succinctly as possible in Chapter 10, with reference
to the overall rationale, achievement of objectives, and robustness to alternative
planning scenarios.
The detailed appraisal of the strategy and of individual components within the overall
strategy is described in Chapter 11. Where possible the analysis is presented at
strategy, corridor and scheme levels so that the contribution of different interventions
can be clearly understood.
-6-
Having established the strategy, Chapter 12 then describes the process of delivery. A
key feature here is the likely phasing of different interventions and, a not dissimilar
issue, the actions required to achieve early delivery, wherever possible, in support of
the Government’s 10-Year Plan objectives.
Finally, Chapter 13 summarises the Consultant Team’s recommendations.
-7-
2
Study Approach
2.1
Overview
Due to its size and complexity, the LSM study was preceded by a scoping study which,
amongst other things, considered a range of methodological approaches to the main
study. It concluded that a preferred approach was one in which the analysis was
conducted at two levels.
The first, strategic level, analysis was required to understand the way in which the Study
Area functioned in transport terms and to test a variety of interventions which addressed
major problems with a sub-regional, regional or even national impact.
A second, more detailed, analysis was then required to examine these individual
strategy components or interventions within key corridors. The purpose of this more
detailed analysis was in order to make very specific recommendations on what type
(and standard) of intervention was required, to demonstrate its marginal net benefits
over other possible solutions and to consider in more detail the key issues of
implementation and timing.
Inevitably, there was some interaction between the corridor and strategic levels, but this
was expected for two reasons. First, the Study had a timescale of approximately two
years, during which time data sources were updated and refined. Given the time lag
between ‘corridor’ and ‘strategic’ analyses, therefore, some of the basic travel demand
parameters changed over this period. The second reason for interaction was that only
in the detailed analysis of options were constraints and opportunities revealed which
might affect the feasibility of delivering the strategy which was developed at a more
conceptual level.
The process therefore had two clear stages, the first being strategy development which
considered the role of each mode and any other instrument in finding transport
solutions to congestion or poor accessibility. The second level then examined the
preferred options in more detail within specific corridors, thus establishing the degree of
fit between different measures and their overall deliverability.
2.2
Strategy Development
2.2.1
Introduction
The strategy development phase of the work comprised a number of distinct elements
which are set out in Figure 2.1. The process itself is divided into three major components,
base year problem identification, future year problem identification and option
appraisal. Each of these aspects is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
-8-
Figure 2.1 Strategy Development Process
Ad Hoc
Data Collection
Base Year
Problem
Identification
Future Year
Problem
Identification
Option
Appraisal
Base Year
Model
Development
Base Year
Problem
Identification
Future Year
Model
Development
Future Year
Problem
Identification
Problem
Statement
Strategies for
Testing
Option
Generation
Appraisal
Problem
Statement
Coarse
Sift
Preferred
Strategy
Corridor and
Scheme Analyses
2.2.2
Base Year Problem Identification
This phase of work was concerned with two issues; first, identifying the problems of
movement as they exist at the Base Year, 2001, and second, understanding the scale
and patterns of movement which give rise to these problems. The findings from this
analysis are dealt with fully in Chapter 7, but it is nevertheless worth making a few points
at this early stage:
•
the process of problem identification was based upon a number of data
sources, including ad hoc data such as ground counts from various sources,
base year model output and views expressed in the consultation process;
-9-
•
2.2.3
the understanding of problems and their causes was informed by a variety of
socio-economic data and by various operational analyses designed to
understand, amongst other things, the type (e.g. inter-regional, sub-regional)
and scale of movement on different parts of the network and the propensity
for any or all of that movement to be carried by a different mode or different
part of the network.
Future Year Problem Identification
Having set out a statement of findings at the Base Year, the transport model was then
used to forecast travel demand at the years 2016 and 2031.
In order to understand the types of problem resulting from this further growth, as well as
their location, two pieces of analysis were undertaken. The first was an operational
analysis designed to identify ‘stress’ on either the highway or rail network. In the case of
both highways and rail, this was done on the simple basis of a volume/capacity ratio.
The second piece of analysis at the future year was designed to identify the extent to
which conditions between the base and future years had deteriorated (or in
exceptional circumstances, improved). This was done by means of an appraisal
framework designed specifically to assist the strategy development process. This
framework was categorised according to the five overarching criteria of accessibility,
economy, environment, integration and safety with sub-objectives within each
category relating to general measures of performance or to measures which addressed
issues specifically identified by the brief as being particularly important to LSM.
The key outputs from the Problem Identification at 2016 and 2031 are given in Chapter
7.
2.2.4
Option Appraisal
The options were appraised at increasing levels of detail as the strategy was refined. At
the initial, coarse sifting, stage options were assessed on grounds of feasibility,
effectiveness and acceptability. The schemes that passed the coarse sifting stage were
then built up into ‘themed’ strategies, which were appraised against key performance
indicators, corresponding to the Government’s objectives for transport, as
encapsulated in the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA). It became evident at this
stage that there was relatively little interaction between the road and rail networks, and
two separate strands of testing were undertaken on the separate road and rail networks
to determine the most appropriate networks to satisfy future operational needs.
Appraisal at this stage concentrated on indicators of congestion and accessibility.
Having developed separate road and rail strategies, the two were brought together
again for detailed testing using the key performance indicator framework, and a final
set of strategy options was developed. These options were tested using the NATA
methodology and Appraisal Summary Tables were produced.
Consultation took place at several stages in the appraisal process, with a progressively
widening group of contacts from Steering Group, through Wider Reference Group and
the general public. The draft strategy was the subject of public exhibitions undertaken
- 10 -
throughout the Study Area.
Environmental Bodies.
2.3
Consultations were also undertaken with the Statutory
Corridor Studies
Whilst the Study was primarily concerned with developing an overall strategy for the
Study Area, it was important that the work should be sufficiently detailed for
infrastructure recommendations to enter the delivery programmes of different agencies.
To this end, five corridors were identified for further detailed analysis.
The corridors and their constituent parts are described below:
•
M1/WCML/MML: this corridor includes not only the major north-south rail and
road arteries defined above, but also any other infrastructure which connects
into or is dependent upon these arteries. Access issues to Milton Keynes and
Luton, for example, would be examined in the context of this corridor. The
length of the M1 considered for this analysis was between Junction 6A where it
joins the M25, and Junction 19, where it meets the M6 and A14. The WCML and
MML routes encompass services between London (Euston and St. Pancras
respectively) and the Midlands, Northern England and Scotland, in addition to
more ‘local’ services to Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire;
•
A1(M)/A1/ECML: this corridor comprises the A1(M)/A1 between the M25 and
A14. The ECML is concerned with long-distance strategic rail movements
which extend well beyond the boundary of the Study Area, in addition to
services from London Kings Cross to Cambridge and Peterborough. These
services also provide the principal connection between London and many
parts of Hertfordshire;
•
M11/WAML: the third major north-south corridor comprises the M11 and WAML
rail services from London Liverpool Street to Cambridge and Stansted Airport;
•
A421/A428/East-West Rail: the first of the two east-west corridors extends from
Milton Keynes to Cambridge for the roads based analysis, but further west to
Bicester for the rail analysis;
•
A14: finally, the second east-west corridor comprises the A14 from its junction
with the A11 east of Cambridge to its junction with the M1 at Junction 19.
2.4
Role of Consultation
The Study Brief placed particular importance on the need for a comprehensive
consultation exercise with an accompanying press and public relations strategy.
The purpose of consultation was to ensure that all shades of opinion were considered at
each stage of the study; for example, in defining existing problems, the causes of such
problems and the possible solutions.
In support of such a process, the Wider Reference Group was developed as a sounding
board designed to reflect all shades of opinion. As such, it comprised a wide variety of
organisations with different interests, viewpoints and policy perspectives.
- 11 -
Importantly, the Consultation process was undertaken as a complementary process to
the other, more technical, areas of work at key stages throughout the Study. This was to
ensure that any major conclusions could be informed, not only by the Consultant
Team’s technical process, but also by a much wider spectrum of opinion and
knowledge. In particular, the Consultation contributed to the understanding of current
and future problems and issues, to the generation of options for testing and to the
acceptability of various schemes, policies and options. Consultation events were held
at various locations within the Study Area during strategy development to enable the
public to understand the proposals and to provide feedback to the Study Team.
The Consultation process itself was designed to form a ‘cascade’ where each stage of
the process informed the next. The cascade process is shown as Figure 2.2 which shows
the starting point for the process as being the hopes and concerns expressed by the
Steering Group as to what would constitute a successful outcome for the Study and the
barriers to this accomplishment. This, in turn, set the agenda for the next stage of work,
the telephone interviews with the Wider Reference Group and so on. Thus, each stage
of the process informed the next with, as a general rule, the numbers of consultees
increasing as the theme of the consultation became more detailed and specific.
- 12 -
Figure 2.2 Cascade Process
Study Process
Inception
Report
Consultation Process
Structure of
Study Consultation
Steering Group
Workshop
Style and
content of
Problem
Identification
Consultation
Problem
Identification
Perceived
Problems
Telephone Interviews with
WRG
WRG Workshops
Hard-to-Reach Groups
Perceived
Problems
Strategy
Testing
Strategy
Development
Process
Option Development
Workshops with WRG
Principles and
Detailed
Recommendations
Strategic
Options
Indicative
Strategies
Option Testing
Workshops with WRG
Local Communities
Event for MPs
Detailed
Mapping of
Responses to
Strategies
Draft Preferred
Strategy
Public
Exhibitions
Preferred
Strategy
- 13 -
At no stage in the development process was there any attempt for the consultation to
be seen as a quantitative process registering a ‘vote’ for or against any particular
proposition. Its role was purely to capture as efficiently as possible the variety of
knowledge and opinion likely to be held by the population at large. To this end, the
Wider Reference Group was selected on the basis that, as far as possible, it was likely to
represent the full spectrum of such views.
At the final stage of work, however, some element of quantification was included in the
Consultation process as the public was asked to react to specific proposals by the
Consultant Team.
The conduct of consultation at each stage of the work and the conclusions arising are
described in the chapters on problem identification, option appraisal and preferred
strategy development. A fuller description of the entire process is also given in the Study
Consultation Report.
2.5
Integration with Other Studies
The LSM study was sufficiently large that it influenced, or was influenced by, a significant
number of other major studies in one way or another. These other studies reached their
conclusions at different points during the course of the Study and the extent to which
LSM could respond to or accommodate their conclusions therefore varied.
However, the LSM Study Team attempted to maintain a dialogue with all the other
studies to ensure, as far as possible, the best possible fit between the different sets of
conclusions.
The main studies, their Terms of Reference and possible impacts on LSM are described
below. Figure 2.3 also highlights their geographical coverage.
ORBIT Study
ORBIT is a major multi modal study whose remit was to investigate problems of orbital
movement around London and recommend solutions which particularly addressed
issues of congestion on the M25 and poor accessibility by public transport. The study
reported shortly before LSM and its conclusions potentially have a major impact on LSM
because of the huge influence of the M25 both with respect to north-south and eastwest strategic movements.
North South Movements on the M1 in the East Midlands
This study, to the north of the LSM Study Area, was completed roughly halfway through
the LSM Study. The proposals emanating from this study deal with improvements for the
road and rail networks between junctions 21 and 30 of the M1 and are unlikely to have
a significant impact on LSM.
- 14 -
Figure 2.3 Strategic Studies Influencing or Influenced by LSM
- 15 -
Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi Modal Study (CHUMMS)
Again, this study was completed soon after the commencement of LSM and dealt with
finding solutions to the problems of congestion on the A14 between Cambridge and
Huntingdon. It was of particular importance as its Study Area was contained wholly
within the LSM Study Area. The recommendations from CHUMMS were adopted
sufficiently early by the East of England Local Government Conference (EELGC), the
Regional Planning Body, and endorsed by the Secretary of State for Transport in
December 2001, that they could be incorporated within the Reference Case for LSM.
Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-Regional Planning Study (MKSM)
This 1-year study started after LSM but reported approximately two months before LSM’s
completion. Its remit was to examine strategic planning options for this sub-regional
area in pursuit of a number of key objectives, including those of promoting economic
growth and capturing environmental benefit. Given the level of overlap between the
studies, there was a continuing dialogue between the planning consultants for both
studies. The conclusions from MKSM were also discussed prior to completion of the study
to ensure, as far as possible, their compatibility with the emerging conclusions from LSM.
The recommendations of the study have been taken into account in developing the
planning scenarios for LSM.
London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Planning Study (LSC)
The LSC commenced shortly after LSM and reported shortly before LSM’s completion. Its
remit was to consider strategic planning allocations for housing and employment within
the LSC corridor and to recommend a small number of strategic options for further
consideration and development by the local authorities. The recommendations of the
study have been taken into account in developing the planning scenarios for LSM.
M1 Junction 19 Road-Based Study (M1J19)
Severe congestion is a regular feature for much of the day at the western end of the
A14. This strategic junction of the highway network, where the A14 meets the M6 and
M1, was the subject of a detailed study by the Highways Agency. The conclusions were
published some two months before completion of LSM and its recommendations
incorporated within the Study Reference Case, although Ministerial approval is still
awaited.
South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS) / Midlands Regional
Air Services Study (MRAS)
In July 2002, the Government published a series of consultation papers on Regional Air
Services. Those which had the greatest potential impact on conclusions emanating
from LSM were SERAS and MRAS. Of these two, the more important for the Study Area
was undoubtedly SERAS.
With the exception of ORBIT, this was the most important, and also the most problematic
study with respect to LSM. It was problematic for two reasons: first, the scale of landside
infrastructure necessary to service some of the airside options being considered in the
- 16 -
consultation process would require a scale change to the strategy which was emerging
from LSM; and, second, the fact that no decisions would be made on SERAS until well
after LSM had reported would leave this matter unresolved.
High Speed Rail Link Study
The SRA commissioned a study of a new high speed Anglo-Scottish route, due to report
late in 2002. The implication of such a route is that it could provide some relief to the
existing main line services through the Study Area by the removal of some long distance
services. However, it is unlikely that there would be any stations on the new line within
the Study Area, so that there would be no direct benefits to trips within, to or from the
Study Area.
2.6
Integration with Delivery Agencies
An important aspect of the Study was that its recommendations, if accepted by the
Regional Planning Bodies and the Secretary of State, should be capable of early
adoption within the strategies and programmes of the delivery agencies, namely the
SRA, HA and local authorities. Satisfying this objective meant that analytical and
appraisal work on the study had to be at a sufficiently detailed level that it satisfied the
various requirements for programme entry for the different bodies.
A particularly important objective in this respect was that approved recommendations
from LSM should, if possible, be able to support the Government’s 10-Year Plan.
Given that the SRA Strategic Plan, its ten year programme of work, was already
specified, the urgency for scheme justification was much greater for the HA, part of
whose programme of work had been referred to LSM for resolution.
In order to ensure that the proposals from the Study were not only supported by the
delivery agencies, but would be developed further within the different programmes, a
regular dialogue was maintained for the last six months of the Study. In the case of the
HA, this relationship went further in that Framework Consultants were appointed to
develop schemes from the emerging strategy in greater detail. This was to review their
feasibility and costs in greater detail and ensure that no unnecessary delay occurred in
moving from study recommendation to entry into the Targeted Programme of
Improvements.
Liaison on rail matters occurred both with SRA and Railtrack (Network Rail). Discussions
with SRA were concerned primarily with the principles of the LSM strategy, ensuring
consistency with the SRA’s broader strategy and with the business case principles being
adopted for rail investment. Discussion with Railtrack focused more on the practicality
and feasibility of achieving specific network enhancements.
Finally, there was discussion with key local authorities to ensure that Study
recommendations were consistent with existing policies and programmes.
- 17 -
3
Study Area and Its Environment
3.1
Baseline Environment
An assessment of the baseline environment provides a yardstick against which the
impact of proposed transport strategies and plans can be measured. This ensures
that environmental issues are taken into account at all stages in the strategy
development process.
The opportunities, in terms of the environment, to accommodate the various
components of a transport strategy or plan are dependent upon the environmental
constraints of the area. Environmental constraints have therefore been considered
through reference to existing information relating to environmental features.
The inclusion of large settlements in the Study Area has had a strong bearing on the
way that the impacts on people are assessed, as has the existence of existing major
transport corridors. This assessment has been done at a necessarily coarse level for
strategies, and at a more detailed level for plans.
3.2
Key Environmental Constraints
3.2.1
Introduction
The findings of the review of the key environmental constraints and opportunities in
the Base Year are summarised according to environmental discipline below,
beginning with landscape, which provides a geographic context.
3.2.2
Landscape
The landscape of the Study Area is very varied, including no less than nine different
Countryside Character Areas/Natural Areas. This is due in part to the diversity of the
underlying geology. The area extends from the claylands of the Thames Basin and
Essex, north-westwards across the chalk, and then across the Bedfordshire and
Cambridgeshire claylands. Although mainly low-lying and relatively flat, areas of
more resistant rock give rise to clear topographical ridges extending south-west to
north-east. The principal ridges (working from south-east to north-west) are the
Chilterns, the Bedfordshire Greensand ridge, the Yardley-Whittlewood ridge, and the
Northamptonshire uplands.
The Northern Thames Basin landscape is heavily influenced by the towns immediately
north of London, commercial and industrial development and the roads and railways
serving the capital. Moving northwards into Hertfordshire and Essex, this influence
lessens and the landscape takes on a much more rural character, with rolling
landform, large areas of woodland, and mature and newly created wetland areas in
former gravel workings. To the east, within the East Suffolk and North Essex Clayland,
an open, arable landscape is more characteristic.
To the north-west, the northern end of the Chilterns escarpment blends gradually into
East Anglian Chalk landscape. Here a number of large settlements, including Luton,
Dunstable and Stevenage, and the M1 and A1(M) transport corridors, exert a strong
influence upon the landscape. Eastwards, the landscape is less developed with
- 18 -
smooth, rolling chalkland hills, shelterbelts, large arable fields with hawthorn hedges,
and some more intimate river valley landscapes.
The Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire claylands landscape, which dominates the
centre of the Study Area, has gently undulating plateaux divided by broad, shallow
valleys. This is a mainly arable landscape, with sparse woodland cover. There is a
history of clay extraction for the brick industry; and the rich alluvial soils of the river
valleys are often used for market gardening. Milton Keynes and Bedford are set
within this landscape. The claylands are broken between Bedford and Luton by the
higher ground of the Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge, where there is a concentration
of estates and parkland, with ancient woodland and acid grassland habitats.
Further north, the Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge, between Northampton and Bedford is
a remnant royal hunting forest, today dominated by large woodlands and arable
farmland. The adjoining Northamptonshire Vales, made up of gentle clay ridges
separated by wide river valleys, form the setting for Northampton, where industry,
retail and business park developments influence the character of surrounding
countryside. To the north lie the Northamptonshire Uplands, effectively an extension
of the Cotswolds. This area is characterised by rounded hills, parklands and attractive
ironstone villages; however, its previously remote and rural character has been
altered to some extent by new construction and development.
In summary, the landscape character within the Study Area is diverse, as illustrated in
Figure 3.1. The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) overlaps the
south west of the Study Area. Other than this there are no statutory landscape
designations in the Study Area. The majority of the Study Area is either ‘urban’ or
‘semi tranquil’ according to Tranquil Area maps. Small pockets of Tranquil Areas are
located in rural areas fringing the main settlements and transport corridors.
3.2.3
Noise
The principal sources of transport noise impact within the Study Area include the M1,
A1(M)/A1 and the M11 motorways, and other strategic roads and railways, including
the West Coast Main Line, East Coast Main Line and West Anglia Main Line. In
addition, several airports are located within the Study Area including Stansted, Luton
and Cambridge. Coventry Airport lies close to the western boundary, outside of the
Study Area.
There are a number of policy commitments which are likely to mitigate the impact of
traffic noise on local communities within the LSM area in the medium to long term.
These include the use of lower noise surfaces for 60% of the trunk road network and
the retrospective noise mitigation programme which is providing noise barriers to the
worst affected locations. These policies should help to stabilise levels of transport
noise in the Study Area and, in the long term, may lead to reductions in noise levels in
certain areas.
However, transportation noise, which is dominated by road traffic noise and is
currently at levels that are generally considered to be unacceptable (greater than 65
dB) is likely to remain at undesirable levels along many transport corridors in the Study
Area. It is within this context that opportunities to reduce noise levels further have
been developed as part of this Study.
- 19 -
Figure 3.1 Different Landscape Characteristics
Yellow signifies Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
- 20 -
3.2.4
Climate Change
Increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases which originate from
human activity are expected to change the earth’s climate significantly over a 25100 year timescale, with potential large scale consequences. To tackle this threat, the
Framework Convention on the Atmosphere (Climate Treaty) was endorsed at the
1992 Rio Earth Summit.
The major greenhouse gas is CO2, the sources of which are mainly motor vehicles and
power stations using fossil fuels. The UK Government has said that it would reduce the
emissions of CO2 by 20% of the 1990 level by 2010 (Kyoto Earth Summit 1997).
3.2.5
Local Air Quality
Air quality in the Study Area is either currently, or projected to be, within the Air
Quality Strategy (AQS) objectives set for future years. Projections are based on the
anticipated levels of growth and assume that traffic growth rates do not exceed the
current national forecasts.
3.2.6
Biodiversity and Natural Heritage
There are a high number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s) spread
throughout the Study Area, as illustrated in Figure 3.2, with numerous sites of
international importance located mostly at the periphery of the Study Area.
Any non-statutory designated sites which were identified in local plans and UDPs such
as County Wildlife Sites and local nature reserves have been included within the
assessment. Information from the Highways Biodiversity Action Plan and other
relevant information from English Nature has also been included where appropriate.
It is possible that there are additional sites which have not yet been identified, such as
RSPB Reserves and Local Wildlife Trust Reserves. Although they are not statutory, these
sites also contribute to the local biodiversity resource and therefore would be taken
into account at a more detailed stage (ie during a full Environmental Impact
Assessment), as appropriate.
3.2.7
Cultural Heritage
The cultural heritage of the Study Area ranges through all periods and monument
types, from “bumps in fields”, agricultural field systems and parkland, to substantial
occupation sites, standing buildings and historic towns.
A number of ongoing threats to the cultural heritage of the Study Area have been
identified, which may lead to degradation of surviving archaeological and historic
features.
During a multi-modal study, full details of options to be appraised will not always have
been defined, hence not all constraints can realistically be identified. However, early
on in the project, it was possible to identify the Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs)
as constraints. Not only may there be physical damage to these sites but there could
also be secondary impacts such as disruption to their setting and visual intrusion
- 21 -
Figure 3.2 Biodiversity and Natural Heritage
- 22 -
In addition, historic town centre areas (of which there are many in the Study Area)
should be considered a constraint, and were identified early on. Opportunities exist
to enhance such areas where traffic flows can be reduced.
In the later stages of the project, the following records of cultural heritage were also
interrogated:
•
National Monuments Record, compiled by English Heritage;
•
Register of Historic Parks and Gardens, compiled by English Heritage; and
•
Local Plans (in order to identify Conservation Areas and Archaeological
Priority Areas)
3.2.8
Water Resources
The Study Area contains a large number of watercourses and associated floodplains,
as well as numerous brooks, canals, lodes and other smaller drains. There are also a
number of lakes, ponds and reservoirs. In general, water resources within the Study
Area are unlikely to be affected by proposed schemes unless they involve major new
infrastructure or widening works, or significant changes in traffic flow. Impacts may
arise from an increase in the extent of impermeable surface areas and structures
being below the surface of the ground and increased pollutant loading of the run-off.
3.3
Summary
As described above, the Study Area is heavily developed already. Later chapters will
outline the impact that this has in terms of both transport and land use. The
combination of the existing levels of development, and the further development
needed to support additional economic growth in the region, leads to a conflict
between development pressures and the environment. This conflict is likely to arise
from the need to improve transport provision, albeit in a sustainable manner for the
long term, and the need to minimise the impact on the environment.
Throughout the development of the strategy great care has been taken to reflect this
conflict between development and environment, and the preferred strategy and a
number of variations have been the subject of a comprehensive appraisal.
- 23 -
4
Baseline Network Conditions and Travel
Patterns
4.1
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to ‘paint a picture’ of the transport networks and travel
patterns within the Study Area. The Base Year for the Study was defined as 2001, and
all existing data was related to that year, as the basis for forecasting. This chapter
describes the transport networks and the travel patterns in and through the Study
Area as they existed at the Base Year. The problems arising from those travel patterns
and networks, both now and in the future, are dealt with in Chapter 7.
4.2
Study Area
The post-war period has seen a substantial growth in road-based traffic which has
increased ten-fold to the present day.
The M1 motorway was built, in 1959, in response to traffic pressures. It heralded a new
era of long-distance movement catered for by a strategic network capable of
providing consistently high levels of service. Originally predicted to carry about
14,000 vehicles/day, the M1 motorway now carries over 100,000 vehicles per day on
a regular basis despite some relief provided by construction of the M40 to the west
and the M11 corridor to the east. Nationally, traffic has increased more than four-fold
since the M1 was opened and at a much faster rate on the high speed strategic
network.
The problems now besetting the M1 are not untypical. Greater car ownership,
improvements to the strategic network and improvements in car design, have all
contributed to a culture of increasing trip lengths and progressively greater use of the
private car, including the increasing substitution of trips that could be made by other
modes. This is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in the sub-region between
London and the South Midlands.
It was in the 1960s and 1970s that population dispersion from London and the creation
of New Towns also created a ring of additional development around London, which
since that time has grown massively. This has resulted in the creation of substantial
east-west movements on a number of different axes that, because of historic
patterns, are not well catered for. Whilst a proportion of these trips are associated
with the East Coast ports, a far greater number are associated with the myriad of
movements to destinations within the sub-region between London and the South
Midlands or in close proximity to London. Whilst the M25 and A14 accommodate a
significant proportion of east-west road movements, the area between these major
corridors is not well catered for by road, and not at all by rail, with the result that
growing demand is resulting in growing congestion.
The London-South Midlands sub-region experiences some of the most intense pressure
on the strategic road and rail networks as well as on the local networks which serve a
generally prosperous region. The need to satisfy medium- and long-distance radial
movements to London, as well as more local trips within the sub-region, has created
acute congestion on both the road and rail networks. This needs to be considered
- 24 -
not as two independent single mode problems, but in a combined manner that
highlights the complementary roles and investment needs of each.
4.3
Passenger Transport
4.3.1
Introduction
This section of the chapter describes the strategic transport networks, key corridors,
their operational characteristics and the types of movement they accommodate.
Before that, however, there is a more strategic level of analysis which describes
movement across the whole Study Area by mode.
4.3.2
Overview
The LSM study is concerned primarily with inter-urban movement and how best this
can be accommodated and managed on the various transport networks. Whilst
travel conditions within urban areas are obviously important, the ability to model
these conditions is limited in a study of this size. This is not to say that urban initiatives
or change cannot be represented in the model, just that the modelling itself cannot
be as explicitly detailed as it would be in a local urban model. This means that figures
provided in the various tables in this section are overwhelmingly weighted towards
representing inter-urban movement. Table 4.1 below summarises the scale of person
movement by different modes within the Study Area.
Table 4.1 Base Year Modal Comparison (%) Across the Study Area
Internal
(Trips starting or
ending within
the Study Area)
Car1
Rail
Bus
Internal
95.6
0.8
3.6
External
(Trips starting or
ending outside
the Study Area)
Car1
Rail
Bus
91.6
7.1
1.3
57.7
32.2
10.1
83.5
13.1
3.4
Car1
Rail
Bus
94.6
2.5
3.0
83.4
13.4
3.2
91.6
5.3
3.0
Total
External
91.1
7.7
1.2
Total
94.4
2.7
2.9
Note: 1 Including LGV
This summary demonstrates the overwhelming dominance of the car for inter-urban
trips wholly contained within the Study Area (internal/internal 96%). This dominance is
only slightly reduced for trips between the Study Area and elsewhere
(internal/external 91%), whilst for movements passing straight through the Study Area
(external/external) it still accounts for more than half.
The role of rail increases in response to increasing trip distance. Thus, for trips wholly
contained within the Study Area, it accounts for less than 1%, but for over 7% to
destinations outside the area. This latter market is dominated by movement to
London and, for rail in particular, the centre of London. For longer distance
- 25 -
movements through the Study Area, rail accounts for over 30% of all personal
movement.
Finally, bus accounts for just over 3% of internal-internal inter-urban movements, but its
role reduces considerably for internal-external movements where rail takes an
increasing share. For movements passing through the Study Area, bus accounts for a
surprising 10% of all movement.
The influence of Central London on the modal share of internal/external trips is shown
more clearly by an analysis of trips from the Study Area to Greater London, presented
as Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Modal Comparison of Trips (%) from Study Area to Greater London
Car1
Rail
Bus
Total
As Percentage of Total
Study Area
to Central
London
35.2
64.0
0.7
100.0
26%
Study Area
to Inner
London
81.8
18.1
0.2
100.0
23%
Study Area
to Outer
London
97.5
2.0
0.4
100.0
51%
Note: 1 Including LGV
Rail accounts for 64% of trips from the Study Area to Central London, compared with
only 35% by car. For the purpose of this analysis, Central London has been defined as
the City of London and City of Westminster, together with the London Boroughs of
Camden, Islington, Lambeth and Southwark. The latter four Boroughs were included
in view of the number of passengers whose journeys end at key rail stations within
these Boroughs, such as Kings Cross, Finsbury Park and London Bridge. If, therefore,
the analysis was limited to the parts of these Boroughs closest to the City and West
End, the proportion of trips by rail would be even higher. By contrast, only 2% of trips
from the Study Area to Outer London are by rail.
An analysis of highway traffic on the key north-south corridors also shows that the
majority of inter-urban car trips are not bound for Central London. For example, the
majority of southbound traffic on the M1 immediately north of the M25 has
destinations dispersed over a wide area. A significant volume of traffic continues
onto one of the principal orbital routes (the M25 or North Circular Road) and a
number of trips terminate in north-west London. However, only 12% of the traffic has
a destination in Central London. With the broad definition of Central London used
here, the proportion of trips terminating in the City and West End will be even smaller.
Similar analysis for the A1(M) and M11 show 19% and 14% respectively of traffic having
destinations in Central London.
This relatively straightforward analysis demonstrates three key conclusions about the
role currently played by different modes and is fundamental to understanding the
potential roles which they can play in the future:
•
Car use is ubiquitous and is represented strongly in all parts of the matrix
regardless of average trip length. The evidence does suggest, however, that
- 26 -
its role diminishes for very long distance trips, especially those with a city
centre destination, where rail becomes more important;
•
Rail currently serves two primary markets, the suburban market to the centre
of London and the long-distance inter-urban market from city centre to city
centre, with London again the primary destination;
•
In contrast to rail, the role of the bus is less well defined. It diminishes with
increasing trip length for trips from the Study Area to other regions but its role
appears to increase for through trips. The latter is largely due to the network
of National Express coaches, which has many routes originating in London. It
is clear, however, that the bus ‘market’ is less precisely defined than for rail,
with the result that the patterns of movement are more diverse.
As an overall summary of this analysis, there is an inescapable conclusion that even if
public transport capacity could be massively increased and such an increase were
fully effective in terms of a demand response, it would only reduce car-related travel
by a small proportion. For example, a doubling of public transport capacity, if fully
effective, would reduce Base Year car demand by some 8%, a reduction likely to be
nullified by natural growth within 5-10 years. Furthermore, there is little scope for
transferring trips to Central London to the rail network, since the proportion of trips
made by car is already very small.
This does not in any way mitigate against public transport improvements which
remain a primary objective of Government policy and of this Study. It does, however,
highlight the relatively limited impact which such improvements can make by
themselves in alleviating congestion and the need, therefore, to buttress these with a
number of other measures.
4.3.3
Rail
The Study Area includes within it a number of major rail corridors, some of national
importance, which are described below.
West Coast Main Line (WCML)
The WCML runs from London Euston to Glasgow Central linking many of the principal
conurbations in the UK. The route includes a loop to Birmingham New Street and
Wolverhampton, as well as branches to Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester
Piccadilly. The WCML is a designated priority on the Trans-European network.
Within the Study Area, between Watford Junction and Rugby, the WCML is a fourtrack railway with a line speed of 100-110 mph (60-90 mph on the slow lines).
Between Hanslope Junction (north of Milton Keynes) and Rugby, the four tracks are
provided by two separate double-track routes, with the ‘fast’ lines running via
Weedon, and the ‘slow’ lines running via Northampton. The WCML is electrified
throughout.
- 27 -
The inter-city trains are currently operated by Virgin Trains. Principal services include:
•
an hourly service to Preston, with alternate services extended to Glasgow;
•
an hourly service to Manchester;
•
an hourly service to Liverpool; and
•
a half-hourly service to Birmingham, with alternate services extended to
Wolverhampton.
Within the Study Area, a selection of services calls at Milton Keynes and/or Rugby.
Silverlink also operates a half-hourly service to Birmingham, but this is a slower service
via Northampton, which calls at a number of additional stations. Extra trains run to
Northampton only, together with a half-hourly service between London and Milton
Keynes, which calls at all stations north of Watford Junction.
The WCML is also the most significant rail freight route through the Study Area.
Midland Main Line (MML)
The MML links London St Pancras with Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield and
Leeds. However, the southern section forms part of the Thameslink network, with
connections from Moorgate and South London. Within the Study Area, the line is
predominantly four-track with some two- and three-track sections north of Bedford.
Line speeds through the Study Area are typically 100-110 mph on the ‘fast’ lines and
90 mph on the ‘slow’ lines. The route is only electrified from London to Bedford
The inter-city trains are currently operated by Midland Mainline. Hourly fast services
operate from St Pancras to both Nottingham and Sheffield, supported by hourly semifast ‘Turbostar’ services to Derby and Nottingham. A selection of services calls within
the Study Area at Luton (or Luton Airport Parkway) and/or Bedford.
Thameslink operates a frequent service over the electrified section of route. Typically,
fast trains run every fifteen minutes between Bedford and Brighton (calling at all
stations between Bedford and St Albans), with stopping trains every fifteen minutes
between Luton and Sutton. Both services call at several stations in the London area.
The MML is also an important freight route through the Study Area.
East Coast Main Line (ECML)
The ECML extends from London to Edinburgh via Peterborough, York and Newcastle,
with branches to Leeds, Hull and Cambridge. Although Kings Cross is the principal
terminus for long-distance services, there is also a spur from Moorgate (joining the
main line at Finsbury Park) which is used by many London commuter services.
Within the Study Area, between Potters Bar and Huntingdon, the line is predominantly
four-track. However, there is one section between Welwyn Garden City and
Knebworth (including the ‘Welwyn Viaduct’) which has only two tracks, and thus acts
- 28 -
as a major pinch-point on the network. North of Huntingdon, there is a mix of two,
three and four tracks until Peterborough, beyond which the route is predominantly
double-track. There is also a double-track loop via Hertford North. Whilst the Hertford
Loop is used by local passenger services, it is also the route taken by freight trains to
enable maximum use of the ‘Welwyn Viaduct’ by passenger trains. The branch to
Cambridge diverges from the main line at Hitchin, and is similarly double-track.
The line speed is up to 125mph on the ‘fast’ lines, reducing to 70-80 mph on the ‘slow’
lines and the Hertford Loop. The ECML is electrified to Leeds and Edinburgh, but not
north thereof. Consequently, services to Aberdeen and Inverness, and also the
services to Hull, are operated by diesel rolling stock.
GNER operates high-speed inter-city services over the length of the route. As a
general rule, there is at least one train per hour from Kings Cross to Edinburgh or
beyond, and a half-hourly service to Leeds. This pattern is augmented by additional
services to York and Newcastle. Most services do not call at stations south of
Peterborough, and hence not within the Study Area, with the exception of a limited
number calling at Stevenage. The other inter-city operator is Hull Trains, which
provides a limited service between Kings Cross and Hull (but not calling within the
Study Area).
WAGN is the principal operator of outer-suburban services on the ECML, typically
providing:
•
a frequent stopping service from London Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City,
and Hertford North;
•
a half-hourly fast service from Kings Cross to Cambridge, with alternate
services extended to Kings Lynn; and
•
half-hourly semi-fast services from Kings Cross to both Cambridge and
Peterborough, serving many stations within the Study Area.
The ECML is also an important freight route through the Study Area.
West Anglia Main Line (WAML)
The WAML runs from London Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn via Cambridge and has
branches to Hertford East and Stansted Airport.
The line is predominantly double-track. However, between Hackney Downs and
Cheshunt there is an additional double-track loop via Seven Sisters. The branches to
Hertford East and Stansted Airport are generally also double-track, but the Stansted
route includes a single-track section in tunnel. The line speed is typically 90 mph, and
the entire route is electrified.
All trains from London on the WAML are operated by WAGN, the key services being:
•
four fast trains per hour to Stansted Airport, with few (if any) stops within the
Study Area;
- 29 -
•
an hourly slow service to Stansted Airport, calling at principal stations within
the Study Area, supplemented by an additional hourly service to Bishops
Stortford (which cannot be extended to Stansted Airport due to the
capacity of the tunnel);
•
a half-hourly service to Cambridge, calling at various stations within the
Study Area;
•
a half-hourly service to Hertford East, which calls at all stations via Seven
Sisters; and
•
various inner-suburban services which are wholly external to the Study Area.
Between Stansted Airport and Ely, the WAML is also used by an hourly diesel service
operated by Central Trains from Stansted Airport to Liverpool, via Peterborough,
Leicester and Birmingham.
The volume of freight on the WAML is comparatively small, except in the vicinity of Ely.
Marston Vale Line
The Marston Vale Line runs from Bedford to Bletchley, although it originally continued
to Bicester. It is predominantly double-track, with a short section of single-track at
Fenny Stratford. Line speeds are generally low, and the route is not electrified. An
hourly service calling at all stations is operated by Silverlink.
Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey Branch
The Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey branch is a single-track branch line with no
passing loops. Line speeds are generally low, but the route is electrified. The service is
operated by Silverlink, every 45 minutes, calling at all stations. This is the maximum
frequency achievable within the constraints of the single-line working.
Chiltern Line
The Chiltern Line is outside the Study Area, but is mentioned because of its strategic
significance. The main line runs from London Marylebone to Birmingham with a
branch to Aylesbury. There is also a line to Aylesbury via Amersham.
The route to Birmingham has recently been upgraded to give a double-track
alignment throughout, although the route is not electrified. Chiltern Railways currently
operates an hourly service between Marylebone and Birmingham, enhanced to halfhourly at peak times, but it is proposed to introduce a half-hourly service throughout
the day in the near future.
Whilst the Chiltern Line to Birmingham is slower than WCML services, fares are
generally lower and hence the service is attractive for passengers who attach
greater importance to price than time. In addition, the service is more suitable for
travel from certain parts of North West London and Buckinghamshire to Birmingham,
and from Solihull to London.
- 30 -
Figure 4.1 summarises the rail network in the Study Area with its key characteristics.
Base Year morning peak period passenger flows on the rail network within and slightly
beyond the Study Area are shown as Figure 4.2. The principal feature is the
dominance of the three inter-city corridors WCML, MML and ECML. In each of these
corridors, although the southbound flow is dominant during the morning peak period.
There is, nevertheless, a significant northbound flow.
For the WCML and ECML the flows are very high north of Rugby and Peterborough
respectively, indicating the long-distance nature of travel on these lines. In the case
of MML, flows increase significantly south of Luton. Table 4.3 presents a comparison of
rail passenger flows at different points in the network for the morning three-hour peak
period.
Table 4.3 Sample of Strategic Rail Passenger Movements (3 Hour Morning Peak
Period)
Location
Southbound
Northbound
WCML – North of Milton Keynes
7,000 (7,000 + 0)
2,900 (2,900 + 0)
WCML – South of Milton Keynes
10,300 (7,700 + 2,600)
3,600 (3,100 + 500)
MML – North of Bedford
3,200 (3,200 + 0)
1,000 (1,000 + 0)
MML – South of Luton
7,500 (3,400 + 4,100)
1,700 (1,100 + 600)
ECML – South of Huntingdon
6,900 (5,300 + 1,600)
2,900 (2,700 + 200)
Note: The first number in parentheses is the flow on inter-city services, followed by the flow on
other services)
The analysis highlights the importance of Central London as the key destination for rail
travel in the Study Area. This is manifest in a number of ways; the high number of
morning peak hour boardings in the Study Area; low level of alighting and low level of
interchange as highlighted in Figure 4.3.
In terms of boardings, the key locations are:
•
Milton Keynes and Watford on WCML;
•
Stevenage, Welwyn, Hitchin and Peterborough on ECML;
•
St. Albans, Luton, Harpenden and Bedford on MML; and
•
Cambridge, Bishops Stortford and Harlow Town on WAML.
- 31 -
Figure 4.1 Diagram of Rail Network
- 32 -
Figure 4.2 Pattern of Rail Movements in 2001
- 33 -
Figure 4.3 Morning Peak Period Boardings, Alightings, Interchange
Boardings
Alightings
Interchange
- 34 -
The pattern of alighting demonstrates that St. Albans, Stevenage and Cambridge are
the most important destinations. Across the whole Study Area interchange is, not
unexpectedly, low given the lack of east-west rail connections. Nevertheless, some
interchange does take place at locations such as Milton Keynes, Stevenage and
Watford Junction between fast and slow services in the same corridor.
In describing the existing size and patterns of rail demand, it should be recognised
that each of the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) serving the Study Area has
enjoyed a dramatic rise in passenger journeys in recent years. Table 4.4 summarises
the trends in the few years prior to the Study Base Year.
Table 4.4 Patronage Trends
Statistic
Year
Central
Chiltern
GNER
Midland
Mainline
Silverlink
Thameslink
Passenger
Journeys
(million)
1997
1998
1999
2000
30.5
32.4
34.5
35.7
8.1
8.8
9.6
10.4
11.9
13.7
13.9
15.9
5.8
6.3
6.8
8.2
28.0
30.7
34.3
35.5
Passenger
Kilometres
(million)
1997
1998
1999
2000
1997
1998
1999
2000
1997
1998
1999
2000
1997
1998
1999
2000
1090.30
1148.50
1216.50
1284.60
27.04
27.68
29.28
30.72
35.75
35.45
35.26
35.98
40.33
41.49
41.55
41.82
324.11
358.56
424.80
480.80
5.63
5.81
6.72
7.04
40.01
40.75
44.25
46.23
57.54
61.74
63.21
68.30
3352.11
3570.97
3470.56
3939.40
15.93
16.58
17.28
17.76
281.69
260.65
249.68
247.19
210.40
215.44
200.84
221.31
758.93
802.06
928.96
1069.60
5.15
5.15
5.60
9.44
130.85
127.31
136.61
130.44
147.38
155.75
165.89
111.31
923.72
1018.02
893.76
976.16
8.69
9.17
12.16
12.64
27.59
26.51
26.06
27.50
88.89
88.74
73.50
77.23
Train
Kilometres
(million)
Average
Journey
Length (km)
Average
Train Load
(passenger
km per train
km)
WAGN
27.0
30.2
34.4
38.0
Virgin
West
Coast
13.2
15.0
15.9
16.6
923.72
1018.02
1135.68
1206.72
9.98
10.30
10.88
11.36
34.21
26.51
26.06
27.50
92.58
98.84
104.38
106.23
2917.77
3292.40
3340.64
3398.40
16.58
16.90
17.12
18.72
221.04
219.64
210.10
204.72
176.03
194.85
195.13
181.54
1495.82
1614.74
1764.00
1939.52
16.41
16.58
17.76
18.24
29.62
30.58
31.67
31.69
91.13
97.42
99.32
106.33
50.5
52.8
55.7
61.2
Whichever of the three measures is used, passenger journeys, passenger-kms or trainkms, considerable growth has been achieved by all the TOCs. Passenger-km
increases of up to almost 50% have been achieved by some TOCs with none
achieving less than 16%. In contrast, there has been some fluctuation in average trip
length as the pattern of usage has changed through time. Similarly, there have been
considerable fluctuations in average load through time. Continuous increases for
Chiltern, Thameslink and WAGN suggest that passenger numbers are growing faster
than additional capacity is being provided.
4.3.4
Highway Network
The highway network in the Study Area and the standards applying to different routes
and route sections reflect two principal considerations; first, the historic pattern of
development and; second, the travel demands and patterns which have prevailed
in the recent past, most notably in the post-war period.
The historic pattern of development is dominated by the presence of London just to
the south of the Study Area. The result of this is a pattern of north-south routes which
- 35 -
are radial to London and which serve established centres within the Study Area or
larger centres beyond. This type of historic, radial route to London is exemplified by
the A1, A5, A6, A10 and A11, all of which are built around Roman alignments.
Overlain on this historic north-south route development is a later phase of
development which began in the late 1950s/1960s. This was essentially the beginning
of the motorway network when the creation of Road Construction Units accelerated
the development of strategic routes designed to higher, more modern, standards
with an overarching objective to accommodate longer distance movements and an
increasingly greater proportion of freight vehicles. The three routes developed over
this period were the M1, A1(M) and M11.
The M1 was the first motorway in the country to be opened in the late 1950s between
Junctions 5 and 18. Further sections were added to the south in the 1960s and 1970s.
Improvements to the A1, most notably the upgrading to motorway standard was
undertaken incrementally with opening dates for different sections as follows:
•
Stevenage Bypass (Junctions 6-8) – May 1962;
•
Baldock Bypass (Junctions 8-10) – July 1967;
•
Stanborough to Welwyn (Junctions 4-6) – May 1973;
•
South Mimms to Roestock (Junctions 1-2) – May 1979;
•
Roestock to Stanborough (Junctions 2-4) – December 1986.
Finally, the M11 in the Study Area was opened to traffic over a 5-year period between
June 1975 and February 1980.
In contrast to the north-south highway network in the Study Area, which has
responded to changing patterns of travel and increasing demands, east-west
provision is less well developed. This is manifest in the mix of highway standards to be
found in each of the east-west corridors and, with the exception of the A14, the lack
of consistent standards to anything like the same extent as for north-south corridors.
The principal east-west route in the Study Area is the A14. Built over a period of some
eighteen years between 1973 and 1991, this is the only strategic long-distance eastwest route in the Study Area with a consistent standard of provision serving an interregional function. Other significant east-west routes include the A45/A43, A428/A421,
A505 and A414. All these routes have inconsistent design standards along their
length, although efforts have been made over a long period of time to provide
greater consistency. The result is that, in the main, they serve primarily an intraregional function although in the case of the A421/A428 there is a significant
contribution from inter-regional movement.
The M25 is immediately to the south of the Study Area, and is the subject of a
separate study (ORBIT). However, regular congestion on the M25 contributes to
increased pressure on the east-west routes in the southern part of the Study Area.
- 36 -
A description of each corridor in terms of function and network standards and traffic
characteristics is given below. Figure 4.4 also illustrates the pattern of movement
across the network. The problems and issues arising from current and forecast year
movement patterns are described in Chapter 7.
M1
The M1 is the dominant corridor in the Study Area. Conceived as the first full
motorway in the UK, it is the principal corridor connecting London with major
conurbations to the north including the West Midlands, Greater Manchester,
Merseyside, East Midlands, West and South Yorkshire and beyond to the North East
and Scotland.
The standard on the M1 in the Study Area is mainly dual 3-lane, with the exception of
Junctions 6A-7 northbound, Junctions 7-8 both directions and Junction 9-10
northbound which are all four lane standard. In the case of Junctions 7-8, the four
lanes do not represent through running lanes alone, but need to accommodate
weaving movements between the M10/M1 and M1/A414.
Service areas on the motorway are provided as follows:
•
Toddington – Junctions 11 to 12;
•
Newport Pagnell – Junctions 14 to 15;
•
Rothersthorpe – Junctions 15A to 16; and
•
Watford Gap – Junctions 16 to 17.
Flows on the M1 are approximately 105,000 vpd at its northern end (Junction 19) and
up to 150,000 vpd at its southern end (Junction 6A). Over this length of motorway,
there is a through movement at the base year of approximately 50,000 vpd,
highlighting its role in carrying nationally important long-distance movement. The
heavy goods vehicle flow on the M1 is in the order of 20,000 vpd for most sections, of
which approximately half represents the long-distance through movement.
A feature of the traffic analysis for the M1 shows that only a very small proportion of
longer distance traffic actually has a destination in Central London. Instead, the
traffic is dispersed around Outer London and to destinations beyond London via the
M25, or to parts of Inner London via the North Circular Road.
M11
The need for a motorway between London and Cambridge was originally identified
in the 1940s, but only delivered during the latter half of the 1970s.
- 37 -
Figure 4.4. Modelled Base Year Traffic Flows
The standard of the route is dual 3-lane provision south of Junction 8 (Bishop’s
Stortford and Stansted) and dual 2-lane provision to the north. A service area is
provided only at Junction 8 but off-route as compared to those on the M1.
Development of the M25 and widening of the A1(M) between Alconbury and
Peterborough has changed the nature of the M11 to some extent in that it now
carries a significant volume of longer distance traffic from East London and the South
East generally to points west and north of Huntingdon. For trips between the Channel
Ports and the East Midlands or Yorkshire, for example, the M11 offers a real alternative
to the M1 as a strategic long-distance route. Given the relative levels of congestion
in the north-south corridors as well as the M25, the M11 becomes even more
competitive.
In terms of long-distance, strategic north-south traffic, the M11 is the next most
important corridor to the M1. Again, the higher flows are at the southern end of the
corridor, up to 95,000 vpd. Flows at the northern end are typically in the order of
55,000 vpd and there is a long-distance through movement of 30,000 vpd which
travels the full length of the M11 between the M25 and A14.
- 38 -
A1/A1(M)
This corridor differs from the M1 and M11 in that the A1 corridor, improved
incrementally during the 1960s and 1970s, has a relatively small long-distance
movement, about 5,000 vpd, compared to the other north-south corridors. Its primary
function, therefore, is to serve its hinterland immediately north of the M25. This
includes locations such as Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage, Hitchin,
Letchworth and Baldock.
Standards vary in the A1/A1(M) corridor with design to motorway standard south of
Junction 10 at Baldock and all-purpose dual carriageway provision north of Baldock.
On the sections south of Baldock motorway standards prevail on all sections and are
as follows:
•
Junctions 1-3 – dual 3-lane;
•
•
•
•
Junctions 8-9 – dual 3-lane; and
•
Junction 9-10 – dual 2-lane.
To the north of Baldock as far as the A428, a distance of approximately 25km., all
major junctions are at-grade with frequent minor junctions and direct frontage
access, and with some sub-standard sections of dual carriageway. To the north of
the A428 as far as Alconbury, where motorway standards resume, most major
junctions are grade separated, the exception being at Buckden.
Junction provision is also variable over the motorway standard section. In most cases
junctions allow all movements with the exception of Junction 5, which only has a
northbound on-slip and Junction 2, which has south-facing slips only.
In summary, therefore, the A1/A1(M) corridor embodies considerable variation in
design standards which, northbound from the M25 is, first, full motorway standard;
then, all-purpose at-grade and, finally, all-purpose grade-separated before reverting
to motorway standard at Alconbury.
Other North/South Routes
The other principal north-south routes in the Study Area are the A5, A6 and A10.
These are all classified as third tier, Regional Routes in the Consultation of Options for
Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England (RPG14).
In each case, the standards are inconsistent, with the majority of each route being
single carriageway standard with shorter lengths at dual carriageway standard,
primarily where towns and villages have been by-passed.
- 39 -
In the main the long-distance, inter-regional function of these routes has been
supplanted by the M1 and M11, and to a lesser extent the A1(M).
A14
The primary long-distance east-west corridor in the Study Area is the A14. The route is
designed to dual two-lane all purpose standard for the whole of its length between
the M11 and M1 and is the same standard for the section which forms a northern
bypass to Cambridge.
The route was constructed over an 18-year period between 1973 and 1991.
At the current time, temporary arrangements are in place at the western end of the
route where the A14 joins the M1 and M6.
This temporary arrangement will be
replaced in time by a reconfigured grade separated all movements junction in line
with the recommendations of the Roads Based Study at M1 Junction 19.
Throughout the length of the A14, junctions are grade-separated with the exception
of two junctions in the vicinity of the A1 and Huntingdon.
Flows at the western end of this corridor at the M1 Junction 19 are about 40,000 vpd.
On the section between Cambridge and Huntingdon, however, the flow is typically
70,000 vpd. This is as a result of the east-west movement from Cambridge to the
Midlands and North East, merging with north-south traffic from the M11 heading
towards the A1(M) at Huntingdon.
A421/A428
The second most important east-west road corridor within the Study Area is the
A421/A428 linking the M1 at Milton Keynes with the A1 near St. Neots and the M11 at
Cambridge. There is a discontinuity on this corridor just south of St. Neots and as a
result, a short section of the A1 in the vicinity of Black Cat roundabout (A1 Junction
with A421) is used as part of this east-west route.
This is classified as a first tier, Strategic National Route, in the Consultation of Options
for RPG14. Analysis undertaken by the Study Team has identified a much lower level
of inter-regional movement in this corridor than for the A14, but a significantly greater
proportion than for other east-west routes. To illustrate this point average trip lengths
for the principal east-west routes are as follows:
•
A14 – 103 km;
•
A421 – 64 km;
•
A505 – 23 km; and
•
A414 – 38 km.
Standards of provision are variable in this corridor. Immediately to the east of the M1
standards are a mix of single two-lane all purpose standard and dual two-lane
standard as far as Bedford Southern Bypass. This relatively new section of road is then
- 40 -
at dual two-lane all-purpose standard but reverts to single two-lane standard
immediately east as far as the A1. It is proposed that this section of road will be
upgraded to dual two-lane standard, subject to the outcome of the Great Barford
Bypass Public Inquiry.
To the east of the A1, design standards are predominantly single two-lane.
A43/A45
The A43/A45 provides a strategic connection from the south west (Oxford, the M40
and A34 corridors) to points north, north-east and east of the Study Area.
Within the Study Area itself, Northampton is the focus for both corridors. To the south
of Northampton the A43 has been progressively upgraded in recent years to provide
dual carriageway standard. The A45 is similarly dual carriageway standard to the M1.
To the north and east of Northampton, standards differ between the A43 and A45.
The A43 is predominantly single carriageway standard as far as Kettering and then
again to the north of Kettering. The A45, however, is a consistent dual carriageway
standard as far as Stanwick where it reverts to single carriageway standard. The
section of route immediately south of Stanwick also has at-grade junctions as
opposed to the grade separation between Northampton and Rushden.
In summary, therefore, the movement from the south-west through the northern part
of the Study Area is generally catered for on high quality all-purpose roads with the
exception of the section between Stanwick and Thrapston. This reduced standard for
a relatively short length is the only inconsistency over the full length of the corridor as
far south as the A5.
Further improvements in the Targeted Programme of
Improvements on the A43 south of the A5 will effectively make the whole corridor
dual carriageway with the exception of Stanwick to Thrapston.
A505
The A505 corridor is designated as a third tier, Regional link in the Draft RPG14 roads
hierarchy. It is clearly of lower importance than the A14 and A421/A428 within the
Eastern Regional Planning Area and also of lower strategic significance than the
A43/A45 corridor.
The corridor itself connects Luton and the M1 corridor to the A1(M) corridor at
Baldock and the M11 west of Cambridge.
Design standards on the route are a mixture of dual and single carriageway with the
dual carriageway standard predominating on the inter-urban sections.
Modelling work undertaken by the Study Team confirms that the corridor is not used
significantly for long-distance through movements, but mainly to access settlements
in the corridor itself.
- 41 -
A414
The A414 is the most southerly of the east-west routes in the Study Area. The route
itself is primarily of dual carriageway standard except at its eastern end where it
enters Harlow.
In order to maintain the dual carriageway standard, the corridor uses sections of
north-south routes, such as the A10 south of Ware and the A1(M) west of Hatfield.
At the western end of the corridor the A414 turns south via the A405 to M25 at
Junction 21A and M1 at Junction 6. It also continues north to the M1 at Junction 7 via
the M10.
The A414 is once again categorised as a third tier, Regional Link in the Consultation
on Options leading to RPG14. Its function, therefore, is to provide good east-west
connections for those settlements in the corridor. Through movements of an interregional nature are catered for by the M25, which lies a short distance to the south.
4.3.5
Bus
The LSM Study is concerned primarily with inter-urban movement and statistics
presented earlier show that bus accounts for less than 4% of all internal movements
and for only 1% of movements from the Study Area to other areas.
The pattern of bus movements is most easily shown on the basis of peak and off-peak
boardings. Figure 4.5 demonstrates the high levels of peak and off-peak demand for
Cambridge, Luton and Stansted airports. The role of the airports is particularly
interesting and reflects the well-developed airport network, which is very strongly
represented in medium- and long-distance express coach travel.
4.4
Freight
4.4.1
Manufacturing and Mineral Extraction
The area is not important in terms of manufacturing or extractive industry. In
manufacturing, there are important centres for the automotive, pharmaceutical,
aviation, electronics, and food processing industries, but in general these are not
concentrated nor of national significance. Steel processing is still an important
activity in Corby, but the area’s iron ore deposits are no longer worked.
The area contains a concentration of clay pits and associated brick works in the
Peterborough and Bedford to Bletchley areas. This is a declining industry, but the
abandoned pits are an important resource for waste disposal.
There are gravel and sand beds in the area, which are being actively worked, but
there are also major movements of aggregates into the Study Area from the
Pennines, which typically arrive by rail at terminals throughout the area.
- 42 -
Figure 4.5 Bus Travel
AM
Peak
OffPeak
- 43 -
4.5
Freight
4.5.1
Manufacturing and Mineral Extraction
The area is not important in terms of manufacturing or extractive industry. In
manufacturing, there are important centres for the automotive, pharmaceutical,
aviation, electronics, and food processing industries, but in general these are not
concentrated nor of national significance. Steel processing is still an important
activity in Corby, but the area’s iron ore deposits are no longer worked.
The area contains a concentration of clay pits and associated brick works in the
Peterborough and Bedford to Bletchley areas. This is a declining industry, but the
abandoned pits are an important resource for waste disposal.
There are gravel and sand beds in the area, which are being actively worked, but
there are also major movements of aggregates into the Study Area from the
Pennines, which typically arrive by rail at terminals throughout the area.
4.5.2
Retail Distribution
The notable characteristic of the area is its importance for the retail distribution sector.
The North of the Study Area is close to the ‘golden triangle’ for national distribution
centres – broadly the M1/M42/M6 area. This is considered to be the best possible
location for a National Distribution Centre (NDC), allowing all main population centres
in the UK to be served from a single location.
The remaining parts of the region are also popular as locations for distribution related
activities. The main focus is along the M1, particularly at Milton Keynes and
Northampton, and also on the A1 at Peterborough. The A14 has made towns such as
Wellingborough, Kettering, and Corby far more attractive as centres for distribution.
Figure 4.6 illustrates the locations of National Distribution Centres (NDCs – in blue), and
Regional Distribution Centres (RDCs – in red) in the Study Area. Data was sourced
from the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) Retail Distribution Survey 2000 which
covers the main supermarket chains and Boots.
There are two classic models for retail distribution in the UK: Supplier–NDC–RDC–Store
(or from NDC to store), and Supplier–RDC–Store. Larger volume products will often
move direct from the supplier to the store. Overlain on this network will be a “reverse
logistics” network bringing back packaging and returned goods. The movements
into stores are controlled by the retailers, but often carried out by Third Party Logistics
Providers such as Tibbett and Britten or Hays Logistics.
Further analysis of the IGD Retail Distribution Survey suggests that while the Study Area
includes only 5% of the UK population, it includes 33% of all NDCs in the survey, and
13% of RDCs. Each of these facilities is huge – generally around 300,000 square feet.
The RDCs in the Study Area tend to be larger than average, and so the Study Area
includes 16% of RDC space in the UK.
- 44 -
Figure 4.6 Location of Distribution Centres in Study Area
Furthermore, several DCs are located very close to but outside the boundary of the
Study Area. Once these are included, the immediate area includes 24% of all retail
distribution centre warehouse space recorded.
Not all of the RDCs surveyed reported the number of cases handled. However, if it is
assumed that the number of cases handled is proportional to the floor area of the
facility, it can be estimated that DCs in the study handled 587 million cases of retail
goods. Very broadly this would equate to 5.8 million Tonnes, or over 500,000 truck
journeys. Allowing for return loads and inbound freight, it can be estimated that the
DCs in the Study Area generate up to 3,500 lorry movements per day. The average
vehicle journey is around 230km, and a very large proportion of this traffic uses the
M1.
To this must be added vehicle movements from other distribution centres outside the
Study Area (such as Boots three NDCs in Nottingham) moving to stores in the Study
Area as well as London and the South East. The supplier networks also generate huge
volumes of traffic in their own right – for instance 300 vehicles per day from Britvic,
and several hundred daily movements for Coca Cola.
This trend is set to continue – there is very strong demand for new distribution parks in
the Study Area, and major new parks are being developed at Kettering,
- 45 -
Northampton, and Junction 13 of the M1. This is happening to the extent that
demand for these land ‘hungry’ freight generating sites should be seen as a strong
threat to large parts of the rural land in the area.
Understanding the needs and impacts of retail distribution is highly relevant to the
Study. It illustrates that there are two types of freight flow that dominate the Study
Area: through freight and freight associated with retail distribution. The former will be
immune in volume terms to any actions taken as a result of the Study: it can only be
accommodated, diverted, or transferred between modes. However, the Study can
identify ways of reducing the volume, increasing the efficiency, or mitigating the
impact of retail distribution for movements which begin or end their journey in the
Study Area.
4.5.3
The Pattern of Freight Movements in the Study Area
The Study Area is dominated by north-south road and rail corridors, which are vital
freight arteries for UK industries. The M1, for example, is the most important road within
the country for freight delivery and distribution. Movement on the east-west axis is
more difficult for road freight, as there are no through trunk routes other than the A14
and the M25 at the northern and southern edges of the area respectively. The main
impact of poor east-west access is the difficulty of reaching the ports of Felixstowe
and Harwich from most of the Study Area.
Similarly, the West Coast Main Line is the main strategic rail route for north-south
freight, but there are no main line routes serving the east to west axis.
Goods vehicles tend to use trunk roads where these are available as the time taken in
completing a journey is more important in cost terms than a reasonable variation in
the distance covered. To maximise use of trunk roads, new businesses generating or
receiving high volumes of freight will seek to locate as close as possible to trunk roads
providing good access to all of their markets. The poor quality of east-west access
through the Study Area results in HGVs using indirect routes, with consequent impact
on business economics.
Use of an updated version of the SRA Demand Forecast Model, which is based on a
County-to-County origin and destination matrix, suggests the following broad pattern
of freight movements to, from, within and through the Study Area.
•
Approximately 326 million Tonnes of freight move to, from, through or within
the Study Area. Of this volume, some 7% moves by rail.
•
The road freight volume is broadly equivalent to 147,000 goods vehicle
movements per day. Some 40% of road freight movements are ‘transit traffic’,
with both origin and destination outside of the Study Area. In comparison,
22% of road freight completes its entire journey within the Study Area.
•
The main commodities moved by rail are construction materials (with rail
carrying 9% of the total) and deep-sea containers, with rail carrying 20% of the
total. The main flow of deep-sea containers is between Felixstowe and the
Midlands/North West. When moving by road this traffic uses the A14, but by
rail it currently passes via London and the southern section of the WCML.
- 46 -
•
4.6
There are relatively few rail terminals receiving or forwarding freight by rail in
the Study Area. The main freight facilities are several terminals receiving
construction traffic, the DIRFT inter-modal terminal, Corby Steel Plant and car
terminals in Corby.
Air Transport
The two major airports in the Study Area are Stansted and Luton. There is a third
airport at Cambridge, but the level of commercial activity is sufficiently low that it
need not be considered further.
Stansted is the largest airport in the Study Area and, like Luton, has experienced rapid
growth in passenger numbers. The strategy for the airport has been to create a
climate for the growth of low cost airlines such as Buzz, Go, Ryanair and Virgin Express.
Passenger numbers reached 13.6 million passengers per annum (mppa) in 2001. BAA
has a planning application which is approved in principle to raise passenger capacity
from 15 mppa to 25 mppa to meet the growing demand for air travel to and from the
Eastern Region.
Freight has also increased substantially at Stansted in recent years which currently
handles about 175,000 metric tonnes per annum.
Passenger volumes at Luton are about half those at Stansted, but have shown
significant growth in recent years. Passenger traffic was 6.5 mppa in 2001. Air freight
is about one sixth of that at Stansted. Expansion to 10 mppa is provided for within the
Bedfordshire Structure Plan, although the airport itself believes that ultimately it could
handle 30 mppa.
Outside the Study Area, the largest airports are Heathrow, Gatwick and Birmingham
and, of these, Heathrow is by far the most important and relevant to this Study. In
2001 Heathrow handled just over 60 mppa, having fallen from 64 mppa the previous
year. Growth to 66 mppa is forecast for 2004/5 and to 75 mppa by 2009/10. The
recently approved Terminal 5 would enable the airport to handle 80 mppa.
Table 4.5 and Figure 4.7 summarise the growth in passenger volumes achieved in
recent years at these airports and highlight the rapid growth which is far outstripping
any other mode of transport. They also show that, after several years of increasing
growth, the rate of growth slowed between 2000 and 2001, presumably due to the
fear of terrorist activity following September 11. It should be noted, however, that this
has affected the low cost airlines to a lesser extent than conventional airlines, and
hence future growth at Stansted and Luton is unlikely to be significantly reduced.
Forecasts of future growth at these and other UK airports has been the subject of a
major series of studies on regional air services. At the time of preparing this Report,
the South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study4 is out to consultation.
In very broad terms, there is an expectation that total air passenger journeys in the
South East and East of England, which totalled approximately 110m in 2001, will rise to
about 300m by 2030. This almost three-fold increase will have major implications for
4
The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East. Department for Transport July
2002
- 47 -
all airports if shared on a pro-rata basis. If, however, it is skewed towards one or two
airports, the implications for landside infrastructure could, potentially, be enormous.
Table 4.5 Growth in Passenger Volumes at Luton and Stansted
Passenger Volume
Year
Luton
(mppa)
Stansted
(mppa)
1993
1.8
2.7
1994
1.8
3.3
1995
1.8
3.9
1996
2.4
4.8
1997
3.2
5.4
1998
4.1
6.8
1999
5.3
9.4
2000
6.2
11.8
2001
6.5
13.6
Figure 4.7 Growth in Passenger Volumes at Luton and Stansted
16
14
Luton
Million Passengers per annum
Stansted
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
- 48 -
1998
1999
2000
2001
4.7
Waterways
The role of waterways within the total transport network is relatively limited within the
Study Area. Its role at the current time is predominantly for leisure use with
narrowboats being a regular feature of the Grand Union Canal.
Plans are currently at an early stage for a new Milton Keynes-Bedford canal which will
have some commercial uses in niche markets in addition to leisure use. However,
even if fully developed to the limit of existing aspirations, waterways would not play a
significant role within the overall movement of passengers and freight in the Study
Area. They will, therefore, not be considered further in this report. Nevertheless, their
continued development is broadly supported, subject to their being appraised
against the Government’s five overarching criteria.
- 49 -
5
Socio-Economics and Land Use
5.1
Introduction
Future transport demand is strongly driven by the future disposition of land-use, in
particular the location of population and employment, and the levels of employed
population. Clearly, there is a strong link to the regional and national economies,
which also drive other influencing factors such as car ownership and disposable
income.
In this Chapter the socio-economic conditions at the Base Year are described, as well
as each of three planning scenarios which have been developed for the future years.
5.2
The 2001 Baseline
5.2.1
Overview
Table 5.1 sets out the baseline at 2001 for the five socio-economic variables. The area
had an estimated 3.6m population, 1.5m households and some 1.75m jobs. Note that
the figures for counties refer to that part of the County which is within the Study Area.
Net out-commuting amounted to the 1991 figure of 159,000.
Table 5.1: 2001 Baseline
Area
Households
Population
Employment
Employed
Population1
Active
Population2
Leicestershire
46,715
115,339
48,200
59,823
Warwickshire
37,388
87,880
42,914
43,144
44,747
260,919
625,005
311,788
330,203
342,259
Northamptonshire
60,790
Bedfordshire
235,482
561,150
245,898
292,210
303,914
Buckinghamshire
196,063
470,513
241,480
261,006
266,613
Essex
111,946
267,917
122,231
138,625
142,521
Hertfordshire
400,809
958,843
485,178
506,907
517,372
Cambridgeshire
TOTALS
207,642
496,313
243,677
275,378
280,768
1,496,964
3,582,960
1,741,366
1,907,296
1,958,984
1.
Employed Population is defined as a residential measure of employment, in contrast to the
workplace based measure, ‘employment.’ It is a measure of the number of resident workers in
any given area, rather than the number of jobs.
2.
Active population is defined as the resident population who are economically active. It is
calculated by summing the employed population with the International Labour Organisation
(ILO) unemployed. ILO unemployment is defined as someone who is not employed, who has
looked for work in the last 4 weeks, and is ready to start work in the next two weeks.
As a general overview, the LSM area is a relatively prosperous one. It benefits from
the economic opportunities provided by its proximity to Greater London and, to a
much lesser extent, the rest of the South East which makes the southern parts of the
Study Area a particularly attractive location for both communities and businesses.
The Cambridge and Milton Keynes sub-regions have seen particularly strong growth
pressures. In the former case this reflects the success of the cluster of internationally
- 50 -
competitive knowledge-based sectors and, in the latter, the benefits of a quality
infrastructure and relatively extensive development opportunities. With the exception
of the Luton-Dunstable-Houghton Regis area and the associated car industry, the
Study Area does not have major structural problems typically associated with, for
example, declining industries.
5.2.2
Population and Labour Supply
The Study Area has a population of 3.6m, some 6% of the national total. During the
1990s its population grew by 4.8% against a national average of 3.1%. Milton Keynes
and Cambridge saw particularly rapid growth, with net in-migration being a key
driver.
Activity rates for both males and females tend to be well above the national
average, reflecting a combination of the relative ease in acquiring jobs in most areas
and the relatively low proportion of retired people.
The high activity rates are also reflected in the levels of out-commuting, most notably
to London. The 1991 census identifies 190,000 people from the Study Area who
commuted to Inner London and 120,000 to Outer London.
The main net importers of labour are Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Luton, with the
major net exporters being the rural Districts. Notwithstanding the trends summarised
above, there is a reasonably high level of self-containment, with 54% of residents living
and working in the same District.
5.2.3
Economy
The economic indicators all highlight the relative buoyancy of the Study Area. For
example, GDP per head is higher than the national average in all counties, except
one.
Employment through the 1990s grew much more rapidly than in the UK as a whole, by
13.3% against 8.2%. It was also characterised by a much higher level of growth in fulltime jobs than at the national level. The converse of this employment growth is that
unemployment is relatively low throughout the area. In some parts, unemployment is
close to, or below, what would be regarded as an irreducible frictional minimum.
The combination of proximity to London, pressures from migration and policy restraints
mean that housing land values are relatively high. The South East and East Anglia
have both seen above average growth in house prices over recent years and the
southern part of the Study Area has some of the most expensive housing in the UK,
raising major issues of housing affordability.
The Study Area has very few wards which are ranked highly for their deprivation,
based upon either the 1998 or 2000 Indices of Local Deprivation. Only fourteen
wards, for example, were ranked in the 1000 most deprived wards in the UK on the
1998 index and nine on the 2000 index. Most of the wards affected, however, are
concentrated in the Luton area, but with smaller pockets of deprivation in north
Bedfordshire, Northampton, Corby, Harlow and Wellingborough.
- 51 -
5.2.4
Strategic Planning
At around 11,500 square kilometres, LSM is geographically one of the largest multimodal studies. It contains 33 district/unitary councils and part or all of eight counties.
The pattern of post-war development in the Study Area has been significantly
influenced by the establishment of the Metropolitan Green Belt in 1955 and the New
Towns Programme. Of the eight ‘Mark One’ New Towns designated in a ring around
London, five are to be found in the Study Area: Stevenage, Harlow, Hemel
Hempstead, Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield. Analysis of the 1966 Census (10%
sample), revealed that these New Towns remained much more self-contained than
equivalent older towns, but 20 years later, a similar analysis showed this characteristic
to be rapidly diminishing.
Away from London, the early post-war New Towns programme concentrated on
areas of regional decline. Within the Study Area, Corby was designated in 1950 to
provide for the growing workforce at its nationalised steel mill.
In the late 1960s came three further New Towns for London – Milton Keynes (essentially
a greenfield new city), Northampton (enlargement of a medium size county town),
and, just outside the Study Area, Peterborough (also an enlargement of a county
town). Compared with the ‘Mark One’ New Towns, these were planned for much
larger populations, typically 175,000-250,000. They were also more distant from
London, although their location on main transport corridors was deliberately planned
to provide good accessibility to the capital, as well as major settlements in the
Midlands and the North. The 1960s also saw the designation of Wellingborough and
Daventry under the New Town Expansion Programme.
Although pressure for growth has generally been greatest in the south of the Study
Area, pockets of pressure are to be found elsewhere, not least in the Cambridge
area, where growth of the city is constrained by surrounding Green Belt.
Within this, historical context, work on the strategic land-use element of the Study
focused on the identification of unconstrained land to develop future year
alternative economic and land-use scenarios.
5.2.5
Summary of Key Characteristics in the Base Year
The picture being painted of the Study Area is relatively clear, despite its size and
variety of characteristics.
The Study Area itself is part of a prosperous region. The normal economic indicators,
such as earnings, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head, levels of unemployment
all reinforce this point. Importantly, the analysis also demonstrates that there is no
structural weakness or reliance on ageing industries which is likely to undermine its
future prosperity.
The clear linkages with London, the creation of the Metropolitan Green Belt and the
relatively high prosperity in the Study Area all mean that house prices have been
driven up in the south of the Study Area. It also means that there are few
opportunities for growth arising from strategic planning allocations. Available land,
- 52 -
fewer constraints and lower housing costs mean that development pressures will
progressively migrate to the north of the Study Area. There will be several
consequences of this, including longer trip lengths for London commuters and higher
rates of traffic growth for sub-regional and local movements in areas beyond the
southern commuter belt.
There is, therefore, an incentive to encourage a change in commuting patterns
towards shorter length trips which exploit this increasing level of land-use
development in the north of the Study Area. Previous studies, for example, have
identified the possibility of growth in the east-west corridor forming the OxfordCambridge arc, including Milton Keynes and Bedford. Clearly, the change in
commuting patterns will be dependent upon improved transport connections in the
corridor. The future land-use scenarios and transport strategies both take account of
this shift in development pressure and the opportunities created for influencing the
pattern of commuting.
Within this general picture of growth - and growth probably skewed towards the
northern half of the Study Area – any new land-use or infrastructure will need to
reflect and respect environmental constraints. The Study Area has rich environmental
diversity, though only in the southwest is there a statutory landscape designation, the
Chilterns.
The transport consequences of the descriptions given above present a more complex
picture. This is because not only does the Study Area serve journeys with a local origin
or destination, but also it acts as a vital ‘bridge’ between the northern and southern
regions of the country.
The long-term prosperity of this region, as well as other regions, particularly those to
the south, mean that whatever pressures and problems exist at the present time,
these will become more intense through time. These are described comprehensively
in Chapter 7.
5.3
The Future Scenarios
5.3.1
Overview
A set of scenarios to 2016 and 2031 were prepared at traffic zone level for a number
of the key socio-economic variables that impact on future travel behaviour. These
include: households, population, employed population, economically active
population and employment. The timescales are, of course, well beyond the horizons
of conventional economic forecasting models, but the aim of this work was to
produce a set of alternative future views which:
•
were internally consistent, reasonably plausible and not in obvious conflict
with major established national and local policy commitments; and
•
covered a sufficiently broad range of outcomes that they reflected the
likely nature and scale of future transport problems which the Study Area
may face.
- 53 -
The starting point for this work was the construction of a consistent baseline for 2001 at
district and ward level using a range of data sources, including: ward based Census
of Population data for 1991, the Department for Transport’s TEMPRO 4.2 projections,
the Labour Force Survey and the Annual Business Inquiry Survey. Not surprisingly, the
use of such diverse sources pointed to some inconsistencies, suggesting in particular
an implausibly large fall in net out-commuting from the area over the preceding
decade. In the absence of good evidence on how commuting patterns actually
changed over this period, adjustments were made to hold net out-commuting steady
at 1991 levels.
The future scenarios were developed around the following principles.
•
Until 2016 the growth in the number of dwellings is mostly assumed to reflect
current Regional Planning Guidance, except under one scenario which takes
on the emerging results from two recently completed studies of future subregional planning policy options. The level of housing provision that is assumed
in each case effectively determines growth in the number of households and
this, in turn, drives the growth in population and economically active
population based upon the relationships incorporated in the TEMPRO 4.2
projections. After 2016 the scenarios employ differing assumptions about the
level and pattern of growth in numbers of dwellings, although the relationships
between numbers of households, population and economically active
population generally again follow those in TEMPRO 4.2;
•
Reflecting recent experience, the growth in employment in the Study Area is
largely determined by the labour supply constraints which, in turn, depend
upon the combination of the growth in economically active population,
assumptions about the extent of the potential changes in net out-commuting
from the Study Area – primarily to London, which is assumed to remain a key
economic driver – and unemployment. The latter is assumed held at an
irreducible ‘frictional’ minimum of 1% at the projection dates. The one
exception to this ‘supply driven’ pattern of growth is in the Market Driven
Scenario C in which specific allowance is made for a number of potential
drivers of employment growth within the Study Area, which post-2016 planning
policies are assumed to accommodate;
•
The allocation of demographic and employment changes to Districts and
more particularly to traffic zones reflects the combination of national and
local planning policies. This includes current land allocations within Structure
and Local Plans, as well as an assessment of the implications for potential
future development patterns based on the ‘sequential test’ and known
constraints on development such as special environmental designations and
floodplains.
Two recent studies were taken into account in developing the market-driven
Scenario C. These were the London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Planning
Study5 and the Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-Regional Planning Study6.
5
London Stansted Cambridge Sub-Regional Planning Study, ECOTEC Research and Consulting,
David Lock Associates, Land Use Consultants, and Oscar Faber, 2002
6
Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-Regional Study, Roger Tym and Partners, 2002
- 54 -
London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Planning Study
The purpose of the London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Planning Study was to
give advice and guidance to the East of England Regional Planning body and the
Mayor of London on future strategic land-use development in the corridor for the
period up to 2026. The study area stretched south along the M11 corridor from
Cambridge to London, with Stansted located centrally within it. Three growth
scenarios were developed by the consultants to test the implications of four possible
spatial patterns of development to 2026. The study concluded that there was
considerable opportunity for a ‘polycentric’ pattern of development across the subregion. The consultants stated that if the sub-region realises its potential, then this
would result in considerable growth. The growth projected in the areas of Uttlesford
(as a result of Stansted Airport) and Cambridge (owing to growth in knowledge
intensive clusters) were of particular relevance to the construction of the marketdriven Scenario C.
Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-Regional Planning Study
The Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-Regional Planning Study aimed to assess the
potential growth of Milton Keynes and Northampton with improved linkages to and
regeneration of Luton, Bedford and Corby. Under all of the study options put forward
by the consultants, Milton Keynes is expected to be a key growth node, growing west
into the Aylesbury Vale district. In addition, under the higher growth option, the
successful regeneration of Corby is expected to lead to up to 3.4% employment
growth per annum to 2031, making it the fastest growing area in the sub-region.
Again, as a key area within the LSM Study Area, these projected developments were
also built into Scenario C.
Additional Housing in the South East
A third consideration in constructing Scenario C was the announcement by the
Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, in July 2002 that £1.3bn of additional funds
would be invested in the South East region to build 200,000 additional homes over the
next 10 years. The Deputy Prime Minister set out that the new homes would be
targeted in four growth areas, two of which are contained within the LSM Study Area
- Milton Keynes and Stansted. At the time of the announcement, the proposals were
indicative and allocations between the four areas had not been fully outlined. This is
still the case. As the magnitude of additional housing growth in the study area
remains unclear, the Scenarios do not reflect the additional housing growth put
forward under these proposals. However, as set out below, Scenario C assumes a
much faster growth in housing development than that provided for in the current
version of Regional Planning Guidance. The additional housing is, therefore, assumed
to be included under Scenario C.
5.3.2
Scenario A – Base Scenario
This is effectively a ‘business as usual’ scenario in which the projections of additional
dwelling numbers in current Regional Planning Guidance are simply rolled forward for
a further period to 2031. As indicated, this then determines the other demographic
- 55 -
variables and – via the labour supply constraint – levels of employment. The results
are set out (at county level) in Tables 5.2 and 5.3.
Table 5.2: Scenario A at 2016 and 2031
Households
2016
2031
Population
Employment
2016
2031
Employed
Population
2016
2031
Active
Population
2016
2031
Leicestershire
55,617
64,520
127,476
144,544
56,294
65,269
64,942
75,713
2016
65,598
2031
76,478
Warwickshire
43,196
49,005
97,425
106,815
47,899
53055
54,515
58,587
55,066
59,179
Northamptonshire
311,392
361,866
691,946
791,807
355,022
401,528
404,152
499,646
408,233
504,694
Bedfordshire
275,213
314,942
599,912
676,547
277,748
314,467
333,552
383,872
336,921
387,749
Buckinghamshire
234,957
273,850
524,446
588,839
296,578
362,037
301,881
354,906
304,931
358,491
Essex
124,518
137,091
277,034
297,074
141,251
162,154
149,730
166,534
151,243
168,217
Hertfordshire
445,049
489,291 1,007,654 1,070,690
577,696
684,388
564,210
619,482
569,908
625,738
Cambridgeshire
236,016
264,392
293,410
350,655
331,940
393,838
335,292
397,816
TOTALS
527,102
569,381
1,725,958 1,954,957 3,852,995 4,245,697 2,045,898 2,393,553 2,204,922 2,552,578 2,227,192 2,578,362
Table 5.3: Scenario A at 2016 and 2031 (Growth from 2001(%))
Households
Population
Employment
Employed
Population
Active
Population
2016
2031
2016
2031
2016
2031
2016
2031
2016
2031
Leicestershire
19.06%
38.11%
10.52%
25.32%
16.79%
35.41%
8.56%
26.56%
7.91%
25.81%
Warwickshire
15.53%
31.07%
10.86%
21.55%
11.62%
23.63%
26.36%
35.79%
23.06%
32.25%
Northamptonshire
19.34%
38.69%
10.71%
26.69%
13.87%
28.78%
22.40%
51.31%
19.28%
47.46%
Bedfordshire
16.87%
33.74%
6.91%
20.56%
12.95%
27.89%
14.15%
31.37%
10.86%
27.59%
Buckinghamshire
19.84%
39.67%
11.46%
25.15%
22.82%
49.92%
15.66%
35.98%
14.37%
34.46%
Essex
11.23%
22.46%
3.40%
10.88%
15.56%
32.66%
8.01%
20.13%
6.12%
18.03%
Hertfordshire
11.04%
22.08%
5.09%
11.66%
19.07%
41.06%
11.30%
22.21%
10.15%
20.95%
Cambridgeshire
13.66%
27.33%
6.20%
14.72%
20.41%
43.90%
20.54%
43.02%
19.42%
41.69%
TOTAL AREA
15.30%
30.59%
7.54%
18.50%
17.49%
37.45%
15.60%
33.83%
13.69%
31.62%
The key features of the scenario are that:
•
numbers of households grow to 1.7m (+15.3% compared to 2001) by 2016 and
to 2.0m by 2031 (+13.3% compared to 2016);
•
population increases to 3.9m at 2016 (+7.5% compared to 2001) and to 4.2m
at 2031 (+10.2% on 2016);
•
employment increases by 17.0% to 2m at 2016 and by another 17.0% to 2.4m
at 2031;
•
by assumption, net out-commuting remains at the level of 159,000 over the
projection period.
5.3.3
Scenario B – Balanced Development
The demographic variables follow Scenario A to 2016. Thereafter, it is assumed that
opposition to housing development results in only 75% of additional dwellings
compared to Scenario A up to 2031. Throughout the projection period the pattern of
- 56 -
employment growth follows the changes in labour supply so that there is no growth in
net commuting between districts relative to the 2001 baseline. The reduction in rates
of housing development and the matching of growth in economically active
population and jobs at District level is intended to provide a ‘best foreseeable’ land
use planning case, so far as future travel growth is concerned. The results are set out
in Tables 5.4 and 5.5.
Table 5.4: Scenario B at 2016 and 2031
Households
2016
Employment
2016
2031
62,294
127,476
139,565
53,614
54,741
64,942
66,069
65,598
Warwickshire
43,196
49,005
97,425
106815
47,899
53,055
54,515
58,587
55,066
59179
Northamptonshire
311,392
349,248
691,946
764,112
386,109
402,891
404,152
420,934
408,233
425,186
Bedfordshire
275,213
305,010
599,912
655,228
312,053
323,066
333,552
344,565
336,921
348,046
Buckinghamshire
234,957
264,127
524,446
568,121
284,610
298,510
301,881
315,781
304,931
318,971
Essex
124,518
133,948
277,034
290,235
125,559
126,688
149,730
150,859
151,243
152,382
Hertfordshire
445,049
478,231 1,007,654 1,046,511
503,879
505,753
564,210
566,084
569,908
571,803
236,016
257,299
324,044
323,520
331,940
331,416
335,292
334,764
527,102
554,002
2031
2016
2031
Active
Population
55,617
TOTALS
2016
Employed
Population
Leicestershire
Cambridgeshire
2031
Population
2016
2031
66,737
1,725,958 1,899,162 3,852,995 4,124,589 2,037,767 2,088,224 2,204,922 2,254,295 2,227,192 2,277,068
Table 5.5: Scenario B at 2016 and 2031 (Growth from 2001 (%))
Households
2016
Population
Employment
2031
2016
2031
2016
2031
Employed
Population
2016
2031
Active
Population
2016
2031
Leicestershire
19.06%
33.35%
10.52%
21.00%
11.23%
13.57%
8.56%
10.44%
7.91%
9.78%
Warwickshire
15.53%
31.07%
10.86%
21.55%
11.62%
23.63%
26.36%
35.79%
23.06%
32.25%
Northamptonshire
19.34%
33.85%
10.71%
22.26%
23.84%
29.22%
22.40%
27.48%
19.28%
24.23%
Bedfordshire
16.87%
29.53%
6.91%
16.77%
26.90%
31.38%
14.15%
17.92%
10.86%
14.52%
19.64%
Buckinghamshire
19.84%
34.72%
11.46%
20.75%
17.86%
23.62%
15.66%
20.99%
14.37%
Essex
11.23%
19.65%
3.40%
8.33%
2.72%
3.65%
8.01%
8.83%
6.12%
6.92%
Hertfordshire
11.04%
19.32%
5.09%
9.14%
3.85%
4.24%
11.30%
11.67%
10.15%
10.52%
Cambridgeshire
13.66%
23.91%
6.20%
11.62%
32.98%
32.77%
20.54%
20.35%
19.42%
19.23%
TOTAL AREA
15.30%
26.87%
7.54%
15.12%
17.02%
19.92%
15.60%
18.19%
13.69%
16.24%
The overall totals at 2016 are similar to Scenario A but the distribution of employment
growth is significantly different. All variables grow more slowly over the period 20162031 and the distribution of employment growth is again rather different:
•
numbers of households increase by 172,000 (10.0%) compared with the
growth of 229,000 under Scenario A;
•
population grows by 268,000 (7.0%) compared with the growth of 393,000
under Scenario A;
•
employment rises by only 49,000 (2.4%) compared with the 348,000 increase
under Scenario A;
- 57 -
•
5.3.4
net out-commuting again remains at 159,000 by assumption.
Scenario C – Market Driven
Under this scenario, policy is more accommodating to growth resulting, inter alia, in
more rapid increases in the socio-economic and land use drivers of travel growth
after 2016. Specifically, general rates of housing development are increased by 50%
in the northern districts of the Study Area – excluding Cambridge where constraints on
housing development are tighter – and by 25% in the remainder of the area.
Specific provision is also made for additional employment growth in Luton
(regeneration policies and airport related growth), Uttlesford (Stansted Airport related
growth), parts of Cambridgeshire (growth in the high technology cluster) and Corby
(regeneration initiatives).
The Department of Transport’s Consultation Document The Future of Air Transport in
the UK (July 2002) sets out that air passenger movements in the UK are forecast to
increase threefold up to 2030. One of the proposals put forward in the consultation
document is to develop up to three additional runways at Stansted Airport. The
Consultation Document came out late in the LSM study timetable and a decision was
made not to follow the options put forward as they were consultative in nature. The
highest option of three additional runways at Stansted would obviously have
profound implications for the Study Area. It was felt that these would need to be the
subject of a separate exercise if their adoption appears likely.
Notwithstanding this, the central growth option of the London-Stansted-Cambridge
Sub-Regional Planning Study makes specific provision for additional growth from
direct jobs generated by the expansion of Stansted Airport to accommodate
40mppa by 2026. In employment terms, this was projected to generate 28,000 jobs
by 2026. Taking forward the figures set out in this option, employment was expected
to grow by 43% between 2001 and 2016, and by another 43% between 2016 and
2031. To reflect the additional growth projected under this option, final adjustments
were made to Scenario C.
The Higher Growth scenario set out in the Milton Keynes to South Midlands SubRegional Planning Study makes provision for the success of major regeneration
initiatives at Corby, Bedford and Luton as regional priority areas. Under the higher
growth scenario, an additional 24,000 jobs are projected for Corby (80% growth),
19,000 in Luton (22% growth) and 14,000 in Bedford (33% growth). To ensure
consistency with the projections made as part of this study, final adjustments were
made to Scenario C.
The final results are set out in Tables 5.6 and 5.7.
- 58 -
Table 5.6 Scenario C at 2016 and 2031
Households
2016
Employment
2016
2031
68,971
127,476
154,503
55,913
66,972
64,942
80,861
65,598
Warwickshire
43,196
49,005
97,425
106,815
47,899
53,055
54,515
58,587
55,066
59,179
Northamptonshire
338,494
430,200
752,013
941,549
382,734
461,877
438,952
593,829
443,382
599,827
Bedfordshire
288,195
351,532
628,628
755,411
291,192
348,391
347,985
426,799
351,501
431,110
Buckinghamshire
240,453
299,042
536,967
642,929
312,981
418,624
308,973
387,767
312,095
391,683
Essex
149,889
190,933
333,845
410,739
157,651
214,293
177,862
242,687
181,569
245,126
Hertfordshire
464,846
536,455 1,052,733 1,158,605
586,258
738,317
587,791
674,216
595,528
680,457
Cambridgeshire
248,861
299,876
334,893
478,475
347,203
472,194
351,975
476,212
666,803
2031
2016
2031
Active
Population
55,617
555,656
2016
Employed
Population
Leicestershire
TOTALS
2031
Population
2016
2031
81,677
1,829,551 2,226,014 4,084,743 4,837,354 2,169,521 2,780,004 2,328,223 2,936,940 2,356,714 2,965,271
Table 5.7 Scenario C at 2016 and 2031 (Growth from 2001 (%))
Households
Population
Employment
Employed
Population
Active
Population
2016
2031
2016
2031
2016
2031
2016
2031
2016
2031
Leicestershire
19.06%
47.64%
10.52%
33.96%
16.00%
38.95%
8.56%
35.17%
7.91%
34.36%
Warwickshire
15.53%
31.07%
10.86%
21.55%
11.62%
23.63%
26.36%
35.79%
23.06%
32.25%
Northamptonshire
29.73%
64.88%
20.32%
50.65%
22.75%
48.14%
32.93%
79.84%
29.55%
75.26%
Bedfordshire
22.39%
49.28%
12.02%
34.62%
18.42%
41.68%
19.09%
46.06%
15.66%
41.85%
Buckinghamshire
22.64%
52.52%
14.12%
36.64%
29.61%
73.36%
18.38%
48.57%
17.06%
46.91%
Essex
33.89%
70.56%
24.61%
53.31%
28.98%
75.32%
28.30%
75.07%
27.40%
71.99%
Hertfordshire
15.98%
33.84%
9.79%
20.83%
20.83%
52.17%
15.96%
33.01%
15.11%
31.52%
Cambridgeshire
19.85%
44.42%
11.96%
34.35%
37.43%
96.36%
26.08%
71.47%
25.36%
69.61%
TOTAL AREA
22.22%
48.70%
14.00%
35.01%
24.59%
59.65%
22.07%
53.98%
20.30%
51.37%
The key elements of the scenario are as follows:
•
household numbers rise by 333,000 (22.2% on 2001) by 2016 and by a further
400,000 (21.8% on 2016) by 2031 so that by this time there are over 270,000
more households than under Scenario A;
•
population increases by 502,000 (14% on 2001) by 2016 and by a further
752,000 (18.4% on 2016) by 2031 to a figure nearly 600,000 greater than under
Scenario A;
•
employment grows by 428,000 (24.6% on 2001) by 2016 and a further 610,000
(28.1% on 2016) by 2031. By this time, employment is almost 390,000 above
the level of Scenario A;
•
again, net out-commuting is held at the 159,000 level.
- 59 -
6
Modelling Framework
6.1
Overview
This Chapter presents a brief overview of the purpose and function of the transport
modelling framework that was used in the Study. A more comprehensive description
is provided at Appendix E. The description of the modelling framework is followed by
the definition of the future year Reference Case. The Reference Case comprises
those schemes and policies that are assumed to be implemented between the Base
Year (2001) and the forecast years (2016 and 2031), irrespective of the strategy
developed as part of this Study. There is, in fact, only one Reference Case, since
virtually all the schemes that are sufficiently well advanced to be considered as
committed, are expected to be in place by 2016. Finally, an outline description is
presented of the future travel patterns that are forecast for the Reference Case in
each of the forecast years.
6.2
Role of the Transport Model
The transport model represents the travel demand and supply in the particular year.
In estimating future demand for travel, it takes account of changes in transport supply
and the consequent effects on congestion, crowding and the resultant travel costs.
The various choices made by travellers are represented by a series of linked models.
The model was created for use in estimating the future travel demand and the
manner in which it would be spread between the alternative modes and routes of
the highway and public transport networks. It could then be used to test the impact
that future schemes and policies, proposed as part of a strategy, would have in
relation to the Reference Case, and so provide the information needed for an
appraisal of that strategy.
The model, therefore, is set up to represent the following aspects of transport choice:
•
trip generation/suppression;
•
distribution (origin and destination);
•
mode choice;
•
route choice (for each of road, rail and bus).
6.3
Characteristics of the Transport Model
It is assumed that all travel choices are based primarily on minimising transport costs.
As such, the model uses ‘generalised costs’ which are a weighted combination of the
various elements of travel time and costs incurred in making a trip.
A number of iterative processes are used in linking together the various elements of
travel choice indicated above, to ensure that the costs and demands on the
networks are in balance. These processes take account of congestion on the
- 60 -
highway network, crowding on the rail network and the overall interaction between
the various travel choices represented.
The transport model was created for the Base Year (2001), using a number of sources
of observed data from earlier transport models of the area, supplemented by new
surveys and evening counts. It was calibrated and validated for the Base Year for
each of the morning peak and off-peak periods. Calibration is the process of
ensuring that the sensitivities in the various models can reproduce the observed
choices. Validation is the comparison of the Base Year model flows against observed
flows, ensuring that the Base Year model is able to reproduce observed data. The
calibration and validation of the model are discussed further in Appendix E, and the
validation results are summarised in Appendix F.
As previously indicated, it is assumed that travel decisions are based primarily on
transport costs. However, not all users of the transport system face the same choices
or behave in the same way. Choices can be different because people are making
different journeys, or because they do or do not have a car available. Behaviour can
also be different because people have different priorities and valuations of the
separate components of generalised cost, which may be attributable to different
journey purposes or car ownership levels.
In the model, the geographical origins and destinations of trips are represented by
zones, of which there are 588 representing the whole of England, Scotland and
Wales, based on Local Authority boundaries, but at progressively less detail with
distance from the Study Area. The Study Area itself is represented by 258 zones, each
representing one or more wards. The remaining 330 zones include 14 to represent
specific air and sea ports.
Differences in behaviour are represented by segregation of total demand into the
user classes shown in Table 6.1, which also shows the elements of the model in which
each user class features.
Model forecasts are driven by a combination of:
•
planning data;
•
economic forecasts; and
•
network revisions.
- 61 -
Table 6.1 User Classes Used in the Model
User Class
Highway
Public
Mode Distribution
Assignment Transport Choice
Model
Assignment
Generation
Model
Car available
Home Based Work (HBW)
!
!
!
!
!
Home Based School (HBS)
!
!
!
!
!
Home Based Other (HBO)
!
!
!
!
!
Employer Business (EB)
!
!
!
!
!
Non-Home Based Other (NHBO)
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
Light Goods Vehicles (LGV)
!
"
"
!
"
Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV)
!
"
"
"
"
Non car available
Other
The planning data forecasts have been described in the preceding Chapter; network
revisions reflect the difference between the Reference Case network and the
particular strategy to be appraised for the chosen forecasting year. The assumptions
made with regard to economic forecasts were taken from the DfT’s Traffic Economics
Note, and are summarised in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Annual Growth Rates Assumed for Economic Parameters
(average % per annum)
Base to 2016
2016 to 2031
GDP
2.32
2.25
Value of Time
2.07
2.03
It was assumed that there would be no change in real terms in the costs of motoring,
public transport fares, bus and rail operating costs or parking charges.
6.4
Future Year Reference Case
The analysis for 2016 and 2031 was made against a Reference Case network which
comprises the schemes and policies that are assumed to be implemented between
the Base Year (2001) and the forecast years (2016 and 2031), irrespective of the
strategy developed as part of this Study. Selection of these schemes was based on a
review of documentation published by the Strategic Rail Authority, Highways Agency
and Local Authorities. Whilst difficult to develop precise ‘rules’ for which schemes to
include, it was generally possible to identify those which were either committed or
were generally perceived to be inevitable.
- 62 -
Where possible, the emerging recommendations from other studies were included
within the Reference Case, notably the A14 improvements and guided bus system
recommended as part of CHUMMS and the improvements proposed to junction 19 of
the M1. The ORBIT study, however, deserves particular mention, firstly because of the
importance of the M25 to the LSM Study Area, and secondly because it was
necessary to develop the Reference Case assumptions significantly in advance of the
ORBIT study reporting. After a number of tests at alternative capacities, the
Reference Case was based on the M25 having the capacity of a dual-4 lane
motorway. This is not suggesting that the LSM proposals are dependent on widening
of the M25 to this standard, but that the route would be modified to give capacity
equivalent to a dual-4 lane motorway implying a level-of-service broadly similar to
that which exists at the present time. Such additional capacity need not necessarily
be provided by widening alone, but could be through a combination of widening
and traffic management measures that would make more efficient use of the existing
road space.
The schemes included in the Reference Case are summarised in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 for
the public transport and road networks respectively. In practice, the public transport
schemes were limited to rail service or infrastructure improvements.
Table 6.3 Public Transport Model Reference Case Schemes
Scheme
Rail Line
Hourly Sheffield to London St Pancras fast service
in AM Peak and return in PM peak
Hourly Norwich to Cambridge all stations service
Hourly Kings Cross to Leeds service (making 2tph
Kings Cross to Leeds)
CTRL Domestic Services
Chiltern 2002 Winter Timetable (including 2tph to
Birmingham)
West Coast Main Line Upgrade (affecting Virgin
West Coast and Silverlink)
Thameslink 2000
Virgin Cross Country Improvements (1tph to most
destinations)
Inclusion of Hull Trains and GNER ‘White Rose’
services
New station at Kidlington
New station at Blaby
New station at Kibworth
New station at East Goscote
East London Line Northern and Southern
Extensions
Braintree Branchline Improvements doubling of
frequency to/from Braintree)
Crossrail
South West to Hackney (Crossrail 2)
Croxley Rail Link
Luton/Dunstable Translink
Cambridge/St Ives/Huntingdon Guided Bus
Felixstowe-Nuneaton Freight Route
Midland Main Line
Norwich to Ely, and Ely to Cambridge
East Coast Main Line
Southern
Chiltern
West Coast Main Line
Midland Main Line, East Coast Main Line, Brighton
Main Line
West Coast Main Line, East Coast Main Line,
Great Western Main Line
Great Western Main Line
Leicester to Nuneaton line
Midland Main Line
Leicester to Peterborough line
LUL, North London Lines, Southern
Great Eastern Main Line, Braintree branch
Great Western Main Line, Great Eastern Main
Line, LT&S Line, Chiltern Lines, Met Line
South Western, LUL Central Line
Metropolitan Line, West Coast Main Line
Disused Luton/Dunstable line
Disused Cambridge/St Ives line
Various
- 63 -
Table 6.4 Highway Model Reference Case Schemes
Road
Scheme
County
M1
M11
A1
A6
A6
A6
A6
A10
A11
A11
A11
A12
A14
A14
A14
A15
A15
A40
A41
A43
A43
A43
A43
A43
A43
A120
A130
A131
A142
A421
A428
A428
A428
A428
A505
A505
A507
A510
A1081
A1198
A4010
A4071
A4146
A4146
A5134
B4034
Unclassified
J19 Improvements
Junction 8 slip road improvements
Tempsford Junction improvements
Clapham Bypass
Great Glen Bypass
Rothwell and Desborough Bypass
Rushden and Higham Ferrers Bypass
Wadesmill to Collier’s End Bypass
Attleborough to Roudham dualling
Thetford to Atteborough Bypass
Five Ways to Thetford dualling
Hatfield Peverel to Witham Link Road
Additional link to M1 (southbound)
Cambridge to Huntingdon improvements
Junction improvements west of A1
Glinton to Northborough improvements
Werrington to Glinton Bypass
A40/A404 junction improvements
Aston Clinton Bypass
Corby Link Road
M40 to B4031 dualling
Moulton Bypass
Moulton to Broughton dualling
Silverstone Bypass
Whitfield turn to Brackley Hatch dualling
Stansted to Braintree dualling
A130 Bypass (A132 to A127)
Great Leighs Bypass
Fordham Bypass
Great Barford Bypass
Bedford Western Bypass (A428 to A6)
Cambourne to Hardwick dualling
Crick Bypass
West Haddon Bypass
Baldock bypass
Duxford Junction improvements
Ridgmont Bypass and Woburn Link
Wellingborough Eastern Relief Road
Luton South Circular Improvements
Papworth Everard Bypass
Ayslesbury to High Wycombe improvements
Rugby Western Relief Route
Linslade Western Bypass
Stoke Hammond Bypass
Bedford Western Bypass (A421 to A428)
Bletchley Link Road and bridge
Kempston Road improvements
Leicestershire
Essex
Bedfordshire
Bedfordshire
Leicestershire
Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire
Hertfordshire
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Essex
Leicestershire
Cambridgeshire
Cambridgeshire
Peterborough
Peterborough
Buckinghamshire
Buckinghamshire
Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire
Essex
Essex
Essex
Cambridgeshire
Bedfordshire
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire
Hertfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Bedfordshire
Northamptonshire
Luton
Cambridgeshire
Buckinghamshire
Warwickshire
Bedfordshire
Buckinghamshire
Bedfordshire
Buckinghamshire
Bedfordshire
- 64 -
6.5
Summary of Forecasts
The overall growth in the numbers of trips made, and the numbers of those made by
car available and non car available persons are shown in Table 6.5. This Table shows
the number of trips in each category relative to the 2001 Base Year, and also how the
proportion of trips changes through time. Figures for 2016 and 2031 are based on the
Reference Case networks, described above, prior to the inclusion of any
recommendations from the Study.
Table 6.5 Summary of Travel Growth from Base Year to Forecast Years
(2001 = 100)
2001
2016
Car Available
100 (83%)
142 (84%)
Car Unavailable
100 (7%)
132 (6%)
LGV
100 (5%)
135 (5%)
HGV
100 (5%)
119 (5%)
Total
100 (100%)
139 (100%)
2031
167 (87%)
90 (4%)
160 (5%)
137 (5%)
160 (100%)
It can be seen that trips are expected to grow by nearly 40% by 2016 and 60% by
2031. Furthermore, the change in car ownership is such that the proportion of person
trips for which a car is available is predicted to grow from 92.2% in 2001 to 95.6% in
2031.
Table 6.6 shows the growth to 2016 and 2031 separately for internal and external
movements.
The conclusions on modal share from these Tables are two-fold: first, that the growth
rates for the private car are generally higher than for public transport and that, as a
consequence, the proportion of total movement represented by public transport in
the future will reduce, albeit marginally. As a consequence, the strategy is required
to reverse a negative trend rather than reinforce a positive trend.
Three other points also require comment, namely the high levels of internal rail and
through HGV growth after 2016, and the low growth after 2016 for through rail trips.
In the case of internal rail trips, it should be noted that internal trips represent only a
very small proportion of the overall rail market. Since these trips are not Londonbased, there is generally spare capacity on existing train services. Therefore, as
highway congestion grows for such trips, the rail network is able to accommodate
modal transfer. This is generally confined to trips within one corridor, such as
Northampton to Milton Keynes or Bedford to Luton.
The increase in through HGV trips by road is predominantly in the 2016 to 2031 period.
This is because the growth assumes an 80% increase in freight carried by rail to 2011,
but thereafter, without further investment in the rail network, all growth in freight
carried will need to be absorbed by the highway network. Underlying this, of course,
is the premise that freight growth will be higher than passenger growth over the Study
period.
- 65 -
Table 6.6 Travel Growth from Base Year 2001 to 2016 and 2031
Car (person trips)1
(including LGV)
HGV
Rail (person trips)
Bus (person trips)
Total Person Trips
Percentage Growth
2001-2016
2001-2031
33.2
65.4
25.2
49.6
37.2
90.4
30.2
60.2
11.1
18.7
24.0
51.5
58.9
173.2
21.3
47.8
26.7
96.5
23.9
56.5
35.5
38.8
28.2
53.6
16.3
34.4
26.6
38.9
33.4
45.7
21.4
37.4
31.2
61.5
25.0
50.1
38.9
81.1
29.2
58.3
Note:
1 The four figures indicated in each category represent internal-internal trips; the
average of internal-external and external-internal trips; through trips; and total trips,
respectively.
In the case of through rail trips, a reasonable level of growth is estimated through to
2016, during which period the capacity of the rail network (particularly WCML and
Thameslink) is expanded, but there is little additional growth assumed between 2016
and 2031, due to the capacity limitations of the rail network after 2016.
Forecast Rail Flows
The growth in peak period rail flows on the network (within and slightly beyond the
Study Area) between 2001 and 2031 is shown in Figure 6.1. The principal feature
continues to be the dominance of the three inter-city corridors.
Forecast Highway Flows
The change in morning peak period traffic levels through time is shown in Figures
6.2(a) and 6.2 (b) for 2016 and 2031 respectively. In each case, the green band
shows the scale of movement for the Base Year and the thickness of the
accompanying blue or red line represents the scale of growth. The very simple
conclusion from this analysis is that further growth will occur in all parts of the network
as the full three hour peak period capacity is progressively filled up.
Forecast Bus Flows
As described earlier, the growth in bus travel is expected to be less than that forecast
for both rail and the private car for most types of movement at 2016 and 2031.
- 66 -
Figure 6.1: Growth in Peak Period Rail Flows between 2001 and 2031
2001 flows in blue over 2031 flows in red
- 67 -
Figure 6.2 (a) (b) Peak Period Traffic Flow Growth to 2016 and 2031
(a) 2001
shown in
green over
2016 in blue.
(b) 2001
shown in
green over
2031 in red.
- 68 -
7
Problems and Issues
7.1
Introduction
The purpose of this Chapter is to set out, as comprehensively as possible, the transport
problems which occur at the Base Year and which are likely to occur at the future
years of 2016 and 2031.
The analysis relates primarily to inter-urban movement and is based predominantly on
the transport modelling work undertaken within the Study. It does, however, also take
into account the insights, both strategic and local, provided by consultation.
The work described in this Chapter is confined to what can best be described as
‘strategic’, to the extent that the issues raised and the problems described are
important to the Study Area as a whole. Inevitably, however, their nature and
intensity is more acute in some areas than others.
7.2
Base Year Personal Travel
7.2.1
Overview
Baseline travel patterns in the Study Area have already been described in Chapter 4.
In transport terms, the key feature of the Area is the fact that it intercepts virtually all
north-south arteries linking London and the South East with the Midlands, the North of
England and Scotland. The lack of a major conurbation or dominant urban area
within the Study Area means that the predominantly north-south strategic movements
are overlain by a relatively dispersed pattern of inter-regional, sub-regional and local
movements.
On many of the strategic routes (and particularly the M1, M11 and A14) there is a
high proportion of through traffic, and of freight vehicles. The proximity of some
urban areas close to these routes also leads to localised instances of shorter distance
commuting trips which use the strategic network for only one or two sections.
A consequence of this conflict is that most strategic corridors experience significant
levels of congestion (road) or overcrowding (rail). Particularly affected are the West
Coast and East Coast Main Lines, the M1, the southern sections of the A1(M) and the
A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon. Other sections of inter-urban road and
rail also experience congestion, though not as regular or intense.
A key finding of the analysis was that whilst there are many car commuter trips on the
sections of radial routes immediately north of the M25, the proportion of those
heading for locations inside the North Circular Road was very small. Rather, they
were destined for a wide range of locations throughout North London or beyond.
Consequently, the potential for attracting these trips to rail travel was very small.
Similarly, a very high proportion of trips destined for Central London travel by train.
One key feature of the analysis undertaken is that, whilst the dominant theme for
north-south problems is that of congestion, east-west problems can be viewed in two
ways; firstly, as a general lack of accessibility (particularly for rail connections which
- 69 -
are virtually non-existent) and secondly, high or moderate levels of congestion on
those roads which do provide the necessary strategic connections.
7.2.2
Measures of Overall Performance
The multi-modal studies have a very clear focus in addressing congestion on the
highway network and reducing it by a variety of interventions, with new road
construction the action of last resort.
In the case of rail travel, an excess of demand over seating capacity will result in a
progressively deteriorating quality of travel, which will restrict the growth in rail travel
unless additional capacity can be provided. Whilst overcrowding acts as a deterrent
to growth in rail travel and has safety implications, it can also have a marginal impact
upon the ability of the rail service to operate to timetable. However, as the operators
seek to provide additional train capacity through more frequent services, the rail
network, just like the road network, is limited by capacity such that minor delays can
have significant knock-on effects.
This concept is perhaps more readily appreciated in the case of road travel, where
the effects of congestion are evident. The most obvious measure, and one derived
easily from the model, is the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio. In essence, as this figure
increases beyond about 0.85, so there is an increasingly rapid deterioration in travel
conditions, with the user experiencing rapid speed changes (stop-start), lack of ability
to manoeuvre between lanes and, eventually, gridlock.
The Study Team has used a 3-hour peak period model which allows growth to occur
at the shoulders of the peak when the peak hour itself may be congested. This is a
very pragmatic modelling approach to a behavioural response which, in the main,
results from a re-timing of trips before the peak and, to a lesser extent, a retiming of
trips after the peak. In order to overcome this difficulty, a lower figure of 0.6 was
adopted to reflect the variability of traffic volumes within the peak period and to
capture all potential instances of operational problems. Such a figure, for example,
could correspond with a critical v/c of 0.85 for the morning peak hour with a prepeak value of 0.6 and post peak of 0.35. It should be emphasised that no single
measure can adequately capture the variety of traffic profiles that exist across such
an intensely travelled part of the national network. The figure of 0.6 for the 3-hour
peak period was therefore taken only as an indicator that a problem may exist.
7.2.3
Rail
Key rail movements in the Study Area have already been described in Chapter 4 of
this Report and in Chapter 6 the intensity of movement taking place on inter-city and
outer-suburban rail networks has been demonstrated for the base and forecast years.
From the analysis undertaken, serious levels of overcrowding are most prevalent on
the inner-suburban services. Whilst overcrowding also occurs on outer-suburban and
inter-city services, this is generally to a lesser extent and often confined to particular
trains in the timetable.
Other problems and issues identified from the consultation process include the
following:
- 70 -
•
a perceived lack of strategy for rail development with many questioning
what plans existed to improve capacity and/or level of service in line with
Government policy;
•
specific problems associated with lack of east-west travel opportunities for
passengers and freight; and
•
a number of very specific issues relating to lack of capacity on existing routes
or lack of accessibility from locations such as Corby, Dunstable etc.
7.2.4
Bus
The Consultation Process identified a number of problems concerned with bus
services. Apart from issues which were very locationally specific, the more general
points concerned:
•
the Competition Act which was seen to stifle integration;
•
poor levels of integration between bus and rail, as well as poor physical
interchange and travel facilities;
•
lack of information generally about bus services;
•
lack of rural services; and
•
poor quality of bus services, both in terms of the infrastructure for buses to
use, which was not seen to give sufficient priority and the service offer itself;
the service offer contained a variety of issues from service frequency to
hours of operation, passenger waiting facilities and quality of the vehicles.
7.2.5
Road
The operational analysis of the highway network produced a very clear picture of
potential congestion in the strategic highway network (see Figure 7.1). Further
analysis confirmed the key problem areas as:
•
M25, for the whole of its length, plus the majority of network within the M25;
•
the southern sections of the M1, from the M25 as far north as Milton Keynes;
•
Junctions 6-10 of the A1(M), with some localised congestion north of this;
•
A14, Cambridge-Huntingdon section and localised problems around
Kettering;
•
the A5 around Dunstable and Milton Keynes; and
•
the M11 north of Stansted Airport.
- 71 -
Whilst the analysis highlighted other instances where the critical v/c ratio was
exceeded, these were sporadic and therefore of less interest than the concentrated
effects described above.
Congestion was undoubtedly the major problem identified in the consultation.
However, whilst congestion itself was seen universally as a problem, there were a
variety of attitudes to the cause. Comments received reflected the following
viewpoints:
•
the private car is used excessively, particularly for commuting;
•
congestion results partly from a lack of viable public transport alternatives;
•
unforeseen problems such as incidents and accidents are the main cause of
problems; and
•
congestion cannot be solved by capacity increases alone given the
constraints limiting the expansion of the existing road system, particularly in
historic towns and environmentally sensitive areas.
Figure 7.1 Base Year Highway Network Congestion
Interestingly, from the comments above, the causes of problems associated with the
highway network were not necessarily attributed to a lack of infrastructure, but to an
imbalance of demand and supply which could equally be addressed through
demand restraint, or better management of the network.
- 72 -
7.2.6
Air
The consultation process revealed a number of problems associated with air
transport, or at least the landside problems of air transport. The problems focused
particularly on Stansted and Luton as the major airports in the Study Area and
included:
•
lack of east-west rail links to major airports;
•
poor or non-existent rail links from the West Midlands to Luton and Stansted;
and
•
poor road access to Stansted and Luton because of congestion on the M11
and M1 respectively.
Other consultees commented on the planning regime and the implications for landuse development associated with expansion at the airports.
7.3
Base Year Freight
7.3.1
Introduction
The Study used a combination of desk research, data collection and in-depth faceto-face interviews with over 25 industry decision makers to identify the current position
of freight transport in the Study Area. This research:
•
identified the main freight generators and destinations in the Study Area;
•
assessed the volume and patterns of freight being moved by road and rail;
•
identified the network being used and existing problems associated with
that network; and
•
worked with freight decision makers to understand the processes
underlying freight transport.
The key issues arising from this in-depth research are set out below.
7.3.2
Road Issues
Distribution Sector
This sector of the road freight industry is experiencing rapid change to meet the
objectives of improving service while reducing costs. Some of the changes have
resulted in reductions in vehicle payloads, for instance the move towards more
frequent deliveries.
Some retailers are addressing this by using information
technology to optimise vehicle movements, or by developing new supply chain
solutions designed to reduce empty movements and encourage the sharing of
vehicles.
- 73 -
Congestion
Firms generally report that they are living with congestion for the time being, with
motorways still considered to be the most efficient roads for the heaviest goods
vehicles. Many interviewees reported that the main strategic congestion problems
are outside the Study Area: the M25 and the M6 around Birmingham. However, the
southern section of the M1 is undoubtedly seen as a barrier to freight movement
during the morning peak.
Some junctions cause regular congestion, including the A14/M1 junction, and
Junction 15 of the M1 at Northampton, which suffers from serious peak hour
congestion and provides vital access for freight to Northampton and Wellingborough.
Whilst in principle, HGV operators and drivers prefer to use the highest quality of road
available, some firms operating smaller trucks and vans now use A-roads in
preference to the most heavily congested sections of motorway. In consequence,
there is a trend to use the A14/M11, and to a much lesser extent the A1(M), to avoid
the problems on the M1. Routes and timetables are varied to avoid the peak periods
but the peaks are getting longer with the off-peak period slowly filling up on critical
sections of road.
Disruption
Firms are less able to live with disruption caused by accidents, unexpected jams, and
emergency roadworks. The result is that companies increasingly use radio and
mobile telephones for drivers to advise them of problems and to inform other drivers.
Early communication of problems in this way allows deliveries to be re-scheduled and
customers to be advised, thus reducing the likelihood of failed deliveries and
unnecessary repeat visits.
The A14 is particularly susceptible to disruption by accidents, since it has no hard
shoulder, and limited alternative routes. East-west movement is thus seen as being
particularly problematic.
Lack of East – West Trunk Road Routes
Many of the strategic distribution sites are in the north of the Study Area, and this area
is normally well served by the A14 / M6 / M42 axis for east-west movements. Similarly,
any location within 10 miles or so of the M25 will use this as an east–west link. In a few
locations in the Study Area, hauliers choose to use non-trunk roads as part of a longer
journey because no suitable trunk route exists, or the trunk route involves a much
longer journey. Examples include east-west movements to Milton Keynes, movements
from the East Coast to Stevenage, and movements from Northampton to Essex and
parts of Cambridgeshire.
This level of provision also results in some north-south routes being used in part to
undertake east-west movements.
- 74 -
Link Routes / Access
Some link roads from the trunk road network to major towns or industrial sites are of
poor quality, are slow, or suffer from congestion. Of note are the roads serving
Spalding, which has become a key centre for food preparation and distribution
generating hundreds of truck movements per day, and also the roads linking the M1
to Northampton and Bedford.
Truck Bans / Restrictions
Hauliers accept the necessity for control of routeing and movements through
sensitive areas at night. However, their business is made very difficult when such
schemes are uncoordinated or badly publicised. If goods vehicles are to be
encouraged to travel at night, the impact of local night-time delivery restrictions will
need to be reviewed on a regional basis.
7.3.3
Rail Issues
Lack of Private Siding Connections
Very few businesses have direct access to the rail network in the Study Area. There
are few, if any, manufacturing facilities which are both located near to a railway line
and offer suitable freight for rail movement. Similarly, none of the major retail
distribution centres are rail connected or rail connectable.
Lack of Freight Interchanges
In the absence of direct connection, freight customers must access the rail network
at rail freight terminals or interchanges.
The area is poorly served by both
conventional rail terminals and by intermodal terminals for general (non-bulk) freight.
For bulk freight adequate terminals are provided, but there is a constant demand for
new aggregates terminals which is often frustrated by planning constraints.
Daventry (DIRFT) also provides an intermodal facility, and traffic to or from the north of
the Study Area can also use Hams Hall, but traffic in the south of the area is only
served by the cramped and congested terminal at Willesden.
7.4
Future Year Problems
7.4.1
Appraisal Framework
Describing and measuring problems and issues at either 2016 or 2031 can be done in
two ways – either through some form of absolute measure (eg v/c ratio) or by the use
of a relative measure (eg how have average journey speeds reduced relative to the
Base Year?). For the purpose of this analysis, both measures have been used. In the
case of relative measures, they have also been incorporated within a comprehensive
framework that is directly linked to the Government’s five overarching objectives. The
framework and its constituent parts are described briefly below:
- 75 -
Environmental Objectives
Three criteria were included in this category; number of car trips, all day person-km.
by car and all day HGV-km. For all measures, the environmental objective performs
better as they reduce, all other things being equal.
Accessibility Objectives
Two measures have been included in the framework; population accessibility and
employment accessibility. The index measures the ease with which individuals can
reach other individuals and employment opportunities. As the index increases, so
accessibility increases and the objective performs better. Also included in the
framework are the generalised costs of representative through movements on
different axes. As the generalised cost increases relative to the Base Year, so the
facility for movement is reduced.
Safety Objectives
The safety objective is maximised in three ways: by transferring strategic traffic to
public transport, to higher-standard roads and by reducing overcrowding on rail.
Reducing the overall vehicle-km. therefore makes this objective perform better, all
other things being equal, provided that rail has the capacity to accommodate the
additional trips. However, even if the overall number of vehicle-km. does not reduce,
but is re-allocated to roads with a lower accident rate, this is also beneficial.
Integration Objectives
Although it is sometimes difficult to quantify changes in performance for this
objective, the analysis for this Study identified three key themes: integration between
modes, integration with social and economic policy (particularly regeneration and
Areas of Multiple Deprivation) and integration with land-use policy.
In the case of integration with other modes, an accessibility index was developed for
Luton and Stansted Airports. As this increased so the objective performed better.
Improving accessibility to employment for those living in Corby, Dunstable and Harlow
was seen as an important measure of integration with social and economic
regeneration policy since these had performed worst in the Index of Multiple
Deprivation. Increasing this index improved performance against the objective.
In terms of integration with land-use policy, the overriding objective here is to minimise
the number of vehicle-km. travelled by car. Minimising the number of vehicle-km.
therefore improves the performance of this objective. Since a particular objective of
land-use (and transport) policy, is to improve overall levels of accessibility by public
transport for social and economic reasons, this is also included. Improving these
accessibility indices, therefore, improves performance within this objective.
Economy Objective
Finally, the economy objective is improved if congestion is reduced, indicated by an
overall travel speed increase, thus reducing journey times and the extent to which
- 76 -
distance is perceived as a deterrent to economic activity. It is also improved if the
time spent in crowded conditions on trains is reduced.
It is uncertain whether an increase in Home Based Work and Employer’s Business trips
should be seen as a measure of improvement since this may act against other
initiatives such as home working etc. These measures have therefore been excluded.
Improved accessibility to places of employment, however, should improve the
functioning of the economy and thus, as these indices increase, so the objective
performs better. This measure of accessibility is different to those considered under
the accessibility objective in that it is measuring accessibility to rather than from a
particular location.
7.5
Problems at 2016
The scale of growth likely to take place by 2016 has already been discussed in
Chapter 6, as have the assumptions made on network improvements likely to take
place by that year. In order to understand the impact of this level of growth, Table
7.1 presents a simple Framework Analysis using the measures described above.
Colour coding in red indicates deterioration from the Base Year and in green, an
improvement.
Environment
The number of car trips in the Study Area will increase by over 30%. The impact,
however, will be greater because of increasing average trip lengths giving an overall
increase in car person-km. of 39%. HGV vehicle-km. are also forecast to increase by
over 40%. The extent to which such growth will be converted into congestion is shown
in Figure 7.2, which shows an increase in congested sections of road, particularly
affecting the southern part of the Study Area and a greater part of the M1 within the
Study Area.
Accessibility
A result of lower speeds and increasing congestion will be a decline in accessibility by
car, rail and bus. In the case of rail, the effect of crowding is to increase the overall
cost of travel and, hence, reduce the accessibility.
Accessibility by car reduces by about 30% for both indices whilst for bus it is almost
20%. The lower reduction for bus reflects a general policy direction coded into the
model which assumes further opportunities for bus increasing its share of the market
through, typically, a re-allocation of road space in urban areas.
In the case of rail the reduced accessibility is not nearly so great. This reflects a
number of features: an increase in overcrowding which is offset to some extent by
new capacity in the form of Thameslink 2000 and the West Coast Main Line upgrade;
improved ‘quality’ of service; and, improved local access to rail stations. The West
Coast Main Line upgrade also accounts for the marginal improvement for London to
Birmingham trips.
- 77 -
Table 7.1 Framework Analysis for 2016 Reference Case
LONDON TO SOUTH MIDLANDS MULTI-MODAL STUDY (t23146-MOD)
Performance Measures
Base = 2001
Test = 2016 Ref Case
2001 vs 2016 Reference Case
ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
5,049,861
6,656,781
1,606,920
1.32
All Day Car Person km (study area)
109,029,549
151,338,896
42,309,347
1.39
All Day HGV km (study area)
13,356,384
19,049,814
5,693,430
1.43
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Population Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
1103.00
235.81
166.56
794.61
221.88
136.02
-308.39
-13.94
-30.55
0.72
0.94
0.82
Employment Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
322.92
59.04
51.36
224.39
59.00
41.51
-98.53
-0.05
-9.85
0.69
1.00
0.81
London to Peterborough Generalised Costs:
Car
Public Transport
1,625
955
1,953
1,027
328
72
1.20
1.08
London to Leicester Generalised Costs:
Car
Public Transport
1,825
1,120
2,180
1,233
355
113
1.19
1.10
London to Birmingham Generalised Costs:
Car
Public Transport
1,940
1,415
2,293
1,380
353
-35
1.18
0.98
Chelmsford to Peterborough Generalised Costs:
Car
Public Transport
1,510
4,105
1,760
4,280
250
175
1.17
1.04
Chelmsford to Birmingham Generalised Costs:
Car
Public Transport
2,235
4,990
2,513
5,033
278
43
1.12
1.01
Ipswich to Birmingham Generalised Costs:
Car
Public Transport
2,290
5,825
2,653
5,913
363
88
1.16
1.02
Norwich to Birmingham Generalised Costs:
Car
Public Transport
2,515
6,275
2,953
6,507
438
232
1.17
1.04
Norwich to Oxford Generalised Costs
Car
Public Transport
2,590
5,705
3,260
5,967
670
262
1.26
1.05
All Day Car Trips (study area)
ACCESSIBILITY OBJECTIVES
- 78 -
SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
5,049,861
6,656,781
1,606,920
1.32
109,029,549
151,338,896
42,309,347
1.39
Passenger km by Road Type:
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
147453295
202725201
16229614
9766678
192300075
269732394
21836201
13591015
44846780
67007193
5606587
3824337
1.30
1.33
1.35
1.39
% Passenger km by Road Type:
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
39.20
53.89
4.31
2.60
38.66
54.22
4.39
2.73
-0.54
0.33
0.08
0.14
0.99
1.01
1.02
1.05
Proportion of Time in Crowded Conditions:
Rail
57.35
73.60
16.25
1.28
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Luton Airport Accesibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
47.06
5.63
8.25
26.54
6.54
8.00
-20.53
0.92
-0.25
0.56
1.16
0.97
Stansted Airport Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
74.50
12.88
6.19
77.44
11.44
5.61
2.94
-1.44
-0.58
1.04
0.89
0.91
Corby Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
30.08
1.68
2.04
25.00
1.94
2.03
-5.08
0.26
-0.02
0.83
1.15
0.99
Dunstable Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
39.28
2.88
3.20
24.77
3.65
3.44
-14.51
0.77
0.24
0.63
1.27
1.08
Harlow Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
28.60
3.96
2.16
19.37
4.10
2.14
-9.23
0.14
-0.02
0.68
1.03
0.99
109,029,549
151,338,896
42,309,347
1.39
59.04
51.36
59.00
41.51
-0.05
-9.85
1.00
0.81
INTEGRATION OBJECTIVES
All Day Car Passenger km (study area)
(Proxy for land-use policy)
Rail
Bus
(Proxy for employment/regeneration policy)
- 79 -
ECONOMY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Average Speed:
Highway (study area)
64.45
59.98
-4.48
0.93
Rail
57.35
73.60
16.25
1.28
Milton Keynes Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
44.38
21.13
6.94
27.22
20.09
7.29
-17.16
-1.04
0.35
0.61
0.95
1.05
Cambridge Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
30.31
16.44
6.06
17.40
15.10
5.93
-12.91
-1.34
-0.13
0.57
0.92
0.98
Car
Rail
Bus
56.00
16.88
5.06
33.86
13.80
4.41
-22.14
-3.07
-0.66
0.60
0.82
0.87
Luton Airport Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
73.31
19.75
7.75
42.44
18.99
7.35
-30.87
-0.76
-0.40
0.58
0.96
0.95
Northampton Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
42.56
16.25
5.56
28.87
14.58
5.64
-13.69
-1.67
0.08
0.68
0.90
1.01
Bedford Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
82.88
13.06
6.44
56.08
16.23
6.22
-26.79
3.17
-0.22
0.68
1.24
0.97
Stevenage Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
139.19
22.38
6.81
84.50
21.32
6.54
-54.69
-1.06
-0.27
0.61
0.95
0.96
St Albans Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
57.69
24.94
8.13
33.96
23.30
7.81
-23.73
-1.64
-0.32
0.59
0.93
0.96
Hitchin Accessibility Indices:
Car
Rail
Bus
58.94
20.06
6.19
37.52
18.92
5.25
-21.42
-1.14
-0.94
0.64
0.94
0.85
- 80 -
Figure 7.2
Highway Network Congestion at 2016
Base year congestion (top) and congestion at 2016 (bottom).
- 81 -
Safety
In order to maximise the safety objective, it is desirable to transfer as many trips as
possible to public transport and, of those remaining as private car trips, to transfer as
many strategic trips as possible to high-standard roads with low accident rates.
The effect of travel growth on the Reference Case network, however, is exactly the
opposite where travel growth is forecast to occur at a faster rate on road than rail.
Equally disturbing are the growth rates for different road types, which show motorway
growth to be lower than for some other road classes. This reflects the diversion of trips
from the higher-standard network, which is subject to a faster rate of deterioration in
speed than the wider, non-strategic network.
The increased proportion of time in congested rail conditions implies that future rail
capacity is not matching demand.
Overall, therefore, the Government’s safety objective is significantly undermined by
continuing growth in road-based travel to 2016.
Integration
The integration objective has a mixed outcome in the 2016 Reference Case, as
described in broad terms below.
•
Integration between modes; access to Luton Airport improves for rail
because of Thameslink 2000. The access time reductions built in to the
model for bus to reflect a general policy direction offset general traffic
growth to give only a small reduction in bus accessibility. Access by car to
Luton Airport, however, reduces, primarily as a result of growing congestion
on the M1. With respect to Stansted Airport, improvement of the A120 east
of the airport delivers a general improvement in road accessibility, whereas
rail and bus deteriorate in the absence of any significant investment for this
corridor in the Reference Case;
•
Integration with social policy; improving access to jobs for those living in
areas which featured highest in the Index of Multiple Deprivation was a key
measure of integration. Results again show a mixed picture with car access
reducing significantly, rail access improving and bus performance remaining
similar to the present day;
•
Integration with land-use policy; the key measure for this category was the
overall change in vehicle-km. which, because it increased significantly was
seen to be at variance with land-use policy. Also, as a broad measure of
access to jobs for those without access to a car, the employment
accessibility by rail and bus showed no change for the former and
deterioration for the latter.
- 82 -
Economy
The prime measure of the economy objective is the average speed with which
movement can take place. In the case of road, average speed across the whole
network reduces by about 7%. Similarly, travel by rail deteriorates and is therefore
made less attractive because of increased overcrowding.
Accessibility to all major economic nodes by all modes also reduces by typically 30%40% by car and up to 20% for public transport.
Conclusions
The conclusions from this analysis at 2016 are relatively straightforward. The result of
increasing demand for movement will be to increase demands on the highway
network by over 30% in the next 15 years and to displace some movement from
public transport to car because of the greater level of reserve capacity which exists
on the wider highway network. This is diametrically opposed to the Government’s
long-term transport policy and 10-Year Plan.
Not surprisingly, therefore, the
framework shows a consistent pattern of deterioration. In fact, all five of the
Government’s overarching objectives show significant deterioration against a range
of quantified measures.
In purely operational terms, the effect of existing congestion is to displace demand to
other parts of the highway network, thus creating additional demands in other
corridors. For longer distance through movements there is also evidence that, whilst
well-defined corridors existed for through movements at the Base Year, alternative
corridors are now being established at 2016, particularly in the south of the Study
Area. For rail, this is not a possibility because of the relatively sparse network. The
result is therefore an increasing level of overcrowding and transfer of patronage to
road – an impact which, again, is contrary to the desired direction of change.
7.6
Problems at 2031
7.6.1
Introduction
The year 2031 represents the end point of the Study period and the year at which, in
the absence of an integrated transport strategy, the greatest problems are likely to
occur.
Since 2031 is beyond the horizon of Regional Planning Guidance, a number of
alternative economic and land-use scenarios have been developed against which
to test any emerging strategy. For the purposes of problem identification, however,
the analysis has been undertaken against Scenario A, the central assumption.
7.6.2
Framework Analysis: Scenario A
Assessment of travel conditions in 2031 is once again made against the
Government’s five overarching objectives using a framework, Table 7.2, based on
outputs from the Study model. Figure 7.3 shows the resulting highway network
congestion. The results of the assessment against each of the objectives are given
below.
- 83 -
Table7.2
Framework Analysis – Reference Case 2031 Scenario A
LONDON TO SOUTH MIDLANDS MULTI-MODAL STUDY (t23146-MOD)
Base = 2001
Test = 2031 Scen A Ref Case
2001 vs 2031 Scen A Ref Case
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
5,049,861
8,175,722
3,125,861
1.62
109,029,549
195,200,396
86,170,847
1.79
13,356,384
26,457,840
13,101,456
1.98
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
1103.00
235.81
166.56
565.85
188.38
102.80
-537.15
-47.44
-63.76
0.51
0.80
0.62
Car
Rail
Bus
322.92
59.04
51.36
139.22
49.08
27.13
-183.70
-9.96
-24.23
0.43
0.83
0.53
Car
Public Transport
1,625
955
2,445
1,300
820
345
1.50
1.36
Car
Public Transport
1,825
1,120
2,736
1,564
911
444
1.50
1.40
Car
Public Transport
1,940
1,415
2,873
1,764
933
349
1.48
1.25
Car
Public Transport
1,510
4,105
2,200
4,473
690
368
1.46
1.09
Car
Public Transport
2,235
4,990
3,118
5,318
883
328
1.40
1.07
Car
Public Transport
2,290
5,825
3,300
6,355
1,010
530
1.44
1.09
Car
Public Transport
2,515
6,275
3,736
7,018
1,221
743
1.49
1.12
Car
Public Transport
2,590
5,705
4,418
6,427
1,828
722
1.71
1.13
- 84 -
SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
5,049,861
8,175,722
3,125,861
1.62
109,029,549
195,200,396
86,170,847
1.79
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
147453295
202725201
16229614
9766678
245325605
336987912
28938046
17572097
97872310
134262711
12708432
7805419
1.66
1.66
1.78
1.80
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
39.20
53.89
4.31
2.60
39.01
53.59
4.60
2.79
-0.18
-0.30
0.29
0.20
1.00
0.99
1.07
1.08
Rail
57.35
61.02
3.67
1.06
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
47.06
5.63
8.25
15.78
5.63
5.98
-31.28
0.00
-2.27
0.34
1.00
0.72
Car
Rail
Bus
74.50
12.88
6.19
61.82
9.21
4.27
-12.68
-3.66
-1.91
0.83
0.72
0.69
Car
Rail
Bus
30.08
1.68
2.04
20.03
1.56
1.34
-10.05
-0.12
-0.70
0.67
0.93
0.66
Car
Rail
Bus
39.28
2.88
3.20
13.71
2.82
2.26
-25.57
-0.06
-0.94
0.35
0.98
0.71
Car
Rail
Bus
28.60
3.96
2.16
7.62
3.06
1.43
-20.98
-0.90
-0.73
0.27
0.77
0.66
109,029,549
195,200,396
86,170,847
1.79
59.04
51.36
49.08
27.13
-9.96
-24.23
0.83
0.53
Rail
Bus
- 85 -
ECONOMY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Average Speed:
64.45
52.50
-11.95
0.81
Rail
57.35
61.02
3.67
1.06
Car
Rail
Bus
44.38
21.13
6.94
17.64
14.19
5.25
-26.74
-6.93
-1.68
0.40
0.67
0.76
Car
Rail
Bus
30.31
16.44
6.06
11.56
10.88
4.23
-18.75
-5.56
-1.83
0.38
0.66
0.70
Car
Rail
Bus
56.00
16.88
5.06
21.60
9.74
2.78
-34.40
-7.13
-2.28
0.39
0.58
0.55
Car
Rail
Bus
73.31
19.75
7.75
27.13
13.48
5.15
-46.19
-6.27
-2.60
0.37
0.68
0.67
Car
Rail
Bus
42.56
16.25
5.56
21.40
10.62
4.16
-21.16
-5.63
-1.41
0.50
0.65
0.75
Car
Rail
Bus
82.88
13.06
6.44
39.32
11.60
4.35
-43.56
-1.46
-2.09
0.47
0.89
0.68
Car
Rail
Bus
139.19
22.38
6.81
56.06
15.27
4.68
-83.13
-7.11
-2.13
0.40
0.68
0.69
Car
Rail
Bus
57.69
24.94
8.13
21.74
16.68
5.57
-35.95
-8.26
-2.56
0.38
0.67
0.69
Car
Rail
Bus
58.94
20.06
6.19
26.30
13.52
3.55
-32.63
-6.54
-2.64
0.45
0.67
0.57
- 86 -
Figure 7.3 Highway Network Congestion at 2031
Base year congestion (top), congestion at 2016 (middle) and congestion at 2031 (bottom)
- 87 -
Environment
The increase in vehicle trips and the higher growth in vehicle-km., both signal
environmental deterioration at a rate equivalent to that in the first 15 years of the
Study period.
Accessibility
Accessibility also suffers at the year 2031 compared to present day conditions. In
terms of accessibility to people, this reduces by about 50% for car relative to the Base
Year. In other words, to reach the same number of people requires the expenditure
of about double the generalised cost than it did at the Base Year. Bus trips fare
slightly better than this at a 40% accessibility reduction while rail fares best of all three
modes at only a 20% reduction. This lower accessibility reduction for rail results from
the Reference Case schemes discussed earlier such as Thameslink 2000 and the West
Coast Main Line upgrade plus, perversely, the lower level of passenger growth than
for car-based trips.
In terms of access to jobs, car trips fare worse than for person accessibility. This
probably arises from the concentration of jobs in central areas, which will obviously
suffer disproportionately from increases in car use. Rail accessibility reduces to a
much smaller extent as a result of dedicated infrastructure. Bus access lies between
rail and car because although the bus is given some priority in urban areas, it is
delayed by general congestion.
Access on all axes through the area, as defined by pairs of towns and cities,
deteriorates significantly for both private car and public transport.
Typically, the generalised cost for car travel increases by some 40%-50% whereas for
public transport there is generally a smaller deterioration but a greater range at 10%40%
Safety
The safety objective is undermined over the 30-year period as a smaller proportion of
all travel occurs by rail and the largest growth in traffic occurs on those roads with the
highest accident rates. This demonstrates the general pattern of diversion as trips
become more dispersed in order to avoid congestion.
The net result, however, is that this objective is seriously undermined in the absence of
further infrastructure investment and/or other interventions.
Integration
Following the trend of the other objectives all the Performance Indicators for the
integration objective deteriorate relative to the Base Year. The only, partially
redeeming feature is that access to Luton Airport, having improved to 2016, now
reverts to its Base Year level but is no worse.
Overall, the Reference Case for 2031 performs poorly against the integration
objective, with conditions generally worse than in the Base Year.
- 88 -
Economy
Average highway speeds across the Study Area reduce by about 19% relative to the
Base Year whilst rail overcrowding increases by over 6%.
Accessibility indices for all major employment centres reduce as a result of further
growth in travel demand. The reduction in accessibility is typically 60% for car-based
movements, 30 -40% for rail movements and 25%-40% for bus. Locations towards the
southern part of the Study Area appear to suffer more on the car-based measure,
whilst for rail the impact is much more even.
7.6.3
Scenarios B and C
Whilst the detailed outputs for Scenarios B and C have not been presented in this
section, the summary conclusions are that they replicate the trends identified by
Scenario A. In Scenario B all day car trips grow by only 9% less than for Scenario A at
53% whilst for Scenario C the growth is 18% more at 80%. This simple measure alone
highlights the fact that Scenario A does not sit at the mid-point of different growth
scenarios but is offset towards the lower end of the range.
Full details of the Framework Analysis for Scenarios B and C are given as Appendix G.
7.7
Conclusions
7.7.1
Policy Overview
The Government’s 10-Year Plan and the White Paper which preceded it, are
predicated on the desire to assist economic growth, but without the attendant
problems of unfettered growth in road-based traffic, which brings with it increased
congestion and environmental degradation.
The main policy plank for achieving this at the inter-urban level is to encourage
greater use of public transport at the expense of private transport. The benefits of
such a stance can be readily understood; public transport can be more efficient
both operationally and environmentally and also provide accessibility benefits to
those unable or unwilling to use a car.
Evidence over a long period of time, however, demonstrates that increasing
economic prosperity has a direct, one-for-one, relationship with increasing car use
which, in turn, reduces the demand for public transport usage.
It is important to understand, therefore, how further economic growth will change not
only the overall demand for movement, but also the relative balance between
public and private transport.
7.7.2
Increased Demand for Movement
The Study Area is relatively prosperous with some of the highest levels of car
ownership in the country. Despite this, further economic growth will generate even
higher levels of car ownership and use. Forecasts show an almost constant rate of
- 89 -
growth over the 30-year Study period. During this period, rail travel will grow more
slowly than car travel.
One feature of travel behaviour will be an increase in average trip length. This arises
because of an assumption that an individual’s value of time will increase through
time. Thus, the time element of any journey becomes progressively more important in
the decision making process or, put another way, non-time costs become less of a
deterrent to travelling longer distances. The result is that, perhaps perversely,
average trip length will increase despite increasing congestion. In fact it is precisely
this increase in trip length which is a major contributor to increasing congestion in the
future as it has been in the past.
7.7.3
Government’s Overarching Objectives
The analysis has shown that, without exception, the Government’s five overarching
objectives will be adversely affected at both 2016 and 2031 by the increasing
demand for movement.
The analysis demonstrated that:
•
environmental conditions will deteriorate as a result of increased traffic
growth and the increasingly dispersed patterns which result;
•
accessibility will reduce at a broadly similar rate to the increase in
movement;
•
the safety objective will be undermined for two reasons: first, because there
is a modal shift away from rail to road over the Study period, and: second,
there is a net diversion to lower standard roads, such as B-class and
unclassified, which have the highest accident rates;
•
the integration objective is similarly undermined, whether in terms of
integration between modes, with social and economic regeneration policy
or with land-use policy; and
•
the generally lower speeds on the highway network result in higher journey
costs for all movements, which undermines the economic objective.
The result, therefore, is that even with some level of intervention as represented by
new infrastructure in the Reference Case, there is still a significant deterioration in
travel conditions relative to the present day.
7.7.4
Impact of ‘Soft’ Measures
Work undertaken recently by DfT has shown that some ‘soft’ measures, such as home
working, flexible working hours and car parking, could contribute a demonstrable
benefit to travel on the highway network. However, even the most optimistic
scenario would limit the potential demand reduction on the highway network from
‘soft’ measures to about 5%. This is an important point because it means that even if
the take-up rate for such techniques were to accelerate dramatically, it would have
little impact on the growth levels predicted. In other words, the Government’s
- 90 -
overarching objectives would all deteriorate even with the Reference Case schemes
and ‘soft’ measures making their maximum possible impact.
As a proxy, Scenario B represents a lower level of growth which, as a convenience,
could be considered to represent the type of soft factors discussed above. By way of
comparison the car trip growth is some 6% lower than for Scenario A and the car trip
Km. some 3% lower. The outcome of the Framework Analysis, however, is that on all
measures relating to the Government’s five overarching objectives, there is a
significant deterioration against the Base Year. In virtually all cases, the deterioration
is within a few percentage points of that measured for Scenario A.
The conclusion, therefore, is that even allowing for soft measures any improvement
would be only at the margin and still represent a significant deterioration from the
Base Year.
7.7.5
Operational Performance
The effect of increasing demand is different for the rail and road networks.
In the case of rail, the sparse network means that increasing demand produces
increasing levels of overcrowding and a propensity, although modest, to divert from
rail to road. The exceptions to this are the West Coast Main Line which will benefit
from the improvements defined within its Passenger Upgrade initiative and Thameslink
2000 which will introduce new capacity and service patterns.
In the case of road, however, increasing demand aggravates the conditions in
corridors which are already congested, and also diverts traffic into relatively
uncongested corridors. This cascading effect means that motorways experience the
lowest growth levels with non-motorway routes experiencing growth about 25%
higher on average.
This results in a greater proportion of the network being congested and a greater
proportion of traffic travelling on routes with relatively higher accident rates.
7.7.6
Freight
The forecasts suggest that freight movements in the Study Area will grow significantly
faster than freight movements in the UK as a whole, a symptom of the continued
population growth and increasing number of distribution centres. For instance, road
freight in the Study Area is forecast to grow by 28% to 2010, compared to 16% for the
UK as a whole.
In general, freight journey lengths by road are increasing, which means that roads
handling long-distance freight movements such as the M1 are likely to experience the
fastest increase in freight traffic. This trend is likely to be magnified by continued
development of retail distribution centres along the M1 in the north of the Study Area,
and by the growth of trade across the Channel or through Felixstowe.
For rail freight the situation is even more extreme since most of the SRA’s target of 80%
growth in rail freight will inevitably come from long-distance freight movements. The
majority of those long-distance movements pass through the Study Area, including
- 91 -
Channel Tunnel freight, the movement of deep-sea containers, and general freight
movements between the South East and Scotland or the North West. As a result, rail
freight movements in the Study Area are forecast to double by 2010, compared to a
21% increase for the UK as a whole.
With respect to road problems, hauliers currently seek to avoid congestion by moving
freight at night, or at least by avoiding the known peak periods. As congestion gets
worse it will be increasingly difficult to avoid. Night curfews in towns, and the impact
of the working time directive may also encourage more freight to move in the daytime rather than at night. These trends are difficult to model, but their impact will be
to exaggerate day-time road freight growth.
The continued trend towards larger and more centralised distribution centres will
result in still more of these facilities being developed in the Study Area, causing an
even more rapid increase in road freight movements unless issues of back hauling
and load utilisation are seriously addressed.
Rail freight problems all centre around the need for additional infrastructure. As an
example, to meet growth targets, more rail terminals must be provided. In particular,
rail freight between London and Scotland/North West cannot grow unless more
intermodal terminals are provided around London and elsewhere in the Study Area.
The most serious constraint to rail freight growth is likely to be the capacity of the
WCML and cross-London routes. It has been difficult to be precise while the WCML
upgrade plans have not been clear, but in general it would appear that adequate
capacity may be found to meet the 10-Year Plan growth forecast, but beyond 10
years new North–South capacity must be provided.
7.7.7
Key Issues
The conditions described above and in previous Chapters mean that the conflicts
already evident at the Base Year in the Study Area will become profoundly more
acute in the future.
Thus longer-distance, nationally important, movements will be subject to increased
delays when travelling by road or to increasing levels of overcrowding when travelling
by rail (with the exception of WCML). In the case of roads, this will cause increasing
levels of diversion to non-strategic routes. Equally, those living within the Study Area
will suffer reduced accessibility, increasing journey times and, for business users, higher
costs.
- 92 -
8
Strategy Development Process
8.1
Overview
In recent years, the policy framework for transport has changed dramatically as a result of
the Government’s Transport White Paper, ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’. The
White Paper has acted as a catalyst for legal, institutional and financial change, all of which
have created a different climate within which the planning of future transport is now made.
One outcome from the White Paper was the 10-Year Plan which established a determination
and resolve that each mode, and particularly the more sustainable modes, should play their
full role in solving transport problems. The 10-Year Plan also identified five principles to guide
the development of all multi-modal solutions. These were that they should:
•
address the most severe problems in specific corridors or areas;
•
be driven by regional and integrated transport strategies;
•
deliver long-term and sustainable solutions;
•
provide an open process, with the opportunity to build consensus; and
•
consider ways to minimise environmental impact.
Set within these principles, and at the risk of simplifying the whole multi-modal approach, it
should be acknowledged that the process, both for this and other studies, is anchored by two
key objectives. These are to tackle existing road congestion in an effective manner, but also
to promote a change in travel behaviour, which will safeguard short-term interventions and
deliver long-term change. This latter objective of changing behaviour, which was clearly set
out in the Terms of Reference for LSM, demands that the Study looks wider than solving the
immediately apparent problems, by taking a more visionary approach towards future
transport needs.
Satisfying these two objectives can create tensions and conflicts, but the intention is
nevertheless clear, to maximise the opportunities for rail, bus, walking and cycling in any
design solution before reverting to the more traditional solutions, such as road widening or
building new roads. This philosophy underpinned the entire strategy development process for
LSM albeit that the resulting analysis demonstrated clearly that increasing road capacity
could not be avoided as an intervention in any design solution.
8.2
Process
Guidance on the Methodology for Multi Modal Studies (GOMMMS) identifies two
conventional approaches to strategy development; one which is objectives led and the
other, problems led. Each approach has its strengths and the pragmatic response, therefore,
is to ensure that the process adopted captures the best features of both.
In the case of LSM, the strategy development was preceded by an analysis of problems at
the Base Year, 2016, and 2031 as described in Chapter 7.
- 93-
Those problems were defined not only in spatial terms or their impact on transport networks,
but also in relation to their impact on the Government’s five overarching objectives of
environment, safety, accessibility, integration and economy. The approach therefore
attempted to identify the most pressing problems on the strategic transport networks in a
manner which sought to maximise improvement against the Government’s objectives and to
that extent captured the strengths from both methodologies identified by GOMMMS.
The Strategy Development process itself was divided into five phases as described below:
•
Generation of options, policies and measures. This flowed directly from the
identification of problems and issues and reflected suggestions and proposals from
the Steering Group, Wider Reference Group and the Study Team;
•
A coarse sift was used to appraise a range of different measures, policies and
interventions against three criteria describing feasibility, effectiveness and
acceptability. Those measures which passed the coarse sift process could then be
considered further;
•
Following the coarse sift, an objective maximising strategy was adopted which
sought to maximise the benefits represented by each of the Government’s five
overarching transport objectives. Thus, a strategy was developed (with measures
selected from those that had passed the coarse sift) which sought to maximise
environmental benefits, whilst others focused on the economy, accessibility, safety
and integration;
•
A conclusion of the objective maximising strategies was that much greater change
occurred within mode than between modes (for the reasons given in Section 4.3.2).
As a result, some very detailed single-mode analysis was undertaken to understand
the types of trips being made and, hence, the role of different network elements
within an overall hierarchy; and
•
Finally, at the conclusion of this process, the optimised single mode networks were recombined, tested together and progressively refined towards a preferred strategy.
Following this process, discrete elements of the strategy were investigated further at either an
individual or corridor level. Figure 8.1 summarises the process, the function of each stage and
its desired output.
- 94-
Figure 8.1 Strategy Development Process
Inputs
Government’s Policy
Process
Generation of
Options
Study Brief Objectives
Coarse Sift
Function
Reject those schemes,
initiatives,
interventions
which are not feasible,
ineffective
or
unacceptable for other
reasons
Technical, Economic,
Environmental
Constraints
Five Overarching
Objective
Maximising
Approach
Define Problems
Modal Analysis
Identify those interventions
which are particularly
helpful/unhelpful in
support of Government
objectives
Identify hierarchical levels
within each network.
Identify impacts of specific
interventions on specific
problems
Preferred
Strategy
Review single mode
conclusions within multimodal approach
Corridor Analysis
Detailed examination of
discrete proposals by
corridor to establish
feasibility, effectiveness
and acceptability
- 95-
8.3
Option Generation
The consultation at the problem identification stage of the Study not only sought views on
existing problems, but also invited suggestions for solutions to these problems.
This
consultation was undertaken through telephone interviews and a series of seminars (or
workshops), through which almost all members of the Steering Group and Wider Reference
Group were contacted. Respondents were invited to suggest potential solutions across all
modes of transport, and indeed the response to the consultation reinforced the need to be
visionary and look across all modes as well as at means of changing behaviour and reducing
the need to travel.
From the consultation, and additional work by the Study Team and Steering Group, a long list
of potential options was generated.
8.4
Coarse Sift
The coarse sift had two purposes. First, it was used to consider the feasibility, effectiveness
and acceptability of a particular measure within an overall strategy or plan. Second, it was
used to refine potential measures. Table 8.1 identifies the main headings under which the
long list of potential options were classified, and sets out the results of the coarse sift for the
most relevant options.
Table 8.1 Coarse Sift of Long List of Measures
Feasibility
Effectiveness
Infrastructure
Parkway stations
Double decker trains
WCML Capacity Upgrade
New high speed line
Intermodal terminals
New East-West motorway
High speed east-west rail
Waterways as high capacity
transport corridor
New airports
Urban metros
More motorway junctions
Acceptability
Carry
forward to
next stage
!
?
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
!
!
!
!
!
?
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
!
X
!
X
?
X/?
X
X
X/?
X
X
!
- 96-
Economic Instruments
Motorway tolls
Road User Charging (various
regimes)
Charging by occupancy
Workplace Charging
Regulation
Vehicle usage according to
registration number
Reduce parental choice of
schools
Multiple occupancy vehicle
lanes
Reduced speed limits
Universal imposition of Travel
Plans
Technology/Management
Bus lanes on motorways
Park and Ride at motorway
service areas
HGV lanes on motorways
Narrow lanes on motorways
Ramp metering
Freight gates
Motorway junction closures
Real time information on
motorways
Real time public transport
information
Automatic Vehicle
Identification on all new
vehicles
Land Use
Greater housing density
Greater central area
development density
Greater level of mixed land
use development
All new development within
10 Minutes of PT services
Persuasion
Freight Quality Partnership
No car trips to school
Flexitime – 4 day working
week
Transport campaigns
Car sharing
!
!
!
!
!/?
?
!
!
?
!
?
X
?
?
X
X
!
!
X
X
X
X/?
X
X
!
!
?
!
!
X
?
?
?
X
!
X
!
!
?
X
!/?
X
!
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
X/?
X
!
!
!
!
X/?
X
!
!/?
!/?
!
!
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!/?
!
!
!
!
!
!
!/?
!/?
!
X
!/?
!/?
X
!
X
!/?
!
!
!
!
X
X/?
!
X
!
!
!/?
?
?
!
?
!
!
Key
! = satisfies criteria
X = does not satisfy criteria
? = uncertain whether criteria is satisfied or not
- 97-
It should be emphasised that the Table overleaf does not claim to be exhaustive but rather
representative of the ideas which emerged from ‘brainstorming’ seminars which separately
involved the Wider Reference Group, Steering Group and the Consultant Team.
It was not necessarily the case that all interventions could be explicitly appraised in the
strategy testing process. It was however, necessary to acknowledge that there were a
number of measures apart from new infrastructure which could all make a contribution
towards an overall strategy and part of the rationale for the coarse sift was to identify these
other measures.
The analysis considered the full range of measures whether strategic or local, urban or rural.
Although the detailed urban measures are beyond the scope of this study, which has its focus
as inter-urban movement, it is nevertheless important to record the types of intervention
assumed in the modelling appraisal work.
A review of Local Transport Plans identified a consistency between the different Local
Authorities in their determination to drive through local strategies which saw the changing of
attitudes and behaviour as the central objective. Thus, the LTP’s were rooted in local
measures designed to:
•
support walking, cycling and public transport;
•
pursue persuasive techniques such as campaigns to achieve a modal shift; and,
•
consider new roads only in specific instances where they opened up development
land or offered environmental improvement.
This general policy direction could not be properly reflected at a local level within the model,
although improved accessibility to public transport was explicitly recognised in the modelling
process for both future years.
8.5
Objective Related Tests
8.5.1
Introduction
The desired end result for any strategy development process is one in which, at least
theoretically, no alternative could have been chosen which would have been better than
that selected. Unfortunately, there is no truly prescriptive process that can guarantee this
end point. The process of strategy development will always contain within it some element of
subjective assessment, not least in defining the range of options from which the ‘best’ is to be
selected. This means that the end result may not necessarily be the ‘best’ but is at least likely
to be close to being the ‘best’.
The normal approach to this problem is to define a number of starting points to reflect very
different outcomes. By evaluating these very different starting points, the strengths and
weaknesses of each can be identified and a compromise developed which retains the best
features of each starting scenario and eliminates the worst.
Arguably, however, such an approach can sometimes be unhelpful because the basic
premise itself is not realistic. For example, a public transport-only or roads-only solution could
never be the strategy outcome and is thus an unrealistic starting point.
- 98-
Nevertheless, there is considerable merit in creating starting points with sufficient variation
that they are likely to capture all possible strategy components and inform an understanding
of area-wide travel behaviour by delivering different outcomes. For that reason, as well as to
create an audit trail, five strategies were defined which linked back to the Government’s five
overarching criteria.
The starting position adopted for the strategy development process was to review the five
overarching appraisal objectives (criteria) and their respective sub-objectives and to devise
thematic approaches that optimised the various sub-objectives. Table 8.2 demonstrates the
approach, the various themes that emerged and the types of intervention considered to be
appropriate to maintain the consistency of the theme. As a contrast, for example,
maximising the environmental objective might mean no infrastructure in new corridors,
regardless of economic consequences, whereas maximising the accessibility objective would
mean new infrastructure where a demand exists, regardless of environmental consequences.
Naturally, this prior view might need to be modified once the tests have been run and the
consequences of different actions are known.
For each option, therefore, it was
acknowledged that some optimisation might be necessary but only to the extent that it
eliminated major weaknesses identified by other criteria. For example, the progressive
widening of a motorway could assist the safety objective because of the lower accident
rates but eventually create an unacceptable environmental consequence if houses needed
to be demolished or it impinged into a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
8.5.2
Strategy Options
Five themes were identified and specific infrastructure schemes or other interventions
allocated to each.
Environmental Theme
The key features of the environmental strategy were as follows:
•
no further infrastructure in new corridors;
•
no new road infrastructure at all;
•
‘tough’ restraint policies to curb both inter-urban and urban travel; this would most
likely be a mix of fiscal measures nationally and pricing measures locally (eg
parking charges);
•
strong emphasis on public transport both in terms of making it more attractive
through pricing policy and providing sufficient capacity;
•
emphasis on slow modes and other persuasive/lifestyle measures to reduce overall
levels of travel (eg Green Travel Plans and home working);
•
strategic park-and-ride as the necessary complement for urban restraint measures.
- 99-
Table 8.2 Rationale for Defining Strategy Options Starting Points
Appraisal Objective
Environment
Safety
Economy
Accessibility
Integration
Sub Objectives
•
•
•
Responses
Retain existing quiet areas
Minimise traffic growth
Minimise traffic exposure in centres of population
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strategy Measures
No new transport corridors
Promotion of traffic restraint measures
Separation of people from vehicles
Minimise growth of traffic
Promotion of traffic restraint measures
Traffic reduction in towns and cities
Provision of transport alternatives
Promotion of sustainable modes
Improve strategic routes to consistent standards
Increase rail/ bus capacity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minimise additional car use
Minimise new land take
Minimise impacts on buildings and people
Reduce dependence on car
Reduce exposure to the car
Reduction in congestion, overcrowding, unpredictable journey times.
Consistent level of service
Accidents
•
•
Promote high standard roads with low accident rates
Transfer to safer modes
High quantity interchange
Improved PT infrastructure
•
•
•
•
•
Maximise transfer of people to high standard road.
Maximise transfer of freight to rail.
Maximise transfer of passengers to rail
Improve inter and intra modal interchange.
Improve inter modal freight interchange.
•
Security
•
•
•
•
Economic efficiency of transport system
Reliability
Wider economic impacts
•
•
•
•
Avoidance of congestion
Avoidance of congestion
Spare capacity at time of incidents
Support for regeneration initiatives
•
•
•
•
Capacity improvements at congestion hotspots
Capacity to match demand
Advanced telecoms for incident detection/avoidance
Access optimised to/from regeneration areas
•
•
Option Values
•
Increase availability of PT
•
•
Severance
Access to the transport system
•
•
•
Avoidance of new corridors
Good interchange
Remedy areas of poor access to PT
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increase E-W rail accessibility
Increase role of park and ride
Increase E-W bus accessibility
Strategic park-and-ride sites
Increase station parking
Local walk and cycle links
•
Transport Interchange
•
High class inter modal passenger interchange
•
Land Use Policy
•
Other Government policies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Support for urban PT; car restraint
High class freight interchange
Reduce longer distance road based travel
PT access to airports
Good PT connections for new development
Traffic reduction to support health policies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improved rail connections for Luton/Stansted
Improved park- and- ride
Improve rail connections N/S and E/W
New rail freight between interchange
High quality urban passenger initiatives
Improved rail connections for Luton/Stansted
PT connections to all new strategic development sites
Restraint policies for urban areas
•
Noise
•
Local Air Quality
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Climate Change
Landscape
Townscape
Heritage
Bio Diversity
Water Resources
Life Styles
•
Journey Ambience
•
- 100-
Overall this strategy is characterised by an emphasis in demand restraint and modal
transfer. Appendix H.1 provides the schedule of schemes and interventions defined as
the starting point for this process.
Safety Theme
The key elements of this option were to transfer as much passenger and freight traffic
as possible from road to public transport or strategic traffic to high speed roads since
these are generally safer than other all-purpose (particularly urban) roads.
The need to ensure that (safer) high-standard roads can play their full part in the
strategy means that there should be no shortage of motorway capacity which might
otherwise cause traffic to divert to less safe routes. Appendix H.2 summarises schemes
and interventions adopted for the testing work.
Accessibility Theme
The accessibility theme was characterised by a need to provide accessibility by all
modes at all times of the day. This implied major capacity enhancements to the
strategic infrastructure for road and rail. Appendix H.3 summarises the schemes and
interventions considered for this test.
Economy Theme
The economy theme was predicated on providing sufficient capacity for all modes so
that the transport system did not act as a barrier or constraint to future economic
development or inward investment. However, it should not over-provide either.
It must accommodate all modes, road, rail and air, to such a level that journey times
are predictable and unreliability is minimised. It must also allow freight to be moved
directly and cheaply. Importantly, as well as providing for east-west rail to assist new
economic axes, east-west road links must also be improved to provide the high
quality connections required.
Appendix H.4 summarises the schemes and
interventions comprising this strategy.
Integration Theme
It could be argued that ‘integration’ sits uneasily with the other objectives since it is
not an objective in itself, but rather a design requirement of any solution.
Nevertheless, as identified in Chapter 7, there is a requirement to ensure that any
transport solution is integrated on a variety of fronts; between modes, with economic
and land-use policies and with Government’s other policies.
The broad theme of this test must therefore be that it contains a range of measures to
support other Government policies relating to the wider transport agenda and landuse. In the main, this will focus on changing attitudes and behaviour against using
the car indiscriminately both in congested urban conditions and for longer-distance
discretionary trips. The components tested are set out in Appendix H.5.
- 101-
8.5.3
Assessment of Strategy Options
Behavioural Impacts
The major behavioural response to different interventions was one of re-routeing
traffic. This is not surprising and from much research it has long been recognised as
the primary response to a change in travel ‘costs’.
The second response was, probably, one of re-distribution as discretionary trip
purposes in particular, sought alternative origins or destinations to satisfy a specific
purpose. Shopping trips would be an example of this. Unfortunately, without very
detailed matrix analysis it is difficult to quantify the extent to which this has taken
place, but the model functionality is designed to reflect this type of behaviour.
From the Framework Analyses produced during this work, it would appear that trip
generation and suppression (beyond the re-distribution discussed earlier) features
marginally more prominently than modal shift. This may be because the relatively
sparse rail network in the Study Area limits modal choice opportunities for many key
corridors, for example, in an east-west direction. It is also attributable to the finding,
reported in Chapters 4 and 7, that the spread of origins and destinations is such that it
is not generally conducive to mass transport, except in those corridors where rail
already dominates, and in some local areas.
On the basis of these findings, a key conclusion was that, relative to the number of
trips made in the Study Area, there was relatively little modal switching as a result of
different interventions. It was concluded, therefore, that analysis within mode, rather
than between modes, would form a profitable line of analysis as the next stage of
strategy development.
Independence/Interdependence of Transport Corridors
The analysis undertaken both as part of this work and in complementary ‘proving’
tests, showed that the main strategic corridors were relatively independent of each
other.
Nevertheless, there is a corollary to this finding, namely that if the highway network is
to perform more effectively in the future, then ways must be found of increasing the
connectivity of different corridors to provide flexibility and opportunities for diversion in
response to accidents and incidents.
Consequently, one of the key principles of the strategy development phase emerged
from this thematic testing; that is the principle of increasing the connectivity of the
networks (both road and rail) to increase the level of choice and the potential for
interchange.
The Role of Soft Factors
From the tests undertaken and complementary ‘proving’ tests, it was found that the
biggest change to rail patronage occurred through ‘soft’ qualitative improvements
rather than new infrastructure. Such measures are designed to reduce the resistance
- 102-
to public transport observed in many people which, in the modelling process, is
reflected through higher costs. Soft measures which might make public transport
generally, and rail in particular more attractive, include a secure environment,
modern rolling stock, clean carriages, high levels of customer care by the operators’
staff as well as good parking, refreshment and toilet facilities at stations.
Put another way, the testing process found that rail was better able to compete
against the private car when it improved the quality of its offer, rather than seeking
marginal travel cost savings from reduced travel time or overcrowding. Since these
were already assumed within the Reference Case, there was little opportunity for
further incorporation of such measures in the strategy.
Infrastructure Requirements
The work described at this stage of the strategy development process was designed
to form a deeper understanding of different interventions and combinations of
interventions in terms of their adverse and beneficial impacts in the Study Area. From
that work, however, some key conclusions could be drawn on the scale of
infrastructure likely to be required in the Study Area. These were as follows:
•
Beyond dual 4-lane standard in the M1 corridor, any improvements attract
traffic into the Study Area from the M40 corridor. There are two arguments
why this is undesirable. First, because that same traffic has already, to some
extent, been used to justify improvements in the M40 corridor and, second,
because the intervention is in effect solving problems in another corridor
which is outside the remit of this Study and which may not be the best
solution for that corridor anyway.
•
There is a danger that massive road infrastructure improvements may
negate, or even undermine major investment in public transport, contrary to
Government policy. Above dual 4-lane standard for M1 some transfer from
rail to road was forecast. Care must be taken, therefore, not to over-provide
road infrastructure.
•
Providing substantially higher levels of road infrastructure than exist at the
current time would create problems elsewhere on the road network which,
in turn, require additional capacity at those locations. Achieving the right
balance between different elements of the highway network was therefore
a key requirement in the overall strategy development process.
Scale of Change
All of the strategies produced relatively small responses within each of the subobjective measures. This highlights the point that most interventions are specific to a
certain location and that whilst there may be cascading effects, no single measure or
group of measures is likely to produce area-wide benefits. Any final strategy will
therefore need to be a consideration of groups of measures.
- 103-
Restraint Policies
The closest to a restraint policy tested at this stage was the environmental policy. This
showed that any attempt at reducing road capacity or reducing the attractiveness
of strategic road connections was unlikely to restrain overall demand. Instead, it
would divert demand to other routes and parts of the network more able (though less
suitable) to accommodate it, thus causing environmental and operational disbenefits
beyond the corridor of immediate concern. Restraint policies, therefore, if enacted
through a failure to deliver improvement to the strategic transport networks, were
unlikely to be successful.
Conclusions
The conclusions from this stage of work were as follows.
•
There is little, if any, merit in attempting to restrain demand through
locationally specific actions since re-routeing rather than restraint will occur.
The corollary to this is that some measure of new infrastructure is therefore
required to contain traffic growth within desired corridors and routes, rather
than allow it to disperse across the network;
•
The balance of infrastructure provision is vital, both between modes and
within a single mode between different parts of the strategic network;
•
The opportunity for modal switch is very limited, in part because of the
relative costs of travel, but also in part because of the relatively sparse public
transport network (see Section 4.3.2).
A key question arising from this analysis is the extent to which road
improvements can feature as part of an overall strategy, given the
competing priorities of Government policy and travel behaviour as
observed on the networks. The answer appears to lie in the issue of
‘balance’, such that:
•
sufficient new strategic road capacity must be provided to prevent
damaging trip diversion and dispersion to other parts of the highway network
unsuited to strategic traffic; but
•
the capacity improvements should not damage or undermine the
opportunities for other modes to play their full role in any solution or create
problems elsewhere on the highway network.
8.6
Consultation on Strategy Direction
At this stage, having obtained an understanding of the most likely components from
which the strategy would be constructed, a further consultation exercise was
undertaken. This was designed to focus on the direction required for the strategy and
the plan components that would assist in achieving that direction. Three indicative
strategy directions were developed for this purpose:
- 104-
•
increasing capacity;
•
prioritising investment in public transport; and
•
restraining demand.
The objective was to inform the choice of a ‘fourth strategy’ for the Study Area.
Consultation was conducted through interactive seminars, focus groups and
questionnaires. Respondents were presented with a general background to the
Study, the problems and issues identified and a description of the three ‘directional’
strategies. It was emphasised that these were ‘alternative directions’ rather than
‘actual strategies’, and that the final strategy was likely to be a mixture of the
elements shown in the directional strategies.
Respondents were asked to indicate their preferred direction for the fourth strategy
by placing stickers within or outside a triangle where the vertices represented the
three directions. The spread of responses demonstrated that the respondents
supported all the alternative directions to some extent. However, the responses
showed a clear preference towards a strategy in which public transport was given a
high priority. It also demonstrated that improved capacity measures generally (ie
road as well as rail) were seen as making a greater contribution than demand
restraint measures. Figure 8.2 summarises the results obtained.
Figure 8.2 Consultation Response to Alternative Strategy Directions
A: Increasing Capacity
0.5 1.5
6.75
5.5
6
1
4
59.75
1
2.5
5
1
4.5 6.5
5.5
50.5
4
4.5
2
7
9
3
B: Prioritising
investment
in public
transport
C:
Restraining
Demand
- 105-
The consultation was conducted with a very wide range of respondents including
representatives of the WRG, local councillors, business representatives, freight
representatives and a number of focus groups aimed at the socially excluded.
Questionnaires using the same approach were sent to councillors, officers and
business groupings within the Study Area, and to Regional Assemblies, Regional
Development Agencies and Government Offices across the country. Finally, a
consultation event was held at Westminster for Members of Parliament, with specific
invitations sent to Members with constituencies in the Study Area.
- 106-
9
Developing the Strategy
9.1
Introduction
The initial round of multi-modal strategy testing identified that there was very little
modal switch in response to different interventions. In fact, far greater change
occurred within mode than between modes. The key reasons for the lack of transfer
were as follows:
•
rail already has the major share of trips to and from Central London; and
•
there is generally not a sufficiently ‘critical mass’ of people moving between
most urban areas outside Central London to justify provision of new services
(despite extensive testing).
Therefore, in order to make the testing process more efficient, the model was
simplified for the next stages of the strategy development by breaking the link
between public transport and highway trips.
In separating the highway and public transport modelling the analysis was able to
concentrate on the strategic networks that would be needed to serve each of the
mode-specific demands. Conscious of the need to avoid planning a ‘predict and
provide’ outcome for the highway network, the overall level of demand was reduced
to 90% of that forecast. The choice of 90% reflected the combination of expected
maximum transfer from road to rail as well as the reduction in highway trips that could
be achieved by the so-called ‘soft measures’, such as an increase in working from
home.
The rail and highway strategies were then developed through mode-specific testing,
based only on the assignment (ie route choice) aspects of the model. The model
was then ‘reconnected’ to test the integrity of the full multi-modal strategy.
9.2
Rail Strategy
9.2.1
Overview
The rationale for the rail strategy is predicated on two principles, a need for greater
connectivity between corridors so that it can act more effectively as a network, and
a reduction in crowding on existing services. To this end, development of the rail
strategy has focused on identifying the areas where:
•
sufficient patronage could be attracted to justify the provision of new rail
lines;
•
sufficient patronage could be attracted to justify the provision of new
through services over existing lines;
•
additional passenger capacity is required on existing routes; or
- 107 -
•
additional freight capacity would allow the rail freight industry to continue to
grow and thereby remove HGV’s from the road network.
In addition, consideration was given to ‘soft measures’ which could significantly
enhance the quality of journey and perception of the rail network, thereby
encouraging existing car users to transfer to rail travel.
Prior to specifying the detailed infrastructure requirements for the strategy, it was
necessary to identify the key constraints that currently prevent expansion of existing
service provision. This was carried out through a series of consultations with the rail
industry and by reviewing various documents. The conclusions are set out in Table
9.1. It should be noted that there are a number of other constraints on the network
not shown in the Table, since they do not prevent the delivery of any components of
the proposed strategy.
In the following sections, each existing route is discussed in terms of schemes
recommended as a part of the strategy, and in some cases additional schemes that
were considered but rejected. The service aspirations are set out, followed by the
infrastructure required to overcome the constraints identified in Table 9.1. The
discussion includes two potential new routes through the Study Area:
•
a restored connection between Bedford and Northampton, facilitating
through services between the MML and the WCML; and
•
a route linking Bristol, Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford with Cambridge,
Ipswich Norwich and Stansted Airport.
A final section then summarises the soft measures which are recommended, from a
network-wide perspective only. Possible locations for parkway stations have also
been considered, and are discussed as part of the strategy for each route.
It should be noted that the schemes are presented in such a way that the objectives
are clearly defined, for example to increase the number of local services and freight
trains on the WCML. The infrastructure proposals then set out a solution by which
these objectives could be achieved. It is acknowledged, however, that the rail
industry may be able to design less expensive solutions in some cases. For example,
the additional capacity on the WCML could be achieved by providing six tracks
between Watford Junction and Berkhamsted, but it is possible that this could also be
achieved at a lower cost by providing a series of passing or dynamic loops.
Furthermore, it was assumed when developing the strategy that no station could be
given a reduced level of service (in terms of frequency or speed) than that in the
Reference Case, including stations external to the Study Area. For example, the MML
between Bedford and Leicester currently carries up to six trains per hour in each
direction:
•
two fast ‘High Speed Trains’;
•
two semi-fast ‘Turbostar’ trains; and
•
two freight trains.
- 108 -
Table 9.1 Key Constraints Preventing Service Enhancements
Route
Location
Constraints
Watford – Milton Keynes
Rugby - Birmingham
Various
Midland Main Line
Bedford
Midland Main Line
Kings Cross*
Finsbury Park*
Welwyn Garden City – Knebworth
(including ‘Welwyn Viaduct’)
Huntingdon - Peterborough
North of Peterborough*
West Anglia Main Line
Liverpool Street*
Liverpool Street – Tottenham Hale*
Tottenham Hale – Bishops Stortford
Bishops Stortford – Stansted Airport
Cambridge
Ely
Various
Capacity reduced by mix of
stopping patterns on four-track
section, in particular between
Watford and Berkhamsted
train speeds on two-track
section, in particular between
Coventry and Birmingham
Some platforms will remain at 8car length after WCML upgrade
Insufficient capacity through
station, in particular limited by
Thameslink terminating trains
stopping patterns on two-track
and three-track sections
Insufficient platform capacity
and track access to station
Insufficient capacity through
station
Capacity of two-track section
fully utilised
train speeds on two-track and
three-track sections
train speeds on two-track
sections and also by at-grade
junctions with other lines
Insufficient platform capacity
and track access to station
Capacity of two-track sections
fully utilised
stopping patterns on two-track
sections
Capacity of single-track tunnel
fully utilised
Insufficient platform and track
capacity
Insufficient platform and track
capacity
Some platforms limited to 8-car
trains
Note: * Outside Study Area but a constraint for improvements in the Study Area
This mix of train speeds (and stopping patterns) results in a very inefficient use of the
capacity available. By contrast, if all trains were to operate at the same speed, it is
likely that at least twelve trains per hour could operate with no additional
infrastructure. This could only be achieved by:
•
inserting additional stops on the High Speed Train services, thus increasing
journey times to London from places such as Leicester, Derby, Sheffield and
Nottingham; and/or
- 109 -
•
removing some intermediate stops from the Turbostar services, thus reducing
journey times but also reducing the frequency of trains serving some of the
smaller stations.
In the strategy development it was assumed that neither of these solutions would be
acceptable, and that the additional capacity could only be provided through
infrastructure works. The SRA’s Network Capacity Utilisation Review will be a more
appropriate study to recommend that certain stations could be disadvantaged to
facilitate benefits elsewhere on the network.
It would therefore be useful to review the infrastructure recommendations in the near
future, when:
•
the results of the Network Capacity Utilisation Review are known; and
•
the rail industry has given more detailed consideration to alternative
mechanisms by which the objectives for each corridor could be achieved.
9.2.2
Chiltern Lines
The Chiltern lines are entirely outside the Study Area. However, the importance of
Chiltern services as a route between London and the West Midlands, effectively
complementing and competing with the WCML, is such that the services need to be
considered as part of the Study Area.
Chiltern Railways has recently secured a twenty-year franchise agreement for its
current services, but is also considering several innovative new services, including:
•
a through service from Marylebone to Oxford, by restoring track along a
former railway alignment from Princes Risborough to Oxford via Thame and
Wheatley; and
•
extension of services north of Aylesbury via the former Great Central Railway
route to Rugby and Leicester, with a parkway station near the junction
between the M1, M6 and A14.
The model suggests that the former service will attract a high patronage (around 700
passengers in the 3-hour morning peak period in 2031). By contrast, the latter service
will attract comparatively few passengers, which is largely due to the slow journey
times compared with existing routes. For example:
•
Euston to Rugby
-
66 minutes;
•
Marylebone to Rugby
-
115 minutes;
•
St Pancras to Leicester
-
71 minutes; and
•
Marylebone to Leicester
-
140 minutes.
There are, however, additional benefits of the schemes, notably a direct service from
parts of North West London and Buckinghamshire to Oxford, Rugby and Leicester and
- 110 -
many of these intermediate flows are not represented in the model. In the case of
the direct connection between Marylebone to Rugby and Leicester, however, the
demand is likely to be insufficient to justify the service.
It is therefore considered appropriate that LSM should support the Chiltern Railways
proposals for new services in view of the benefits which will be achieved in the Study
Area, but recognise that these benefits are insufficient for the schemes to be included
as part of the strategy.
On a smaller scale, consideration should be given to a Cherwell Valley parkway
station, providing an additional point of interchange between the M40 and Chiltern
Railways. Because of its location beyond the Study Area, this proposal has not been
developed further as part of the Study, but we recommend that it should be
considered by the SRA or Chiltern Railways.
Similarly, it is beyond the remit of this Study to assess whether the half-hourly service
between Marylebone and Birmingham (to be implemented shortly as part of the
franchise commitment) will be sufficient to meet demand to 2031, or whether larger
rolling stock and/or more frequent services will be required. However, its objectives
are supported in terms of increasing rail’s share of longer distance traffic and
providing some relief to congested corridors in the LSM area.
9.2.3
At the time when the Reference Case was developed, the SRA was unable to
provide a service specification for the WCML upgrade. A service pattern was
therefore prepared for use as a working assumption, which was effectively a hybrid
between Phase One and Phase Two of the original WCML upgrade proposals. A
consultation document has since been published with a revised specification, but
there was insufficient time to repeat the strategy development and appraisal with this
specification. It may be beneficial, however, to carry out some sensitivity tests when
the results of the WCML consultation are published early in 2003.
In terms of the LSM strategy, no new inter-city services are proposed for the WCML
beyond the upgrade included in the Reference Case. Through services to stations on
the West London Line and North London Line were modelled, but found to have a
very low patronage compared with services to Euston. In addition, through services
from the WCML to Heathrow Airport were considered.
However, few areas
associated with the WCML (either in terms of the local Silverlink network or the
national Virgin Trains network) were found to have a large number of car trips which
could transfer to such a new service. Nevertheless, the idea of regional services from,
say, Manchester to Heathrow Airport, is supported by the study, but the services
would attract passengers currently using domestic air services for connections to
international flights at Heathrow, rather than removing car trips from the main roads in
the Study Area.
Enhancements to the local services, currently operated by Silverlink, are likely to be
required by 2031. In addition, services from Northampton to London and Birmingham,
which will be reduced by the WCML upgrade, should be significantly increased.
Table 9.2 shows the service pattern assumed in the Reference Case, together with
that recommended as part of the strategy.
- 111 -
Table 9.2 Recommended Service Enhancements for WCML Local Services
Service
Trains in Typical Peak Hour
Trains in Typical Off-Peak
Hour
Reference
Strategy
Reference
Strategy
Case
Case
Euston – Tring
1
1
1
1
slow
Euston – Milton
1
1
1
1
Keynes slow
Euston –
Northampton
1
1
3
3
fast
Euston –
1
1
1
1
Northampton
semi-fast
Euston – Rugby
via
1
0
1
0
Northampton
Euston –
Berkhamsted
0
2
0
2
slow
Euston –
Birmingham
0
2
0
2
via
Northampton
In addition to the changes in service frequency, all services during peak hours should
be provided by 12-car trains, rather than the mix of 8-car and 12-car trains envisaged
in the Reference Case.
Freight is also likely to grow significantly by 2031. If the growth is not constrained by
capacity, up to seven train paths per hour could be required during some parts of the
day. This would be reduced only slightly by the full Felixstowe to Nuneaton route
upgrade.
The passenger and freight service enhancements proposed could require the
following infrastructure improvements:
•
widening the alignment between Watford Junction and Berkhamsted to
have six tracks rather than four (allowing separate tracks for fast, semi-fast
and slow trains);
•
widening the alignment between Rugby and Birmingham to have four tracks
rather than two (allowing separate tracks for fast and slow trains); and
•
lengthening platforms at Kings Langley and Apsley (and outside the Study
Area at Euston and Bushey) to accommodate 12-car trains.
It should be noted that for widening between Rugby and Birmingham to be effective,
additional capacity will be required at Birmingham New Street Station. This has not
been included in the scheme costs, since:
- 112 -
•
it is wholly outside the Study Area; and
•
capacity requirements at Birmingham are regularly reviewed by the rail
industry, since any expansion would bring large benefits on both a national
and local basis.
Parkway stations are unlikely to be feasible for inter-city services, due to the extended
journey times associated with additional stations. However, the provision of extra
parking provision at Watford Junction and Milton Keynes is recommended, perhaps
with some form of control to reserve certain parking spaces for particular market
segments.
New parkway stations are likely to be more appropriate for the slower services,
currently operated by Silverlink, and possible locations include south of Northampton,
where the loop line crosses the M1. It is understood, however, that it may be difficult
to obtain appropriate land in the area. Alternatively, a parkway station north of
Northampton would provide access to the existing service and also the proposed
new service via Bedford (see Section 9.2.4). Such a location, however, would be less
well connected to the strategic highway network. Both possible areas for parkway
stations merit more detailed study.
9.2.4
Midland Main Line
The Reference Case for the strategy development has assumed implementation of
Thameslink 2000, and implementation of additional Midland Mainline services
specified as part of the franchise commitment.
The most significant proposal for the MML as part of the strategy is the further
extension of the Thameslink 2000 network from Bedford to Northampton. The original
railway between Bedford and Northampton closed in 1962, and most of the former
alignment remains intact. With some local diversions, in particular around Olney, it is
recommended that this route should be re-opened, including:
•
electrification;
•
a station at Olney;
•
a connection with the MML north of Bedford Station; and
•
a connection with the WCML (Northampton Loop) south of Northampton
Station.
This would enable Thameslink trains, currently terminating at Bedford, to be extended
to Northampton and Rugby. In conjunction with other improvements on the WCML
between Rugby and Birmingham, it would eventually be possible to extend
Thameslink services to Birmingham.
- 113 -
The extension of Thameslink in this manner would fulfil several strategic functions:
•
providing a connection between Bedford and Northampton (two of the
largest towns in the Study Area);
•
providing an alternative route from Northampton to London, which would be
slightly slower but give access to a range of destinations within London
(notably City Thameslink, Blackfriars and London Bridge);
•
providing a convenient service, probably with only one interchange,
between a number of North London suburbs and the West Midlands;
•
providing direct access from the West Midlands and Northampton to Luton
(including Luton Airport) and St Albans; and
•
designation of Bedford as a major transport interchange, linking with the
services to Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge and Stansted Airport (see Section
9.2.7).
It should be noted that Luton and St Albans are the two largest urban areas
associated with the M1 and M6 corridors without a direct rail service from the West
Midlands.
In addition to the key strategic functions, the extension of Thameslink services will
remove the need for some trains to terminate at Bedford, which imposes a major
constraint on the capacity of the MML.
For the purposes of appraisal, it has been assumed that two Thameslink trains per hour
which terminate at Bedford in the Reference Case will be extended to Birmingham
New Street, whilst a further two trains per hour will be extended to Northampton.
If the improvements to the WCML north of Rugby are not carried out, it may be
possible to implement the extension of Thameslink services to Birmingham by
absorbing the existing local services between Coventry and Birmingham. This would
give a direct service between suburbs east of Birmingham and London (similar to the
successful implementation by Chiltern Railways of direct services between Solihull and
London).
The model demonstrated that the Bedford to Northampton connection would fulfil a
strategic role, rather than just providing a local link: the average trip length of
passengers forecast to use the section is 133km, and by 2031 around 700 passengers
would travel from Northampton to Bedford in the three hour morning peak period.
Typical journey times would be (with corresponding peak period times from the
highway model shown in parentheses):
•
St Albans to Northampton
•
Luton to Birmingham
•
Bedford to Birmingham
-
58 (51) minutes;
103 (165) minutes;
-
- 114 -
79 (98) minutes;
•
City Thameslink to Northampton
-
85 (116) minutes; and
•
East Croydon to Northampton
-
123 (205) minutes.
The above times show that, in addition to many new opportunities being created for
travel by rail, in most cases the in-vehicle journey times are quicker than by car. Of
course, the in-vehicle time is only part of the total time associated with travel by
public transport, but nevertheless there are considerable time differences for some of
these journeys.
In order to achieve maximum benefits from re-opening the route to Northampton,
some re-modelling of Bedford Station will be necessary, including electrification of the
fast lines. This would enable the fast lines to be used by Thameslink trains which
continue to Northampton and by inter-city services (currently operated by Midland
Mainline), with the slow lines dedicated to Thameslink services terminating at Bedford
Station and freight trains. It is also proposed that all Midland Mainline services should
call at Bedford, which would give some passengers a small journey time penalty, but
also offer two key advantages:
•
the optimum capacity utilisation can be achieved with a uniform stopping
pattern; and
•
Bedford will become a major transport hub, served by all north-south and
east-west services.
The additional capacity for terminating trains created at Bedford will allow two trains
per hour which terminate at Luton in the Reference Case to be extended to Bedford.
It is recognised that it will be difficult for the Bedford to Northampton scheme to be
accommodated within the SRA’s 10-year programme. However, the area is rapidly
developing, and if the scheme is not pursued in the short-term it may become more
difficult to identify a suitable route (in particular through Olney). Detailed engineering
studies would allow a precise route to be defined and the appropriate land
protected from further development, even if the scheme is not implemented for a
number of years.
Additional inter-city services, currently operated by Midland Mainline, are likely to be
required by 2031. It is therefore proposed to provide two additional trains per hour
between St Pancras and Leicester.
capacity, up to four train paths per hour could be required during some parts of the
day, including some freight during peak periods.
These passenger and freight service enhancements are likely to require widening of
the alignment between Bedford and Leicester to have four tracks rather than two.
This would allow one pair of tracks to be dedicated to fast trains with the second pair
used by slow trains and freight trains.
Parkway stations are unlikely to be feasible for inter-city services, due to the extended
journey times associated with additional stations. New parkway stations are likely to
- 115 -
be more appropriate for Thameslink, ideally between Luton and Bedford with good
access from the M1.
The possibility of a parkway station at Harlington has been considered, and may
warrant further study. In principle, the station could be accessed from the M1,
possibly in conjunction with the motorway service area at Toddington, although it is
understood from the Highways Agency that this could be difficult in operational
terms. In addition, the station would be very close to the existing station at Harlington,
and two stations in such close proximity would severely affect capacity on the rail
network. Re-siting the existing station would inconvenience current users, whilst
upgrading the station to a parkway facility would route a considerable volume of
traffic through Harlington.
Proposals are currently being developed for a new station at Elstow, south of Bedford.
Although this station is intended to serve local passengers, it is recommended that the
design should be sufficiently flexible to enable expansion of the parking facilities at a
later date. This would allow the station to act as a strategic road-rail interchange
point.
From the railway operations perspective, it may be difficult to provide two additional
stations between Luton and Bedford, ie at both Harlington and Elstow. However,
when reviewing junction arrangements for the M1, and how these may impact on
access to the motorway service area at Toddington, the Highways Agency should
consider whether there are any opportunities to incorporate a connection to the rail
network.
In addition to the above recommendations, a number of schemes in the MML
corridor were considered as part of the strategy development but not pursued for
various reasons, namely:
•
extension of Thameslink services to Kettering or north thereof;
•
re-instatement of passenger services to Corby;
•
re-opening of the railway between Northampton and Wellingborough; and
•
re-opening of the railway between Luton and Leighton Buzzard via
Dunstable.
Each of the above schemes was modelled, but found to attract a very low
patronage for the reasons set out below.
•
An extension of Thameslink services to Kettering would result in considerably
slower journey times than the existing service currently offered by Midland
Mainline. Passengers requiring access from Kettering or north thereof to the
Thameslink network would therefore continue to use inter-city services and
change at Luton or St Pancras.
•
A shuttle service between Kettering and Corby is unlikely to provide an
improved service compared with the current bus service, in particular as the
bus can serve several different locations within Corby. Since the bus is
- 116 -
cheaper to operate, it is possible to provide a higher frequency service than
could be sustained by rail. Various patterns for a direct rail service to London
were also tested, but the patronage was found insufficient to sustain a high
frequency service. If a low frequency service to London is operated, the
majority of people from Corby will continue to travel to Kettering to take
advantage of the greater flexibility offered. Although it is appreciated that
there are benefits for regeneration offered by providing a railway station in
Corby, this clearly cannot be justified in economic terms. Forecasts from the
model suggested that even a frequent service would attract less than 30
passengers per hour at peak times. Hence, even if the economic activity in
Corby increased threefold, the rail demand would remain low.
•
The Northampton to Wellingborough service does not offer the same
opportunities for strategic connection as the Northampton to Bedford
service. In particular, passengers from the south would not use the MML to
access the WCML, since this would require travelling north to Wellingborough
and south to Northampton. As a result, passenger flows for a Northampton
to Wellingborough service were forecast to be only around 20% of those
achievable with the Northampton to Bedford service.
•
A strategic role for the disused Leighton Buzzard-Dunstable-Luton line, such
as providing Dunstable to London (via the MML) or Luton to Milton Keynes
(via the WCML) services, would be difficult to deliver because of engineering
complexities associated with connecting to the MML at Luton and a lack of
available paths on the WCML. The service was also tested as part of an
east-west rail link, but it was found that the more northerly scheme (discussed
in Section 9.2.7) would attract a significantly higher patronage. It appears,
therefore, that local passengers between Luton and Dunstable can be
better accommodated by the proposed Translink scheme, which will serve a
variety of locations in both Luton and Dunstable.
9.2.5
The Reference Case for the strategy development has assumed implementation of
Thameslink 2000 (which will replace most outer-suburban services) and some
additional trains to Leeds. The latter would provide a consistent half-hourly service
throughout the day.
It is envisaged that a further increase in the London to Leeds service to three trains
per hour will be required by 2031. In addition, it is recommended that the hourly
service between London and Newcastle should be strengthened to two trains per
hour, and the existing infrequent service between London and Hull should be
replaced by a regular hourly service (which should call additionally at Peterborough).
It is likewise predicted that local services, currently operated by West Anglia Great
Northern, will require an increase by 2031 (despite the investment in Thameslink 2000).
The following additional services are therefore proposed:
•
one train per hour in off-peak periods between Moorgate and Hertford
North;
- 117 -
•
one train per hour in off-peak periods between Moorgate and Welwyn
Garden City;
•
two additional trains per hour in peak periods between Moorgate and
Welwyn Garden City; and
•
two trains per hour extended from Welwyn Garden City to Stevenage
throughout the day.
capacity, two train paths per hour could be required during both peak and off-peak
periods.
•
widening the alignment between Huntingdon and Peterborough to have
four tracks rather than two (allowing separate tracks for inter-city and outer
suburban or freight trains); and
•
widening the alignment between Knebworth and Welwyn Garden City
(including the ‘Welwyn Viaduct’) to have four tracks rather than two
(allowing separate tracks for fast and slow trains).
It should be noted that for any significant benefits of these enhancements to be
gained, additional work will be required outside the Study Area. In particular, a major
increase in capacity at Kings Cross Station and through Finsbury Park Station will be
required. Alternatively, services could operate from Moorgate rather than Kings
Cross, but this would necessitate works to increase the capacity of the Moorgate
Branch. North of the Study Area, various junctions between Peterborough and York
should be remodelled to remove conflicting movements. These enhancements
outside the Study Area have not been included in the scheme costs.
Parkway stations could make a significant contribution to the ECML, in two respects:
•
intercepting the main parallel highway route into London, the A1(M),
thereby encouraging drivers to park and transfer to rail for the remainder of
their journey to London; and
•
providing a facility for drivers over a wide area to park and board trains to
Northern England and Scotland.
The extended journey times associated with providing an additional station are a
disadvantage of such parkway stations. It is therefore recommended that the
feasibility of expanding the existing station at Stevenage should be examined. A
significant increase in parking provision would be required, but also some expansion
of the station entrance, platforms and footbridge. However, Stevenage is an ideal
location for a parkway station since it is adjacent to the A1(M) and already served by
inter-city trains.
- 118 -
In addition, a parkway station is recommended at St Neots, which will become a
major transport hub at the intersection of the A1, the upgraded A421/A428, ECML,
and the Bedford – Cambridge – Stansted rail route.
9.2.6
The Reference Case for the strategy development has assumed no changes to the
service operated in 2001.
By 2031, it is expected that the following service enhancements will be required:
•
two additional trains per hour between Liverpool Street and Stansted Airport
throughout the day;
•
all services currently starting from or terminating at Bishops Stortford
extended to Stansted Airport; and
•
two additional trains per hour between Liverpool Street and Cambridge (one
fast and one slow) in off-peak periods.
In addition to the changes in service frequency, it is recommended that the length of
trains on certain services should be increased as follows:
•
fast and semi-fast services between Liverpool Street and Stansted Airport
should be operated by 12-car trains throughout the day; and
•
all services between Liverpool Street and Cambridge should be operated by
12-car trains during peak hours and 8-car trains at other times.
In addition to the growth in passenger services, some increase in freight traffic is also
forecast. By 2031, two train paths per hour during off-peak periods could be required,
in particular with the increasing importance of Ely and Kings Lynn.
•
widening the alignment between Tottenham Hale and Bishops Stortford to
have four tracks rather than two (allowing separate tracks for fast and slow
trains);
•
adding a second tunnel on the approach to Stansted Airport;
•
additional tracks and platforms at Cambridge Station and Ely Station; and
•
lengthening platforms at various stations between Bishops Stortford and
Cambridge to accommodate 12-car trains.
Despite these infrastructure improvements, the route between Liverpool Street and
Tottenham Hale via Hackney Downs will remain congested.
However, the
construction of Crossrail will vacate two tracks between Liverpool Street and Stratford.
It is therefore proposed to re-route fast trains to and from Cambridge and Stansted
- 119 -
Airport via Stratford and the little-used route between Stratford and Tottenham Hale,
which could be achieved with no adverse effect on journey times. This will provide
the additional benefits of allowing passengers from Cambridge and Stansted Airport
access to a large number of destinations by a single interchange at Stratford,
including:
•
the Docklands area, via the Docklands Light Railway or the Jubilee Line;
•
South East London, via the Docklands Light Railway or the Jubilee Line;
•
the West End, via the Central Line, Jubilee Line or Crossrail;
•
certain areas of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, via Crossrail;
•
East London and Essex via Great Eastern services or the Central Line; and
•
Kent, France and Belgium, via the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
It should be noted that, despite significant public pressure for the second tunnel to
Stansted Airport, there would be little benefit without investment elsewhere to provide
the necessary capacity on the WAML.
The need for a parkway station in the Cambridge area is recognised, although this
would be more local in catchment than the other parkway stations discussed. In
particular, such a station would help to reduce the parking and traffic problems
around Cambridge Station. The new station could be to the north or south of the
existing station, but in either case some additional track capacity may be necessary
to avoid reducing train frequencies or increasing journey times.
9.2.7
Bristol – Bedford – Cambridge – Stansted Service
A new route between Bristol and Stansted Airport is proposed, which will provide a
strategic east-west link through the Study Area. This would fulfil several strategic
functions:
•
connecting Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge with Oxford and Bristol,
and by means of a single interchange giving access to most of South West
England and South Wales;
•
providing access to Stansted Airport (and also Ipswich and Norwich) from
Bedford, Milton Keynes and Oxford;
•
strengthening the role of Bedford as a transport hub, in conjunction with the
proposed extension of Thameslink to Northampton;
•
improving access to Luton Airport by means of an interchange at Bedford;
•
improving services available for local commuters to Milton Keynes, Bedford
and Cambridge; and
•
connecting Winslow and Cambourne to the rail network.
- 120 -
The following paragraphs describe the route from west to east, and set out the
proposed service pattern. Additional advantages that the route could provide are
then discussed.
Bristol - Bicester
Thames Trains currently operates services between Bristol and Oxford and between
Oxford and Bicester (less than hourly in both cases), with some trains combined to
form a Bristol – Bicester service. It is proposed that these services should be absorbed
into longer-distance services on the Bristol – Stansted line.
A passenger service operated between Bicester and Bletchley until 1968, although
various parts of the route were used for freight after this date. The entire alignment
remains available, with some of the track intact.
It is proposed to re-open the entire route, including a station at Winslow. Whilst no
additional land will be required, it is likely that most of the track will need to be
replaced. Some other minor infrastructure works will also be required to restore the
route to a standard suitable for passenger services.
Bletchley and Milton Keynes
Through services between Oxford and Milton Keynes have been considered, but
there is unlikely to be sufficient capacity on the WCML between Bletchley and Milton
Keynes. In addition, the patronage generated by Milton Keynes is unlikely to be
sufficient to sustain frequent Oxford – Milton Keynes services, and diverting trains on
the through route to serve Milton Keynes would impose a significant journey time
penalty. It is therefore proposed to ‘market’ Bletchley as an alternative station to
Milton Keynes, perhaps branded as ‘Bletchley & Milton Keynes South’. In any case,
Milton Keynes Station is not conveniently located for a substantial proportion of the
local population and employees, and it is recommended that the network of bus
services from Bletchley Station should be strengthened to serve most areas of Milton
Keynes.
Bletchley – Bedford
Silverlink currently operates one train per hour between Bletchley and Bedford, calling
at all stations. It is proposed that this service should be absorbed into longer-distance
services on the Bristol – Stansted line. In addition, some minor infrastructure works will
be required to allow a proportion of trains to run non-stop between Bletchley and
Bedford.
Bedford - Cambridge
The original rail link between Bedford and Cambridge was severed in 1968. Several
studies have proposed restoring this connection, and the East-West Rail Consortium
has identified several possible alignments through which this could be achieved.
- 121 -
However, this Study recommends a unique approach to make maximum use of
existing transport corridors and to serve the growth areas in the corridor. The A421
between Bedford and St Neots and the A428 between St Neots and Cambridge are
recommended for upgrading to dual carriageway throughout, some sections as
Reference Case schemes and the remainder as part of the highway strategy. It is
therefore recommended to use the same corridor to accommodate a double-track
railway, thereby minimising both the financial and environmental impacts. Stations
should be included at St Neots and Cambourne. The former will provide an
interchange with the ECML, whilst the latter will mitigate two of the traffic problems
caused by the development at Cambourne:
•
commuters to Cambridge will be able to use the new service, as an
alternative to driving; and
•
commuters to London will be able to interchange at Cambridge or St Neots,
whereas residents of Cambourne are currently forced to drive to one of
these stations to access the rail network.
It should be noted, however, that this proposal will require further feasibility studies, in
particular to identify suitable alignments to access the existing railways at Bedford
and Cambridge. It may then be desirable to review scheme costs and benefits and
compare the economic evaluation with other routes proposed by the East-West Rail
Consortium.
South or East of Cambridge
No additional infrastructure would be required south or east of Cambridge, and
services could continue over existing lines to Stansted Airport, Ipswich or Norwich.
Service Proposals
The infrastructure requirements west of Bedford are comparatively small, and it is
envisaged that these could be accommodated within the 10-Year Plan. The following
‘interim’ service pattern is then recommended:
•
an hourly service between Bristol and Bedford, calling at principal stations
only; and
•
an hourly service between Oxford and Bedford, calling at all stations.
It is also recommended to form a connection with Chiltern Railways north of
Aylesbury, to enable existing services from Marylebone to Aylesbury to be extended
to Bletchley & Milton Keynes South. This would provide a direct link from parts of North
West London and Buckinghamshire to Milton Keynes. A simple interchange would
then provide connection with other WCML services, or with onward services to
Bedford, Cambridge and Stansted Airport. In view of the limited infrastructure works
required, it is envisaged that this service should also be implemented within the 10Year Plan.
- 122 -
At a later date concurrent with or shortly after completion of widening work on the
A428, the section between Bedford and Cambridge could be opened. The above
service pattern could then be replaced with the following:
•
an hourly service between Bristol and Stansted Airport, calling at principal
stations only; and
•
an hourly service between Oxford and Cambridge, calling at all stations,
with trains extended alternately to Ipswich or Norwich.
Typical journey times are shown in Table 9.3, with the corresponding peak period
times from the highway model shown in parentheses. In all cases, journeys facilitated
by the new rail link are quicker than those by road.
Table 9.3 Typical Journey Times Facilitated by Bristol – Stansted Route
Bristol
Oxford
Bletchley & Milton
Keynes South
Bedford
Cambridge
Stansted Airport
Bristol
Oxford
Bletchley &
Bedford Cambridge Stansted
Milton
Airport
Keynes South
118 (162)
138 (174)
175 (205)
203 (221)
43 (109)
63 (131)
100 (176)
128 (161)
0 (0)
75 (144)
75 (144)
0
118 (162)
43 (109)
0
20 (59)
57 (103)
85 (109)
138 (174)
175 (205)
203 (221)
63 (131)
100 (176)
128 (161)
20 (59)
57 (103)
85 (109)
0
37 (53)
65 (67)
37 (53)
0
28 (38)
65 (67)
28 (38)
0
Note: All journey times are in minutes
Forecasts from the model show a healthy patronage on this route. For example, in the
3-hour morning peak period in 2031, nearly 800 passengers are predicted to use
services from Cambourne into Cambridge, which is in excess of 150 passengers per
train. Similarly, around 1,000 passengers are forecast to use the section from St. Neots
to Bedford. Nearly 900 passengers are also predicted to use the section from
Bletchley & Milton Keynes South to Winslow, with around 50% of passengers
continuing to Oxford and the remainder using the Chiltern route into London. These
flows are considerably higher than on many existing branch lines, and are also
comparable with patronage on the Aylesbury section of the Chiltern Line.
Further calculations have suggested that over thirty years the revenue attributable to
the route would be around £200 million (after discounting).
In addition, a service between Stansted Airport and North East England is likely to be
required by 2031. It is proposed that this should also make use of the new tracks
rather than routing through Ely. The service will thus increase the range of destinations
accessible from Cambourne and St Neots, whilst taking advantage of the spare track
capacity available between Cambridge and St Neots. The route recommended is,
therefore, Sheffield – Nottingham – Grantham – Peterborough – St Neots – Cambridge
– Stansted Airport.
Additional Opportunities
A number of through services onto the various north-south routes have been
modelled, such as a Luton – Peterborough service, but patronage forecasts are
- 123 -
generally low. It is proposed, therefore, to concentrate services on the core east-west
route. If, however, an operator expresses an interest in additional through services,
capacity is likely to be available.
Moreover, the route provides connectivity between the principal north-south
corridors. In addition to the interchange opportunities this presents, it would be
possible to divert trains to an alternative route if an incident or engineering works
caused one of the corridors to be blocked. For example:
•
if the WCML were blocked south of Bletchley, trains from the West Midlands
and North West England could be diverted to run into London via Aylesbury
and the Chiltern Line or via Oxford and the Great Western Main Line;
•
if the MML were blocked south of Bedford, trains from Sheffield, Nottingham
and Derby could be diverted to run into London via Bletchley and the WCML
or via St Neots and the ECML; and
•
if the ECML were blocked south of St Neots, trains from North East England
and Scotland could be diverted to run into London via Bedford and the MML
or via Cambridge and the WAML.
It should be noted that all these options require that diesel locomotives are deployed
to power the trains on these non-electrified routes.
The above examples are equally applicable to both passenger and freight trains. In
addition, the route may provide new opportunities for freight to be carried by rail,
either on an east-west axis through the Study Area or in connection with industrial sites
close to the new sections of route.
9.2.8
Soft Measures
Modelling work undertaken as part of the Study has shown that there is a large modal
‘penalty’ associated with travel by public transport. Put simply, if the costs for a
particular journey were identical by car and public transport, the choice of mode
would not be 50:50 - a much higher proportion would use the car. It is important,
therefore, that there is a continuous process of improvement to overcome this
‘prejudice’ against public transport. The following ‘soft’ measures therefore need to
be seen as part of any overall strategy:
•
improved reliability;
•
greater confidence in safety and personal security;
•
improved punctuality;
•
real time information at all stations, and other locations such as town centres
and the internet;
•
improved on-train information;
•
clear signage at stations;
- 124 -
•
improved cleanliness on trains and stations;
•
improved waiting facilities at stations;
•
high quality toilet facilities at stations and on trains;
•
through ticketing with bus services, and greater ease of purchasing tickets;
and
•
improved access for mobility impaired passengers.
In all future year model runs (including the Reference Case), therefore, the mode
choice constants for public transport were adjusted to take account of the
implementation of these soft measures.
In addition to these measures, the success of the rail network in attracting passengers
is also attributable to the ease with which stations can be reached. This includes
factors such as:
•
the ease of finding a parking space; and
•
local bus service provision to and from the station.
It has been assumed that improvements in accessibility would be included in any
strategy, including the Reference Case. Therefore, in future year model runs, all
access times between zones and stations were halved to take account of such
improvements. The detailed implementation plan for these improvements at a local
level is beyond the scope of this study, with the exception of the parkway stations
discussed above.
9.3
Highway Strategy
9.3.1
Introduction
The conclusions from earlier testing work (section 8.5.2) suggested the following
rationale which should underpin any highway strategy:
•
the strategy should aim to improve connectivity between strategic corridors
in the Study Area, thus lending itself to area-wide management;
•
the strategy should reinforce network hierarchy and road function within this
overall hierarchy;
•
care must be taken to balance the different elements of the highway
network. In fact, balance is probably more important than the scale of
capacity required since it safeguards against generating increased traffic
demands and, hence problems, on other parts of the network where
previously none existed; and
- 125 -
•
the long-term strategy must protect investments made over the 30-year
period. In other words, a strategy which works at 2016, but deteriorates year
by year to 2031 must be buttressed by further measures.
A critical consideration in the highway testing work was the capacity assumption
regarding the M25. Given that the ORBIT team had not reached any conclusions at
the time that testing began in the LSM Study, the Study Team were required to
develop some robust assumptions. Testing work by the study team had concluded
that capacity equivalent to dual-4 lane standard would be required for the M25.
How it was to be provided, whether through widening of the motorway, or by the use
of advanced traffic management techniques (or any other approach) was not
considered further. However, the assumption was endorsed by the ORBIT study team
as a reasonable basis for developing the highway components of the LSM strategy.
9.3.2
Remitted Schemes
Three schemes were remitted to this Study from the Roads Programme:
•
M1 Junctions 6A-10;
•
A1(M) Junctions 6-8; and
•
A5 Dunstable Eastern Bypass.
M1 Corridor
As indicated in Chapter 4, the M1 is the dominant corridor in the Study Area, carrying
the bulk of the demand from London and the South-East to the Midlands and North.
The testing work for M1 was undertaken on the basis of resolving known problems and
then trying to optimise this solution.
The analysis of operational problems for the M1 demonstrated capacity problems
between Junctions 6A-13, with capacity problems also occurring on connecting
routes both east and west of the M1. Capacity problems were also evident on the
southbound section between junctions 15 and 14, but these were primarily
attributable to ‘backing-up’ of delays from traffic leaving the motorway at Junction
14. The strategy tests undertaken included tests at dual 4-lane, dual 5-lane and dual
6-lane provision for the section between junctions 6A and 13.
Testing of a dual 4-lane solution between 6A and 13 provided substantial relief but did
not completely meet the v/c criterion of being lower than 0.6 in 2031. Further
enhancement to dual 5-lane south of junction 10 produced only a modest increase in
flow but an improvement in congestion relief.
Improvements north of junction 13 in association with those to the south produced a
number of problems, not least increased flows resulting from transfers from rail and the
M40 corridor. The conclusion, therefore, was that the provision of additional capacity
in this section would provide relatively little relief and would give rise to undesirable
impacts.
- 126 -
A further round of testing identified dual-4 lanes between junction 6A and 13 as the
optimum provision given, critically, that the effective capacity of the M25 was also
dual-4 lane provision. It was acknowledged, however, that the additional capacity
would need to be complemented by other measures, such as ramp metering, to
control traffic flows on to the motorway at peak times during the later years of the
Study period.
A1/A1(M)
The specific scheme remitted to the Study for the A1/A1(M) corridor was between
Junctions 6 and 8. This section of road is dual 2-lane motorway standard whereas
sections north and south are dual 3-lane motorway standard. The alternative
capacity standards tested and their impacts are given below. In each case the
traffic increase is a marginal impact related to the previous test.
•
dual 3-lane standard Junctions 6 to 8 (this resulted in a 14% increase in traffic
in the corridor over the base position and introduced delays between
Junctions 8 and 10);
•
dual 3-lane standard Junctions 6 to 10 (this resulted in a 5% increase in traffic
in the corridor and introduced delays south of Junction 8);
•
dual 4-lane standard Junctions 1 to 10 (this resulted in a 6% increase and
introduced delays north of Junction 10);
•
dual 4-lane standard Junctions 1 to 10 and dual 3-lane standard to Junction
14 (this re-introduced congestion between Junctions 8 to 9);
•
as per the option above, but dual 5-lane standard Junctions 8 to 9.
The testing process revealed a classic response between capacity and demand,
indicating that as capacity was increased to overcome local congestion so it
attracted additional demand into the corridor. The additional demand drawn into
the corridor created problems on adjacent sections, which would require additional
capacity. This process repeated itself until the final option, where a mixture of dual 3,
4 and 5-lane standard was required in the A1/A1(M) corridor to satisfy the demand
for movement. Following this process through would lead to a very substantial
infrastructure provision in the corridor and the creation of a new strategic route,
which was inconsistent with current use of the corridor. This is the issue of balance
referred to earlier.
This also highlights the much more fundamental issue – what the role of the A1/A1(M)
should be. The choices were whether it should retain the role that it satisfies at the
current time, or whether it should become more strategic in nature.
The conclusion from the analysis was that, in strategic terms, the A1/A1(M) does not
satisfy a strategic long-distance function, but serves movement from its immediate
urban hinterland including Hatfield, Welwyn, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth and
Baldock. Given that fact, there is no case for considering the potential role of the
A1/A1(M) corridor to be more strategic than exists at the current time.
- 127 -
Such a conclusion, however, could assist the development of a solution between
Junction 6-8. Put succinctly, an increase in capacity to solve existing congestion
problems would be recommended if it did not, as a consequence, create problems
elsewhere in the corridor resulting from additional traffic.
Solutions which might achieve this include narrow lanes, full widening but with
reduced speed limits between Junctions 6-8 or, full-widening for Junctions 6-8 but with
reduced speeds and standards on adjacent sections. All those solutions would
provide additional capacity whilst minimising the potential to create problems
elsewhere in the corridor.
As a conclusion, therefore, it is recommended that capacity improvements between
junction 6-8 should only be provided as part of a comprehensive package which
downgrades the strategic role of the A1, thus allowing the development of local
design solutions to local problems. One specific element of the design solution which
could be given further consideration, if it can be achieved without creating safety
problems, would be to de-specialise and re-number the A1(M). The one exception to
this ‘safety-only’ consideration is with respect to the town of Sandy which suffers
significant environmental impacts as a result of the sub-standard alignment and
junction arrangements for the A1 in this vicinity. As such, a Sandy Bypass is
recommended which in its alignment also offers benefit to Beeston which suffers
similar environmental intrusion.
Further north, between Baldock and Brampton, there are a number of sections where
the current design of the route is sub-standard, and which have associated safety
problems. Local treatments only are recommended for these sections, but once
again seeking to avoid any significant reduction in travel times such that the route
becomes a strategic corridor, which would put much greater pressure on the
remaining sections.
An alternative to full widening and a compensating reduction in standards elsewhere
in the corridor would be to consider a more modest improvement between Junctions
6 and 8. Such a solution, for example, could include a climbing lane northbound
from Junction 6 to compensate, at least partially, the lane drop and simultaneous
increase in gradient on this section. This improvement could be complemented by
hard-shoulder running as part of an Active Traffic Management solution which would
only operate during peak periods.
The section of A1 between Brampton and Alconbury will experience higher levels of
traffic as a result of the recommendations for A14 emanating from CHUMMS. In
effect, traffic from A1 north to A14 east will now need to travel as far south as
Brampton before travelling east on the A14 towards Cambridge. Analysis of the
additional flow on this section of A1 between Brampton and Alconbury has
highlighted the need to improve this section of A1 to dual 3-lane all-purpose standard
to allow the CHUMMS recommended improvements to function at the required level
of service. It is uncertain whether such an improvement would in practice form part
of the CHUMMS recommendations or not. For the avoidance of doubt, it has been
assumed that this improvement will be implemented at or about the same time as the
A14 improvements between Huntingdon and Cambridge. It has therefore not been
included as part of the LSM strategy but is assumed to be a necessary part of the
- 128 -
CHUMMS strategy. The cost of this improvement is estimated at £39.94m at First
Quarter prices 2002.
A5, Dunstable
The A5 through Dunstable currently experiences significant congestion for much of
the day. Much of this emanates from serious congestion at the junction in the town
centre, where through movements, north-south and east-west, conflict with local
movements.
For a number of years there has been a proposal for a north-south bypass (the
Dunstable Eastern Bypass) passing through the urban area rather than truly bypassing
it. This solution, though welcomed by many, has been strongly opposed by some
sections of the local community, primarily on environmental grounds. As a result the
scheme did not enter the Targeted Programme of Improvements and was remitted to
this study.
An analysis of southbound traffic flows on the A5 to the north of Dunstable
demonstrated that, whereas some traffic wished to access the M1 at Junction 9,
around 30% actually wishes to travel in an easterly direction to Luton, and a further
15% beyond that to the A505 corridor.
Consequently, proposals have been tested for a connection from the A505/A5
junction, north of Houghton Regis to the widened dual 4-lane M1 at a new Junction
11A, to form a Dunstable Northern Bypass. It is assumed that this route would then be
continued as the Luton Northern Bypass to link up with the A6, and then on to link with
the A505 and Luton Eastern Corridor scheme.
Whilst the Dunstable Northern Bypass would remove the need for the Eastern Bypass,
it may still be beneficial to provide a new access to Dunstable town centre from the
north, following the line of the remitted scheme. This would need to be assessed in
greater detail by more local studies. Together, these schemes would remove a
considerable volume of the traffic from the A5, and allow better use of the section
through the centre of Dunstable by buses and pedestrians.
Detailed operational analysis of the Dunstable Bypass, together with a Luton Northern
Bypass identified dual 2-lane provision as being the most appropriate standard,
subject to further detailed local study.
The opening of the new Junction 11A would warrant the re-consideration of Junction
12 and access to the Toddington service area. This is a detailed operational issue for
the Highways Agency to address.
Elsewhere on the A5, an analysis of traffic in the vicinity of Towcester confirmed the
local nature of traffic movements and the absence of longer-distance strategic
traffic. Any interventions in the corridor are, therefore, in the context of improving
local traffic conditions and beyond the remit of this Study.
- 129 -
9.3.3
Other North-South Corridors
M11
The other major north-south corridor considered was the M11 between Cambridge
and the M25.
Analysis undertaken on the basis of the M1 and A1/A1(M)
improvements discussed earlier suggested operational problems between Junctions 8
and 9. This section of the M11 suffers particular pressures as a dual 2-lane section of
motorway for the following reasons:
•
it accommodates traffic from the A14 corridor west of Cambridge as well as
from the A11 and A14 east of Cambridge;
•
it serves traffic from all parts of Cambridge travelling south;
•
it is immediately adjacent to Stansted Airport and consequently carries
virtually all long-distance strategic traffic from the north.
As the M11/A14 corridor becomes increasingly competitive with the M1 for longdistance strategic movements, and as Stansted Airport continues to grow, so the
pressures on the M11 will increase. It is therefore a strong recommendation that the
M11 between Junctions 8 and 9 is widened to dual three-lane standard as a priority, if
possible within the 10-ar Plan period.
Further to the north, there is a strong case for widening between junctions 9 and 14,
although the operational problems are not nearly so acute. The reasons for widening
this section of motorway are as follows:
•
under the strategy, the M11 will be expected to play a more strategic role
than at the present day, becoming in effect a managed alternative to the
M1 at times of abnormally high demand, accidents or incidents. In these
circumstances consistent 3-lane standard therefore becomes more
important;
•
the operational performance of a dual 2-lane motorway can be severely
impaired when there is a significant proportion of HGVs, which require longer
overtaking distances. This is particularly relevant in rolling countryside;
•
the section between Junctions 9 and 14 is a distance of only 14 miles and
contains six junctions. Whilst some of the junctions are restricted movements,
there is still a considerable requirement for weaving movements over this
section;
•
the problems of maintenance become progressively more difficult as the
capacity of the motorway section is approached. Maintaining the effective
capacity of the network is a key objective of the strategy.
For the reasons given above, it is recommended that the M11 is widened to dual 3lane standard between Junctions 9 and 14. Given the timescales for widening the
A14 immediately to the north between Cambridge and Huntingdon, and the M11 to
- 130 -
the south (ie both within the 10-Year Plan period) it is recommended that work on this
section should commence as quickly as possible. However, given the scale of other
highway work being undertaken in the 10-Year Plan period and the need for careful
programming, it is acknowledged that improvements to M11 Junctions 9 to 14 would
fall outside this period.
Analysis of M11 south of Junction 8 demonstrated some queueing during peak
periods. This, however, was associated with constraints on the M25 and M11 south of
M25. The creation of additional capacity of M11 between Junctions 6 and 8 would
only exacerbate these problems. Conversely, the constraints on M25 and M11 south
would continue to restrict traffic flows reaching M11 north of M25, thus preventing it
from delivering the full benefit of any investment. No recommendation is therefore
made to increase the capacity of M11between Junction 6 and 8, although further
expansion of Stansted Airport will require this recommendation to be critically
reviewed.
A6, A10
The proposed improvements to strategic north-south corridors will provide significant
protection to other north-south routes such as A6 and A10 which will continue to
perform a sub-regional function. No significant increase in capacity is therefore
proposed for these routes which might alter their function within the existing hierarchy.
Local safety and minor improvement schemes, however, are supported subject to
the usual investment criteria being satisified.
9.3.4
East-West Corridors
A14
Analysis of the A14 corridor demonstrated that even by 2016 there would be some
need to increase capacity of the A14 in the vicinity of Kettering. At some point
between 2016 and 2031 this pressure for improvement would have extended to the
whole corridor between M1 Junction 19 and Huntingdon. Given the functions of this
route as the primary east-west corridor north of the M25, the need for a high quality
route with reliable and predictable journey times is of paramount importance.
It is also important to acknowledge that improvements to M1 Junction 19, in tandem
with improvements to the A14, create new opportunities for the Highways Agency to
manage long distance traffic on the strategic network between M1 Junction 19 and
M25 Junction 27 (junction with the M11). Thus it allows a greater degree of multirouteing between the West Midlands and points north with East London, Thames
Gateway, Kent, parts of Surrey and East Sussex and the Channel ports. Such multirouteing or the ability to divert long distance traffic would be invaluable at periods of
very high demand (eg Bank Holidays) or when accidents and incidents cause a
reduction in capacity for the M1.
The analysis confirms that widening the A14 to dual 3-lane standard is necessary if it is
to remain effective as the primary east-west route within the Study Area. The
standard of this section, whether motorway or all-purpose road cannot be finally
determined until the standard of A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon is fully
resolved. This vital improvement to the strategic network was recommended by
- 131 -
CHUMMS and endorsed by the Regional Planning Body and confirmed by the
Secretary of State. However, further work is underway to finalise the required
standard of the scheme and, for the sake of consistency, any decision on A14 west of
Huntingdon must await this resolution.
In principle, however, the following points can be made:
•
the standard of the route should be dual 3-lane throughout;
•
the incorporation of hard shoulders would be beneficial, both from the point
of view of maintenance and consistency of standard with the M6.
The timing of improvements to the A14 depends on the timing of the M1Junction 19
improvements and the Cambridge to Huntingdon improvements. Ideally, the
improvements to the A14 west of Huntingdon would be in a similar timescale.
However, resource planning work by the Study Team and by the Highways Agency
indicates that this may be difficult to achieve. Consequently, it is recommended that
the western section of the A14 is improved as soon as possible after the 10-Year Plan
period. Earlier problems on the section of A14 around Kettering will need to be
addressed through short term measures such as low cost junction improvements and
ramp metering.
In addition to the proposal west of Huntingdon, the analysis highlighted a short
section of A14 east of Cambridge Northern Bypass which required improvement to
overcome congestion. This section, between B1047 (Horningsea) and A11 would
create a consistent dual 3-lane standard between M1 and A11.
A421/A428
Analysis has demonstrated that, in part as a result of increasing congestion on the
M25, but also as a result of increased development and stronger east-west economic
linkages, the A421/A428 corridor will become progressively more important through
time for long-distance, east-west movements.
This longer-distance role, when considered in tandem with the increasing levels of
congestion, both east and west of the M1, highlighted the need for improvements in
this corridor. The conclusion from this testing work was that provision east of the M1,
as far as the M11, should be at a consistent dual 2-lane standard. West of the M1,
environmental constraints limited the options available for providing additional
capacity. The operational testing work and environmental assessments confirmed
that the existing A421 should continue to serve its current function with respect to
through movements. This would require some dualling of the A421 west of M1
Junction 13 from the junction to the existing section of dual carriageway. In the
longer term, further treatment of the many roundabout junctions on the existing A421
through Milton Keynes may be required to accommodate the higher volumes of
traffic.
The dualling of the A421, both east and west of M1 Junction 13, as well as widening of
the M1 immediately south of Junction 13, will create further pressures at the junction,
which is already over capacity at peak periods. Analysis of movements at this
junction highlighted the significant east-west movement on the A421, which does not
- 132 -
require access to the M1. Work by the HA’s framework consultants identified the
possibility of removing this traffic from the M1 junction by providing a new over-bridge
to the north of the junction. This can be achieved without the need for a new
Junction 13A, which had been suggested as an alternative, and the improvements to
Junction 13 are therefore recommended as part of the strategy.
The timing of scheme construction in this corridor would see improvements being
made first to the section of A421 immediately east of the M1. These improvements
would also require the new M1 Junction 13 arrangements to be in place at an early
stage, since the widening of M1 to this point would also be planned in the first few
years of the strategy implementation.
Work on the eastern end of the corridor, the A428 east of A1, would probably take
place just beyond the 10-Year Plan period. However, in order to demonstrate the
contribution of the full corridor improvements, it has been assumed for appraisal
purposes only that the entire upgrading of A421/A428 between M1 and M11 would
take place during the 10-Year Plan period.
Finally, it is assumed that A421 improvements west of the M1 would take place
beyond the 10-Year Plan.
A505
The other major east-west corridor considered for further capacity improvements was
the A505. Select link analysis showed that whilst this corridor does accommodate
some long distance movement, the majority of movements are bounded by the M1
and M11. In other words, they are predominantly sub-regional and local in nature.
The starting point for testing work was the assumption that the M1 would be improved
to dual 4-lane standard and that Dunstable Northern and Luton Northern Bypasses
would be constructed to dual 2-lane standard. The Reference Case network also
assumed a Baldock Bypass.
Testing was of an incremental nature, first to the west of the M1, connecting A418 to
A5; second, a Hitchin bypass and, third, a Letchworth bypass. The effect of all these
proposals was to provide improved operating conditions on the route but, crucially,
they did not change the function of the corridor in terms of long-distance
movements.
If, however, improvements were made to the east of Baldock, on the A507
connecting to Bishops Stortford and Stansted Airport, then this would dramatically
change the function of the corridor by attracting much longer distance traffic and
effectively creating a new strategic east-west route between the M1 and M11. This
route would relieve the M25 to some extent and begin to create a new strategic
‘outer-orbital’ route through an environmentally sensitive area.
The conclusion of this testing work confirmed the Dunstable and Luton Northern
Bypasses as dual 2-lane standard. Construction of the Hitchin and Letchworth
Bypasses, however, was dependent upon the view taken by Hertfordshire County
Council, but did not have a material impact on the scale of strategic long-distance
movements and is, therefore, not an issue for this Study. There was a strong view,
- 133 -
however, that improvements should not be made east of Baldock on the A507 since
this would attract long-distance, strategic traffic into the corridor. Initial tests using the
model showed that traffic on the A505 would increase by at least 15% virtually all of
which would be travelling the full length of this new corridor between M1 and M11.
To the west of the M1, there were very few strategic east-west trips and any proposed
improvements would, therefore, be a County matter.
Other Corridors
The role of other corridors was considered in the strategy development process and,
although they do not feature in the preferred strategy, the outcome of the analysis is
discussed below.
A43/A45
Analysis of this corridor highlighted its function in serving Northampton as well as a
wider inter-regional role. In this respect, although critical operational problems were
not identified, it was noted that the section of A45 between Thrapston and Stanwick
represents the only single-carriageway section on an otherwise continuous dualcarriageway route. It is recommended that more detailed study is undertaken to
identify whether this single-carriageway section forms a barrier to the potentially
wider role of the corridor or any emerging land-use proposals.
A414
The A414 is the southernmost east-west route in the Study Area. Its proximity to the
M25 and its identical orientation ensures that the M25 should, in principle, carry all
relevant strategic traffic. The A414 will inevitably carry some strategic traffic at times
when the M25 is heavily congested, but it is not suited to this function, linking to and
through a number of urban areas. Consequently, it is recommended that any future
enhancements of the A414 should be of a local nature, such that strategic traffic is
not drawn into the corridor.
9.3.5
Supporting Measures
Any highway strategy will need to be supported by measures to manage the network
more efficiently. In this respect, a particularly important role will be played by Active
Traffic Management (ATM). This is a technique designed to meet the following
objectives:
•
optimisation of safety and performance with increased throughput during
periods of peak demand;
•
reduction of delays and disruption during maintenance and incidents;
•
provision of improved driver information on network conditions, alternative
routes etc;
•
provision of more consistent journey times; and
- 134 -
•
reduction of fuel consumption and harmful emissions.
A number of regimes are being developed for ATM, which will allow the easy
management of many common situations. These regimes include:
•
variable speed limits, designed to avoid flow breakdown and increase
throughput;
•
ramp metering, to manage demand and avoid flow breakdown;
•
hard shoulder running, to increase throughput during peak periods and
during maintenance and incidents; and
•
lane marshalling by direction/vehicle type to optimise lane utilisation and
increase effective network capacity.
These regimes will be able to give additional capacity at peak times, intelligently use
the available capacity and help reduce the disruption caused by incidents and
maintenance. This will all be at a significant cost, but will allow maximisation of the
use of available road space without requiring much new build. The initial business
case undertaken to justify deployment on the M42 was positive and is therefore
justified in its own right. As it is an active management system it also enables network
operators to decide on the policy to be adopted and act accordingly (i.e. giving
priority, using lane marshalling etc, to some movements but not others, to reinforce
the strategic role of the corridor). Figure 9.1shows an example of how the on road
infrastructure for ATM might look.
Figure 9.1 Road Infrastructure For ATM
- 135 -
The technique involves the use of additional highway infrastructure, intelligent systems
and revised institutional practices in order to make best use of the road space
available.
Active Traffic Management will involve the use of electronic sign gantries at
approximately 500 m intervals. These gantries will be similar in appearance to the one
shown in Figure 9.2. On each signals gantry there will be over lane automatic
motorway indicators (AMI’s) and over lane text units. In addition, on each gantry,
there will be a variable message sign. This will be able to display both text and
pictograms.
Figure 9.2 Signals Gantry for ATM
In addition to the visible on-road infrastructure, there will also be comprehensive
automatic incident detection. This incident detection will reduce the time taken to
detect and deal with incidents. ATM will also facilitate the use of what is currently the
hard shoulder. In order to allow this lane to be used in certain conditions a number of
emergency refuge areas (ERAs) will be built. These ERAs will allow broken down
vehicles to clear the carriageway to allow hard shoulder running. It is likely that when
the ‘hard shoulder’ is in use, there will be a 50 mph speed restriction in place.
9.4
Bus Strategy
9.4.1
Introduction
The rationale behind the rail strategy was two-fold. First, there was a requirement to
continue serving those markets which rail serves best, namely inter-city centre to
centre and suburban to a strong centre. Second, the strategy sought to improve the
connectivity and, hence, flexibility of the system allowing it to act as a network rather
than separate corridors.
From this platform, the bus strategy rationale had three defining features:
•
to integrate with the rail strategy to provide the best possible public transport
service offer in competition to the private car;
- 136 -
•
to provide services in those corridors not well served by rail; and
•
to integrate with area-wide urban strategies and local bus service initiatives.
In specifying the rationale in this way, there is also an acknowledgement that bus
serves a number of niche markets, largely captive to that mode. An example
includes price sensitive, non-time critical services. It is expected that bus will continue
to serve these markets.
9.4.2
Integration with Rail Strategy
Maximising the public transport service offer is a key element of current transport
policy, at national, regional and local level. Analysis already presented has shown
the relatively sparse rail network in the Study Area and hence the need to widen its
appeal through integrated bus services. This improved offer therefore presents a
more competitive alternative to the private car and a greater level of accessibility to
those who do not have access to a car.
There are three areas frequently highlighted which are central to integration between
public transport modes; namely ticketing, interchange and information.
In the case of ticketing, there are already some train operating companies which
facilitate flat-fare add-ons to train ticket prices. In effect, this is both lowering the cost
of travel and simplifying the interchange process. According to transport theory,
there will always be some travellers who are on the margin of travel between two or
more modes. The flat-fare add-on will, therefore, result in some modal shift, although
the impact will generally be small. Further improvements, however, should be
pursued in terms of smartcard facilities between all TOCs and bus operators to simplify
the interchange process further.
Information is a further pivotal requirement of integration where bus and rail
timetables should each show how the connecting service integrates with the main
mode.
Finally, improved physical interchange between modes is an important building block
in the integration process. Thus, covered bus waiting areas in station forecourts with
good service information, signage and short walks to and from the platforms are
beneficial.
Whilst it is not possible to provide detailed recommendations on how these elements
can be implemented throughout the Study Area, a few examples can be
highlighted.
•
Bedford and Cambridge both have bus stations which are a considerable
distance from the railway stations, primarily because the railway stations are
at some distance from the town centre. In these circumstances, relocation
of the bus stations is impractical, but ensuring that the railway stations are
principal calling points for all services, would help to create a seamless
interchange.
- 137 -
•
Thameslink passengers to Luton are entitled to travel by bus to Dunstable at
no extra cost. However, this is poorly publicised, and anecdotal evidence
has shown that even some staff are not aware of the facility. This could be
marketed in a better way, which would also help to increase demand from
the Dunstable area in preparation for the implementation of Translink.
•
Stansted Airport is now served by many local and long-distance bus and
coach services, with the bus station very close to the railway station.
Integrated publicity and ticketing could strengthen Stansted’s role as a
transport hub, rather than simply an airport destination.
9.4.3
Services in Non-Rail Corridors
Graphical representation of bus services in the Study Area has shown that
proportionately there is a greater east-west component than for car and rail where
the dominant corridors of movement are north-south. To some extent, therefore, interurban bus is already capitalising on the lack of east-west rail-based public transport
services.
A number of new inter-urban bus services were tested. Potential routes were defined
by examining the highway matrices and identifying movements for which large
numbers of car trips were taking place. These movements were then reviewed
geographically and a series of bus services designed to cater for as many such
movements as possible. It was found, however, that new services could generally not
be justified, for a number of related reasons:
•
there are comparatively few origin-destination pairs which have a large
volume of people travelling and do not already have a bus or rail service;
•
in cases where new services were identified, people would only be
encouraged to use bus rather than car if the service is of a sufficiently high
frequency, including evening services;
•
even where there are significant inter-urban movements, the volumes
concerned are generally insufficient to provide a high frequency service;
•
the situation is exacerbated because most people live on the fringes of the
urban areas, and hence would need to drive or use a feeder bus to reach
the urban centre; and
•
including more than a few ‘fringe’ areas on inter-urban bus routes would
impose a severe journey time penalty, which in turn would further reduce the
attractiveness of the service compared with the private car.
Tables 9.4 and 9.5 show the number of bus trips terminating in major centres, during
the peak and off-peak periods respectively, for 2001 and 2016. In this case, the peak
period reflects the three hours between 0700 and 1000 hours and the off-peak period
the six hours between 1000 and 1600 hours.
There are two conclusions to be drawn from the numbers: first, that on an hourly basis,
they are small compared to total peak period movement into these areas; and,
- 138 -
second, they show only modest growth over the 15 year period, under Reference
Case assumptions.
Table 9.4 Bus Trips to Major Urban Areas - AM Peak Bus Trips
Trips to
2001
Northampton
558
Bedford
404
Cambridge
3,487
Hitchin
698
Luton
1,737
St Albans
1,215
Hemel Hempstead
247
Stevenage
496
Bishops Stortford
326
Corby
142
Kettering
272
Harlow
657
Table 9.5 Bus Trips to Major Urban Areas - Off Peak Bus Trips
Trips to
2001
Northampton
885
Bedford
338
Cambridge
5,058
Hitchin
884
Luton
3,034
St Albans
2,508
Hemel Hempstead
325
Stevenage
946
Bishops Stortford
479
Corby
294
Kettering
623
Harlow
1,045
2016
582
484
3,622
858
1,964
1,516
274
579
351
198
310
800
2016
910
390
5,262
1,072
3,415
3,076
364
1,106
504
410
736
1,288
If bus is to fulfil a larger role, therefore, efforts must be made to ensure that:
•
as far as possible, the various ‘soft’ measures (which have already been
listed for rail and are very similar for bus) are addressed to improve the
quality of the journey; and
•
the complementary urban measures are as supportive as possible to give
bus a relative advantage over the private car.
9.4.4
Integration with Area-Wide Urban Strategies
Improvements to inter-urban highway infrastructure may provide the opportunity for
inter-urban bus services to achieve improved journey times. However, it is unlikely that
any relative advantage would be achieved over the private car. Where bus routes
enter urban areas, however, there is an opportunity to achieve a relative advantage
through a number of initiatives, not least pricing (eg parking charges) and
infrastructure (eg bus lanes).
- 139 -
There is also the opportunity for new styles of interchange on the periphery of urban
areas, such as informal transport hubs where transfer from car to bus or from bus to
bus is made easier.
An example of this latter concept is the park-and-ride arrangements in Oxford where
the same parking area used for park-and-ride into Oxford can be used for ‘parkway’
style services from Oxford to London. The creation of this hub could have numerous
applications on the Study; for example, at urban areas adjacent to strategic corridors
such as Milton Keynes, Luton, Dunstable, Stevenage, Cambridge and so on for northsouth movements and Bedford for east-west movements.
9.4.5
Conclusions on the Bus Strategy
The discussion has highlighted that any improvement to the bus service offer will be
largely incremental in nature and probably outside the range of improvements for
which specific recommendations can be made. They include improving the quality
of the service through addressing ‘soft’ measures, improving integration with rail to
create a competitive offer and ensuring that bus is given every advantage in urban
areas relative to the private car.
- 140 -
10
Preferred Strategy
10.1
Introduction
The analysis presented in the previous chapters has identified the various stages in the
strategy development. The process itself was one of continuous refinement. In the
objective maximising tests (see Section 8.5), broad policy choices were considered.
Having identified the different outcomes from these choices, their strengths and
weaknesses, a much more specific set of tests was undertaken to resolve locational
problems on the highway and rail networks. When re-combined, the sum of these
individual measures, with some adjustment and amendment was refined into a Preferred
Strategy. This strategy itself is summarised below and a Framework Analysis used to
highlight the benefits accruing according to the Government’s five overarching
objectives.
Whilst the Framework has been designed specifically for the LSM Study, GOMMMS
requires an appraisal process that is consistent with all other land based transport studies.
This appraisal is given as Chapter 11 of this Report.
10.2
Summary of Preferred Strategy
The Preferred Strategy includes a number of interventions, as summarised below.
Policy
The strategy is based on an overarching policy which considers the role of all modes in
developing solutions to specific problems. In that respect the Study has assumed a
continuation of current Government policy insofar as it:
•
promotes the slow modes of walking and cycling for short distance intra-urban
trips and re-allocates road space accordingly in pursuit of this objective;
•
promotes public transport for all intra-urban movements, gives priority where this
is possible through re-allocation of road space and pursues a range of other
‘quality’ initiatives designed to make public transport more attractive;
•
continues to promote and support travel awareness campaigns and other ‘soft
measures’ to influence travel behaviour; and
•
pursues low cost engineering and safety measures across the highway network,
in pursuit of safety objectives or very localised congestion.
In the main, this continuation of policy could not be modelled explicitly, except for
changes in public transport accessibility, which were assumed to improve relative to car,
so that access times to rail stations reduced by half.
Technology
The development of technology is really beyond the scope of this Study, but the Strategy
nevertheless assumes and supports technology that will make best use of existing
infrastructure.
- 141 -
This includes:
•
continuing development of Intelligent Transport Systems, such as Active Traffic
Management, variable message signs and ramp access controls, which will
allow the network to be managed more efficiently and effectively;
•
continuing development of information systems which will assist users to make
optimal choices before setting out on a journey or even during a journey; and
•
continuing development of techniques and processes to reduce emissions and
improve safety for cars, buses and rail.
One area of work which is definitely beyond the scope of the Study, but which offers
enormous scope is in the development of an electronic vehicle registration identifier
other than the current paper tax disk. This would have immediate benefits in terms of
data collection, as well as for enforcement purposes. In the longer term, it could also
have a pivotal role in the development of road user charging regimes.
Pricing
The strategy thus far has considered pricing only to the extent that fares and car
operating costs were viewed as part of the objective maximising tests (see Section 8.5) to
understand their possible influence on overall levels of demand and modal share.
A further set of tests have also been run for different levels of road user charging to
understand the extent to which this mechanism for restraint could buttress the
infrastructure improvements, thus allowing the benefits from such investment to be
enjoyed over a much longer period of time.
In support of an objective that the benefits from new infrastructure must be protected
from erosion, the strong recommendation from the Study Team is that comprehensive,
area wide, road user charging should be implemented approximately half way through
the Study period. This will follow the major highway investment designed to reduce
congestion on the strategic network and create a much better balance, through a more
consistent level of service.
Infrastructure
The main emphasis of the strategy development work has been to assess and appraise
the need for new infrastructure. The results of this work are summarised in Figure 10.1 and
Table 10.1.
- 142 -
Figure 10.1
Preferred Strategy
- 143 -
Table 10.1 Proposed Infrastructure Improvements
Corridor
Rail
Section
WCML/MML/M1
Road
Recommendation
Section
Recommendation
M1 Junctions 6A-13
Dunstable Northern Bypass
Thameslink
M1 Junction 12
Closure
M1 Junction 13
Re-modelling to separate eastwest movement from that gaining
access to/egress from the M1
A1, Brampton-Alconbury1
A1, Junction 6-82
and associated ATM.
Bedford Station
4 tracks throughout or equivalent
capacity
Re-model, including
ECML/A1/A1(M)
WAML/M11
capacity
capacity
Kings Cross and Finsbury Park area
and north of Peterborough
necessary
capacity
M11 Junctions 8-9
Stansted Airport
Additional tunnel
M11 Junctions 9-14
Cambridge Station and Ely Station
Additional platforms and tracks
- 144 -
A14
A421/A428
Re-open rail link
New link
B1047-A11
A421 from M1 to Bedford Bypass
A428 east of A1 to Caxton Gibbet
Dual 2-lane standard plus off-line
improvement to Dual 2-lane
standard
Note:
1.
2.
Although improved capacity for the Brampton-Alconbury section of A1 is recommended, it has not been taken forward formally in the appraisal
process. This is because it is seen as an integral improvement required to make A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon scheme function
properly (ie it is associated with the CHUMMS Scheme rather than the LSM Strategy).
Given that any substantive improvement to A1 Junctions 6-8 is conditional upon other changes in the corridor, no scheme has been included in
the formal appraisal process.
- 145 -
10.2.1
Framework Analysis
The Framework Appraisal of the Preferred Strategy against the Reference Case is
given in Table 10.2 for the year 2016 and in Table 10.3 for the year 2031. This analysis
should not be seen as a formal appraisal of the strategy – that is provided as Chapter
11 of this Report. It should instead be seen as an audit that the strategy is delivering
the key benefits which are at the heart of Government’s National Transport Strategy
and 10-Year Plan.
It should be noted that for both years, the main difference between the strategy and
the Reference Case is represented by new infrastructure. Other considerations from
Section 9.2.8 (ie technology or soft measures) have not been modelled explicitly but
have been assumed to remain unchanged between the Reference Case and
Strategy.
At neither year has the strategy been buttressed by a road user charge. This is dealt
with in Section 10.6.
Table 10.2 presents the Framework Analysis for the full strategy against the 2016
Reference Case. A summary of the conclusions follows.
•
Environment; there is an overall reduction of about 1% in car person-km. and
2% in HGV-km. as a result of the strategy.
•
Accessibility; accessibility by all modes is improved whether for personrelated or employment-related purposes for trips originating in the Study
Area. Similar benefits are enjoyed for virtually all through movements.
•
Safety; again the strategy delivers major safety benefits with a reduction of
traffic on all classes of road in the Study Area and the biggest reduction
occurring in those roads with the highest accident rates.
•
Integration; all integration objectives are improved by the strategy.
Integration between modes is improved through better access to both major
airports by all modes; integration with social policy improves through better
access to jobs in relatively deprived areas; land-use policy is also reinforced
and integration with economic and regeneration policy is improved through
better access to jobs for those not having a car.
•
Economy; the key economy indicators all improve; average speeds across
the highway network improve and access to the major economic centres
improves by almost all modes to all centres.
As a summary conclusion, the full strategy delivers a range of benefits against all five
of the Government’s overarching objectives. Where there is a disbenefit against the
Reference Case, this tends to be very small.
- 146 -
Table 10.2 Framework Analysis 2016; Preferred Strategy Versus Reference Case
Base = 2016 Ref Case
Test = 2016 Strategy
2016 Ref Case vs Strategy
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
6,656,781
6,648,704
-8,077
1.00
151,338,896
150,558,159
-780,737
0.99
19,049,814
18,687,642
-362,172
0.98
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
794.61
221.88
136.02
796.39
258.00
146.16
1.78
36.13
10.14
1.00
1.16
1.07
Car
Rail
Bus
224.39
59.00
41.51
224.57
68.96
43.22
0.18
9.97
1.71
1.00
1.17
1.04
Car
Public Transport
1,953
1,027
1,947
967
-7
-60
1.00
0.94
Car
Public Transport
2,180
1,233
2,187
1,213
7
-20
1.00
0.98
Car
Public Transport
2,293
1,380
2,307
1,353
13
-27
1.01
0.98
Car
Public Transport
1,760
4,280
1,760
3,947
0
-333
1.00
0.92
Car
Public Transport
2,513
5,033
2,500
4,693
-13
-340
0.99
0.93
Car
Public Transport
2,653
5,913
2,627
5,480
-27
-433
0.99
0.93
Car
Public Transport
2,953
6,507
2,927
5,840
-27
-667
0.99
0.90
Car
Public Transport
3,260
5,967
3,213
5,273
-47
-693
0.99
0.88
- 147 -
SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
6,656,781
6,648,704
-8,077
1.00
151,338,896
150,558,159
-780,737
0.99
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
192300075
269732394
21836201
13591015
190040486
268148553
21352772
12384617
-2259589
-1583841
-483429
-1206398
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.91
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
38.66
54.22
4.39
2.73
38.63
54.51
4.34
2.52
-0.02
0.29
-0.05
-0.21
1.00
1.01
0.99
0.92
Rail
73.60
72.59
-1.01
0.99
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
26.54
6.54
8.00
27.09
7.61
8.55
0.55
1.07
0.55
1.02
1.16
1.07
Car
Rail
Bus
77.44
11.44
5.61
77.63
13.48
6.06
0.19
2.04
0.45
1.00
1.18
1.08
Car
Rail
Bus
25.00
1.94
2.03
25.02
2.30
2.12
0.02
0.36
0.09
1.00
1.19
1.04
Car
Rail
Bus
24.77
3.65
3.44
25.94
4.16
3.62
1.17
0.52
0.18
1.05
1.14
1.05
Car
Rail
Bus
19.37
4.10
2.14
19.28
4.61
2.25
-0.09
0.52
0.11
1.00
1.13
1.05
151,338,896
150,558,159
-780,737
0.99
59.00
41.51
68.96
43.22
9.97
1.71
1.17
1.04
Rail
Bus
- 148 -
ECONOMY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Average Speed:
59.98
60.45
0.48
1.01
Rail
73.60
72.59
-1.01
0.99
Car
Rail
Bus
27.22
20.09
7.29
27.67
21.77
7.71
0.45
1.68
0.42
1.02
1.08
1.06
Car
Rail
Bus
17.40
15.10
5.93
17.43
16.75
6.25
0.03
1.65
0.32
1.00
1.11
1.05
Car
Rail
Bus
33.86
13.80
4.41
34.15
15.45
4.67
0.29
1.65
0.26
1.01
1.12
1.06
Car
Rail
Bus
42.44
18.99
7.35
42.96
20.61
7.65
0.52
1.62
0.29
1.01
1.09
1.04
Car
Rail
Bus
28.87
14.58
5.64
28.84
16.23
5.96
-0.03
1.65
0.32
1.00
1.11
1.06
Car
Rail
Bus
56.08
16.23
6.22
55.40
19.93
6.58
-0.68
3.69
0.36
0.99
1.23
1.06
Car
Rail
Bus
84.50
21.32
6.54
84.60
23.33
6.90
0.10
2.01
0.36
1.00
1.09
1.05
Car
Rail
Bus
33.96
23.30
7.81
34.28
24.66
8.16
0.32
1.36
0.36
1.01
1.06
1.05
Car
Rail
Bus
37.52
18.92
5.25
37.94
20.12
5.44
0.42
1.20
0.19
1.01
1.06
1.04
- 149 -
Table 10.3 Framework Analysis 2031; Preferred Strategy Versus Reference Case
•
2031 Scen A Ref Case vs Strategy
Base = 2031 Scen A Ref Case
Test = 2031 Scen A Strategy
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
8,175,722
8,162,752
-12,970
1.00
195,200,396
194,305,518
-894,878
1.00
26,457,840
24,912,180
-1,545,660
0.94
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
565.85
188.38
102.80
573.79
197.59
102.88
7.94
9.21
0.08
1.01
1.05
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
139.22
49.08
27.13
140.58
51.38
27.04
1.36
2.30
-0.08
1.01
1.05
1.00
Car
Public Transport
2,445
1,300
2,455
1,255
9
-45
1.00
0.97
Car
Public Transport
2,736
1,564
2,727
1,573
-9
9
1.00
1.01
Car
Public Transport
2,873
1,764
2,855
1,764
-18
0
0.99
1.00
Car
Public Transport
2,200
4,473
2,236
4,418
36
-55
1.02
0.99
Car
Public Transport
3,118
5,318
3,091
5,309
-27
-9
0.99
1.00
Car
Public Transport
3,300
6,355
3,273
6,291
-27
-64
0.99
0.99
Car
Public Transport
3,736
7,018
3,755
6,718
18
-300
1.00
0.96
Car
Public Transport
4,418
6,427
4,445
6,064
27
-364
1.01
0.94
- 150 -
SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
8,175,722
8,162,752
-12,970
1.00
195,200,396
194,305,518
-894,878
1.00
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
245325605
336987912
28938046
17572097
236479220
330669981
28180512
16036971
-8846385
-6317931
-757534
-1535126
0.96
0.98
0.97
0.91
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
39.01
53.59
4.60
2.79
38.68
54.09
4.61
2.62
-0.33
0.50
0.01
-0.17
0.99
1.01
1.00
0.94
Rail
61.02
58.81
-2.21
0.96
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
15.78
5.63
5.98
16.29
5.90
6.00
0.51
0.27
0.02
1.03
1.05
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
61.82
9.21
4.27
62.03
9.94
4.29
0.22
0.73
0.02
1.00
1.08
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
20.03
1.56
1.34
19.97
1.68
1.33
-0.06
0.12
-0.01
1.00
1.08
0.99
Car
Rail
Bus
13.71
2.82
2.26
15.28
2.93
2.26
1.57
0.11
0.00
1.11
1.04
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
7.62
3.06
1.43
7.64
3.18
1.37
0.01
0.12
-0.06
1.00
1.04
0.96
195,200,396
194,305,518
-894,878
1.00
49.08
27.13
51.38
27.04
2.30
-0.08
1.05
1.00
Rail
Bus
- 151 -
ECONOMY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Average Speed:
52.50
53.20
0.70
1.01
Rail
61.02
58.81
-2.21
0.96
Car
Rail
Bus
17.64
14.19
5.25
18.15
14.78
5.27
0.51
0.59
0.02
1.03
1.04
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
11.56
10.88
4.23
11.35
11.58
4.08
-0.22
0.71
-0.16
0.98
1.06
0.96
Car
Rail
Bus
21.60
9.74
2.78
22.11
10.54
2.76
0.51
0.80
-0.02
1.02
1.08
0.99
Car
Rail
Bus
27.13
13.48
5.15
27.79
14.05
5.14
0.67
0.57
-0.02
1.02
1.04
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
21.40
10.62
4.16
21.58
11.29
4.16
0.18
0.67
0.00
1.01
1.06
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
39.32
11.60
4.35
39.14
13.76
4.43
-0.18
2.16
0.08
1.00
1.19
1.02
Car
Rail
Bus
56.06
15.27
4.68
55.49
16.05
4.66
-0.57
0.78
-0.02
0.99
1.05
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
21.74
16.68
5.57
22.27
16.90
5.51
0.53
0.22
-0.06
1.02
1.01
0.99
Car
Rail
Bus
26.30
13.52
3.55
26.60
13.80
3.55
0.29
0.27
0.00
1.01
1.02
1.00
- 152 -
Table 10.3 presents a similar Framework Analysis for 2031 which compares the full
strategy against the Reference Case at 2031 levels of demand. The results can be
summarised as follows.
•
Environment; the small reductions in travel as expressed in car person-kms
and HGV-kms support this objective.
•
Accessibility; accessibility within the Study Area is improved for both indices
and for all modes, with the exception of bus access to employment. In terms
of through movements, there is a general improvement on all axes but some
occasions where the cost of travel increases. Whilst showing a net benefit
therefore, satisfying this objective does not perform as well as at 2016 levels.
•
Safety; the reduction in traffic on all road types is a clear benefit from a
safety perspective as is the reduction in the proportion of time spent in
overcrowded rail conditions. A minor concern, however, is that motorways
carry a slightly smaller proportion of total traffic volumes than in the
Reference Case.
•
Integration; all the integration objectives are improved by the strategy at
2031 with the exception of trips made by bus which show a slight
deterioration.
•
Economy; again the indicators generally support this objective but with bus
consistently showing a slight disbenefit.
The results from the Framework Analysis demonstrate that the strategy performs very
well against each of the Government’s overarching objectives at 2016 levels of
demand. Whilst it still performs well at 2031 against a Reference Case for the same
year, the performance is not as overwhelmingly beneficial as for the earlier year. The
conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that at the higher levels of demand in the later
forecast year the strategy benefits start to be eroded and locational problems reappear.
Appendix I summarises the Framework Appraisals for the strategy against the
economic/land-use Scenarios B and C. The results, though not exactly identical to
Scenario A, are very similar thus demonstrating that the strategy performs consistently
against a range of uncertain economic outcomes in the Study Area.
The strategy developed has not been able to accommodate the full range of
possible outcomes which could emanate from other concurrent studies, such as to
those relating to a possible High Speed line, Central Railway or major increases in
airport capacity. However, some consideration has been given as to how the
strategy could accommodate such uncertainties and this is discussed in Chapter 12.
- 153 -
10.3
Freight Strategy
10.3.1
Railways
The freight strategy has a number of discrete rail components which are discussed
below.
East-West Rail Link Cambridge to Oxford
This is primarily a passenger project. It is not of significant benefit to rail freight
because the volume of freight moving along this axis is relatively low. However, the
corridor may be of use both for east–west movements and also to allow freight trains
to divert between the various north–south main lines, potentially improving capacity
and reliability.
To achieve this the proposals for the line must provide capacity for freight trains, and
allow the route to access main lines in both directions where they are crossed.
Further Gauge Enhancement
Where possible all key corridors in the Study Area should be enhanced to W12 gauge
to allow 9’6” containers to be carried. The case for further gauge enhancement is
difficult to make because the investment required is likely to be much higher than for
W12.
Capacity Provision
The Reference Case upgrade of the WCML would provide adequate capacity to
meet the10-year forecast of rail freight growth, particularly if Felixstowe traffic is
diverted away from London. Beyond this, if rail freight traffic is to continue to grow,
further north-south capacity must be provided. This issue is fully addressed by the
capacity improvements recommended by this Study, which will provide high quality
freight paths on all of the main north-south lines adequate to meet forecast freight
demand throughout the Study period.
Service Improvement
Providing adequate capacity and gauge is not enough to ensure that significant
volumes of freight transfer to rail. Journey times need to be reduced and reliability
improved. A major cause of poor service quality is the lack of alternative freight
routes or paths. Investment in new east-west routes, gauge enhancement, and
improved capacity on north-south routes will substantially address these issues and
underpin the continued growth of rail freight in the Study Area.
Terminal Development
New intermodal terminals are required around London to achieve the forecast
growth in rail freight. Currently, little if any genuine domestic intermodal traffic (e.g.
not related to ports or the Channel Tunnel) moves to or from London. Forecasts for
this study using the SRA Freight Demand Model suggest that by 2010 there could be
- 154 -
demand for over 10 trains per day to and from London for this type of traffic, plus a
further 4 trains per day to serve Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Bedfordshire.
There is also potential for growth in intermodal traffic to and from deep sea ports such
as Southampton and Felixstowe. Currently rail services between these ports and
London are only marginally viable, but by 2010 it is forecast that demand could
increase to 18 trains per day from the current 2 or 3. This would offer further
opportunities for an intermodal terminal serving the M25 and the southern part of the
Study Area.
Ideally, London terminals should be located near to the M25, rather than in Central
London, and should be on a main line. There are very few such locations available
for development in or near to the Study Area. One option would be to develop on
green belt land, for instance where the M25 crosses the WCML, but this is unlikely to
be politically acceptable.
A suitable site is available at Radlett, although significant investment would be
required to improve both road and rail access.
Rail-Connected Warehouses
Currently all freight movements to and from the huge retail distribution centres in the
Study Area must take place by road. There is probably limited or no potential for rail
freight to participate in making deliveries from these centres to the stores that they
serve, as these are almost always within 100 miles and never served by rail.
However, rail can play a role in the inbound movement of goods from suppliers, and
potentially in the movement of products between distribution centres in different
regions. Very little of this traffic currently moves by rail – although the Malcolm
distribution service from DIRFT to Scotland shows that rail can compete over longer
distances for retail sector goods. Much more could and would move by rail if the
distribution centres were directly served by rail.
Within the Study Area new rail-connected warehouses must be developed wherever
possible, and non-rail-connected distribution development should be discouraged.
Fortunately, many suitable sites exist including:
•
Northampton (Brackmills);
•
Kettering;
•
Wellingborough;
•
Corby;
•
Burton Latimer; and
•
Alconbury.
- 155 -
The proposed major development associated with the airfield at Alconbury would
appear to support the objectives of the Study by offering rail freight access, and by
developing a new focus for retail distribution centres away from the M1.
Local Intermodal Terminals
Some parts of the Study Area do not have easy access to intermodal interchanges,
with only DIRFT in the North and Willesden in the South serving the Study Area. While
demand from other areas is likely to be limited, small intermodal terminals and
associated rail-connected warehousing could be developed at strategic locations
such as Peterborough, Cambridge, or Milton Keynes.
10.3.2
Road
Within the Study Area, the dominant corridor for road freight is the M1, and its
importance is only likely to increase over time with the rapid growth of international
trade, and as more companies locate their distribution facilities in the area. Widening
of the M1 will improve access to London and the South East from the distribution
centres in the north of the Study Area, as well as improving conditions for strategic
road freight traffic.
Improvements to the M1/A14 junction, the A14, and the M11 will provide a highquality alternative route to the M1/M25 for traffic between the Midlands, Thames
Gateway and the Channel. If the improvement of the A14 incorporates hard
shoulders, it will reduce delay through disruption on this key route to the Haven ports.
Road freight users will also benefit from improved information and signage. If this is
linked into hauliers’ communication systems it will allow real time decisions to be
made to avoid disruption.
Distance Based Charging for Goods Vehicles
The Government intends to introduce Distance Based Charging (DBC) for goods
vehicles by 2005/6. The cost of the new charges will be offset, for UK hauliers, by
reductions in taxation. The overall impact on the volume of road freight moved is
unlikely to be significant, but for very long-distance traffic the scheme will result in
some transfer of freight from road to rail.
There may be the potential to vary the DBC rate according to the time of day or type
of road used. The Study recommends that the use of this mechanism to encourage
goods vehicles to travel at night should be explored.
Freight Priority
The Study has explored opportunities to give priority to heavy goods vehicle
movements, particularly during busy times of the day. In general the benefits of these
schemes were not considered to outweigh the disadvantages and complexity of
their operation. However, provision of freight priority at specific motorway junctions
handling very high volumes of freight should be given further, detailed consideration.
Example locations are Junctions 15 and 13 of M1. Systems meeting this requirement
might include the provision of freight gates, or goods vehicle filters on roundabouts.
- 156 -
10.3.3
Management and Policy
Load Utilisation and Freight Management
The Study forecasts of road freight traffic assume no improvement and no worsening
of load utilisation for freight vehicles. Any improvement in the volume of freight
carried by each vehicle would make a contribution to reducing traffic in the Study
Area.
The freight industry has clearly put forward a view that load utilisation will improve
over time as a result of competitive pressure to reduce costs. However, there are
actions which could be taken to accelerate this process including fiscal actions or
collaborative actions.
The Study recommends that Freight Quality Partnerships in the Study Area set targets
for improved load utilisation. In addition, a Freight Forum should be created covering
the Study Area and focus particularly on the retail distribution sector. The Forum
should work closely with Freight Quality Partnerships to spread best practice in load
sharing, back loading, and load utilisation.
Freight Restrictions and Curfews
Presently restrictions and curfews are the responsibility of Local Authorities, and
restrictions reflect local needs. Restrictions have been built up in a non coordinated
way over many years. There is an opportunity to coordinate restrictions across the
Study Area and in Central London with the objective of improving the efficiency of
distribution and encouraging the movement of long-distance freight by night, whilst
still minimising the impact of freight deliveries in communities.
10.4
Operational Analysis
It is also clear that operationally, the highway network will not be capable of
returning to current levels of performance given the high levels of traffic increase
forecast over the 30-year period.
Figure 10.2 summarises the operational
performance of the highway network at 2031. For this analysis a critical v/c ratio of
0.8 has been used for the full 3-hour peak period which assumes some peak
spreading in response to increased traffic volumes at the forecast year relative to the
Base Year. The plot shows that demand exceeds this critical v/c ratio for much of the
strategic network. Thus, whilst the strategy has delivered undoubted benefits against
the Government’s five objectives, it is nevertheless clear that further work must be
done to ensure that the investment can deliver operational benefits for most hours of
the year on the strategic highway network.
The two measures seen to offer most potential in this respect are Active Traffic
Management and road user charging and these are discussed below.
- 157 -
Figure 10.2 Highway Congestion 2031 with Preferred Strategy
- 158 -
10.5
Active Traffic Management
It is assumed that, in the longer term, increasingly sophisticated and responsive
regimes will be adopted for the day-to-day management of the highway network.
As stated in Section 9.3.5, one such regime is Active Traffic Management which is
currently being developed and refined for wider application on the strategic
network. It is assumed that such a technique will be used judiciously and, subject to
the usual investment criteria, to tackle problems of particularly high demand where a
flexible approach is required.
The underlying proposition for ATM is that it can increase traffic throughput by
managing the traffic demand more effectively. There is insufficient data yet to draw
any conclusion on the scale of effective capacity increase which can be delivered
but best estimates suggest a figure in the region of 10% - 20%.
Given this range of improvement and delivery for some peak spreading, Figure 10.3
shows the operating conditions on the highway network at 2031 under Scenario A,
assuming an effective capacity increase of 20%.
10.6
Road User Charging
Road user charging is currently not a part of Government policy and even if policy
were to change, it could not be adopted with full functionality within the short term
for various legal, institutional and technical reasons as well as for reasons of public
acceptability. Nevertheless, road user charging does offer a mechanism for:
•
Reducing overall levels of traffic growth;
•
Encouraging a shift from private to public transport; and
•
Effectively targeting congestion (depending to an extent on the particular
technique used).
All of these outcomes sit very comfortably within Government’s policy framework
even if the principle itself has not been adopted. Equally, the revenue from such a
policy could either create new, additional, revenue streams to accelerate
improvements in transport provision or, as a revenue-neutral outcome, allow some rebasing of current fiscal measures related to transport.
The debate on road user charging, the form it could take, the precise charging
mechanisms and the possible implications for existing fiscal measures are all beyond
the scope of this Study. Nevertheless, it is incumbent to highlight the benefits such a
policy could deliver. To this end the transport model has been run assuming a charge
of 10p/km which appears to be widely accepted as a reasonable starting point for
optimising the charging regime.
- 159 -
Figure 10.3 Highway Congestion at 2031: Preferred Strategy with Active Traffic
Management
Strategy (top) and Active Traffic Management (bottom) – effect of a 20% capacity increase
.
- 160 -
The outcome from that work has been to show considerable operational benefits at
2031 for the highway network through trip suppression (Figure 10.4) and modal shift
towards public transport.
Figure 10.4
Highway Congestion at 2031: Preferred Strategy with Road User
Charging But No ATM
Strategy (top) and Road User Charging (bottom) – assuming a charge of 10p/km.
- 161 -
Given these strategic benefits, the Study recommends that road user charging should
form an integral part of the strategy at approximately the mid-way point of the Study
period to safeguard the infrastructure investments. However the strategy is not
critically dependent upon user charging from a highway capacity viewpoint,
provided that additional capacity can be achieved through comprehensive
application of Active Traffic Management. Nevertheless, road user charging offers a
rational basis for tackling congestion, giving significant benefits not achievable
through other mechanisms. It is also extremely flexible, in its most sophisticated form,
allowing price variation by vehicle type and level of congestion (or time of day and
road type as proxies for this). For these reasons it is strongly supported as a pivotal
component of the strategy after about 2016 when much of the highway investment
has taken place.
If both these recommendations, road user charging and Active Traffic Management,
are accepted, then a key issue will be to ensure that the technology will allow a
transition from one to another as the primary means of bringing traffic volume and
highway capacity into balance. Equally, the technology must allow both regimes to
function in tandem since this will possibly be required at times of accidents, incidents
or extreme traffic demands.
- 162 -
11
Appraisal of the Preferred Strategy
11.1
Introduction
This Chapter of the Report sets out the key findings of the strategy appraisal. A more detailed
Study report (the Options Appraisal Report) sets out the findings by corridor and, where
appropriate, by scheme. This division of reporting is considered appropriate because of the
mass of information to be reported. Nevertheless, the principles of the whole process are
discussed in this Chapter.
Earlier Chapters described the strategy development process, starting with a ‘coarse sift’,
through a set of objective maximising tests, separate highway and public transport analyses
and finally a re-combined and refined strategy. This led to the development of a Preferred
Strategy which sought to maximise the benefits represented by the Government’s objectives.
For the early stages of strategy development, a Framework Appraisal was developed, in line
with the principles set out in GOMMMS, so that options could be considered against each of
the Government’s objectives without the need for detailed analysis (see Tables 10.2 and
10.3). In this way, it was possible to make rapid progress in the development of the strategy.
However, for the final stages of appraisal, the full GOMMMS approach has been followed, as
part of which Appraisal Summary Tables (AST’s) have been prepared. These final stages of
appraisal are reported in this Chapter.
11.2
Corridor Definitions
A key driver for the Study is to consider problems within five separate corridors.
defined broadly as follows:
•
M1/WCML/MML;
•
A1(M)/A1/ECML;
•
M11/WAML;
•
A421/A428/East-West Rail; and
•
A14.
These are
One of the challenges of the LSM appraisal is to assimilate a great deal of information across
these five largely disparate corridors. In order to do this in a meaningful way, it has been
necessary to define each corridor spatially according to the following principles:
•
The main thrust of traffic movements in the Study Area is north-south, focused on the
three main road corridors (M1, A1 and M11) as well as the major rail corridors (WCML,
MML, ECML and WAML). The Study Area has, therefore, effectively been split
approximately three ways on a north-south axis, each ‘sector’ more or less centred
on one of the three major roads. This allows all significant changes in traffic in each
of the three major corridors to be observed.
•
The two east-west corridors (A421/A428 and A14) have been dealt with in a slightly
different way, to avoid any blurring of observed effects between corridors. The A14
corridor has been treated as a single, narrow strip, effectively comprising only the
-163 -
road itself. The intention is not to diminish the importance of east-west movements
within the Study Area, but rather to isolate the effects on that particular road. A
similar strategy has been adopted for the A421 and A428, although the corridor is
drawn to encompass the proposed east–west rail scheme (Bicester-BletchleyBedford-Cambridge-Stansted).
11.3
Description of the Option Appraisal Tests
The Study has undertaken a series of five separate plan appraisals, all of which were tested at
individual corridor level as well as across the Study Area as a whole. The options have been
tested principally against a Reference Case based on Scenario A for 2031.
However, in order to assess the strategy performance against different economic outcomes,
tests were undertaken against two further economic/land-use Scenarios B and C (see Section
5.3).
The five plans tested can be summarised as follows:
•
Option 1. This comprises those interventions proposed within the Study Area which
can be achieved within the 10-Year Plan period. This has been tested against the
Reference Case under Scenario A. It should be noted that this package includes
the A428 east of the A1. The reasons for this are given in Section 9.3;
•
Option 2. This comprises Option 1 together with the remaining rail schemes
developed within the Study Area. This has, again, been also tested against the
Reference Case under Scenario A; and
•
Options 3, 4 and 5. These options each contain the full strategy. The difference in
these three tests is that whilst they have all been tested against the Reference Case
networks, they were tested under Scenarios A, B and C respectively.
The schemes included for each Option are summarised in Table 11.1. Options 3 to 5 comprise
all the schemes listed in Table 11.1.
11.4
Option Appraisal Methodology
11.4.1
Overview
The Government’s five objectives for transport have been described earlier (Section 7.4). In
summary, these are as follows:
•
environment – to protect the built and natural environment;
•
safety – to improve safety;
•
economy – to support sustainable economic activity and get good value for money;
•
accessibility – to improve access to facilities for those without a car and to reduce
severance; and
•
integration – to ensure that all decisions are taken in the context of the
Government’s integrated transport policy.
-164 -
Table 11.1 Proposed Infrastructure Improvements
Corridor
Rail
Section
WCML/MML/M1
Road
Recommendation
Section
Recommendation
M1 Junctions 6A-13 1
Dunstable Northern Bypass 1
M1 Junction 12
Closure
Thameslink
M1 Junction 131
Re-modelling to separate eastwest movement from that gaining
access to/egress from the M1
A1, Brampton-Alconbury 2
A1, Junctions 6-8 2
and associated ATM.
Bedford Station
capacity
Re-model, including
ECML/A1/A1(M)
WAML/M11
capacity
capacity
Kings Cross and Finsbury Park area
and north of Peterborough
necessary
capacity
M11 Junctions 8-9 1
Stansted Airport
Additional tunnel
M11 Junctions 9-14
Cambridge Station and Ely Station
Additional platforms and tracks
-165 -
A14
A421/A428
Note:
1.
2.
Bicester – Bletchley1
Re-open rail link
New link
Schemes included in the 10-Year Plan.
Not included in appraisal for reasons given in Chapter 10.
-166 -
B1047-A11
A421 from M1 to Bedford Bypass1
A428 east of A1 to Caxton Gibbet
Dual 2-lane standard plus off-line
improvement to Dual 2-lane
standard
Appraisal against the five Government objectives is the principal element in the
assessment of plans and interventions, as set out in GOMMMS.
The option appraisal results are summarised in a series of AST’s given in Appendix J.
Worksheets recording the impacts predicted for each option in a qualitative and
quantitative way have also been prepared and are included in a separate Options
Appraisal Report. This supporting report also makes use of a number of AST’s for specific
scheme appraisals achievable within the 10-Year Plan undertaken by the Highways
Agency’s Framework Consultants who were ‘shadowing’ the Consultant Team for the later
stages of the Study (when the strategy content was becoming more clearly defined). The
advantage of the Framework Consultants’ AST’s is that they were scheme-specific rather
than strategy-related and, hence, could provide significantly more detail.
11.4.2
Consultation with Environmental Bodies
GOMMMS notes that the process of producing the AST’s, underlying worksheets and the
appraisal report is intended to ensure that the basis on which environmental impacts have
been scored is transparent. The approach is intended to show, in a clear and auditable
manner, how the evidence on environmental impacts has been assembled and analysed.
The option appraisal process was programmed to ensure that AST’s were produced with
sufficient time to allow the Statutory Environmental Bodies (SEB’s) to comment on them
before the strategy was finally concluded.
11.4.3
Level of Appraisal Detail
The appraisal has been undertaken at a level of detail consistent with the requirements of
GOMMMS with respect to plan level appraisal. However, in the case of Option 1, the LSM
Study Team had the advantage of having access to the more detailed work undertaken
by Framework Consultants to the Highways Agency in respect of highways proposals
achievable within the 10-Year Plan period. This has enabled more detailed work on these
scheme components to be presented in this Report.
11.5
Overview of Appraisal Results
11.5.1
Introduction
This section sets out the results of the five option appraisal tests described above. For the
purposes of this Report, an overview only is given in order to identify any significant
improvements or key areas of concern. A full, detailed description of the results is given in
the separate Options Appraisal Report.
The results are presented under the heading of each GOMMMS appraisal topic and are
given in aggregate across the whole Study Area. Where it is possible to distinguish in
general terms between results in each corridor and particular schemes, this has been
done. This is principally the case in respect of land-based environmental effects (eg
landscape and biodiversity).
-167 -
11.5.2
Environment Objective
Noise
The overall pattern of noise exposure across the Study Area would be changed very little
by any of the Options because, in terms of noise emissions, road traffic flow changes are
generally low.
In some areas noise levels will increase a little, in others they will decrease a little, but on
balance the net effects over the Study Area as a whole will be small and similar for all
Options. The greatest benefits are obtained for Option 5 when the full strategy is
appraised against the highest level of demand, Scenario C.
In keeping with modern practice, new or widened roads will probably be built with noise
mitigation (low noise road surfaces or barriers) leading to benefits in these areas that will
often offset any traffic increase on these roads. Conservative assumptions have been
taken for the extent of noise mitigation included in these schemes, and under evolving
noise policy it is quite possible that a greater level of mitigation will be required and
greater noise benefits could be produced.
‘Feeder roads’ that bring traffic to the new or widened roads are expected to experience
increased noise annoyance that may go unmitigated and partly offset the benefits of the
on-scheme mitigation. Noise impacts on such ‘feeder roads’ will be studied as part of the
detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for each scheme, and, if they are
predicted to be significant, consideration could be given to noise mitigation; for example,
re-surfacing with low noise roads surfacing at a suitable point in the road maintenance
programme.
Air Quality
The key performance indicator when comparing air quality changes using GOMMMS
methodology is the air quality index. This index is a function of change in concentration
and population affected and its purpose is to indicate the overall impact on air quality.
Negative values indicate that the population is likely to experience an improvement in air
quality and positive values a worsening in air quality. The greater these values the more
marked the change in air quality across the population. The air quality indices for each of
the options are summarised in Table 11.2 below.
Table 11.2 Change in Air Quality for Each Option
Option
1
2
3
4
5
Description
10-Year Plan
10-Year Plan and all rail schemes
Full Strategy – Scenario A
Full Strategy – Scenario B
Full Strategy – Scenario C
NO2 Index
PM10 Index
-57,000
840,000
11,000
580,000
-450,000
-7,000
63,000
-7,000
41,000
-34,000
The indices above indicate that Option 5 performs best. As for noise, this reflects the full
strategy within a context of very high economic, and hence traffic growth. The relatively
large negative air quality indices for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulates (PM10)
indicate that there is an overall improvement in air quality for the population within the
Study Area. Option 1 (ie the 10-Year Plan) also performs well. However, Options 2 and 4
result in large positive GOMMMS indices. This indicates that the population in the Study
-168 -
Area is predicted to experience degradation in air quality.
indicate a neutral impact to air quality.
The indices for Option 3
The explanation for these inconsistencies is as follows. Two quite separate effects are
involved in this calculation: an inter-urban effect where traffic volumes decrease, and an
urban effect where increased access, particularly by bus to railway stations increases
urban vehicle-km. Given that the concentration of exposure to pollutants is higher in
urban areas, this creates a disproportionate effect; in other words, any change in pollutant
has a greater impact on the index because of the numbers in close proximity exposed to
that change. The outcome is not consistent but reflects the net result of two impacts
which pull in different directions.
The degradation in air quality is therefore mainly in the urban areas and the improvements
in air quality are in less populated suburban areas. This suggests that whilst the strategy
may deliver improvement to the inter-urban network, there maybe a knock-on urban
impact which will require mitigation.
It should be noted that a full, in-depth air quality impact assessment would be undertaken
for each of these proposed road schemes, as part of an EIA, should they proceed to a
more advanced stage.
Greenhouse Gases
The total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from each of the strategies and the
Reference Case has been determined and compared for each option. The results of this
assessment are presented in Table 11.3 below.
Table 11.3 Change in Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Each Option
Option
CO2 Emissions
CO2 Emissions
Change in CO2
in Reference
with Strategy in
emissions (kilo
Case
Place (tonnes)
tonnes)
(tonnes)
% Change in CO2
Emissions
1
10,513,600
10,192,200
Reduction of 321,400
Reduction of 3.1%
2
10,513,600
10,180,900
Reduction of 3.2%
3
10,513,600
10,664,000
Increase of 150,400
4
10,949,800
10,550,960
Reduction of 3.6%
5
10,744,200
10,664,000
Reduction of 80,200
Reduction of 0.7%
Increase of 1.0%
The results show that Options 1, 2, 4 and 5 result in a decrease in CO2 emissions throughout
the Study Area, due to a reduction in traffic flows from the Reference Case. Option 3, the
full strategy under Scenario A, results in an increase in CO2 emissions within the Study Area.
Again, this reflects two impacts pulling in opposite directions which, in the case of Option
3, nets out as a negative impact. The result appears inconsistent and reinforces the need
for much more detailed analysis at individual scheme level.
Landscape
The appraisal of landscape effects has been undertaken without consideration of
mitigation effects and therefore presents a worst-case assessment. The lack of detailed
design information for schemes at this stage of appraisal means that effects identified
-169 -
remain potential, worst-case impacts, which may be reduced or eliminated through
alignment alterations or engineering solutions employed in more detailed design.
Option 1 produces potentially moderate adverse impacts in the M1, M11 and A421/A428
corridors. Overall effects on the Study Area are therefore assessed as potentially
moderate adverse, and arise mainly from the effects of widening schemes upon nonstatutory designated areas such as Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV’s).
Option 2 produces potentially moderate adverse impacts in the M1, M11 and A421/A428
corridors. Slight adverse impacts are predicted for the A1 corridor, and neutral impacts
are assessed for the A14 corridor, as it does not contain any schemes. Overall effects on
the Study Area are therefore assessed as potentially moderate adverse, and arise mainly
from the effects of widening schemes and new road and rail schemes upon landscape
character and non-statutory designated areas such as AGLV’s.
Options 3, 4 and 5 produce, overall, a potentially substantial adverse impact. Additional
schemes in Options 3, 4 and 5 producing this potentially substantial adverse impact
include the Luton Northern Bypass above, the A1 Sandy and Beeston Bypass, the M11
widening between Junctions 9 and 14, A14 widening between A1 and M1 Junction 19,
and A14 widening between B1047 and A11. The impact arises principally, however, from
the effects of a new road scheme within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Potentially adverse impacts also arise from widening schemes and new road and rail
schemes affecting landscape character and non-statutory designated areas such as
AGLV’s. It should be noted, however, that, as with all the scheme components in the
Study, design details have yet to be finalised, and during the more detailed appraisal
process as individual schemes are taken forward, detailed mitigation measures will be
investigated.
Townscape
The appraisal of townscape effects has been undertaken without consideration of
remain potential, worst-case effects, which may be reduced or eliminated through
Option 1 produces potentially moderate adverse impacts in the M1 corridor, with
potentially slight adverse effects predicted for the A421/A428 corridor. The three
remaining corridors will experience neutral impacts. The scheme producing the potentially
moderate adverse impacts is the M1 widening from Junction 10 to 13. Overall effects on
the Study Area are therefore assessed as potentially moderate adverse, and arise mainly
from the impact of motorway widening on urban open spaces.
Option 2 produces potentially moderate adverse impacts in the M1, A1 and M11 corridors,
with slight adverse effects predicted for the A421/A428 corridor. The A14 corridor will
experience neutral impacts. Additional schemes in Option 2 producing moderate
adverse impacts include the WCML widening between Watford Junction and
Berkhamsted, MML widening between Kettering and Leicester, and WAML widening
between Tottenham Hale and Bishops Stortford. Overall effects on the Study Area are
therefore assessed as potentially moderate adverse, and arise mainly from the impact of
road and rail widening on urban areas, open spaces and Conservation Areas.
-170 -
Options 3, 4 and 5 produce potentially moderate adverse impacts in the M1, A1 and M11
corridors, with potentially slight adverse effects predicted for the A421/A428 and A14
corridors. Overall effects on the Study Area are therefore assessed as potentially
moderate adverse, and arise mainly from the impact of road and rail interventions on
urban areas, open spaces and Conservation Areas.
Heritage of Historic Resources
The lack of detailed design information for schemes at this stage of appraisal means that
any impacts on historic resources remain potential, worst-case effects, which may be
reduced or eliminated through alignment alterations or engineering solutions employed in
more detailed design.
For Option 1 highway schemes, in general it is likely that the ground within the highway
boundary has already been disturbed through previous road development and
landscaping. Therefore, when widening takes place within the highway boundary, the
potential for encountering in-situ archaeological deposits during ground works will be
limited. However, where widening will extend beyond the existing highway boundaries, it
is anticipated that there may be a potentially adverse impact on archaeological
resources.
Likely landtake requirements for the widening of M1 in the area of The Aubrey's Scheduled
Ancient Monument (SAM) have been assessed as having a potentially large adverse
impact. In addition, proposals for land take in the M11 corridor will also cause a potentially
large adverse impact on two SAM’s: the Roman villa at Chinnel Barn and St Helen's
Chapel, Bonhunt. There is a potential moderate adverse impact anticipated on the Thorn
Hill SAM close to A5 Dunstable Northern Bypass. In general, where widening will extend
beyond the existing railway boundaries, it is anticipated that there may potentially be a
slight adverse impact on known and unknown archaeological resources.
The impact on listed buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens and Conservation Areas in all
the route corridors has been assessed as potentially neutral to slight adverse, as the setting
of some Grade II listed buildings which are close to the highway may be affected.
In general, the impact of the proposed works on the A421 and A428 on known cultural
heritage resources has been assessed as slight beneficial or neutral. However, there may
be a potentially slight adverse impact on unknown archaeological resources.
For the Option 1 rail scheme, in general, a neutral impact has been identified for most
cultural heritage resources along the proposed corridor. However, a potentially slight
adverse impact has been assessed for several Conservation Areas immediately adjacent
to the track, and ground works which extend beyond the existing engineering base may
slightly adversely affect in-situ archaeological deposits.
Additionally, industrial
archaeology associated with the mothballed track may be slightly adversely affected.
For the additional rail schemes in Option 2, in general, it is likely that the ground within the
railway boundary has already been disturbed through previous railway development and
landscaping. Therefore, when widening takes place within the railway boundary, the
potential for encountering in-situ archaeological deposits during ground works will be
limited. In general, where no landtake is proposed, the impact on cultural heritage
resources will be neutral, unless the resource is immediately adjacent to the track, in which
case there may be a slight adverse impact on setting and ambience.
-171 -
Where widening is likely to extend beyond existing railway boundaries, it is anticipated that
there may be an adverse impact on archaeological resources. In particular, potential
landtake in the vicinity of Berkamsted Castle SAM, the SAM at Norcott Court Farm and the
SAM at the Roman temple in Harlow may result in a large adverse impact on those sites,
and landtake near Irchester Roman Town SAM may result in a moderate adverse impact.
In addition, slight adverse impacts are predicted on a large number of Conservation
Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens, Listed Buildings, Archaeological Priority Areas and
known and unknown archaeological sites.
For Options 3, 4 and 5 highway schemes, there is a potentially large adverse impact
anticipated at the SAM at Cantelupe Farm Haslingfield. There is also a potentially
moderate adverse impact predicted on the SAM at Spaldwick Bridge and a slight adverse
impact predicted at four other SAM’s, all within the M11 Corridor. There is also a
potentially slight adverse impact anticipated at Dray's Ditches SAM in the area of the
proposed Luton Northern Bypass.
In general, a neutral to slight adverse impact is predicted on all known cultural heritage
resources in the route corridors. However, the number of entries in the National
Monuments Record indicates that there may be other, unknown archaeological resources
in the route corridors which may suffer a slight to moderate adverse impact from the
proposed schemes.
It should be noted that all of the above impacts have been assessed based on preliminary
scheme details and without consideration of mitigation. Detailed discussions will need to
take place with English Heritage at the more detailed planning stage.
Biodiversity
The appraisal of biodiversity effects has been undertaken without consideration of
remain potential, worst-case effects, which may be reduced or eliminated through
For Option 1, there are several cases where the potential for serious or very serious impacts
are predicted, particularly where nationally designated sites or ancient woodland lie
adjacent, or in close proximity, to the road or rail corridors. The A421/A428 is the most
significantly constrained corridor with one SSSI and several areas of ancient woodland
affected, whereas the M1 corridor is relatively unconstrained by sites of high nature
conservation value. However, there are many locally designated sites which may be
affected in this corridor.
For Option 2, there are many occasions where potentially serious or very serious adverse
impacts are predicted. The WAML corridor is very constrained, with six SSSI’s directly or
indirectly affected. The WCML/MML corridor also has potentially significant adverse
impacts associated with the eight SSSI’s that may be affected.
In Options 3, 4 and 5, the A14 Corridor is the most constrained, with one cSAC (candidate
Special Area for Conservation) and approximately 13 sites being potentially adversely
affected. The A1 Corridor is also constrained, with one cSAC and several other serious
adverse impacts predicted. Of the interventions, rail has the most significant impacts, with
the Luton Northern Bypass also having direct impacts on designated sites. The M1 road
corridor affects largely local sites.
-172 -
Although Option 1 has the fewest potentially adverse impacts on designated sites, there
are still a few cases where the potential for very serious or serious adverse effects are
predicted. Rail interventions in Option 2 have potentially significant effects, particularly for
the M1 corridor.
As the majority of schemes require landtake, there is a high possibility that protected
species or habitats will also be affected and this has been assumed throughout. Impacts
on protected species or habitats would represent a potentially major adverse impact.
Field surveys would be required as schemes are taken forward to detailed design.
Consultation with English Nature would be required to identify appropriate mitigation
measures for species protection as well as more general advice on route alignment to
mitigate the effects on sites identified above.
Water Resources
The appraisal of water resource effects has been undertaken without consideration of
mitigation and therefore presents a worst-case assessment. The lack of detailed design
information for schemes at this stage of appraisal means that effects identified remain
potential, worst-case effects, which may be reduced or eliminated through alignment
alterations or engineering solutions employed in more detailed design.
The schemes proposed in Option 1 cross approximately 13 main watercourses and are
likely to pose some potential impacts in terms of increased runoff from the highway
schemes. This has the potential to affect flood susceptibility and water quality. The rail
scheme is less likely to produce run-off related impacts but may pose potential impacts
during construction.
The schemes proposed in Option 2 cross approximately 33 main watercourses and are
likely to pose a larger number of potential impacts in terms of increased runoff than Option
1. The large number of rail schemes in this option are less likely to produce runoff-related
impacts but may pose potentially extensive impacts during construction.
The schemes proposed in Options 3, 4 and 5 cross approximately 38 main watercourses
and are likely to pose the largest number of potential impacts. The additional highway
schemes in Options 3, 4 and 5 compared to Option 2 present a notable increase in
potential impact in terms of increased runoff and the associated flood susceptibility and
water quality problems.
Mitigation measures employed in design and construction will reduce dramatically the
potential impacts on water resources, in particular, the use of suitable drainage design in
infrastructure schemes. Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG’s)
should be followed during construction. Overall, the impact will be potentially slightly
adverse for all options, given that the above mitigation measures are well accepted and
routinely employed in new schemes.
Physical Fitness
Overall, it is considered that Option 1 would have a neutral effect over the whole Study
Area, as the changes in road and rail trips are so small.
A slight increase in public
transport use (around 1,500 extra rail trips per day related to a Reference Case of some 5
million trips) would be offset by a slight increase in car usage with respect to the Reference
Case (5,500 extra trips per day related to a Reference Case of 34 million trips).
-173 -
Options 2, 3, 4 and 5 would also have a neutral effect over the whole Study Area, as the
changes in road and rail trips are similarly very small.
Overall, the changes in travel behaviour are too slight to produce significant benefits in
terms of physical fitness.
Journey Ambience
The road widening and new road and rail routes in Option 1 will provide the potential to
resolve some existing problems related to traveller care, views and stress and these
benefits would be experienced by a large number of people. Overall, a slightly beneficial
effect would occur over the whole Study Area.
Option 2 would have a moderate beneficial effect over the whole Study Area.
The
increased number of rail improvements in Option 2 compared to Option 1 would increase
the overall journey ambience benefits that accrue and these benefits would be
experienced by a larger number of people than in Option 1.
Options 3, 4 and 5 would also have a moderate beneficial effect over the whole Study
Area. The increased number of road improvements in these Options compared to Option
2 would increase the overall journey ambience benefits that accrue and these benefits
would be experienced by a larger number of people than in Option 2.
Overall, the improvements to journey ambience build up as the number of road and rail
schemes increases. Widened or new roads offer the potential to improve road conditions
by reducing stress and improving traveller care and views. Widened or new rail routes
offer the potential to reduce overcrowding and thereby improve journey ambience.
Although not fully reflected in the AST, these benefits are substantial as they occur over a
large area and on a number of routes, and affect a large number of drivers or passengers.
The monetary evaluation of overcrowding benefits over the full 30-Year period is estimated
to be £311m. discounted to 2001.
11.5.3
Safety Objective
Accidents
The results of the accident appraisal are shown in Table 11.4 below. The Table describes
the accident reduction at 2031 and is expressed in terms of numbers of persons.
Table 11.4 Change in Number of Casualties
Option
Fatal
1
-5
2
-28
3
-26
4
-28
5
-26
Severity
Serious
-92
-405
-379
-416
-384
Slight
-541
-755
-872
-1,031
-851
The above Table shows that all options provide a substantial benefit relative to the
Reference Case. Interestingly, the accident benefits decrease marginally as the volume
-174 -
of traffic increases (eg Scenario C compared with Scenario B). Economic benefits
associated with the reduction in accidents are discussed in Section 11.5.4.
Security
An increase in road security can be produced by a reduction in the amount of time that
road vehicles are slow moving or stationary. Each of the five options result in a reduction
in the time road vehicles spent slow moving or stationary, as congestion is reduced in the
Study Area in a number of location. No change in rail security is expected as a result of
the rail schemes proposed in the Options, as measures to improve rail security, such as
improved signage, surveillance, lighting and emergency contact points have been
assumed with other ‘soft measures’ in the Reference Case (see Section 9.2.8).
11.5.4
Economy Objective
Transport Economic Efficiency
In accordance with GOMMS, the economic evaluation for the five Options was carried
out using the Transport User Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) package. TUBA takes into account
the key elements of cost and benefit associated with each scheme, namely:
•
construction costs;
•
land costs;
•
maintenance costs;
•
preparation costs;
•
supervision costs;
•
operating costs (public transport only);
•
travel time benefits;
•
vehicle operating cost reductions; and
•
tax revenue changes.
The costs were calculated as part of the scheme specification and input to TUBA, whilst
the benefits were calculated by TUBA using journey times, travel distances and trip
numbers from the transport model. Monetary values are assigned to these benefits by
TUBA, based on values of time, vehicle operating costs and fuel duty.
There are, therefore, three key values calculated from TUBA which describe the economic
performance of schemes:
•
present value of costs (PVC): this is the sum of the various cost elements occurring
in each year between 2002 (to allow for scheme preparation costs) and 2040,
discounted in each case to a base year of 2001 using a discount rate of 6%;
-175 -
•
present value of benefits (PVB): this is the sum of the monetary benefits
recognised in each year between 2011 and 2040, again discounted to a base
year of 2001 using a discount rate of 6%; and
•
benefit/cost ratio (BCR): this is the ratio of the PVB to the PVC, and hence gives
an indication of the overall value for money of the scheme.
There are, however, some elements of the costs and benefits which are not taken into
account by TUBA, in particular:
•
disruption during construction;
•
benefits during periods of network maintenance;
•
increased network reliability;
•
changes in the number of accidents; and
•
crowding on public transport services.
It should be noted that, due to the complexities associated with modelling the number of
schemes included in the Options, the economic evaluation was simplified such that:
•
all schemes in Option 1 were assigned a nominal opening year of 2011;
•
schemes introduced incrementally in Options 2 to 5 were assigned a nominal
opening year of 2021; and
•
the benefits in Options 2 to 5 for the period from 2011 to 2020 (ie until opening of
the additional schemes) were assumed to be identical to those in Option 1, and
the PVB calculated by TUBA for Options 2 to 5 was only used for the period from
2021 to 2040.
The latter convention was followed to allow all schemes to be evaluated over the same
30-year period. Effectively, this only takes into account benefits for 20 years after the
opening of schemes in Options 2 to 5. However, benefits thereafter would be subjected to
a significant discount factor, and thus extending the analysis period would be unlikely to
have a large effect on the results. Given that the schemes concerned are not due to
open until later in the Study period, the economic evaluation carried out as part of the
detailed design process will have a later base year and can be assessed for 30 years from
the opening of each schemes. The PVB for this analysis can then be expected to be
greater than the values calculated as part of this Study.
The results of the economic evaluation are discussed below, whilst the Transport Efficiency
Table, which summarise the outputs from TUBA, are included with the AST’s in Appendix J.
Option 1
The values calculated by TUBA for Option 1 are:
•
PVC: £783 million
-176 -
•
PVB: £1,786 million; and
•
BCR: 2.28.
The BCR is indicative, therefore, of a package of schemes which would provide very good
value for money.
The values of PVC, PVB and BCR have also been calculated separately for each scheme,
as shown in Table 11.5.
With the exception of the Oxford to Bedford rail scheme, each individual scheme has a
BCR considerably higher than 1.00 and hence represents good value for money. In terms
of the Oxford to Bedford scheme, there are a number of other benefits associated with this
scheme which are not included in the economic evaluation, such as the ability to divert
trains between the various north-south routes in the event of a blockage in any one
corridor. These benefits are discussed in more detail for the full package of rail schemes
under Option 2. It should also be noted that, although the BCR for the rail scheme is
considerably lower than for the highway components, the combined effect remains a
multi-modal package of schemes with a BCR of 2.28.
Table 11.5 Economic Evaluation of Schemes in Option 1
Scheme
PVC (£ million)
Highway:
PVB (£ million)
BCR
M1 Junctions 6A-10
107
351
3.28
M1 Junctions 10-13 with A5-M1 Link
(Dunstable Northern Bypass)
208
664
3.19
M11 Junctions 8-9
78
225
2.89
A421 M1 to Bedford Bypass and
A428 A1 to Caxton Gibbet
146
366
2.50
Oxford to Bedford
244
179
0.74
Total for highway components
539
1,607
2.98
Total for rail components
244
179
0.74
TOTAL
783
1,786
2.28
Rail:
In addition to the benefits calculated using TUBA, a reduction in accidents can be
expected for two reasons:
•
traffic from the highway network will transfer to the rail network; and
•
additional capacity on the high-standard roads will result in a re-assignment of
traffic away from lower-standard roads which have higher accident rates.
-177 -
A simple calculation based on the change in traffic volumes by road type and transfer to
the rail network, in conjunction with standard economic values associated with accidents
given in the Government’s COBA Manual, suggests a PVB for accident reduction of
£130m. Thus, the total PVB is increased to £1,915m. and the BCR to 2.45.
Option 2
The values calculated by TUBA for Option 2 are:
•
PVC: £4,977 million;
•
PVB: £2,460 million; and
•
BCR: 0.49.
By comparison with Option 1, the incremental effect of introducing the rail schemes in
Option 2 (ie excluding the Oxford to Bedford rail scheme in Option 1) is:
•
PVC: £4,194 million;
•
PVB: £674 million; and
•
BCR: 0.16.
Clearly, the BCR for the rail schemes is very low if only the output from TUBA is considered.
In part, this is because the demands on the rail network are currently such that a ‘step
change’ in track provision is needed to provide a small increase in train paths. However,
since the new track will then have spare train paths, there will be scope for operators to
provide further new passenger or freight services, beyond those specified as part of the
Preferred Strategy.
Moreover there are a number of important benefits which are not included in the
evaluation using TUBA, notably:
•
a reduction in overcrowding on trains;
•
increased reliability of the network and scope for maintenance;
•
impact on land-use strategy;
•
a significant reduction in road accidents due to the volume of freight transferred
to the rail network; and
•
scope for additional services.
Overcrowding
As discussed in Section 7.2.3, many passenger services are currently experiencing high
levels of overcrowding. Most models recognised by the rail industry, including the LSM
model, reflect the reduced passenger comfort under such conditions by means of a
perceived increase in journey time. For example, a 15-minute journey under crowded
conditions may be valued by a passenger as the equivalent of a 20-minute journey. The
-178 -
magnitude of this ‘crowding penalty’ will be increased as the level of crowding is further
increased.
The increased number of passenger services specified for Option 2 (and Options 3 to 5) will
significantly reduce the crowding on trains, and the reduced crowding penalty has been
evaluated using TUBA. The reduced time in crowded conditions has thereby been
calculated as equivalent to a PVB of £311m, which is a similar value to that given in the
Business Case for Thameslink 2000. This could be an underestimate, since only crowding on
peak trains is modelled. By 2031, it is very likely that off-peak services will also be
significantly crowded, and hence the benefit of crowding relief will be realised over a
greater part of the day.
Reliability and Maintenance
As the analysis of constraints has shown, much of the rail network in the Study Area is
operating at capacity and will continue to do so in the future. As a result, any disruption to
an individual service will have knock-on implications for other services on the route. This is
demonstrated by the poor reliability performance of operators on the LSM routes at
present, as shown in Table 11.6 using the SRA’s Public Performance Measure. This is a
composite indicator of train service reliability.
Table 11.6 Public Performance Measure Results
Trains on Time (%)
Peak
All Day
London and South East Operators
Silverlink (WCML)
Thameslink (MML)
West Anglia Great Northern (ECML and WAML)
All South East operators
Inter-city Operators
GNER (ECML)
Midland Mainline (MML)
Virgin West Coast (WCML)
All inter-city operators
All Operators
78.4
69.2
66.1
73.9
83.7
72.7
74.8
78.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
70.9
76.3
73.3
72.8
78.5
Source: SRA National Rail Trends September 2002
The Table shows that only Silverlink is above the national average for all operators and the
average for South East operators. Among the inter-city operators, Midland Mainline’s
performance is above average, Virgin’s is approximately at the average level and GNER is
below average.
Even the best operator, Silverlink, experiences delays to 16% of its trains on an all day basis
and 22% in the peak. Furthermore, it should be noted that the definition of ‘on time’ is
within five minutes of the scheduled arrival time for the London and South East operators
and within ten minutes for the inter-city operators. Accordingly, there is considerable
scope for improving performance. Without significant investment, as the rail network
continues to increase in age, performance is likely to decline further.
The additional capacity provided by the strategy will not be fully utilised, at least initially,
and will therefore provide more reserve capacity to manage delays. This should enable a
significant improvement in reliability to be achieved. Furthermore, research for the rail
-179 -
industry has indicated that passengers value the inconvenience of delay time much more
highly than scheduled journey time.
Increasing the number of tracks and providing additional linkages between routes would
also assist in minimising service disruption during maintenance work. This is particularly
significant for two reasons. Firstly, decades of under-investment have meant that there is a
severe backlog of maintenance and renewal work required on the rail network. As a
result the need for engineering possessions is likely to rise significantly over the next few
years. The availability of parallel tracks or additional diversionary routes will help reduce
the disruption to services and the consequent inconvenience to passengers. Secondly,
the introduction of more stringent health and safety regulations for track workers has
resulted in a reduction in the number of maintenance activities that can be undertaken
on or adjacent to operational tracks. It is often necessary to have the buffer of a nonoperational line between passing trains and the track that is actually being worked on.
This severely restricts the options for undertaking maintenance without a total possession of
the relevant route section on two-track routes and to a lesser extent four-track alignments.
Where six tracks are provided this problem and the associated disruption costs are
significantly reduced.
To some extent the benefits arising from the improved reliability and the greater flexibility
for maintenance are difficult to quantify without detailed operational modelling.
However, initial calculations based on current delays suggest that the value of time
savings associated with reliability and maintenance could have a PVB of around £183m.
Land-Use
The Government has plans to further increase the number of households in London and
the South East. However, without significant investment in the rail network, the number of
peak passengers into London from the Study Area will be limited by capacity, which could
have economic implications for the areas concerned. To some extent, the problems
associated with further expansion in London will be alleviated by development of
employment opportunities in other areas, such as Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge.
Such ventures will only be a success if these areas have appropriate transport links.
Therefore, the importance of rail services on an east-west axis must be seen in terms of the
wider planning agenda, rather than on the basis of simple economic evaluation.
Unfortunately, the land-use implications of the rail investment are virtually impossible to
quantify.
Accidents
The methodology for calculating accident benefits has been described above under
Option 1. The PVB for the reduction in accidents associated with Option 2 has been
calculated as £443 m. which represents an increase of £313m. compared with Option 1.
Scope for Additional Services
The economic evaluation has been based on the additional passenger services
considered necessary to serve the needs of the Study Area. However, the investment will
provide some spare track capacity which may be used to provide alternative services
from other parts of the County into or through the Study Area.
In addition, the costs of Options 2 to 5 include the provision of extra tracks between Rugby
and Birmingham. Since this forms part of a core route through the West Midlands, it is likely
-180 -
that other operators will express an interest in providing new or additional services when
the track capacity becomes available. The benefits which these services will provide
have not been taken into account in the economic evaluation.
Combined Effects of Option 2
The total benefits for Option 2 are summarised in Table 11.7. The Table also shows the
incremental change from Option 1, ie the benefits associated with the additional rail
investment only.
Table 11.7 Total Benefits for Option 2
Component
PVB (£ million)
Option 2 Total
Increment from Option 1
Benefits from TUBA
2,460
674
Crowding relief
311
311
Reliability and
183
183
maintenance
Accidents
443
313
TOTAL
3,397
1,481
Comparing the revised PVB’s, with the appropriate PVC’s results in BCR’s of 0.35 for the
incremental effect of the rail strategy and 0.68 for all schemes in Option 2 (ie including
those in Option 1).
Options 3, 4 and 5
The values calculated by TUBA for Option 3, 4 and 5 are shown in Table 11.8.
Table 11.8 Economic Evaluation of Options 3, 4 and 5
Option
PVC (£ million)
PVB (£ million)
3
5,211
2,745
4
5,211
4,584
5
5,211
3,047
BCR
0.53
0.88
0.58
It can be seen from Table 11.8, perhaps surprisingly, that the highest benefits are obtained
for Scenario B (Option 4) followed by Scenario C (Option 5). This is because the different
planning scenarios can have two diametrically opposed effects: on one hand the higher
level of activity in Scenario C will allow more people to benefit from the scheme
improvements, but the higher volume of road traffic will result in more residual congestion
after the schemes have been implemented; the converse applies for Scenario B.
The BCR for each Option is low, due to the high cost of achieving an incremental change
in rail service provision, as discussed for Option 2.
The incremental effect of implementing the highway schemes in Option 3 can be
calculated by comparison with the results of the economic evaluation for Option 2. This
provides the following:
•
PVC: £234 million;
•
PVB: £285 million; and
-181 -
•
BCR: 1.22
The highway schemes associated with Option 3 thus have a combined BCR greater than
1.00, but this remains relatively low for several reasons:
•
the schemes are generally those which are less critical, hence their exclusion from
the 10-Year Plan schemes, and significant reductions in delay are generally not
relevant until close to the end of the evaluation period;
•
some of the schemes, in particular widening of the M11, have been
recommended for operational reasons associated with the suitability of 2-lane
motorways for HGV movements, rather than to relieve congestion alone; and
•
benefits arising from increased availability of lanes during maintenance periods or
following an incident will not be included in the TUBA calculations.
Based on the methodology described for Option 2, additional benefits have been
calculated for Option 3, as shown in Table 11.9. Since Option 3 results in a slight increase in
highway trips compared with Option 2, there is a small reduction in accident benefits.
Table 11.9 Total Benefits for Option 3
Component
Benefits from TUBA
Crowding Relief
Reliability and
Maintenance
Accidents
TOTAL
Option 3 Total
2,745
311
183
PVB (£ million)
Increment from Option 2
285
0
0
402
3,641
-41
244
Comparing the revised PVB’s with the appropriate PVC’s results in BCR’s of 1.04 for the
incremental effect of the additional highway schemes and 0.70 for Option 3 as a whole.
Table 11.10 presents similar information for Options 4 and 5.
Table 11.10 Total Benefits for Options 4 and 5
Component
PVB (£ million)
Option 4 Total
Option 5 Total
Benefits from TUBA
4,584
3,047
Crowding Relief
311
311
Reliability and Maintenance
183
183
Accidents
429
403
TOTAL
5,507
3,944
Inclusion of the additional benefits results in BCR’s of 1.06 and 0.76 for Options 4 and 5
respectively. Therefore, whichever land-use scenario is followed, the Preferred Strategy
demonstrates a BCR of 0.70 or greater and, in the case of Scenario B, greater than 1.00.
-182 -
Reliability
In Option 1 the proposed highway schemes would increase the reliability of highway
travel. Use of ATM would also assist this objective. The proposal to open the western
section of the east-west rail route would provide direct services between Bristol, Oxford,
Bicester, Bletchley and Bedford. It would also mean that in the event of blockages on the
West Coast Main Line, there would be some opportunity of diverting some West Coast
Main Line services via Oxford then on the Great Western line to London or via Aylesbury
and then on the Chiltern Lines also to London. The route would also provide an
opportunity for fast through travel from the west of the Country (without interchange) to
Milton Keynes and Bedford, instead of travelling into London and interchanging. Overall,
the improvements in Option 1 would represent a slightly beneficial impact on reliability.
Benefits for Option 1 are also fully captured in Option 2. The further rail enhancements for
Option 2 can be considered under four broad headings:
•
new lines and extensions;
•
rolling stock strengthening;
•
service enhancements; and
•
track construction.
The further extension of the east-west rail route through Bedford to St Neots and
Cambridge to the east opens up an opportunity to travel from, for example Bristol in the
west to Ipswich and Norwich in the east without interchange. Similarly, the extension of
Thameslink services from Bedford via Olney (the latter a proposed new station) and
Northampton to Birmingham would provide a reliable service from the South Coast direct
to Birmingham without any interchange in London, as is often currently required.
The rolling stock strengthening proposed for Silverlink County services, fast and semi-fast
Liverpool Street to Stansted services and Liverpool Street to Cambridge services would
provide more capacity on the trains and therefore reduce overcrowding and increase the
certainty to customers of finding a seat.
There are also a variety of service enhancements being proposed as part of the strategy.
These would increase the frequency of services being provided at a station and therefore
make the train service provision more reliable.
There are proposals to four-track and six-track some sections of the WCML, the MML, the
ECML and the WAML. The important thing to note from this exercise is that should there be
any problems with either the ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ lines, with the four-tracking, instead of there
being a total shut down of service, there would be an opportunity to channel all services
through the free lines. The end result is that there would at least be some service provision,
hence a significant increase in the reliability of the service.
The comments for Option 2 on rail reliability also apply to Options 3, 4 and 5. In addition to
the measures in Option 1, the widening of the M11 between Junctions 9 and 14 would
complement the M11 widening for Option 1 making the entire length of M11 north of
Junction 8 three lanes. This would reduce the current delays due to congestion and
thereby increase the reliability of driving on the M11.
-183 -
Currently the A1 section through Sandy suffers from heavy traffic congestion. The proposal
to build the A1 Sandy and Beeston Bypass would speed up the traffic in this section and
preserve the existing A1 for local traffic. Again, this proposal would improve local
reliability.
Widening of the A14 and construction of the Luton Northern Bypass completes the
highway strategy. Together these schemes would give an increased reliability for eastwest travel. In addition, for both the M11 and A14, the increase from two to three lanes
would reduce the probability of needing to close the entire carriageway following an
accident.
Wider Economic Effects
The starting point for the appraisal of wider economic effects is predicated as two key
issues: the modelled effects on journey times by road and effects on the capacity of key
strategic routes. In principle it also includes potential effects on journey time reliability,
although quantitative evidence on this is difficult to determine.
A comparison of journey times by road was conducted for a range of external-external,
internal-internal and external-internal trips at 2031 under the options evaluated, along with
the relevant Reference Cases and the 2001 Base Year position.
Virtually all journey times in each option deteriorate at 2031 relative to 2001 even with the
full strategy. Given the significance of existing levels of congestion, the importance of the
Study Area to the UK economy and the importance of the key strategic routes through the
Area to other regional economies, this supports the need for the strategy to be reinforced
by ATM and road user charging schemes.
11.5.5
Accessibility Objective
Access to Transport System
In terms of passenger services, Option 1 includes the proposal to open a station at
Winslow, between Bletchley and Bicester, with a connection to Aylesbury and hence
through services to London. This would improve access to the transport system and
therefore the impact is slightly beneficial.
In addition to the effects in Option 1, Options 2, 3, 4 and 5 include proposals for new
stations at Cambourne (located between Cambridge and St Neots) and Olney (located
between Bedford and Northampton). This would improve access to the transport system
and therefore the impact is slightly beneficial.
In terms of freight services, Options 2, 3, 4 and 5 include substantial new rail capacity,
which would offer opportunities to run new freight services and allow freight capacity to
be optimised between main lines. For example, improved WCML capacity is essential to
continue forecast rail freight growth beyond 2010. Without this improvement, growing
demand for freight movement could only be met by road.
Option Values
In terms of passenger services, highway schemes in Option 1 involve road widening and
the building of a bypass, which would have a positive effect on the surrounding
population. As this will affect more than 2,000 people in all cases, it would be a strongly
-184 -
beneficial effect. With regard to rail, the Bristol-Bedford route would enable journeys to be
made which were previously not practical by rail. This proposal would also affect more
than 2,000 people in all cases and therefore be deemed strongly beneficial.
In terms of freight services in Option 1, businesses using road haulage will benefit from the
widened M1 and the new Dunstable Northern Bypass. The former will help ameliorate the
problem of heavy goods vehicles suffering delays during peak hours owing to congestion,
whilst the Dunstable Northern Bypass will improve east-west access and avoid congested
urban areas.
Businesses using road haulage will benefit from the widened M11. This will enhance M11’s
important role for freight as a high quality alternative route between the Midlands and the
Thames Gateway and Channel Ports. Such businesses will also benefit from the widened
A421 and A428, and improvements to Junction 13 of the M1.
In Option 2, the availability of rail freight services would improve as described above,
allowing greater choice for industry in the corridor. ECML capacity enhancement will offer
opportunities for freight growth, although the main freight corridor will continue to be the
WCML. Any new rail terminals developed would improve freight shippers’ choice of freight
services, as currently there is virtually no freight interchange provision on the corridor. As in
Option 1, businesses using road haulage will benefit from the various highway
improvements. The new east-west rail link would offer greater choice of modes and routes
for freight shippers.
Options 3, 4 and 5 would provide the same benefits described above, as well as improved
east-west access along the A14. Widening of the A14 will have important benefits for
freight hauliers, particularly in offering a high quality alternative to the M1/M25 to reach
the Thames Gateway and Channel Ports.
Severance
Severance effects are likely in the majority of the schemes in the Strategy. However, the
level of information for the schemes at this stage of appraisal does not permit a detailed
assessment to be made of these effects. Given the assumption that severance impacts
from widening schemes, from new infrastructure, and from capacity alterations for both
rail and roads will generally be mitigated through the provision of alternative or new
crossings, Option 1 should not result in adverse impacts. The provision of new infrastructure
and alternative uses for existing infrastructure mean that benefits will be gained in terms of
severance for some of the population in the Study Area. Overall, therefore, Option 1 will
result in a slightly beneficial impact from severance resulting from the proposed
interventions.
Option 2 includes a large number of rail schemes which will result in some potentially
adverse impacts on severance in the Study Area. These effects will balance out the
beneficial impacts from highway schemes and result in an overall neutral impact in the
Study Area.
Options 3, 4 and 5 contain a number of additional highway schemes but despite potential
beneficial effects the overall impact will be neutral.
-185 -
11.5.6
Integration Objective
Transport Interchange
The proposed highway schemes in Option 1 would increase interchange opportunities.
The increased interchange potential at Bletchley due to the Bristol-Bedford route gives
access to Chiltern and Great Western services, which would improve links with the Midland
Main Line. At Bedford, the same proposal would increase interchange giving improved
access to West Coast Main Line, Chiltern and Great Western lines. Overall, therefore,
Option 1 would increase interchange opportunities and the impact would be slightly
beneficial.
In addition to the effects of schemes in Option 1, schemes in Options 2, 3, 4 and 5 would
allow Bedford to become a major transport hub because of the extension of the
complete Bristol-Stansted route. This would improve interchange opportunities at St. Neots
and also access to Stansted Airport. The re-routeing of the West Anglia services via
Stratford would also make Stratford a major interchange point between stations in the east
of the Study Area and other parts of southern England and Europe. Overall, therefore,
Options 2, 3, 4 and 5 would increase interchange opportunities and the impact would
again be slightly beneficial.
Land-Use Policy
The appraisal of land-use policy takes into account whether national, regional and local
land-use policies are supported or hindered by the scheme in each Option. The number
of schemes in the Options under appraisal means that the results are given as broad
statements on the degree of conformity to policy at these three levels.
Some package elements in Option 1 are safeguarded at a local level and therefore
comply with policy. Overall, the effects are considered to be neutral to slightly beneficial.
Some elements in Option 2 are safeguarded at a local level, whilst the substantially
increased public transport service levels accord with policy thrust at all levels. Overall the
effect is considered to be slightly beneficial.
Similarly, most elements in Options 3, 4 and 5 conform to local land-use policy, and public
transport investment is welcomed at all levels. Overall, the effect is considered to be
slightly beneficial.
Other Government Policies
As with the land-use policy topic above, the number of schemes in the options under
appraisal means that the results are given as broad statements on the degree of
conformity to policy.
Option 1 includes a number of road improvements, which do not always accord fully with
Government policy on sustainability and reducing the need to travel by private transport.
However, the public transport improvements are consistent with wider policy and therefore
the effects are considered to be neutral.
Option 2 again includes road improvements.
However, there are considerable
improvements to public transport which accord with wider policy. The balance of overall
effects is considered to be slightly beneficial.
-186 -
Options 3, 4 and 5 include road improvements, which do not always fully conform with
Government policy on sustainability, the wider environment and reducing the need to
travel by private transport. The significant level of public transport improvements,
however, is consistent with wider policy. Overall, therefore, the effect is also considered to
be slightly beneficial.
11.5.7
Regional and Local Objectives
Planning policy at local and regional levels emphasises the need for development to
occur in a sustainable and appropriate manner, often establishing objectives for
environmental protection and enhancement and for sustainable development. It also
identifies continued economic prosperity and growth as key objectives. Regional policy
identifies specific areas within which economic renewal is needed, with local policy
proposing a pattern of land-uses which will achieve those objectives.
Environmental and sustainability objectives are possibly threatened by some elements of
Option 1 but supported by others. Investment in highway capacity, for example, may
increase the volume and distance of journeys made by road which is contrary to policy;
increasing rail service levels, however, provides an opportunity for a choice other than the
car, and a new opportunity for those without a car.
The package strongly supports local and regional aspirations for economic prosperity by
relieving congestion in strategic north-south corridors and creating improved connections
on an east-west axis.
In Option 2, increasing rail service levels and corridor capacity provides an opportunity for
a choice other than the car, and a new opportunity for those without a car. Destinations
not currently served by rail would benefit substantially from these new connections. The
package would also contribute to economic priority objectives. There would be
substantial support for objectives to provide more sustainable transport options
On balance, provision of the package of measures in Options 3, 4 and 5 would also meet
the objectives of route safeguarding policies, and would contribute to economic priority
objectives and elements of regional strategies for the location of development. As with
Option 2, there would be substantial support for objectives to provide more sustainable
transport options.
11.5.8
Problem Amelioration
For Option 1, in comparison to the predicted problems in 2031, congestion relief on the M1
south of Junction 13 will be significant, but little change in congestion is forecast on the
A1/A1(M) or M11. A slight reduction in congestion is forecast on the A421, in particular
near the M1. Both the A421 and A428 will experience reduced delays through improved
junction arrangements with the A1 at Black Cat Roundabout. A slight reduction in
congestion is forecast on the A14 between the A1 and the M11. Crowding is not
significantly reduced in any corridor.
For Option 2, the highway-related impacts are as for Option 1. In addition, significant
reduction in crowding is forecast on the WCML and MML network. Crowding on the ECML
is forecast to be removed between Stevenage and Hitchin but remains south of
Stevenage in 2031. Crowding is also forecast to be removed from the WAML network.
-187 -
The rail impacts of Options 3, 4 and 5 are as for Option 2 and the majority of highway
impacts as for Option 1. However, in addition congestion on A14 is significantly reduced
and the benefits to M11 corridor enhanced.
11.5.9
Distribution and Equity
In general, it can be argued that road improvements will tend to disproportionately
benefit the upper income groups. However, the progressive nature of the tax system
means that the taxation required to finance the proposals will also tend to be raised to a
greater extent from higher income groups. Lower income groups without access to a car,
however, may benefit to a greater extent from the creation of better options for rail travel.
For Option 1, the balance and provision towards road improvements will tend to benefit
higher income groups to a greater extent, although lower income groups may derive
particular benefits from new options for travel on the east-west rail link.
For Option 2, the larger number of rail improvements compared to Option 1 will tend to
counteract the benefits that higher income groups derive from the road interventions. This
means that the balance of measures is more equitable.
For Options 3, 4 and 5, the larger number of rail improvements compared to Option 1 will
tend to counteract the benefits that higher income groups derive from the road
interventions, notwithstanding the addition of more road schemes in this Option compared
to Option 1. This means that the balance of measures is more equitable.
The geographical incidence of benefits is also spread relatively evenly across the Study
Area and, because of the high level of long-distance strategic traffic, provides benefits to
areas some distance from the Study Area as well.
11.5.10
Affordability
For Option 1, investment of approximately £732m. would be required for implementation
of the highway schemes. Overall the principal highway investment would be in the
strategic road network and thus it is assumed that the Highways Agency would be
responsible for the full costs. Implementation of the rail improvements in Option 1 would
require investment of approximately £224m. with annual operating costs of £14m. It is
assumed that SRA would be responsible for the capital costs. Although SRA are shown as
being responsible for operating costs, these will be borne to some degree by Train
Operating Companies through fares and possibly also by means of subsidies when such
arrangements are finalised.
For Option 2 the investment for the highway network is the same as for Option 1, that is
£732m. The additional rail improvements in Option 2 would require a further investment of
£2,641m. with annual operating costs of £764m. and £189m. for the passenger and freight
services respectively. It is assumed that SRA would be responsible for the capital costs.
For Options 3, 4 and 5 the investment for the highway network would increase to £1,292m.
It is assumed that Highways Agency would be responsible for the vast majority of the total
costs with the remainder (principally for Luton Northern Bypass and A421 west of M1) being
the responsibility of Local Authorities. The required investment for the railway schemes in
Option 3 is the same as for Option 2, that is £2,865m.
-188 -
11.5.11
Practicality and Public Acceptability
Option 1 includes the implementation of the M1 and M11 widening schemes which are
likely to be widely accepted by the public, particularly as works will be largely confined to
the existing corridors. There will, however, be those concerned with the environmental
and sustainability impacts which are to be mitigated and resolved. Similarly the
implementation of Dunstable Northern Bypass was generally supported at Public
Consultation by local people and the benefits from relief to congestion in the area were
seen to far outweigh any environmental disbenefit in the new corridor. Support was also
given at Public Consultation to the A421 and A428 improvements which will provide a
significantly increased level of service to traffic on those routes. The proposal to reestablish the rail link between Oxford and Cambridge via Bedford was strongly supported
at Public Consultation and the section between Oxford and Bedford is considered to offer
a high level of public acceptability as the route is largely established on the existing
railway lines or along previous track.
In addition to the comments for Option 1 schemes, Option 2 offers the additional
implementation of the rail link between Bedford and Cambridge, and the connection
between Bedford and the West Coast Main Line at Northampton largely within the existing
corridor. It is likely that there will be significant support for these new rail proposals, building
on a base already established at the Public Consultation.
The various strategic
improvements to rail services proposed by Option 2 are also likely to be firmly supported by
the public.
In addition to the comments for schemes in Options 1 and 2, Options 3, 4 and 5 may
involve the closure of M1 Junction 12. It is likely that some public opposition may be
registered in connection with this closure.
The widening of the M11 between Junctions 9 and 14 may receive some opposition from
local people and those concerned with environmental impacts along the corridor.
However, there is likely to be firm support from the media and the public generally,
particularly as the role of M11 is likely to increase.
Luton Northern Bypass is likely to receive significant public support, although there are
issues associated with the Chilterns AONB which could result in some opposition. The
improvements to the A1 at Sandy and Beeston will receive strong local support. The A14
widening offers no technical difficulties and is likely to be welcomed as it provides the
necessary connection between two sections of highway which have themselves been
improved. It is likely to receive considerable support, given the campaign for its
construction over many years. Improved access to Milton Keynes is likely to receive
substantial public support for the considerable road user benefits which are envisaged.
11.5.12
10 Year plan Targets
Table 11.11 summarises the contribution which the Preferred Strategy will make to the
target indicators in the Government’s 10-Year Plan for transport. Where possible, a
quantitative measure has been used to demonstrate performance against the targets,
and these measures are shown in the Table.
The Table refers to 2016, which is the closest year modelled to the end of the 10-Year Plan
period. However, the assessment of the contribution is based on the full strategy (ie
Option 3), even though some elements will not be implemented until considerably later
than 2016.
-189 -
Table 11.11 Contribution of the Preferred Strategy to the 10-Year Plan Targets
10-Year Plan
Measurement
2001 Base
2016 Reference
2016 Preferred
Target Indicator
Year
Case
Strategy
Reduce road
congestion below
current levels
Increase rail passengerkilometres by 50%
Delays in Study Area in
average morning
peak hour
Average delay per trip
in morning peak hour
Rail passengerkilometres per day in
Study Area
Increase rail freight
tonne-kilometres by 80%
Increase bus use by 10%
Double light rail use
Cut journey time on
London Underground
None
Bus passengerkilometres per day in
Study Area
None
None
47,304
PCU-hours
(+73%)
434 seconds
(+31%)
14,548,910
17,906,083
(+23%)
18,739,295
(+29%)
N/A
Implicitly assumed in
Reference Case
demand that
sufficient capacity
would be provided to
increase rail usage by
80%
As Reference
Case, but large
number of
additional rail
freight paths
made available
4,629,974
5,564,750
(+20%)
5,641,355
(+22%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
331 seconds
Reduced
represent less of a
deterioration than
Reference Case,
but likely to remain
worse than Base
Year levels
Reduced
congestion likely
to represent less of
a deterioration
than Reference
Case, but
reductions below
1990 levels
dependent on
increased fuel
efficiency of
vehicle
N/A
congestion
None
Emissions
generally
greater than
1990 level
congestion although
effect could be
mitigated by
increased fuel
efficiency of vehicles
Fatalities per year in
Study Area
222
308
(+39%)
305
(+37%)
Serious injuries per
year in Study Area
3,414
4,765
(+40%)
4,684
(+37%)
None
N/A
Similar effect to
above likely
Similar effect to
above likely
Improve air quality
None
Reduce greenhouse
gases by 12.5% from
1990 levels
Reduce number killed
and seriously injured on
roads by 40%
48,671
PCU-hours
(+78%)
445 seconds
(+34%)
27,339
PCU-hours
Reduce children killed
and seriously injured by
50%
The contributions to these targets are discussed in more detail in the paragraphs which
follow.
Reduce Road Congestion
The growth in traffic forecast between 2001 and 2016 is such that a very large increase in
congestion is predicted for the Reference Case. Whilst this will be somewhat mitigated by
the Preferred Strategy, a return to 2001 levels is not expected (even for the motorway
network). Therefore, whilst the proposed infrastructure will be one mechanism for reducing
-190 -
the congestion predicted in the Reference Case, it will need to be reinforced by one or
more of the following measures:
•
Active Traffic Management;
•
road user charging; and/or
•
traffic restraint in urban areas.
It should be noted that, in general, the locations where congestion is predicted under the
Preferred Strategy are not those where major infrastructure works are proposed. Therefore,
additional junction improvements at the remaining ‘hotspots’ could result in a significantly
greater reduction in congestion.
Increase Rail Passenger-Kilometres
The large amount of investment in the Study Area rail network as part of the Reference
Case (principally the WCML upgrade and Thameslink 2000), together with the underlying
growth, are forecast to increase passenger-kilometres by 23% from 2001 to 2016. With
implementation of the Preferred Strategy a total increase from 2001 of 29% is forecast.
This increase occurs in a number of ways, notably:
•
passengers changing their trip origin or destination;
•
transfers from highway trips; and
•
entirely new (generated) trips.
The model does not, however, take account of existing air passengers who would transfer
to rail following investment in the network, either as part of the Reference Case or the
Preferred Strategy. Since additional long-distance services are being provided (and in the
case of WCML journey time reductions), the value of 29% could be a significant
underestimate.
Furthermore, forecasts have assumed that fares will remain constant in real terms. In
practice, the investment is likely to leave some free capacity on trains, particularly during
off-peak periods. The Train Operating Companies could be expected to introduce various
cheap fare offers to fill this capacity with passengers who would not otherwise be
attracted to use the rail network.
It is reasonable to predict, therefore, that the total increase in rail passenger-kilometres will
be close to, or even in excess of, the 50% target.
Increase Rail Freight Tonne-Kilometres
The Reference Case assumes that sufficient additional freight capacity will be provided on
the rail network to facilitate the Government’s target of an 80% increase in tonnekilometres by 2011.
The Preferred Strategy provides a further increase in the number of freight paths available
in each corridor. It has therefore been assumed that the rate of rail freight growth
-191 -
achieved between 2001 and 2011 will continue throughout the Study Period, and hence
the 80% target will be significantly exceeded.
Increase Bus Use
Increasing congestion on both the road and rail networks, together with the introduction
of various ‘soft’ measures to improve the quality of services are forecast to increase interurban bus usage by 20% in the Reference Case. A further small increase (to 22%
compared with 2001) is forecast with implementation of the Preferred Strategy. The
Government target of 10% is, therefore, clearly exceeded.
Whilst bus services in urban areas are not explicitly modelled, the Preferred Strategy
recommends bus priority where appropriate in urban areas, and improved ‘feeder’
services connecting with the rail network. An increase in local bus patronage can,
therefore, also be expected.
Double Light Rail Use
The inter-urban nature of this Study is such that no light rail schemes are recommended.
However, satisfactory operation of the highway recommendations will require some
measures to reduce traffic growth in urban areas, whilst improved access to railway
stations is specified as part of the Reference Case. Light rail could potentially have a role
in both of these objectives, but such schemes would need to be assessed on an individual
basis for the appropriate urban areas.
Therefore, the Preferred Strategy could contribute indirectly to increasing light rail usage.
Cut Journey Time on London Underground
The London Underground is wholly external to the Study Area and hence measures to
reduced journey times have not been considered.
Improve Air Quality
Air quality can be expected to change in line with the growth in traffic and the change in
congestion levels. Therefore, air quality is likely to deteriorate between 2001 and 2016
(Reference Case), but will be improved by implementation of the Preferred Strategy. This
improvement is, however, unlikely to return air quality to 2001 levels.
Reduce Greenhouse Gases
Similarly, greenhouse gases are likely to increase in line with traffic to 2016, but reduce with
implementation of the Preferred Strategy. Levels of greenhouse gases will be further
reduced as vehicles are designed with greater fuel efficiency.
Reduce Road Fatalities and Injuries
Between 2001 and 2016, fatalities and serious injuries are predicted to increase by around
40%, although this increase would be reduced to 37% with implementation of the Preferred
Strategy. Since a high proportion of accidents occur on minor roads or in urban areas,
further road improvements by the appropriate Local Authorities would make a significant
contribution to accident reduction.
-192 -
Reduce Child Fatalities and Injuries
Accidents involving children are not explicitly modelled, but could be expected to follow
a similar pattern to that for accidents in general (described above). However, since a
higher proportion of trips involving children are within urban areas, there is a greater
dependence on Local Authority schemes to achieve this target.
11.6
Discussion of Results
11.6.1
Introduction
The way in which the different Government objectives are influenced by alternative
strategies is dependent partly on changes in trip demand and partly by levels of
infrastructure provision. Safety, for example, is affected by both numbers of overall trips
and improvements in the transport system. Environment is sensitive partly to changes in
trips (which affects both noise and air quality), but is affected principally by the
introduction (or removal) of infrastructure.
The effects of the various strategies tested are clearly far-reaching and change according
to the scale of new infrastructure and public transport service provision. In most cases,
however, the results are broadly consistent in the form of positive appraisal results.
The main exception is the appraisal against the environment objective, where a number
of potentially adverse impacts are recorded. It should be emphasised that the level of
appraisal expected of GOMMMS as part of a multi modal study is unable to take into
account specific scheme details, such as routeing or landtake. For this reason, it is normal
to assume a worst case with respect to impacts on designated areas. Moreover, in the
absence of detail, the appraisal is inevitably undertaken with no prior knowledge of
mitigation measures. All of this tends to overestimate the impacts for the ‘natural resource’
elements of the environment objective. Extensive discussions will take place with the
statutory environmental bodies if and when schemes are eventually brought forward for
detailed assessment.
11.6.2
Safety
All the strategy tests show a reduction in accidents, the greatest benefits occurring as a
result of the full strategy, under Scenario B. Benefits are also expected in respect of
security on the road network, although no significant changes are expected in terms of rail
security.
11.6.3
Accessibility
Access to the transport system will be improved in all five options, with the greatest
benefits arising from Options 3, 4 and 5, which contain the most schemes and therefore
the most improvements. A similar result occurs with option values, as the greater number
of schemes in Options 3, 4 and 5 provide the most improvement to possible options for
travel in the Study Area.
Severance effects will be associated with the majority of schemes and therefore Options 3,
4 and 5 will once again produce the most impacts. However, the potential for new
schemes to address current problems means that severance effects are largely neutral.
-193 -
11.6.4
Integration
Transport interchange opportunities are increased in all five options, although Option 1 has
fewer improvements than the other four options. The improvements largely affect rail
interchanges and principally result from the new routes.
The land-use policy and ‘Other Government Policies’ appraisals generally balance
highway schemes which do not always conform with local policy against rail
improvements which, in policy terms, are deemed beneficial. This reflects the general
policy bias towards public transport. Option 2, 3, 4 and 5 perform better than Option 1 in
this respect as they contain more rail schemes.
11.6.5
Economy
Option 1 produces a BCR of 2.28 rising to 2.45 if accident benefits are included. The BCR
for Option 2 has been calculated as 0.49, but additional, non-TUBA, benefit would
increase this to at least 0.68. Options 3 to 5 have BCR’s between 0.53 and 0.88, rising to
between 0.70 and 1.06 when additional, non-TUBA, benefits are included. In all cases,
however, there are other scheme benefits which are hard to quantify, but in practice
would increase the BCR further.
The improvements in Option 1 produces a slightly beneficial impact on reliability, due
principally to improvements in the trunk road network. The same comment applies to
Option 2 in respect of roads, and the addition of improved rail services further increases
reliability. The additional highway improvements in Options 3, 4 and 5 also improve
reliability.
Wider economic effects are predicted to be slightly positive for all options.
11.6.6
Environment
Since these results are slightly more complicated, they are dealt with under each of the
sub-objectives.
Noise
The net noise effects over the LSM Study Area will be small for all options tested. The full
strategy does not perform significantly differently to Options 1 and 2, with Option 5
delivering the greatest noise benefits.
Local Air Quality
Option 5 performs best in respect to air quality, but Option 1 also performs well.
Greenhouse Gases
With the exception of Option 3, all tests show a decrease in CO2 emissions throughout the
Study Area. Option 4 shows the greatest benefits.
-194 -
Landscape
In the absence of mitigation, moderate adverse landscape impacts are predicted for
parts of the Study Area under Options 1 and 2, principally as a result of the effects of
widening schemes on non-statutory designations, such as AGLV’s.
Options 3, 4 and 5 have the potential to produce more substantial adverse impacts,
mainly in the M1 corridor as a result of the Luton Northern Bypass potentially encroaching
into the Chilterns AONB.
Townscape
There is the potential for moderate adverse townscape impacts in the M1 corridor resulting
from Option 1. For all other options, there may be additional moderate impacts in the A1
and M11 corridors.
Heritage
For most of the schemes under Option 1, a neutral or slight adverse impact has been
recorded. However, there may potentially be a large adverse impact on SAM’s in the M1
and M11 corridors. For Option 2, any rail scheme outside the railway corridor may
potentially give rise to adverse impacts. Further impacts may be expected for Options 3, 4
and 5, depending on eventual scheme design.
Biodiversity
Where nationally designated sites lie close to infrastructure schemes, there is the potential
for adverse impacts to arise. There are a number of SSSI’s in the Study Area and two
internationally designated areas. Overall, Options 3, 4 and 5 potentially have the most
severe impacts on biodiversity, particularly with respect to the Luton Northern Bypass and
the A14 corridor. Option 1 has the fewest impacts on designated sites.
Water Environment
Although all options include schemes which cross main watercourses, appropriate
mitigation measures will be applied at the design stage. The overall impact for all options,
therefore, will be no worse than slight adverse.
Physical Fitness
Overall, the changes in road and rail trips for all options are relatively small and do not
differ markedly. As a consequence, no significant changes in physical fitness are
expected.
Journey Ambience
Journey ambience will be improved for all options, the benefits becoming greater as the
number of road and rail schemes increase. In particular, improved rail service provision
offers the potential to reduce overcrowding.
-195 -
11.7
Conclusion
The overall conclusion from the appraisal is that under three objectives, safety, accessibility
and integration there are demonstrable benefits. As a general rule these increase with the
level of demand for movement and also with the level of infrastructure provided.
In the case of the environment objective the appraisal gives a more evenly balanced
result, where the advantages provided through behavioural change may be offset
through the direct physical impacts suffered. However, as noted earlier, the appraisal has
considered the worst-case effects of landtake on the environment without mitigation
measures applied.
There is, therefore, the potential for identified effects to be diminished or eliminated
through more detailed design of the schemes included in the strategy. As particular
schemes are taken forward to the detailed design and appraisal stage, consultation with
statutory and non-statutory organisations will enable mitigation measures to be developed
to reduce the potential effects identified in this appraisal.
The 10-Year Plan schemes have high BCR values and hence should be developed as soon
as possible. Whilst other schemes have lower BCR values, they are generally sufficient to
justify taking schemes forward with more detailed design and evaluation.
-196 -
12
Delivering the Strategy
12.1
Introduction
The development of an overall strategy, as well as the detailed plan to support that strategy,
is of little value unless it is capable of delivery within the timescale that it is actually required.
In the case of the multi-modal studies there is an imperative not only to produce a coherent
strategy in support of national transport objectives, but one which can also make a
significant contribution to the Government’s 10-Year Plan. In support of this, the study team
has worked closely with the Highways Agency in particular to identify schemes which could
be delivered within this timescale.
This section of the Report, therefore, deals with the programme for implementation, any
phasing requirements and the profile of expenditure resulting.
It also deals with major uncertainties such as the High Speed Rail line, Central Railway and the
possibility of major airport expansion in the South East to discuss how these might impinge on
the strategy which has been developed.
Finally, there is a discussion as to how the most contentious elements of the strategy from an
implementation viewpoint, namely the rail components, might be progressed.
12.2
Scheme Implementation Plan
12.2.1
Programme and Phasing
The proposed programme for the implementation of the multi-modal strategy is shown as
Figure 12.1 and is designed so as to:
•
bring forward road schemes that the Highways Agency wishes to include in its
Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) for the 10-Year Plan period;
•
ensure that schemes which link together at junctions have a common completion
date (eg M1 Junction 10 to 13 and Dunstable Northern Bypass);
•
avoid where possible the situation where schemes that link end to end are
constructed concurrently (eg M1 Junction 6A to 10 and M1 Junctions 10 to 13);
•
avoid where possible schemes that serve some of the same demand being
constructed concurrently (eg M1 and M11);
•
spread the larger capital expenditure so as to keep annual expenditure within
reasonable bounds.
- 197 -
Figure 12.1 Proposed Scheme Programme
Corridor Schemes for Version 3
Name
2003
M1
M1 J6a-10
M1 J10-13
M1 J12 closed
A5-M1 (Dunstable Northern)
M1-A6 Link (Luton Northern)
A6-A505 (Luton North-east)
WCML without HSL
MML without HSL
Bedford-Northampton Rail
A1
A1 Sandy/Beeston Bypass
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
ECML without HSL
M11
M11 J8-9
M11 J9-14
West Anglia Line
A421
A428
A421 M1-Bedford BP
A428 A1-Caxton Gibbet
A421 (Milton Keynes)
Oxford-Bedford Rail
Bedford-Cambridge Rail
A14
A14 Kettering Bypass
A14 M1-Kettering Bypass
A14 Kettering BP-Ellington
A14 Cambridge N - A11
Key
-
Preparation of scheme up to award of contract for the works
-
Construction of the Works up to opening for use
- 198 -
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
It is not possible to meet all of the above criteria for the proposed schemes so a balance
has had to be struck. There is a greater degree of certainty regarding the time needed for
road scheme preparation and construction than there is for the rail schemes and because
of this, the road improvements and new routes in each corridor have been included in the
programme as discrete schemes. These generally match the schemes as they are being
considered by the Highways Agency and local highway authorities. On the other hand
the railway improvements are a combination of additional track, additional platforms and
extended platforms at stations, revised junctions and the like, allied to modifications to
timetabling and train lengths, so that generally the rail ‘schemes’ cover the whole rail
corridor in the programme. New routes such as Bedford to Northampton, however, are
shown as individual schemes.
The programme includes scheme preparation as well as construction. For the road
schemes the preparation is considered to begin at the point when the scheme formally
enters into a highway authority programme, with a commitment to proceed to
construction. In the case of the Highways Agency the start of preparation coincides with
the entry of the scheme into the TPI. The duration of the preparation section of the
programme includes preliminary work leading to public consultation, post-consultation
work leading to a preferred route announcement, preliminary design and preparation of
Orders under the Highways Act, Public Inquiry, detailed design and tendering. This
culminates in the start of construction work.
The construction periods for the road schemes have been assessed in consultation with the
Highways Agency and durations of either two or three years have been selected
depending on the size and complexity of the scheme.
Preparation for the rail schemes is assumed to begin when the Strategic Rail Authority
(SRA) agrees to consider the case for the scheme. The preparation time allows for initial
surveys and data gathering, route location and preparation of a business case over a
period of about two years. A further two years is allowed for SRA to consider the scheme
and its business case and for refinement of the design. Assuming the scheme is approved
by the SRA, another two year period is included for the statutory processes, which could
either require a Parliamentary Bill or use of the Transport and Works Act, but the latter is
more likely. There is then four years set aside for contract preparation, tendering, award,
detailed design and financing. An exception to this preparation programme is the Bristol
to Bedford route where most of the proposed upgrading works are alongside existing track
or in existing rail corridors. It is therefore anticipated that the timescales could be reduced,
hence an allowance of 6 years instead of 10 has been made.
The construction periods for each of the rail corridors have been assessed on the basis of
engineering judgement and experience of the Study Team. For those schemes in ‘green
field’ locations such as Bedford to Northampton and Bedford to Cambridge, a
construction period of four years is considered appropriate. For all other rail corridor works,
construction periods have been set at five years due to the majority of works being near or
adjacent to the live railway. This will mean that working periods will be restricted because
of the need for railway possessions. In addition, whilst some of the items of work in each
corridor may be carried out concurrently, there will be some that will need to be
sequential so as to reduce delays to railway operations.
As stated earlier, the programme for the schemes in the strategy attempts to ensure that
schemes that link with each other are completed at the same date, schemes that link end
to end are constructed consecutively and schemes that serve some of the same demand
- 199 -
are not built concurrently.
proposed as follows:
•
For the highway schemes the phasing of construction is
M1 Junctions 6A-10
Considered a high priority so is placed as early as possible in the programme with
construction during 2006, 2007 and 2008.
•
M1 Junction 10-13
Programmed so that construction follows on from M1 Junction 6A to 10
completion, with construction during 2009, 2010 and 2011. This scheme shares a
junction with the A5-M1 Link (Dunstable Northern Bypass).
•
A5-M1 Link (Dunstable Northern Bypass)
This is programmed to have the same completion date as M1 Junctions 10 to 13
so that the shared junction, the new junction 11A, is available to both schemes on
opening. It also means that the additional capacity on the road network
provided by the two schemes becomes available at the same time and within
the Highways Agency’s 10-Year Plan ending in 2011.
•
M1-A6 and A6-A505 Links (Luton Northern Bypass)
These two schemes form a Northern Bypass to Luton.
The M1 to A6 is
programmed for construction during 2011 and 2012. It starts and finishes after the
A5-M1 Link but with about one year overlap. This ensures that Junction 11A on
the M1 is available by the time the A5-M1 Link is completed, whilst progressing the
rest of the scheme. There is a similar overlap between the construction periods for
the M1-A6 Link and the A6-A505 Link. This means that the complete connection
from the A5 and A505 from the west to the A505 east will be available in 2013.
•
A421 M1-Bedford Bypass
This scheme shares a junction with the M1 Junction 10 to 13 scheme so is
programmed to be completed at the same time, 2011, thus enabling the
increased capacity of the M1, Junction 13 and the A421 to be available together
and so maximise the benefits.
•
A421 M1-A5130 (Milton Keynes)
This scheme also connects to the M1 at Junction 13 so is programmed to be
completed in 2013 with construction starting in 2012 following on from the
completion of M1 Junction 13.
•
Ideally, this would be programmed for completion in 2012 to fit in with delivery of
HA schemes within the 10-Year Plan period, as is the A421 M1 to Bedford.
Although both of these schemes are programmed to be constructed at the same
time thus concentrating the expenditure in that period, it has the benefit of
- 200 -
making the whole of the A421/A428 available as dual carriageway from the M1
to Cambridge by 2012, assuming that the schemes at Great Barford and Caxton
to Cambridge are completed as expected. As discussed earlier, however, in
detailed discussions with the HA, it was acknowledged that this section of route
may slip beyond the 10-Year Plan period to an opening date of 2013.
•
M11 Junctions 8-9
This scheme is programmed for construction during 2009 to 2011, which coincides
with construction work on the M1 Junction 10 to 13. However, this is unavoidable
if this scheme and the M1 schemes are to remain in the HA’s 10-Year Plan.
•
M11 Junction 9-14
Programmed for construction during 2012 to 2014 this scheme is set to start after
completion of M11 Junction 8 to 9.
•
A14 Schemes
The four schemes on the A14 included in the strategy are programmed for
construction after the schemes that are included in the HA’s TPI for the 10-Year
Plan period. The A14 schemes are phased so as to be constructed consecutively
starting with Kettering Bypass in 2013, then Kettering Bypass to Ellington, then M1
to Kettering Bypass and finally Cambridge to A11, being completed in 2024.
For the rail schemes, the phasing of construction is as follows:
•
Bicester to Bletchley
This is programmed early in the study period with construction being during 2009
to 2013. (Note: For the purposes of strategy testing it was assumed that this could
be brought forward into the 10-Year Plan Period).
•
Bedford to Cambridge
This follows on from the completion of the Bicester to Bletchley section.
Construction is programmed during the period 2013 to 2016. Both of these
schemes would require an early commitment from the SRA. Preparation work for
the Bedford to Cambridge section is arranged so as to allow for the possibility of
dealing with the statutory procedures at the same time as the statutory
procedures for the A428 A1 to Caxton Gibbet Road Scheme. The Study Team
proposes that consideration should be given to the road and rail schemes being
promoted jointly under the Transport and Works Act over this section. However,
the longer preparation time for rail schemes compared with road schemes means
that construction at the same time would not be feasible unless the road scheme
was deferred by around three years.
•
Other rail corridors
The proposed upgrades to the main line corridors are phased so as to minimise
overlap of construction periods but to complete them all by 2031. The
- 201 -
programme provides for the schemes to be constructed first on the ECML, during
2013 to 2017, then the MML during 2017 to 2021, the WCML during 2022 to 2026
and the WAML during 2027 to 2031. By making the works on each corridor
consecutive, disruption and delays would not occur on more than one route at
any one time. The capital expenditure would also be spread over a longer
period.
The Bedford to Northampton Thameslink extension is programmed during 2018 to
2022 so that construction is phased with the works on the MML.
12.2.2
Costs
The estimated costs of the schemes included in the strategy are shown in Tables 12.1 and
12.2. The costs include for the capital cost of the works, preparation and supervision, land,
ancillary works (such as alterations to utilities), preliminaries, contingencies and an
allowance for risk.
Table 12.1 Highway Scheme Capital Costs (1st Quarter 2002)
Estimated Cost
(1st quarter 2002)
£ 149.03M
£ 252.72M
£
1.26M
£ 27.44M
£ 21.56M
£ 22.38M
£ 42.11M
£ 102.40M
£ 120.91M
£ 98.46M
£ 101.88M
£ 22.87M
£ 41.28M
£ 111.12M
£ 123.09M
£ 54.23M
Road Scheme
M1 Junctions 6A – 10
M1 Junctions 10 – 13
M1 Junction 12 closed
A5-M1 Link (Dunstable Northern Bypass)
M1-A6 Link (Luton Northern Bypass)
A6-A505 Link (Luton Northern Bypass)
A1 Sandy-Beeston Bypass
A421 M1 to Bedford Bypass
A428 A1 to Caxton Gibbet
A421 M1 to A5130 (Milton Keynes)
A14 M1 – Kettering Bypass
A14 Kettering Bypass – Ellington
A14 Cambridge – A11
Total Cost of Road Schemes
£1,292.74M
Table 12.2 Rail Scheme Capital Costs (1st Quarter 2002)
Midland Main Line
Bedford Northampton Link
Oxford to Bedford
Bedford to Cambridge
Estimated Cost
(1st quarter 2002)
£ 714.53M
£ 543.74M
£ 330.62M
£ 259.71M
£ 224.05M
£ 416.06M
£ 379.22M
Total Cost of Rail Schemes
£2,867.93M
Rail Scheme
- 202 -
12.2.3
Sources of Finance
The majority of the road schemes will be promoted by the Highways Agency, with the
remainder the responsibility of the local highway authorities.
The Local Authority
contribution will be some £67m. from a total of £1.292m. Funding for the schemes will
therefore generally be from public finance, although it is possible that some private
finance could contribute to the scheme costs where the scheme can be linked to
commercial development. This is more likely to be possible on schemes such as the Luton
and Dunstable Bypasses, A421 and A428 improvements.
The rail schemes will be promoted by the SRA and owned, operated and maintained by
Network Rail. Funding for the schemes will need to be primarily from the public sector but
there may be some scope for private finance input, mainly through arrangements to defer
public investment and spread the expenditure over time. For example additional rolling
stock for longer trains will be provided through Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCO’s) and
leased to the Train Operating Companies (TOC’s). Some returns will also be obtained
through increased track access charges.
Works such as platform extensions, additional tracks and structures would need to be
publicly financed although some recovery would be made through track access charges.
It is also anticipated that some smaller, discrete elements of work may be financed by
Local Authorities through their Local Transport Plans. No estimate, however, has been
made of this.
12.2.4
Expenditure Profiles
The expenditure required for the Study strategy occurs over the period 2003 to 2031 in
terms of capital cost and up to 2041 for additional maintenance for the road schemes
from their year of opening. The costs include scheme preparation cost (planning, statutory
processes, tendering, design), construction and supervision cost, land and ongoing
maintenance.
Expenditure profiles for the full strategy road and rail schemes are shown on Figure 12.2.
This shows that the required expenditure starts at a low level in 2003 up to 2005 when it
reaches about £16M. There is then an increase in 2006 up to £66M with small increases
over the next two years, being the period during which the M1 Junction 6A to 10 is being
widened. In 2009 there is a further significant increase in expenditure to £248M.
Expenditure continues at around £150M to £250M per year up to 2022 with further peaks in
2011, 2013 and 2022 in the range £250M to £300M. This period, 2009 to 2021 is when most
of the road schemes are constructed, rail schemes in the Oxford to Cambridge corridor
are constructed and schemes begin on the ECML. The cost profile details related to
schemes under construction for the period 2003 to up to the peak expenditure at 2013 are
given in Table 12.3.
- 203 -
Figure 12.2 Full Strategy Road and Rail
Cost Profile
293
350
255
193
191
197
£M per year
231
71
88
72
80
75
66
100
82
133
125
125
150
147
139
164
194
198
217
255
178
200
2001
2016
2021
Year
- 204 -
2026
2031
2036
2
2
2
2
9
2011
9
23
22
2006
2
14
16
2
0
0
9
50
0
Cost £M
250
234
248
300
2041
Table 12.3 Schemes Under Construction by Year
2003
Expenditure (£M)
(1st quarter 2002)
9
-
2004
14
-
2005
16
-
2006
66
M1 J6A-10
2007
75
M1 J6A-10
2008
80
M1 J6A-10
2009
248
M1 J10-13, M11 J8-9 A421 M1-Bedford
Oxford-Bedford Rail
2010
234
2011
255
2012
178
2013
293
M1 J10-13, Dunstable Northern Bypass,
M11 J8-9, A421 M1-Bedford,
A428 A1-Caxton Gibbet,
Oxford-Bedford Rail
M1 J10-13, Dunstable Northern Bypass,
M1-A6 Link,
A1 Sandy-Beeston Bypass
M11 J8-9, A421 M1-Bedford
A428 A1-Caxton Gibbet,
Oxford-Bedford Rail
Luton Northern Bypass,
A421-Milton Keynes Access,
A1 Sandy-Beeston Bypass,
M11 J9-14
Oxford-Bedford Rail
Luton Northern Bypass,
A421 Milton Keynes Access
M11 J9-14, Oxford-Bedford Rail
Bedford-Cambridge Rail
Year
Schemes under Construction
After 2022 the annual expenditure is in the range £100M to £150M reducing in the
period 2028 to 2031 to within the range of £50M to £100M. After 2031 the annual costs
are generally under £10M with peaks at intervals up to about £25M where an
allowance for structural road maintenance is made.
12.2.5
Traffic Management and Operations
Traffic management and operational factors that will be encountered during
construction will need to be considered in detail during the planning and design
stages for both road and rail in order to minimise disruption to users. Disruption to users
- 205 -
will be more significant for the motorway and all-purpose road widening and railway
upgrading than it will be on new routes.
On the motorways there will be possibilities of strategic diversion, local diversion and
use of hard shoulders. It is anticipated that the HA, and their contractors, will make use
of a combination of these methods.
Construction works on railway schemes where new routes are constructed, such as the
Bedford-Northampton line, will be virtually ‘green field’ sites and will only affect areas
where the proposed railway will cross existing roads while bridges are built. Minor
disruption will occur at temporary diversions at bridge construction sites, with delays to
road traffic being more significant at major roads, such as the A14 on the BedfordCambridge route. The new rail routes will also cause some disruption to existing
railways where they connect. The routes connect to or cross the north-south main
lines, requiring speed restrictions and possession of track on the north-south lines at
periods during the new route construction works. The design of these connections and
crossings will need to take account of the proposed upgrading works on the
north/south main lines, even though the main lines will still be in the preparation stage
or as in the case of the WAML and WCML, some years off starting design work.
Therefore some advanced design work for the north-south main lines will need to be
included in the preparation of the new routes.
The upgrading works on the WCML, MML and ECML involving additional tracks will
cause disruption to train operations as the works will be generally alongside existing
track. There may be some scope for re-routing long distance passengers from one line
to another or for early introduction of longer trains during the construction period on
each line to compensate for any reduction in service. The rail schemes on the northsouth main lines have also been phased in the proposed programme so as to avoid
disruption on more than one line at any one time.
12.3
Dealing With Uncertainty
12.3.1
High Speed Rail Line
The SRA is currently developing proposals for a new high-speed Anglo-Scottish route,
and a feasibility study is due to report shortly. The route to be taken, and the precise
stations to be served, are not yet confirmed. It is recognised, however, that the
number of stations would be limited and concentrated on key city centres.
Construction of the new route would impact on the LSM strategy in two respects:
•
the role of the existing north-south routes could be changed, with significant
changes to current service patterns; and
•
the financial commitment to constructing the new line would probably
preclude significant investment on parallel routes.
A service pattern has therefore been developed as a working assumption for this
Study, which represents one of many scenarios which could possibly be implemented.
- 206 -
The pattern has then been used to prepare and evaluate an alternative version of the
strategy, based on the following principles.
•
Recommendations for the WAML and the Bristol-Stansted Route will be
unaffected, since the High Speed Rail Line will not provide an alternative to
services in these corridors.
•
The Bedford to Northampton route will be re-instated as an extension of
Thameslink, but services will only run to Rugby since there will be insufficient
track capacity between Rugby and Birmingham.
•
Additional passenger services proposed for the WCML, MML and ECML will
not be implemented (except for those included in the Reference Case).
•
Existing passenger services on the above lines will be maintained to serve
intermediate locations, such as Milton Keynes and Coventry. However, since
the majority of inter-city passengers will transfer to the High Speed Rail Line,
the total journey time on these services will be less critical. Therefore, trains will
call additionally at selected outer-suburban stations. This will provide extra
capacity for commuting into London, and also improve connectivity
between the Study Area and the North. Inevitably, however, some stations
which are currently served by these trains will suffer an increase in journey
time as a result of the extra stops.
•
Due to the need to maintain existing passenger service levels with no
additional infrastructure, it will be difficult to accommodate significant growth
in freight traffic. The volume of freight transferring from road to rail has,
therefore, been capped at the level achievable within the SRA’s 10-Year
Plan.
The model showed that, as expected, a significant number of trips from the WCML,
MML and ECML transfer to the High Speed Rail Line. This results in a reduction in
crowding on most inter-city and suburban services. For a number of routes, however,
this crowding relief is less than the level which would be obtained from implementing
the additional services recommended in the LSM strategy. On an individual basis,
whilst inter-city passengers will benefit from the shorter journey times, some passengers
from intermediate locations will suffer a longer journey time due to additional stops on
the trains.
In addition, the traffic reduction on the highway network is less than the LSM strategy
due to the lack of opportunity created to carry additional freight by rail. A
comparatively small number of existing car drivers are expected to transfer to the new
rail service, since a large proportion of inter-city passengers already travel by rail.
It should be noted, however, that there will be additional benefits of the High Speed
Rail Line which are external to the Study Area, and not fully captured by the LSM
model. These include the air capacity created as current air passengers switch to
using the new rail service, and transfer from car trips in other parts of England and
Scotland.
- 207 -
It would be possible to increase the benefits of the modified strategy by optimising the
specification of the High Speed Rail Line from the point of view of the LSM Study Area.
For example, a few additional intermediate stations on the High Speed Rail Line, such
as Milton Keynes and Coventry, would enable some services to be withdrawn from the
existing lines. There would then be greater flexibility in re-allocating the vacated train
paths. This could, however, adversely affect benefits elsewhere, such as by increasing
the journey time, which would reduce the potential patronage by existing air
passengers. Further testing of options and dialogue with the SRA will be useful in this
respect.
12.3.2
South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS)
The SERAS Report was published in July 2002 and set out a range of options for further
airport development in the South East and East of England to accommodate an
expected three-fold increase in air passengers over the next 3 years. Addressing this
issue is of vital importance given the contribution of aviation to the national economy
in terms of business, leisure/tourism and high-value exports.
Not surprisingly, many of the options for consideration had a significant impact on
movement levels in the area. In some cases this resulted from proposals for Stansted
and/or Luton whilst in other cases it was clear that major proposals for airports outside
the area, such as Heathrow or Cliffe could also have profound effects. Table 12.4
summarises the options considered in the report and the scale of change, both in
terms of capacity and demand, which would result.
Table 12.4 Capacity/Forecast Demand in 2030 (mppa) Showing % Change from Base
Case
Options
Heathrow
%
Change
Gatwick
%
Change
%
Change
TOTAL
0
0
154.0
159.0
210%
190%
0
0
198.5
185.0
31
27
210%
170%
0
0
228.5
217.0
447%
393%
31
29
210%
190%
0
0
248.5
225.0
102
98
580%
553%
31
23
210%
130%
0
0
268.5
243.0
16%
-9%
82
76
447%
407%
31
16
210%
160%
0
0
275.5
249.0
46.5
42.0
16%
-7%
102
96
580%
540%
31
12
210%
20%
0
0
295.5
266.0
0%
-9%
46.5
41.0
16%
-9%
129
122
760%
713%
31
15
210%
50%
0
0
292.5
258.0
0%
-2%
46.5
40.0
16%
-11%
35
26
133%
73%
31
9
210%
-10%
113
110
311.5
272.0
15
15
Luton
%
Change
Cliffe
40.0
45.0
Stansted
Base Case
Capacity
Traffic
89
89
10
10
Max. Use
Capacity
Traffic
89
89
0%
0%
46.5
41.0
16%
-9%
35
26
133%
73%
31
29
Heathrow +1
Capacity
Traffic
116
116
30%
30%
46.5
48.0
16%
7%
35
26
133%
73%
Stansted +1
Capacity
Traffic
89
84
0%
-6%
46.5
38.0
16%
-16%
82
74
Stansted +2
Capacity
Traffic
89
82
0%
-8%
46.5
40.0
16%
-11%
Heathrow +1
Stansted +1
Capacity
Traffic
116
116
30%
30%
46.5
41.0
Heathrow +1
Stansted +2
Capacity
Traffic
116
116
30%
30%
Stansted +3
Capacity
Traffic
89
81
Cliffe (4
runways)
Capacity
Traffic
89
87
Within the Study Area the higher growth options, such as three additional runways at
Stansted or two at Stansted and one at Heathrow, will create profound land-use and
landside traffic impacts which are beyond the scope of this Study. In the case of
- 208 -
landside traffic, a primary effect will be to increase levels dramatically in direct
response to the airport growth. However, a secondary effect will reflect the increased
scale of support industries required to serve the airport and to provide for the
expanded work force. It is fair to say that these higher growth options can only be
examined using a model and planning scenarios that can reflect these secondary
effects.
As a point of principle, however, it must be emphasised that any appraisal of new
airport development should include all costs and benefits. Landside infrastructure
improvements necessary to service a particular option should, therefore, be included
in the option ‘costs’.
Despite the above caveats it is the case that substantial further development at
Stansted will put additional pressure on the M11, M25 and A14 corridors, probably
requiring additional capacity over and above that allowed for in the Preferred
Strategy. It will also strengthen the demand from some quarters for a new strategic link
west of Stansted to the M1 in the vicinity of Luton (across the Puckeridge Gap),
perhaps even becoming part of an Outer Orbital Route to the M25.
The Study Team cannot respond to this type of supposition except to re-iterate the
need for a model, sufficiently specified to examine such a proposal, its primary and
secondary effects, in detail. Such an appraisal must also encompass all costs and
benefits associated with such development. Importantly, it should also include the
LSM strategy, if approved by the Regional Planning Body and the Secretary of State,
as the Reference Case for its appraisal.
LSM work to date has assumed expansion at Stansted Airport up to 40 mppa and at
Luton up to 31 mppa and this is represented at Scenario A. Further work has
considered expansion at Stansted by an additional runway within the overall
specification for Scenario C. This makes no allowance for secondary responses, such
as an increase in locally based support services and major new allocations to house
the additional work force. The analysis is therefore of limited value in making a
detailed assessment of needs arising from airport expansion. It does, however, confirm
and reinforce the need for proposals already outlined in the strategy.
It is strongly recommended, given the lack of information and certainty at the current
time, that after the SERAS options have been fully appraised, including any landside
infrastructure proposals, the LSM strategy should be reviewed to ensure its continuing
integrity. It is also recommended that the SERAS proposals should be audited using the
LSM model, suitably modified, to verify their integrity.
12.3.3
Central Railway
Central Railway plc is a commercial organisation proposing to construct a new rail
freight route (the ‘Central Railway’) from Northern France to North West England, via
the Channel Tunnel. The railway would be built to standards consistent with Mainland
Europe, with lorries carried on trains to minimise loading time at terminals. It is
expected that a Bill will be submitted to Ministers towards the end of 2003.
- 209 -
This Study has not explicitly recommended construction of the Central Railway since
the costs incurred and the benefits accrued would be of national significance,
beyond that which could be considered as part of LSM.
The LSM strategy is unlikely to be affected by the outcome of the Central Railway Bill,
since international HGV movements represent a comparatively small proportion of
traffic using the highway network in the Study Area (and this is generally limited to the
M1, M11 and A14). Initial tests using the model have shown that removing certain
long-distance HGV trips would encourage cars and HGV’s which are currently using
parallel routes to transfer to the motorway network. In addition, the road space
vacated would encourage some generation of new car trips. Whilst facilitating the
transfer of strategic traffic to the motorway network is an important safety and
environmental objective, the need to widen the appropriate roads would not
therefore be removed.
Freight trains from the Channel Tunnel are currently routed via the WCML, which is also
used by many domestic freight trains. Moreover, freight trains on the MML, ECML and
WAML are almost entirely domestic. Therefore, whilst some freight trains could be
transferred from the WCML to Central Railway, the residual number of trains would
almost certainly still require the investment proposed between Watford Junction and
Berkhamsted. Similarly, the recommendations for the MML, ECML and WAML would still
be necessary to carry domestic freight trains.
12.4
Delivering the Rail Strategy
The scheme costs for the rail strategy have been estimated on the assumption that the
various schemes will be introduced as freestanding projects. However there could be
worthwhile cost savings if they are incorporated in a route upgrade strategy together
with maintenance and renewal activity that would be required in any case. For
example, a bridge that is due for renewal could be replaced by a wider span to
accommodate the additional tracks.
The SRA recently launched a consultation document on its proposed Capacity
Utilisation Strategy. This strategy is designed to develop a more rational allocation of
capacity on each route on the basis of the value for money offered by alternative
uses of the available capacity. The strategy also recognises that the pressures placed
on significant parts of the network as a result of the increase in service levels
experienced in recent years is a major contributor to poor reliability.
The main conflict between the Capacity Utilisation Strategy and the LSM rail strategy is
the assumption in LSM that all existing services must be retained. SRA will be looking to
develop route capacity utilisation strategies to provide the best value for money.
These may include both reductions and increases in service levels and could
incorporate some of the service developments identified as required in the rail
strategy. In the medium term the capacity utilisation strategies will need to take
account of the opportunities presented by schemes such as Thameslink 2000. The
results of capacity utilisation studies will create, in effect, a new Reference Case
situation. The value for money of the proposals in the rail strategy will then need to be
considered in the light of this new situation and their priority relative to other worthwhile
projects.
- 210 -
The SRA’s proposed Capacity Utilisation Strategy also has implications for the scenarios
assessing the impact of the proposed High Speed Line. As noted in the rail strategy
there will be a need to retain residual inter-city services on the existing main lines to
serve communities that are not catered for by the High Speed Line. However, the
value for money case for retaining these services at their current frequencies, when
major traffic flows divert onto the High Speed Line is likely to be weak. Instead, a
different pattern of services is likely to emerge tailored to meeting the market needs
and potential of the communities that will not be served by the High Speed Line. This is
likely to lead to a significant reduction in the number of inter-city services on the
existing main lines. However this could be counter-balanced by a requirement for
some additional commuter services from cities such as Milton Keynes where part of the
commuter load is carried on inter-city services. Nonetheless, the net impact is likely to
be a reduction in base service levels, freeing up capacity for some of the additional
passenger services and freight paths identified in the strategy. This may in turn reduce
or eliminate the need for some of the capacity enhancements highlighted in the
strategy.
- 211 -
13
13.1
Summary of Study Recommendations
Introduction
The London South Midlands Multi Modal Study has taken approximately two years to
complete, during which time the Study Team has undertaken extensive technical analysis
in a variety of disciplines.
A number of major studies of importance and relevance to LSM have reached their
conclusions during the course of the Study and steps have been taken to ensure, as far as
possible, the best possible fit between the conclusions emerging from these various studies.
LSM has also implemented a comprehensive consultation exercise designed to elicit
differing view points as to how transport policy generally should develop and what specific
interventions are required within the Study Area to address the needs of key stakeholders,
the public and the Government’s five overarching transport objectives.
In order to facilitate the implementation process, the Study Team has engaged with the
various delivery agencies to discuss how best any recommendations might be taken
forward within their respective programmes.
The Study has shown conclusively that despite some level of intervention as represented
by new infrastructure in the Reference Case, there will be a very severe deterioration in
travel conditions relative to the present day. The end result of this work, therefore, is that
the Study Team has recommended a comprehensive package of interventions and
supporting measures for the Study Area which will support the Government’s five
objectives and provide the necessary operational performance for the strategic transport
networks.
Some of the interventions are capable of early delivery within existing mechanisms but
others are less easy to deliver; for example they require a change of national policy, or are
justified in part on the need to support and reinforce other areas of policy, such as landuse planning.
Therefore, in concluding this report, the Study Team seek to provide the necessary ‘joinedup’ thinking which identifies a range of actions required to deliver the proposed strategy.
This thinking also identifies a range of network management issues, which must
complement the strategy if it is to deliver maximum benefit.
The recommendations are presented by delivery agency, geographical area, and, finally,
policy. Each recommendation is referenced by a number in parentheses.
13.2
Delivery Agencies
13.2.1
Introduction
The major infrastructure schemes contained within the strategy will be delivered by the
Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority. Others, however, have important roles
to play, including the various highway authorities in the Study Area, the planning
authorities, the Department for Transport, train and bus operators.
-212 -
13.2.2
The SRA is currently under considerable pressure to address the significant underinvestment which has occurred on the rail network over many years. The result is that
within the 10-Year Plan period SRA funding is already committed (through its Strategic
Plan) towards corrective and preventative maintenance, together with capacity
improvements within corridors where a substantial demand exists. It is also adopting a
much more financially stringent approach to investment with a Business Case needing to
be developed in support of major investment. In the recent past the SRA has examined
ways in which capacity on the network can be enhanced without necessarily creating the
need for new infrastructure. The ‘Capacity Utilisation Review’ is based upon the premise
that significant capacity increases can be achieved through more efficient pathing
arrangements, which exploit a more uniform service pattern in a particular corridor. Such
an approach is eminently sensible given the lack of financial and technical resources
available to create new capacity. It will, however, result in both ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ on
the rail network as service patterns are adjusted relative to the present day.
The LSM strategy, in contrast, is designed to address needs within a 30-year period with the
objective that many ‘win’ and none ‘lose’. Given that strategic timescale and the
underlying constraints it is inevitable that some proposals, beyond those which have
already been included within the Reference Case for the Study, may not satisfy a Business
Case examination at the current time. This is not to say that such investment would not be
justified but that more time is required before the strategic benefits of such investment can
be fully realised or, alternatively, that further land-use development must take place
before there is sufficient critical mass in certain corridors.
Given this context,
recommendations for development of the rail network are given below:
(1)
The creation of future rail capacity should continue to be sensitive to and
support long-term land-use planning.
(2)
The principle of improved connectivity between major networks should be
accepted as a long term strategic benefit which is considered as additive to
any Business Case assessment and be explicitly recognised in the appraisal
process.
(3)
The Business Case Assessment should recognise that the provision of additional
tracks in existing corridors will provide a significant improvement in reliability, as
trains will be able to use another track when one is blocked. In addition, the
cost and ease of maintenance and renewals will be improved as some of the
tracks can remain open, rather than possessions being required for entire
sections of route. These benefits should be considered part of any assessment
as should any reduction in overcrowding.
(4)
The SRA should see the strategy as a view of where rail infrastructure will be
required in 30 years. Thus, even if the need for 4-tracking and 6-tracking is not
required at this stage, any routine renewals such as bridge replacements should
be designed to accommodate possible widening of alignments at a later date.
East-West Rail
(5)
The western section of east-west rail between Bicester and Bletchley should
receive SRA support through an approved RPP bid at the earliest possible time
-213 -
(6)
(7)
to assist in works on WCML as well as the first stage of an east-west route. This
should include a station at Winslow and through services to the Chiltern line.
The SRA should pursue the eastern section of east-west rail on the most ‘direct’
alignment possible between Bedford and Cambridge, and in the same corridor
as an improved A421/A428 to minimise environmental disbenefits.
The SRA should initiate a study of rail accessibility to Stansted Airport, including
connections from WCML, MML and ECML without travelling through London,
given the possible future role of Stansted as an airport of national importance.
Even in the short-term, the role of Stansted as a transport hub facilitating
interchange between car, rail and bus should be marketed and strengthened.
(8)
The capacity of the WCML between Watford Junction and Berkhamsted should
be improved to allow better segregation of slow, semi-fast and fast trains.
Similar improvements should be provided between Rugby and Birmingham.
These improvements will facilitate additional freight services and local
passenger services. Detailed recommendations, however, may need to be
refined when the full specification for the WCML upgrade is finalised.
(9)
The potential for a new ‘parkway’ station on the Northampton loop should be
investigated in more detail.
Midland Main Line
(10)
The Bedford – Northampton route should be re-opened as an extension of
Thameslink services to Birmingham. This would facilitate many new strategic
journeys, which are currently difficult by rail.
(11)
Although construction of the Bedford-Northampton route may not start in the
near future, the alignment should be confirmed as soon as possible and land
protected against other development.
(12)
Additional capacity should be provided between Bedford and Leicester to
accommodate additional freight trains and additional passenger trains to
Leicester.
(13)
The intention to develop a new ‘parkway’ station at Elstow should be
confirmed at the earliest opportunity.
(14)
The ECML should have additional capacity provided between Welwyn Garden
City and Knebworth and between Huntingdon and Peterborough. This will
facilitate additional freight services and both local and inter-city passenger
services.
(15)
The stations at Stevenage and St Neots should be expanded to enable a
‘parkway’ role to be fulfilled, in view of their proximity to the strategic highway
network.
-214 -
(16)
Sufficient works in the London area should be carried out to maximise the
benefits of the enhancements in the Study Area.
(17)
All fast services between London and Cambridge or Stansted Airport should be
rerouted via Stratford. This will provide capacity required in the London area,
and enable passengers to benefit from the numerous interchange
opportunities available at Stratford.
(18)
A second tunnel to Stansted Airport should be provided. Additional capacity
should also be provided between Tottenham Hale and Bishop’s Stortford to
enable additional trains to be operated.
(19)
The potential for a new ‘parkway’ station in the Cambridge area should be
investigated in more detail
Freight Specific Proposals
(20)
SRA should ensure commitment to the Reference Case scheme to provide the
track capacity between Felixstowe and Nuneaton that is required to divert
freight trains away from London.
(21)
Any proposals for east-west rail should acknowledge the need for freight
capacity.
(22)
New intermodal terminals are required around London to achieve the forecast
growth in rail freight and should be provided with some urgency.
(23)
Within the Study Area rail-connected movements must be developed wherever
there is an economic case.
(24)
The potential for local intermodal terminals should be considered at strategic
locations such as Peterborough, Cambridge and Milton Keynes.
Highways Agency
The contribution of the Highways Agency to the delivery of the LSM strategy cannot be
overstated. With the majority of future rail investments that can be achieved within the 10Year Plan period incorporated within the Reference Case for the Study, virtually all the
major infrastructure proposals within the 10-Year Plan period relate to increased road
capacity. Key recommendations are summarised below:
(25)
The widening of M1 to dual 4-lane motorway between junctions 6A-10 is the
highest priority road scheme within the Study Area, given that the M1 currently
suffers congestion at all peak and many inter-peak periods throughout the
week. It should proceed at the very earliest opportunity.
(26)
M1 between Junctions 10 and 13 should be widened to dual 4-lane motorway
standard but not in advance of junctions 6A-10.
-215 -
(27)
The Dunstable Northern Bypass should replace the Dunstable Eastern Bypass as
the most appropriate means of bypassing Dunstable and providing access to
the M1.
(28)
A new junction, possibly 11A (see Recommendation 29 below), should be
formed between Dunstable Northern Bypass and the M1 which allows an
additional connection to a dual 2-lane all-purpose Luton Northern Bypass.
(29)
Given its proximity to Toddington services, a new junction 11A, and the low
levels of traffic carried at Junction 12, consideration should be given to closing
the latter, but with arrangements made to retain access/egress for the
emergency services.
(30)
The existing M1 Junction 13 should be re-modelled to separate east-west
through movements on the A421 from those wishing to access the motorway.
(31)
A detailed review should be undertaken of M1 Junction 14 given the proposals
for M1 widening, a re-modelled M1 Junction 13 and further expansion of Milton
Keynes as proposed by the Milton Keynes to South Midlands Sub-regional
Planning Study.
(32)
Given its strategic function as the most important national motorway the HA
should allow no further junctions to be formed on the M1.
(33)
All new construction and major maintenance should plan for the incorporation
of gantries, traffic monitoring and telecoms equipment at the earliest possible
opportunity. This will enable the introduction of Active Traffic Management
techniques, such as ramp metering, variable signing and signalling, and,
eventually, area wide road user charging without later disruption.
(34)
All existing motorway infrastructure should be similarly reviewed to determine
whether there is an Operational Case and a Business Case for incorporating
ATM at the earliest opportunity.
A1/A1(M) between M25 and A14
(35)
Given its sub-regional function, the relatively low levels of through traffic from
M25 to A14 and its primary role of serving the immediately adjacent urban
hinterland, the A1/A1(M) should not be viewed as a road of national
importance.
(36)
In view of its sub-regional function, the inconsistent standards along its length
and the design limitations imposed by motorway status, the status of the A1(M)
should be reviewed at the earliest possible opportunity, with a view to providing
a more flexible approach to design and speed limits commensurate with its
sub-regional role.
(37)
Between Junctions 6 and 8 the HA should follow one of two courses, either:
•
a modest improvement should be developed based on a climbing lane
north of Junction 6 supplemented by Active Traffic Management to
mitigate the worst effects of the loss in capacity across this junction; or
-216 -
•
A1 should be widened to dual 3-lane standard subject to safety
considerations and there being no increase of strategic, long-distance
traffic in the corridor. This could be achieved by using narrow lanes or
alternatively full width lanes with speed limit reductions on this and
adjacent sections.
(38)
For environmental reasons Sandy and Beeston should be bypassed using the
shortest length of route which will satisfy engineering design and safety
standards. The existing, bypassed A1 should be treated to reduce its capacity
and provide environmental betterment.
(39)
The section of A1 between Brampton and Alconbury should be widened to
dual 3-lane standard as part of implementing the A14 improvements
recommended by CHUMMS.
M11
(40)
Between Junctions 8 and 9 of the M11, the design standard should be dual 3lane motorway standard.
(41)
Between Junctions 9 and 14, the M11 should be dual 3-lane motorway
standard.
(42)
Given the uncertainty regarding the possible growth of Cambridge, Stansted
and Harlow, bridge over-widening and other techniques should be adopted
to allow for further traffic growth beyond the Study period.
(43)
Given the strong market in airport-related bus services, local traffic
management measures should be considered to ensure that bus services
receive appropriate priority in the vicinity of Stansted Airport.
A421/A428
(44)
The A421/A428 between the M1 and M11 should be widened to a consistent
dual 2-lane all-purpose standard.
(45)
The new alignment for A421/A428, particularly east of Great Barford Bypass
should make allowance for a parallel double-track railway.
(46)
Preparation of the A428 scheme between the A1 and M11 should make
allowance for a double-track railway and consideration should be given to
jointly promoting and contracting the A1 to Caxton Gibbet section of the road
and rail schemes.
(47)
The A14 should be widened to dual 3-lane standard between M1 junction 19
and the improvements proposed by CHUMMS, which terminate at A1 just south
of Huntingdon. The decision between motorway and all-purpose standard
should take account of final recommendations from detailed work currently
being progressed on CHUMMS.
(48)
Early improvement to the Kettering Bypass should be viewed as a key phasing
requirement.
A14
-217 -
(49)
Widening to dual 3-lane all-purpose standard should be pursued between the
B1047 and A11.
Network Management
(50)
The HA should grasp the opportunity created by an improved M1 Junction 19
and an improved A14/M11 to review the strategic management of the
highway network particularly with respect to trips between the North and
Midlands to East London, Kent and East Sussex, parts of Essex and the Channel
Ports.
(51)
At times of excess demand the HA should preserve the level-of-service
provided by the motorway network as a top priority. This would be through
measures such as Active Traffic Management, involving ramp metering,
dynamic signing and signalling etc.
13.2.3
Local Authorities
Local Authorities may be the local highway authority, the local planning authority or both
and their contribution to an overall strategy can support either of these roles.
In support of their planning function, the Study recommends that:
(52)
All new development should be located where it is accessible by good public
transport provision.
(53)
Strengthening of the east-west rail axis between Oxford, Milton Keynes,
Bedford and Cambridge should be a specific strategic and local priority for
land-use policy and for land-use allocations.
(54)
Bedfordshire County Council should draw on the outputs from LSM to support
the case for new development, and a new station, at Elstow.
In support of their transport function, including strategic highway provision the Study
recommends that:
(55)
Local Authorities should continue to support transport policies to promote
walking, cycling and public transport opportunities through urban design,
pricing and re-allocation of road space.
(56)
The creation of additional capacity on the A421, to the west of the M1 should
be phased to coincide with improvements at M1 Junction 13.
(57)
Construction of Luton Northern Bypass should be phased, if possible, to
coincide with construction of Dunstable Northern Bypass and M1 Junction 11A.
(58)
The precise alignment and junction arrangements for Luton Northern Bypass
should be determined by the relevant Local Authority(ies) and set in the
context of land-use planning aspirations as well as transport needs.
(59)
Local Authorities should promote interchange between rail and bus, and
strengthen local bus services as feeder routes to the rail network. A particular
-218 -
application, when bus and railway stations are separated, is to ensure a good
shuttle service and that all relevant routes serve the railway station. Bedford
and Cambridge are two examples where there is scope for this initiative.
13.3
Geographical Area
In a study such as LSM, which covers a large geographical area, there are a number of
locations where a specific issue or group of issues dominates the local consideration of
transport issues. This section therefore tries to ‘sweep up’ these remaining issues and
recommends that:
Milton Keynes
(60)
There is an inadequate case for a Milton Keynes Southern Bypass, based on
appraisal against the Government’s five overaching objectives. The existing
A421 will therefore need to accommodate through movements on the eastwest axis. This will require widening to dual 2-lane standard between M1
Junction 13 and the periphery of the urban area and may also require local
junction improvements through Milton Keynes itself.
(61)
Further detailed local analysis should be undertaken to determine how best to
integrate the Milton Keynes and Bletchley railway stations. One simple idea
would be to re-name Bletchley as ‘Bletchley and Milton Keynes South’,
supported by a network of bus services to different parts of Milton Keynes.
(62)
Further detailed analysis is required to determine how best M1 Junction 14 will
function given that widening of the M1 is only recommended to Junction 13.
Northampton
(63)
Further analysis should be undertaken to investigate in greater detail the
prospects for a ‘parkway’ station on the Northampton Loop.
Cambridge
(64)
Further analysis should be undertaken to investigate in greater detail the
prospects for a ‘parkway’ station north or south of the existing station.
Corby/Kettering
(65)
Although no Business Case can be made for a new passenger station at
Corby, the position should be kept under review in the light of further land-use
development.
Dunstable
(66)
Dunstable Eastern Bypass does not serve a strategic function but a protected
corridor may provide local access benefits, which should be resolved by the
respective Local Authorities.
-219 -
A414 Corridor
(67)
This does not serve a strategic function and any improvements should be local
in nature to assist local problems.
A45 Stanwick-Thrapston
(68)
Though not part of the overall strategy, improvement of this route to a
consistent standard by dualling the section between Stanwick and Thrapston is
considered to have merit.
(69)
The A5 between M1 and M6 does not serve a strategic function for north-south
movement, this function being served by the M1. Any operational or safety
problems should therefore be a local matter requiring small-scale solutions.
A5
A505
(70)
The A505 is not a strategic, long-distance corridor and whilst local network
improvements to Baldock and Hitchin are supported they should be of a
standard which does not attract additional long distance traffic into the
corridor.
East-West Travel
(71)
Any new strategic east-west road connection in the Study Area should be
resisted until all other possible transport solutions have been exhausted.
13.4
Policy
13.4.1
Introduction
The policy areas which emerged as being of significance to the Study and, at the same
time, which resulted in greatest uncertainty, or being the most controversial were as
follows:
•
road user charging which is not part of government policy but which was
demonstrated to generate significant major benefits in a Study Area where the
demand for movement is expected to grow by about 60% over the next 30
years;
•
air transport policy, where the recent SERAS and to a lesser extent MRAS reports,
identified a potential scale of airport development which could not be
accommodated by minor enhancements but could require wholesale change;
and
•
land-use policy, where at the current time, considerable uncertainties exist with
respect to the adoption of the proposals from the Sub-Regional Planning Studies
carried out for Milton Keynes to South Midlands and London-StanstedCambridge and further housing allocations announced in 2002 by the Deputy
Prime Minister.
-220 -
In addition an area of policy that should be dealt with explicitly relates to freight (in
addition to the specific recommendations made for rail freight) and this is therefore
covered in this section also.
In all these areas, the Study Team has reflected national policy which, per se, is beyond
the remit of the Study. However, knowledge gained through the level of analysis and
investigation undertaken has highlighted a number of important issues which challenge
certain aspects of national policy. Consequently, the Team believes it should present its
recommendations as a contribution to the considerations of the Regional Planning Bodies
and the Secretary of State.
13.4.2
Road User Charging
Whilst Active Traffic Management techniques allied to infrastructure improvements can
bring significant benefits in terms of improving throughput on the highway network, it is
envisaged that the management of traffic will need to be coupled, at some time in the
future, with measures designed to reduce demand. Given the effectiveness of road user
charging in reducing demand, the significant benefits which such a regime can deliver,
but the fact that it is not currently Government policy, the Study Team recommends the
following.
(72)
Road user charging in principle should be adopted by Government as a
mechanism which can deliver considerable benefit in its own right and which
can either complement or facilitate other necessary transport interventions.
(73)
Government should instigate a comprehensive research study to determine
how area-wide road user charging could be implemented at the earliest
possible date and what form it should take. Such studies should not, however,
delay adoption of the policy in principle.
(74)
Government should include in its consideration issues such as public
acceptability, including issues of civil liberties, feasibility, delivery (roll-out), as
well as integration with existing information databases and communications
networks. Crucially, it must also consider integration and rationalisation with
the existing fiscal regimes, as applied to private and commercial vehicles.
(75)
Any system implemented should be sufficiently flexible to allow changes to the
charging regime at a later date, for example to introduce charges by road
type or time of day.
(76)
Government should review existing arrangements for data collection,
communications and technology procurement to ensure ‘future proofing’ of
any investment in road user charging.
(77)
Studies should be undertaken to research the social consequences of road
user charging and mitigate any adverse effects.
(78)
Finally, Government should seek ‘early wins’ which will generate significant
benefits to existing arrangements as well as the road user charging. An
example would be the adoption of an electronic vehicle identifier, which
could replace the paper tax disc but also assist a variety of current
enforcement measures.
-221 -
13.4.3
Air Transport Policy
The SERAS study foresees a growth in air passenger movements in the South East and East
of England from just over 100 million per annum at the current time to three times this
number within a period of 30 years. The land distribution of growth between airports in the
South East could create a variety of land transport problems, depending upon which
combination is identified to provide the capacity required.
Importantly, whatever combination is finally chosen it should build upon the emerging
strategies from the multi modal studies. As a result it is recommended that:
(79)
The airport access implications and infrastructure requirements should be
subject to rigorous study and take account of the strategy emerging from LSM.
(80)
Any additional landside infrastructure beyond the multi modal study
recommendations, deemed to be necessary to accommodate
recommendations from SERAS, in particular, must be included within the overall
economic cost/benefit and framework appraisal for each airport strategy
option.
13.4.4
Land-Use Planning Policy
Land-use planning policy is the key determinant of travel demand in terms of scale,
location and mode. However, changes in policy cannot generate significant change in
transport demand in the short term, given the typically long periods between plan
development and implementation. Nevertheless, the integration of land-use and
transportation policy remains a pivotal requirement for long term change. In recognition
of this, it is recommended that:
(81)
As a principle, Government explicitly recognises the two-way process between
land-use and transport by reinforcing the need to locate new development
close to good public transport links and maximising the opportunities for walk
and cycle trips.
(82)
Regional Planning Guidance must provide a strong lead on the desirability, or
otherwise, of the Oxford-Cambridge arc and the transport infrastructure
necessary to underpin its creation and long-term sustainability.
(83)
Outputs from the London-Stansted-Cambridge and Milton-Keynes to South
Midlands Sub-Regional Planning studies should be accommodated within the
regional planning process as quickly as possible to minimise uncertainty and to
ensure any associated transport needs can be fully reflected within the LSM
strategy.
13.4.5
Freight
The key rail freight and inter modal proposals are set out in Recommendations 20 to 24. In
addition, there are two specific policy issues relating to freight.
(84)
The Distance Based Charging mechanism for goods vehicles should be explored
as a mechanism for encouraging vehicles to travel at night.
-222 -
(85)
13.4.6
A Freight Forum should be established covering the Study Area with a particular
focus on the retail distribution sector. The Forum should work closely with Freight
Quality Partnerships to spread best practice in load sharing, back loading and
load utilisation.
Other Matters
Within this general area of policy is an observation that on occasions the appraisal process
does not sit comfortably with transport policy as expressed through Government
objectives. An example of this is the extent to which transport investment should
accommodate existing behaviour as revealed, for example, through the existing
“demand for movement” or the extent to which it can be a catalyst for change. Within
the appraisal process, it is almost always the case, not unreasonably, that
accommodating existing patterns of behaviour provides a more compelling case for
investment. However, this can undermine the potential role of transport as an agent for
change, as illustrated by the competing claims of east-west and north-south rail travel.
Given limited resources, investment will always favour north-south travel because of
established and significant demands to the possible exclusion of east-west travel.
Nevertheless, improvement to east-west rail travel remains a strategic transport objective
in its own right, supports a major regional land-use objective and offers the possibility for
long-term change beyond the Study period. As such, it is recommended that:
(86)
The appraisal process should explicitly recognise and reward the achievement
of strategic change, in support of national or regional transport, land-use or
economic objectives.
The pricing of transport, and particularly private transport is not the subject of this Study
although the assumptions made do have a profound impact on the strategy finally
developed. In this respect, the Study Team feel justified in making the following
recommendation:
(87)
The price of any transport mode to the end user should reflect the external costs
of travel. This would require a progressive increase in the cost of private travel
by car until such time as road user charging was adopted and became the
mechanism for internalising external costs.
Finally, methodologies which have been developed by the Government to support studies
such as LSM, should be reviewed, to ensure that they adequately reflect the emerging
demographic, fiscal and social trends affecting future demands for travel. As the primary
planning tool for multi modal studies and given the problems experienced by LSM it is
recommended that:
(88)
There should be a thorough audit of TEMPRO to ensure that it reflects the latest
strategic planning allocations and that the relationships within it are transparent,
logical and internally consistent.
-223 -
Appendix A – Terms of Reference
Study Area
The Study Area should encompass all strategic routes between London and the South
Midlands and therefore can be regarded as being bounded by the A5 and WCML in the
west and the M11/A14 and West Anglia Great Northern (WAGN) Line in the east. The
southern boundary of the immediate area of interest is the M25 London Orbital Motorway
while the northern boundary is just north of the A14.
The Scoping Study identified that while the above Study Area forms the immediate “Area
of Interest” the development of transport and other policies in the surrounding areas are
likely to influence travel behaviour, transport policy and the provision of transport
infrastructure in the Area of Interest. An “Area of Influence”, around the Area of Interest,
has therefore been defined. While this study will need to take account of the impact of
transport policies, strategies and plans being developed in this wider Area of Influence it
will be confined to addressing the problems of the Area of Interest.
There are a number of other studies that, to varying degrees, overlap with the area of this
study. It will be important for this study to be informed by and to inform each of these
studies on the development of strategies and plans. In particular, the following studies
contain Study Areas that are nested within this London to South Midlands Study:
•
•
Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study
M1 Junction 19 Roads-Based Study
The Consultant will be expected to have regard to the issues and the development of
options within these Study Areas, and where appropriate, to take account of the
outcomes from these studies when considering the development of strategies and the
appraisal of options.
Other studies, whose Study Areas overlap with this study, and with whom a high degree of
mutual interest lie include:
•
•
London Orbital Multi-Modal Study
North-South Movements in the East Midlands
The Consultant will be expected to have regard to the issues and the development of
options within these Study Areas, as they impact upon the London to South Midlands Area
of Interest.
The Consultant will be expected to make contact with, and liase, with consultants
employed on other studies for the mutual exchange and co-ordination of information and
effort. In particular it will be necessary to ensure mutual compatibility on issues such as
data collection, model development and use.
General Objectives
The study will be guided by the Government’s five over-arching criteria for transport as set
out in the White Paper “A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone” published in July
1998, namely:
- Ai -
•
•
•
•
•
integration – ensuring that all decisions are taken in the context of our integrated
transport policy
safety – to improve safety for all transport users
economy – supporting sustainable economic activity in appropriate locations and
getting good value for money
environmental impact – protecting the built and natural environment
accessibility – improving access to everyday facilities for those without a car and
reducing community severance
The study will be guided by the national transport strategy as set out in the Government’s
plan for transport “Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan”.
The overall aim of the study is to make recommendations for a long-term strategy to meet
the passenger and freight transport needs within an area based on the M1, A1(M)/A1 and
M11 corridors. To achieve this, the study is to consider the congestion problems on the key
corridors within the Study Area by looking in particular at the opportunities for a modal
shift from the car and lorry and by looking at opportunities to manage the demand for
travel.
The study should make recommendations on the problems of east-west travel across the
Study Area both in terms of the difficulties of east-west movement and the impact that
east-west movement has on north-south congestion. Of particular relevance is the role of
the A14, the lack of a strategic east –west route between the A14 and the M25, and the
lack of an east-west railway.
There are a number of general issues which this study must address in developing options
for the long term strategy:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the opportunities for changing travel behaviour through the implementation of a
coherent and integrated series of strategies aimed at modal transfers and reducing
traffic volumes
the opportunities for a change in culture (‘hearts and minds’) to promote
sustainable travel behaviour
the contributions different modes of travel can make to improving accessibility
between major conurbations
the potential role of rail service improvements in meeting regional transport
objectives
the role of air travel in contributing to national and regional transport objectives
the efficient movement of freight and the maximisation of opportunities for the
movement of freight by rail
the interaction between land-use development and the transport system
the opportunities to reduce the environmental impact of transport
the need to improve safety on all transport networks
the likely impact of new technologies and home-working on the desire to travel
In identifying transport and other policy options to cater for the future travel demands the
study should consider:•
•
•
•
•
measures to make better use of existing infrastructure
measures to manage demand
urban and inter-urban charging
access controls
measures to give priority to certain modes
- Aii -
•
•
•
•
provision of new infrastructure and modal opportunities
land-use planning measures
measures to reduce the need to travel
measures that make use of new technologies in communication
The output from the study will be recommendations on a preferred strategy which will
address the transport problems of the Study Area and which will meet national, regional
and local objectives. The preferred strategy will be accompanied by a plan of
interventions that will clearly define how the strategy should be implemented, the delivery
process and programme. The recommendations will be made to Regional Planning
Bodies who will take responsibility for the strategy.
Specific Objectives
To address the congestion problem on north-south routes, and to identify the extent to
which modes, other than the car or lorry, can contribute to the solution.
To make recommendations on the road improvements specifically remitted to the study
from the Roads Review, namely:•
•
•
M1 Junctions 6A – 10 Widening
A1(M) Junctions 6 – 8 Widening
A5 Dunstable Eastern Bypass
To review and, if suitable, to incorporate work from previous studies undertaken in the
corridor.
To identify the conflicts between the needs of long-distance movements and local
movements on the strategic road and rail networks in the Study Area
To identify and examine the extent to which difficulties with east-west movements within
the Study Area contribute to the congestion on north-south routes.
To address the congestion problems on east-west routes, and to identify the extent to
which modes other than the car or lorry can contribute to the solution.
To consider the need for improvements to east-west accessibility within the Study Area by
road and rail making particular reference to proposals for an East-West rail link through the
Study Area.
To improve surface access to airports within the Study Area, with particular reference to
London Stansted and London Luton airports. There is also a need to consider access to
London Heathrow airport, as it impacts on the Study Area.
To identify the extent to which improvements in the capacity of the rail network within the
Study Area can contribute to encouraging a modal shift, with particular reference to the
West Coast Main Line Upgrade, East Coast Main Line Upgrade, West Anglia Route
Modernisation, the proposals for the Central Railway and the re-franchising proposals of
the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority. A need exists to consider the capacity constraints at
the London Termini and on trains especially during the peak periods.
- Aiii -
To identify the impact of development pressures in the Study Area on the transport
network, with particular reference to access to the following areas;
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cambridge
Stansted
Stevenage
Milton Keynes/ Bedford
Luton/Dunstable
Corby/ Kettering/ Wellingborough/ Northampton
To consider the transport needs and problems of the rural areas within the Study Area with
particular reference to the Governments objectives on social inclusion and accessibility
for all.
To consider planned and possible future development needs and pressures affecting the
Study Area and assess their impact on the operation of the M1, M11, A1(M), A1 and other
strategic routes.
To take account of proposals for other transport investments within the Study Area, such as
local public transport investments that are being considered by Local Authorities in their
Local Transport Plans.
To take account of the following highway schemes that form part of the Highway
Agency’s Targeted Programme of Improvements:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A6 Clapham Bypass
A6 Great Glen Bypass
A120 Stansted – Braintree
A421 Great Barford Bypass
A41 Aston Clinton Bypass
A6 Rothwell to Desborough Bypass
A6 Rushden & Higham Ferrers Bypass
A43 Towcester to M40 Dualling
A6 Bedford Western Bypass (developer led A421-A428 link)
A428 Caxton Common to Hardwick (developer led)
To assess the effect on the level of demand of future changes in the use of various
transport modes, future land use policies and future transportation systems up to the
prescribed horizon year of 2031. Strategies will also require to be tested for intermediate
years of 2006, and 2016.
There are likely to be a wide range of transport options identified by the Wider Reference
Group and through the public consultations. It will be necessary to sift these options to
identify those which will be included in the strategies which will be tested and from which
the recommended strategy will be chosen.
Linked to the different transport strategies will be a range of land use / planning strategies
and as it will not be possible to test all possible combinations, some consistent and
transparent means of sifting the combinations will be essential.
Recommendations should be presented to the Main Steering Group and to the Secretary
of State through Regional Planning Bodies. Decisions will be taken during the course of the
Study to enable the Consultant to take forward the approved choices for further testing.
- Aiv -
To undertake extensive consultation on these options with the public and other interests
To recommend one or more strategies that will address the transport problems of the
Study Area and which will meet national, regional and local objectives. To identify from
those strategies a preferred strategy for consideration by Regional Planning Bodies for
inclusion in the Regional Planning Guidance.
To identify and recommend a plan of specific interventions and schemes that when
implemented will deliver the preferred strategy.
To identify sources of funding for the elements of the strategy, including possible
developer contributions to the construction of alternative transport options, and
investment from the public transport providers.
To prepare a plan of interventions for the preferred strategy identifying an implementation
programme, the delivery process, achievable targets and the key stakeholders who will
be required to take forward individual elements of the plan.
The plan of interventions should clearly identify the role key stakeholders have in
implementing the strategy and the actions they need to take. This should take account of
the linkages between the results of this and other Multi-Modal Studies, the Regional
Planning Guidance and the Local Development and Transport Plans.
- Av -
Appendix B – Steering Group Representation
Organisation
Representation 1
Government Office for the East of
England
Caroline Bowdler2
Mike Evans3
Government Office for the South East
John Rider
Government Office for the East
Midlands
Mike Hewitt (Mick Woodcock)
Multi Modal Studies Unit
Ian Dalton (Philip Mills, Ciara Mulligan)
Matthew Lodge
Railtrack
Richard Workman (Tony Rivero)
Highways Agency
John Faulkner (Iain Semple, Alan
Kirkdale, Jim Bond)
BAA Plc
Chris Bush
Ian Achurch (Chris Shaw)
Glenn Barcham
East of England Local Government
Conference
Alan Moore
Steve Cox (Philip Amison, Natalie
Blaken)
East Midlands Transport Activists Round
Table (Friends of the Earth)
Andy Brooks (William Miller)
Council for the Protection of Rural
England
Michael Brooks
RAC Foundation for Motoring
David Leibling
Fright Transport Association
Ken Costello (John Guttridge)
1.
2.
3.
The representation given reflects the Steering Group Members who were in
place at the conclusion of the Study. Names in brackets highlight those
who were either the organisation’s nominee at an earlier stage in the Study,
or who deputised at any stage.
Chair of Steering Group
Study Manager
- Bi -
Appendix C - Wider Reference Group
Organisation
Stansted Airport Ltd
Confederation of Passenger Transport
National Express Ltd / Airlinks
National Federation of Bus Users
Stagecoach East
Cambridge City Council
East Cambridgeshire District Council
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Countryside Agency
CPRE
English Heritage
English Nature
Environment Agency
Friends of the Earth
The National Trust
T2000 (UK)
English Welsh and Scottish Railways
Freight Transport Association
Freightliner
Rail Freight Group
Cambridge Health Authority
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Great North Eastern Railway
Rail Passengers Committee for Eastern England
The Railway Forum
Automobile Association
RAC Foundation
Pedestrians' Association
Swavesey and District Bridleway Association
CTC)
Leicestershire County Council
Oxfordshire County Council
Buckinghamshire County Council
Hertfordshire County Council
Cambridgeshire County Council
Essex County Council
Warwickshire County Council
South Northamptonshire Council
- Ci -
Organisation
Northampton Borough Council
Kettering Borough Council
Daventry District Council
Huntingdonshire District Council
Aylesbury Vale District Council
Chiltern District Council
Wycombe District Council
South Bucks District Council
Corby Borough Council
East Northamptonshire Council
Wellingborough Borough Council
Bedford Borough Council
South Bedfordshire District Council
Mid Bedfordshire District Council
Rugby Borough Council
Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Warwick District Council
Cherwell District Council
Oxford City Council
South Oxfordshire District Council
Chelmsford Borough Council
Epping Forest District Council
Harlow Council
Uttlesford District Council
Broxbourne District Council
Dacorum Borough Council
East Hertfordshire District Council
Hertsmere District Council
North Hertfordshire District Council
St Albans City & District Council
Stevenage Borough Council
Three Rivers District Council
Watford District Council
Welwyn Hatfield Council
Midland Main Line Ltd
Central Trains Ltd
Chiltern Railways
Connex
Central Railway
Virgin Trains
Silverlink Train Services Ltd
Thameslink Rail Ltd
West Anglia Great Northern Railways Ltd
Campaign Against A5 Dunstable Bypass
- Cii -
Organisation
London Luton Airport Operations Ltd
SERPLAN
EMRLGA
WMLGA
First Bus
Arriva (The Shires & Essex)
Allied Continental Intermodal Ltd.
Combined Transport Ltd.
Direct Rail Services Ltd
Highways Agency
Railtrack Midlands Zone
Railtrack East Anglia
Railtrack London North Eastern
British Waterways
Countryside Agency
Friends of the Earth
CPRE
STEER
T2000
Road Haulage Association
RAC
Motorcycle Action Group
Rail Passengers Committee
Cyclists' Touring Club
Ramblers' Association
SUSTRANS
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
Disabled Drivers' Motor Club
Age Concern
Chamber of Commerce
EELGC (East of England Local Government Conference)
Leicestershire Constabulary
Confederation of British Industry
Institute of Directors
Government Office for the West Midlands
Anglia Railways
Association of Train Operating Companies
Association for Dunstable Area Passenger Trains
- Ciii -
Organisation
East Midlands Development Agency
Cambridge Airport
First Eastern National Buses
Hertfordshire Constabulary
British Horse Society
Vauxhall Motors Ltd.
The Potter Group
Essex Police
Blaby District Council
Bedfordshire Police
Northamptonshire Police
Harborough District Council
Transport & General Workers Union (TGWU)
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
Trades Union Congress
Oadby & Wigston District Council
First Bus (Northampton Transport Ltd)
Bedfordshire & Luton Chamber of Commerce
Cambridge & District Chamber of Commerce
Essex Chamber of Commerce
Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce
Hertfordshire Chamber of Commerce
Milton Keynes & North Bucks Chamber of Commerce
British Motorcyclists Federation
British Road Federation
Unison
Institution of Highways and Transportation
Coventry City Council
Leicester City Council
Luton Borough Council
Milton Keynes Council
Peterborough City Council
Rutland County Council
RailFuture (formerly Railway Development Society)
Stagecoach Cambus
First Bus Leicester
TUC West Midlands
- Civ -
Appendix D – Consultant Team Representation
Organisation
Faber Maunsell
Representation
Management:
Transport Modelling:
Corridor Studies:
Engineering:
Consultation:
G Copley (Project Director)
H Blessington (Project Manager)
S Tarry (Deputy Project Manager)
S Freedman (Administrator)
S Shapiro (Team Leader)
P Olak
M Rheinberg
S Newman
D Aldridge
J Pattinson
D McGuigan
B Bartlett
R Pettit
F Lever
D Voss
Ecotec
Socio-Economic
Analysis:
G Barrett
M Sales
David Lock
Associates
Strategic
Planning:
D Lock
J Urwin
A Owen
J Scarlett
Environmental
Resource
Management
Environmental
Appraisal:
S Purnell
B Davidson
S Mitchell
M Stallard
Sinclair Knight
Merz
Freight:
I Brooker
Projects in
Partnership
Consultation:
H Poldervaart
L Wetenhall
L Colbourne
Count-On-Us
Data Collection:
G O’Regan
Land-Use
- Di -
Appendix E - Modelling Framework
1.1
Role of Transport Model
The intensity and complexity of movement within the Study Area is such that a
comprehensive analytical base was required both to describe this movement in detail and
as a consistent base for testing different options. This was achieved by means of a transport
model, which could describe, reflect and report on the range of possible interventions
which had to be considered and the behavioural responses likely to result.
The modelling was divided into two components, strategic and corridor. The strategic
model was used during the first part of the Study to address area wide policies and major
infrastructure investment schemes. During the latter months of the study, this model was
refined to give a more detailed network and more accurate trip matrices in the principal
corridors associated with the study. This ‘corridor model’ was then used to test the effects of
implementing specific schemes and policies at a more local level.
1.2
Overview of Model
1.2.1
Structure of Model
The model was based on a standard four-stage approach, with elements of trip generation,
distribution, mode choice and assignment. The overall sequence for a model run is shown in
a simplified format as Figure E1.
Figure E.1 Overall Model Structure
4
x3
x3
Assignment
SATURN
(Highway)
Trip
Distribution
EMME/2
(Public
Transport)
Mode
Choice
x3
Trip
Generation
(or
suppression)
x3
In the first instance, the matrices for a given year and land use scenario were assigned to
the appropriate networks for each mode and time period. ‘Generalised costs’ of travel
between each origin and destination zone were calculated for each mode from the
assignments, and by comparison with the generalised costs from the base year (2001)
assignments, the distribution model adjusted the origins or destinations of certain trips. A
- Ei -
similar procedure was then used in the mode choice model to adjust the proportion of trips
between each origin and destination zone which used each of the three modes. Finally,
the trip generation model was used to estimate the number of new trips which will be made
(or the number which will be suppressed) between each origin and destination zone as a
result of the change in generalised cost.
Following completion of the “assignment – distribution – mode choice – generation” cycle,
the revised trip matrices were assigned to the networks a second time, and the entire cycle
repeated. Unlike the first iteration, however, the generalised costs were compared with
those from the first iteration rather than those from the 2001 assignments.
Similarly, a third iteration was carried out, and a final assignment of the trip matrices
produced by this iteration. The number of iterations was selected at three based on tests on
convergence of the model.
1.2.2
Area of Coverage
The model was set up to:
•
have greatest detail for the Study Area itself, which was the main focus for all
schemes tested; and
•
include the Wider Area of Influence, which delineates a boundary within which it
was considered possible that solutions to the problems affecting the Study Area
may need to be tested.
In practice, however, the model extends, albeit in skeletal form, to the whole of England,
Scotland and Wales.
1.2.3
Zone Structure
The zoning system was developed to follow Local Authority boundaries, with each zone
representing:
•
one or more Wards within and close to the Study Area;
•
one Borough in Greater London;
•
one or more Districts in most of South East England and the Midlands; and
•
one County elsewhere in England, Scotland and Wales.
Additional zones were also included to cover passenger and employee trips associated
with the key air and sea ports relevant to the Study Area, i.e. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted,
Luton and Harwich.
This resulted in a total of 588 zones comprising:
•
258 within the Study Area;
•
316 outside the Study Area; and
•
14 representing air and sea ports.
- Eii -
The number of zones associated with each District in the Study Area is shown in Table E.1,
whilst the number of zones outside the Study Area is shown in Table E.2. As can be seen from
these tables, a zone numbering convention was adopted at County and District level, for
ease of identification and to facilitate grouping into various areas.
Table E.1 Zoning Inside the Study Area
County
District
Hertfordshire
North Hertfordshire
101xx
Stevenage
102xx
3
East Hertfordshire
103xx
18
Dacorum
104xx
10
St Albans
105xx
10
Welwyn Hatfield
106xx
9
Broxbourne
107xx
3
Bedfordshire
Zone Numbers
Total Number
13
Three Rivers
108xx
3
Watford
109xx
5
Hertsmere
111xx
2
North Bedfordshire
121xx
10
Mid Bedfordshire
122xx
19
South Bedfordshire
123xx
11
Luton
Luton
131xx
5
Cambridgeshire
Huntingdon
152xx
13
East Cambridgeshire
153xx
5
South Cambridgeshire
154xx
15
Cambridge
155xx
2
Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes
161xx
12
Buckinghamshire
Aylesbury Vale
171xx
14
Chiltern
173xx
6
Corby
181xx
1
Kettering
182xx
3
East Northamptonshire
183xx
7
Daventry
184xx
5
Northamptonshire
Essex
Northampton
185xx
3
Wellingborough
186xx
8
South Northamptonshire
187xx
10
Uttlesford
201xx
17
Harlow
205xx
2
Epping Forest
206xx
11
Harborough
254xx
1
Rutland
260xx
1
Warwickshire
Rugby
283xx
1
Airports
Stansted Airport
22xxx
2
Luton Airport
22xxx
2
Leicestershire
GRAND TOTAL
- Eiii -
262
Table E.2 Zoning Outside the Study Area
County
Peterborough
Cambridgeshire
Buckinghamshire
Oxfordshire
Essex
Southend-on-Sea
Suffolk
Norfolk
Leicestershire
Warwickshire
West Midlands
Nottinghamshire
Derbyshire
Lincolnshire
Kent
Surrey
West Sussex
East Sussex
London
Hampshire
Staffordshire
Berkshire
Other Counties/Regions
Ports
District
Peterborough
Fenland
High Wycombe
South Buckinghamshire
West Oxfordshire
Cherwell
Oxford
Vale of White Horse
South Oxfordshire
Braintree
Colchester
Tendring
Chelmsford
Maldon
Brentwood
Basildon
Rochford
Thurrock
Castlepoint
Southend-on-Sea
Heathrow Airport
Gatwick Airport
Harwich Port
GRAND TOTAL
1.2.4
Zone Numbers
141xx
151xx
172xx
174xx
191xx
192xx
193xx
194xx
195xx
202xx
203xx
204xx
207xx
208xx
209xx
211xx
212xx
213xx
214xx
221xx
23xxx
24xxx
25xxx, 26xxx, 27xxx
28xxx
29xxx
31xxx, 32xxx
33xxx, 34xxx
35xxx
36xxx, 37xxx
38xxx, 39xxx
40xxx
41xxx
42xxx, 43xxx, 44xxx, 45xxx
46xxx, 47xxx
48xxx
89xxx
49xxx to 87xxx
22xxx, 88xxx
22xxx
23xxx
Total Number
2
5
5
5
5
9
3
6
11
11
7
11
12
7
4
3
6
5
1
1
7
7
7
4
7
8
9
9
13
11
8
5
33
14
9
6
40
6
2
2
326
Modelling Software
The overall four-stage model for the Study was developed to operate in the EMME/2
modelling suite, due to its matrix manipulation capabilities. In addition, the public transport
assignment model operates within EMME/2.
However, for modelling a congested highway network, SATURN is more suitable than
EMME/2. The highway model was therefore set up to operate in SATURN with a bespoke
computer program designed to convert matrices between the EMME/2 and SATURN
formats.
- Eiv -
1.2.5
User Groups
The model contained twelve user groups. This had several advantages:
•
different assignment procedures could be attributed to each user group, reflecting
the relative importance they attach to different elements of the journey, such as
time and distance;
•
the mix of user groups at particular points on the network, or travelling between
particular zones, could be examined;
•
different growth factors for the future years could be attributed to each user group;
and
•
different parameters could be applied to each user group in the generation,
distribution and mode choice models, representing their different behavioural
responses and hence propensities to change travel patterns.
The user classes and their application in the various components of the model are
summarised in Table E.3.
Table E.3 User Classes
User Class
Car
Highway
Available Assignment
Public
Mode Distribution Generation
Transport Choice
Model
Model
Assignment
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Light Goods Vehicles (LGV)
!
!
"
"
!
"
Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV)
!
!
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
!
!
!
"
"
!
!
!
!
"
"
!
!
!
!
"
"
!
!
!
!
"
"
!
!
!
!
1.2.6
Time Periods
Three time periods were modelled to capture the mix of business and leisure trips in the
Study Area:
•
morning peak (0700 to 1000 hours);
•
off-peak (1000 to 1600 hours); and
•
evening peak (1600 to 1900 hours).
- Ev -
Although the public transport model actually operates for each of these time periods,
SATURN assignments are usually carried out for a one hour period, and hence have been
set up to represent an average hour in each case.
1.3
Assignment Model
1.3.1
Highway Network
SATURN allows networks to be coded at two levels – simulation and buffer. Within the
simulation area each junction is coded in considerable and explicit detail, whereas in the
buffer area a less detailed link based representation is used. As a general rule, the area
within the Study Area is represented by a simulation network, whilst that outside is
represented by a buffer network.
When creating the highway network for the LSM assignment model, maximum use was
made of the following existing models:
•
New Assessment of M25 Improvements (NAOMI) model;
•
Eastern Region Traffic Model;
•
the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS) model; and
•
local models for Bedford, Milton Keynes and Northampton.
Data from these models were supplemented and refined using information from a
helicopter video survey covering the principal corridors, and also from Ordnance Survey
maps. The final network contained around 13,700 links, giving coverage as follows:
•
in the simulation area, all motorways and A-roads, most B-roads and certain “minor
roads” considered to have strategic significance (for example, potential “rat runs”
which could be used to bypass the main roads); and
•
in the buffer area, all motorways and A-roads considered to be of particular
importance, increasing in density towards the Study Area.
The full network is shown in Figure E.2, with an inset for the Study Area in Figure E.3.
- Evi -
Figure E.2 National Highway Network
Figure E.3 Highway Network within Study Area
1.3.2
Highway Trip Matrices (Base Year)
It was originally intended to base the highway trip matrices on data from roadside
interviews (scheduled to take place in Autumn 2000), supplementing data as necessary
from the NAOMI and ERTM models. However, the survey programme was delayed and
reduced due to a number of external influences. These included the fuel crisis of Autumn
- Evii -
2000, non-typical travel patterns as a result of the Hatfield and Selby rail crashes, the
outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease in Spring 2001; and the General Election in June 2001.
The roadside interview surveys were, therefore, only incorporated as part of the corridor
modelling, with the strategic model matrices being based entirely on data from NAOMI and
ERTM. In addition, since the volume of survey data available was less than originally
anticipated, data from several other models were incorporated in the corridor model
matrices, including:
•
a local model for Milton Keynes;
•
a local model for Luton and Dunstable; and
•
the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS) model.
The matrices were further refined using ‘matrix estimation’. This is a procedure within SATURN
whereby an initial trip matrix is adjusted such that, when the final matrix is assigned to the
network, the flows will closely replicate a given set of traffic counts. The matrix estimation
was carried out for each of the three time periods, and based on three sets of count data:
•
a cordon closely following the Study Area boundary;
•
a set of cordons around key towns in the Study Area; and
•
a series of isolated points on key roads in the network, which were considered
useful to control the volumes of various north-south and east-west movements.
Trip totals for each of the base year matrices in the final corridor model are shown in Table
E.4.
Table E.4 Trip Totals from Base Year Highway Matrices
Trip Purpose
Home Based Work
Home Based School
Home Based Other
Employer Business
Non-Home Based Other
Light Goods Vehicles
Heavy Goods Vehicles
TOTALS
1.3.3
Average
AM Peak
Hour
481,524
10,536
280,361
145,972
91,622
93,747
86,737
1,190,499
Average
Off-Peak
Hour
106,291
2,004
349,862
178,427
128,553
89,954
109,571
964,662
Average
PM Peak Hour
12 Hour
439,239
5,517
387,292
150,932
108,598
91,391
73,284
1,256,253
3,400,035
60,183
4,102,131
1,961,274
1,371,978
1,095,138
1,137,489
13,128,228
Highway Assignment Procedures
The highway assignment uses two principal components within the SATURN model, SATASS
and SATSIM. Separate assignments are carried out for each time period.
Initially, the matrices for each user group are assigned to the appropriate network using the
assignment program SATASS, based on Wardrop’s Principle of Traffic Equilibrium. This
- Eviii -
assumes that traffic assigns itself on congested networks such that the cost of travel on all
routes between each origin and destination pair is equal to the minimum cost of travel, and
hence all unused routes have an equal or greater cost. Heavy vehicles, for which some
roads may be unsuitable, are given first choice of route before the other user groups are
assigned.
After completion of SATASS, the simulation program SATSIM is run, which calculates the
delays within the simulation area based on the flows assigned in SATASS.
SATASS is then run again, re-assigning the trip matrix based on the delays calculated by
SATSIM. This procedure continues to a maximum of ten loops, or until convergence is
achieved. Convergence was specified such that the flows on at least 90% of links on the
network should change by less than 5% between successive loops.
1.3.4
Public Transport Network
In recent years, the consultants have developed two strategic rail models for the purpose of
evaluating rail enhancement schemes:
•
the South East Regional Rail Model (SERRM), comprising a detailed network
representation of the former Network SouthEast area (including the London
Underground), but a coarse level of detail outside this area; and
•
the National Rail Model (NRM), which has a lesser level of detail but gives full
coverage of England, Scotland and Wales.
Maximum use was made of these models when creating the networks for the LSM public
transport, but neither SERRM nor NRM were considered suitable in isolation for modelling the
mix of both local and long-distance trips in the LSM Study Area. It was therefore decided to
combine the network detail from the two models, and additional nodes were added as
necessary to ensure all stations in the West Midlands were also included (since through
movements between London and the West Midlands occupy a substantial proportion of
train capacity in the Study Area).
The combined network is shown in Figure E.4, with an inset for the Study Area in Figure E.5.
- Eix -
Figure E.4 National Rail Network
LINKS:
type=60,69
WINDOW:
3670.1/1713.84
5817.5/3324.44
Figure E.5 Rail Network within Study Area
LINKS:
type=60
| type=61
WINDOW B:
3670.1/1713.84
5817.5/3324.44
- Ex -
Features of the merged model include:
•
separate link identifiers for heavy rail, London Underground, light rail and
interchange walk links, enabling individual statistics to be extracted for each;
•
separate mode type identifiers for each train operator, enabling statistics to be
extracted specific to one or more operator;
•
representative vehicle types for the key rolling stock categories, including seated
and standing capacities; and
•
boarding penalties of five minutes for London Underground and ten minutes for
heavy rail services (thereby representing the dislike passengers have for
interchanging between train services).
An inter-urban bus network was also added to the rail network, by identifying from the Great
Britain Bus Timetable (November 2000 – June 2001) any routes wholly or partially within the
Study Area. The key points on each of these routes (normally the points recorded in the
timetable) were then coded as nodes, and joined together with standard links (specifically
coded to avoid confusion with the rail network).
The bus network is shown in Figure E.6, with an inset for the Study Area in Figure E.7.
Figure E.6 National Bus Network
- Exi -
Figure E.7 Bus Network within Study Area
1.3.5
Rail Trip Matrices (Base Year)
The rail trip matrices were developed from three sources:
•
the National Rail Passenger matrix, received from the Department for Transport;
•
a database of trip ends, also received from the Department for Transport (then
DTLR); and
•
SERRM.
In addition, station count data received from the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) were used to
refine some elements of the matrix.
Trip totals for each of the matrices are shown in TableE.5.
- Exii -
Table E.5 Trip Totals from Base Year Rail Matrices
Trip Purpose
AM Peak
Off-Peak
Total
Total
(3 hours)
(6 hours)
Car-Available:
Home Based Work
*
*
Home Based School
*
*
Home Based Other
*
*
Employer Business
*
*
*
*
Car-Unavailable:
Home Based Work
*
*
Home Based School
*
*
Home Based Other
*
*
Employer Business
*
*
*
*
TOTALS
1,267,389
1,049,139
1.3.6
PM Peak
Total
(3 hours)
12 Hour
*
*
*
*
*
1,248,192
129,792
274,244
148,375
31,606
*
*
*
*
*
1,280,396
1,004,155
130,946
391,381
193,721
45,709
3,598,121
Bus Trip Matrices (Base Year)
The bus trip matrices were developed from two sources:
•
bus patronage data, received from National Express, Stagecoach United Counties,
Stagecoach Cambus, Arriva The Shires, Arriva East Herts and Essex, Arriva
Colchester and First Eastern National; and
•
a database of trip ends, received from the Department for Transport (then DTLR).
Trip totals for each of the matrices are shown in Table E.6.
Table E.6 Trip Totals from Base Year Bus Matrices
Trip Purpose
AM Peak
Off-Peak
Total
Total
(3 hours)
(6 hours)
Car-Available:
Home Based Work
*
*
Home Based School
*
*
Home Based Other
*
*
Employer Business
*
*
*
*
Car-Unavailable:
Home Based Work
*
*
Home Based School
*
*
Home Based Other
*
*
Employer Business
*
*
*
*
TOTALS
32,779
62,016
- Exiii -
PM Peak
Total
(3 hours)
12 Hour
*
*
*
*
*
4,042
4,952
24,171
3,476
4,134
*
*
*
*
*
34,062
5,104
7,986
58,669
6,904
9,420
128,858
1.3.7
Public Transport Assignment Procedures
Public transport assignments are carried out with the objective of minimising the
‘generalised time’ taken to travel between each origin and destination. The generalised
time is calculated by applying appropriate weightings to the various components of the
overall journey time:
•
1.00 * in-vehicle time;
•
1.00 * boarding penalty;
•
2.81 * access/egress time;
•
2.81 * interchange walk time; and
•
2.22 * wait time.
The assignments for the peak periods are carried out in six increments. The first increment is
based on the input parameters and journey times. From the assigned flows, a revised
journey time is calculated for each section of route, which includes a perceived time
penalty associated with travelling in crowded conditions. The penalty applied increases with
the proportion of the capacity which is occupied. The second increment is then assigned
based on these new perceived times, and so on.
It should also be noted that, in all time periods, the wait time is based on an ‘effective
headway’. This is a function of the true headway, but takes into account that passengers
using an infrequent rail or bus service are likely to be familiar with the timetable, and hence
have a shorter wait time. Thus, for services up to a 15-minute headway, the average wait
time is assumed to be half of this headway, but for services of, say, a 60-minute headway,
the average wait time is assumed to be around 20 minutes.
1.3.8
Principles of Model Validation
The purpose of model validation is to assess the reliability of the information provided by the
assignment models, in order to confirm their reliability as a base for forecasting. Validation is
undertaken to ensure that the detailed network description, trip matrices and methods of
assignment are sufficiently robust to facilitate replication of observed patterns for a given
base year, in this case 2001. Where possible, this is carried out using independent data
which have not been used in the development of the model. For this study, however, the
validation consisted of a comparison of modelled and observed data for both independent
sites and for some sites used in the matrix estimation.
Throughout the validation, use has been made of the GEH index. This is a useful measure
which combines the absolute and relative differences between the observed and
modelled vehicular or passenger flows. It is given by the formula:
GEH =
( M − O) 2
0.5( M + O )
where M is the modelled flow and O is the observed flow. A low GEH index indicates a good
correlation between the observed and modelled flows.
- Exiv -
It should be noted, however, that the GEH value is less useful when comparing large
numbers, such as trip totals across a series of sites, since the number will be affected by a
large absolute difference between modelled and observed values, even though this
difference may be small in relative terms. Nevertheless, to allow a complete summary, the
GEH has been included in all validation tables shown as part of this appendix.
1.3.9
Highway Model Validation
Two sets of traffic count data used in the matrix estimation were also used in the model
validation, namely:
•
the Study Area cordon; and
•
the set of cordons around key towns in the Study Area.
In addition, traffic count data for several locations on each of the key corridors provided an
independent set of data for the model validation (although a small number of these points
were also used in the matrix estimation).
A summary of the results of the model validation for each of these data sets is shown in
Table E.7, whilst full details of the validation in each corridor are provided in Appendix F.
In addition, journey time surveys were carried out in July 2002 in selected sections of the key
corridors, and a comparison between observed and modelled journey times is presented in
Table E.8.
- Exv -
Table E.7 Summary of Highway Model Validation
Data Set
AM Peak:
Study Area Cordon
Bedford Urban Cordon
Bishops Stortford Urban
Cordon
Cambridge Urban
Cordon
Corby Urban Cordon
Harlow Urban Cordon
Hemel Hempstead Urban
Cordon
Hitchin Urban Cordon
Kettering Urban Cordon
Luton Urban Cordon
Milton Keynes Urban
Cordon
Northampton Urban
Cordon
St Albans Urban Cordon
Stevenage Urban Cordon
Welwyn Garden City
Urban Cordon
M1
A1/A1(M)
M11
A14
A421/A428
TOTALS
Off-Peak:
Study Area Cordon
Cordon
Cambridge Urban
Cordon
Corby Urban Cordon
Harlow Urban Cordon
Cordon
Luton Urban Cordon
Milton Keynes Urban
Cordon
Northampton Urban
Cordon
Welwyn Garden City
Urban Cordon
M1
A1/A1(M)
M11
A14
A421/A428
TOTALS
Overall Results
Site Specific Results
Absolute
Difference
(Modelled –
Observed)
Relative
Difference
(Modelled/
Observed)
GEH
Number
of Sites
GEH
<5
GEH
5 - 10
GEH > 10
-616
1512
0.99
1.15
2.03
14.65
94
18
46
12
26
1
22
5
-1255
0.85
14.16
14
13
1
0
-1274
0.92
10.06
20
4
5
11
-275
-670
0.92
0.93
4.80
6.74
8
10
5
3
2
3
1
4
32
1.01
0.41
8
4
4
0
-812
417
45
0.90
1.08
1.00
9.27
5.50
0.41
10
10
16
6
4
9
1
3
3
3
3
4
3818
1.18
25.21
24
6
5
13
-2523
0.88
18.31
26
13
5
8
-517
-854
0.96
0.92
4.62
8.24
16
10
13
5
2
1
1
4
-2845
0.72
30.15
12
6
4
2
-9050
-12717
-675
-8902
-3594
-40755
0.91
0.82
0.98
0.91
0.89
0.97
28.85
49.97
3.53
28.78
20.32
53.91
24
33
16
48
32
449
8
12
6
17
10
202
12
4
4
13
11
110
4
17
6
18
11
137
-3146
2302
0.96
1.32
11.96
25.33
94
18
50
6
23
5
21
7
-1409
0.79
18.10
14
10
4
0
-2546
0.79
24.43
20
7
5
8
-40
-699
0.98
0.91
0.78
8.05
8
10
3
4
5
4
0
2
-224
0.95
3.46
8
7
1
0
293
886
487
1.05
1.19
1.05
3.67
12.31
4.86
10
10
16
7
4
10
3
2
3
0
4
3
299
1.02
2.43
24
11
2
11
-889
0.94
7.53
26
11
6
9
-371
662
0.97
1.09
3.58
7.60
16
10
12
4
2
2
2
4
-1487
0.82
17.41
12
5
5
2
-13794
-7146
-3670
-7052
3352
-34192
0.85
0.86
0.88
0.91
1.14
0.96
46.50
33.07
21.87
25.61
20.77
50.98
24
33
16
48
32
449
2
11
6
17
9
196
7
10
6
21
9
125
15
12
4
10
14
128
- Exvi -
PM Peak:
Study Area Cordon
Cordon
Cambridge Urban Cordon
Corby Urban Cordon
Harlow Urban Cordon
Cordon
Luton Urban Cordon
Milton Keynes Urban
Cordon
Northampton Urban
Cordon
Welwyn Garden City
Urban Cordon
M1
A1/A1(M)
M11
A14
A421/A428
TOTALS
-4299
2006
0.95
1.20
14.26
18.93
94
18
48
6
24
5
22
7
-1150
0.87
12.80
14
8
5
1
-2697
225
-1520
0.84
1.06
0.86
21.99
3.74
15.14
20
8
10
8
6
1
3
1
2
9
1
7
-83
0.99
1.05
8
6
2
0
863
1373
1753
1.11
1.22
1.14
9.57
16.34
15.11
10
10
16
4
3
9
3
3
3
3
4
4
3667
1.16
23.64
24
9
3
12
-2006
0.90
14.29
26
13
4
9
209
1148
1.02
1.10
1.84
10.52
16
10
9
3
6
1
1
6
1059
1.10
10.07
12
1
6
5
-9057
-12436
-887
-16218
-2215
-40265
0.92
0.83
0.98
0.84
0.94
0.97
27.89
48.84
4.58
53.26
12.17
52.55
24
33
16
48
32
449
6
10
11
13
9
183
12
7
2
15
10
117
6
16
3
20
13
149
- Exvii -
Table E.8 Comparison between Observed and Modelled Journey Times
Route
Observed Time
(Minutes)
Modelled Time
(Minutes)
Modelled –
Observed
Modelled/
Observed
43.55
46.07
47.42
42.83
16.05
22.50
38.76
38.92
47.62
48.80
16.85
20.60
-4.79
-7.15
0.20
5.97
0.80
-1.90
0.89
0.84
1.00
1.14
1.05
0.92
41.22
41.20
4.45
4.27
46.77
43.13
17.34
19.83
7.38
38.88
38.70
3.72
3.72
47.58
47.73
16.58
17.17
6.20
-2.34
-2.50
-0.73
-0.55
0.81
4.60
-0.76
-2.66
-1.18
0.94
0.94
0.84
0.87
1.02
1.11
0.96
0.87
0.84
7.27
6.20
-1.07
0.85
4.97
5.12
0.15
1.03
4.82
4.90
0.08
1.02
29.28
33.35
4.07
1.14
26.50
29.07
2.57
1.10
4.48
4.87
6.10
3.72
3.72
6.20
-0.76
-1.15
0.10
0.83
0.76
1.02
6.17
6.20
0.03
1.00
4.98
5.13
0.15
1.03
5.05
4.90
-0.15
0.97
33.18
41.13
7.95
1.24
33.53
33.65
0.12
1.00
AM Peak:
M1 J6a to 15a NB
M1 J15a to 6a SB
A1(M) J1 to A1/A14 junction NB
A1/A14 junction to A1(M) J1 SB
A5 from M1 J9 to Tilsworth NB
A5 from Tilsworth to M1 J9 SB
Off-Peak:
M1 J6a to 15a NB
M1 J15a to 6a SB
M11 J6 to 7 NB
M11 J7 to 6 SB
A1(M) J1 to A1/A14 junction NB
A1/A14 junction to A1(M) J1 SB
A5 from M1 J9 to Tilsworth NB
A5 from Tilsworth to M1 J9 SB
A14 between A6 junctions,
Kettering EB
Kettering WB
A14 Brampton to
Godmanchester EB
A14 Godmanchester to
Brampton WB
A421 Great Horwood to
Kempston EB
A421 Kempston to Great
Horwood WB
PM Peak:
M11 J6 to 7 NB
M11 J7 to 6 SB
Kettering EB
Kettering WB
A14 Brampton to
Godmanchester EB
A14 Godmanchester to
Brampton WB
A421 Great Horwood to
Kempston EB
A421 Kempston to Great
Horwood WB
1.3.10
Rail Model Validation
The model validation for the rail network was based on a series of counts of passenger
boardings at most stations in the Study Area. These data were generally independent,
although for a small number of stations the counts were used to determine factors for
adjusting the matrices.
It should be noted that, unlike the highway validation, detailed comparisons between
modelled and observed data cannot be published, due to confidentiality agreements with
the SRA. However, the results of the validation have been reviewed and accepted (albeit
with some comments about a few local anomalies) by the SRA. In addition, modelled
numbers of passengers on the long-distance services passing through the Study Area were
also verified by the SRA.
A summary of the results of the model validation for groups of stations is shown in Table E.9.
- Exviii -
Table E.9 Summary of Rail Model Validation
Station Group
AM Peak:
Chiltern Lines:
Aylesbury – Great Missenden
West Coast Main Line:
Rugby – Watford Junction
Midland Main Line:
Kettering – Radlett
East Coast Main Line:
Peterborough – Potters Bar
Foxton – Letchworth Garden
City
Watton-at-Stone – Cuffley
West Anglia Main Line:
Kings Lynn – Cambridge
Shelford – Waltham Cross*
Hertford East – Rye House
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
Off-Peak:
Chiltern Lines:
Midland Main Line:
City
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
PM Peak:
Chiltern Lines:
Midland Main Line:
Overall Results
Station Specific Results
Relative
Difference
(Modelled/O
bserved)
GEH
Number
of
Stations
GEH <5
GEH
5 – 10
GEH >
10
0.92
3.14
4
1
2
1
0.95
5.37
15
7
5
3
0.99
1.10
11
6
3
2
1.00
0.26
15
7
4
4
0.93
3.43
7
4
1
2
1.01
0.46
4
1
2
1
1.10
5.64
7
4
1
2
1.01
0.91
16
9
7
0
0.93
2.67
3
0
1
2
0.33
0.99
6.29
2.61
2
84
1
40
1
27
0
17
0.77
4.98
3
0
3
0
1.12
8.09
13
10
2
1
0.97
2.42
10
10
0
0
2.03
18.93
11
6
4
1
1.13
3.00
3
2
1
0
1.13
2.36
2
2
0
0
0.96
2.01
4
1
1
2
1.05
3.30
8
5
2
1
0.69
7.50
2
1
0
1
N/A
1.05
N/A
7.81
0
56
0
37
0
13
0
6
0.59
11.00
4
2
2
0
1.19
10.13
13
9
3
1
1.07
4.04
10
7
3
0
- Exix -
City
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
1.23
12.83
9
4
4
1
0.79
4.27
3
3
0
0
1.04
0.59
2
2
0
0
0.87
6.64
4
2
2
0
1.08
3.71
8
5
2
1
0.71
5.70
2
1
1
0
N/A
1.07
N/A
8.28
0
55
0
35
0
17
0
3
* Including Stansted Airport
1.3.11
Bus Model Validation
No independent data were available for the bus network, and hence validation was limited
to a comparison against the data by route used to develop the trip matrices. Given that
this data was in itself incomplete, there was no meaningful validation work which could be
undertaken.
1.4
Development of Forecasts
1.4.1
Background
Section 5.3 discussed how TEMPRO was used in conjunction with an assessment of land
available for development to prepare forecasts of the following economic variables for
three land use scenarios in 2016 and 2031, for each zone within the Study Area:
•
households;
•
population;
•
employment;
•
employed population; and
•
active population.
TEMPRO was then used further to convert these forecasts into trip end growth factors for the
Study Area and also to prepare trip end growth factors for zones external to the Study Area.
1.4.2
Methodology
The socio-economic forecasts for each zone in the Study Area were aggregated to the
TEMPRO zoning system. In addition to providing economic forecasts, TEMPRO also allows
forecasts of trip end growth factors to be extracted from the Department for Transport’s
National Trip End Model for particular economic scenarios. The socio-economic forecasts for
each TEMPRO zone were therefore input to the National Trip End Model, and hence trip end
growth factors produced for 2001 to 2016 and 2031 for the three scenarios.
- Exx -
The TEMPRO forecasts were extracted for a combination of the following modes, rather than
for each mode individually:
•
car driver (car-available only);
•
bus (including coach); and
•
rail (including London Underground).
It should be noted that LGVs were assumed to have the same growth factors as EB trips,
whilst a separate procedure was used for HGVs.
1.4.3
External Zones
In the strategic model, a single growth factor for each trip purpose was applied to all
external zones, based on an average of all zones within the Study Area. This was considered
unsuitable for the corridor modelling, where flexibility was required to test the impacts of
large developments outside the Study Area. It would also not be practical, however, to
prepare detailed forecasts for every external zone. For forecasting purposes, therefore, the
zones were aggregated to form 21 regional zones, summarised in Table E.10. For each
regional zone, the traffic growth forecasts for each user group were extracted directly from
TEMPRO, and assumed to apply equally to each zone in the region.
1.4.4
Heavy Goods Vehicles
Forecasts of heavy goods vehicle movements were developed using the SRA’s Freight
Demand Model. This approach is more sophisticated than using National Road Traffic
Forecasts, since it reflects:
•
changes in growth for different ranges of trip length (in general long-distance trips
are increasing at a higher rate than short-distance trips), which is important as
HGVs are excluded from the trip distribution model; and
•
the approximate mix of commodities transported to, from and within the Study
Area.
The model was run to produce HGV growth factors for 2001 to 2011 and 2021 for two
scenarios:
•
assuming that the SRA’s target of an 80% increase in rail freight carried by
2010 is met, but then no further growth in rail freight; and
•
assuming that this rate of rail freight growth will continue beyond 2010
(hence giving less growth in road haulage).
- Exxi -
Table E.10 Regional Zones Used for Forecasting
Regional Zone
Constituent Counties
Berkshire
East
Berkshire
Norfolk
Suffolk
East Sussex
Hampshire
Isle of Wight
Greater London (33 Boroughs)
Kent (excluding Thames Gateway area)
Northumberland
Tyne and Wear
Durham
Cleveland
North Yorkshire
West Yorkshire
South Yorkshire
Humberside
Lincolnshire
Cumbria
Lancashire
Greater Manchester
Merseyside
Cheshire
Staffordshire
Nottinghamshire
Derbyshire
Shropshire
Essex (area external to study area, excluding Thames Gateway area)
Kent (Thames Gateway area)
Oxfordshire
Buckinghamshire (area external to study area)
Cambridgeshire (area external to study area)
Hertfordshire (area external to study area)
Leicestershire (area external to study area)
Warwickshire (area external to study area)
Scotland
Essex (Thames Gateway area)
Surrey
Wales
Cornwall
Avon
Dorset
Somerset
Gloucestershire
Devon
Wiltshire
Hereford and Worcester
West Midlands
West Sussex
East Sussex
Hampshire
Greater London
Mid and South Kent
North
North Essex
North Kent
Oxfordshire
Buckinghamshire
Cambridgeshire
Hertfordshire
Leicestershire
Warwickshire
Scotland
South Essex
Surrey
Wales
West
West Sussex
- Exxii -
The growth factors for 2011 and 2021 were then extrapolated to 2016 and 2031 respectively.
The factors assuming no rail growth beyond 2010 were used in the model runs for the
Reference Case and other tests where little investment in the rail network beyond currently
planned schemes is proposed, whilst the factors based on continued rail growth were used
in tests which include a significant increase in capacity for rail freight.
1.4.5
Application
The methodology described in the above sections produced a set of trip production and
attraction growth factors by zone for each user group, for each forecast year and land use
scenario. These factors were then applied to the production and attraction totals for the
2001 matrices to create new totals, and the matrices furnessed to these new totals. New trip
matrices were thus created for each user group, from which initial trip assignments were
carried out, and the full modelling procedure implemented as shown in Figure ?.1. With the
exception of HGVs, the trip distribution, mode choice and trip generation procedures would
therefore take account of any changes as a response to the increasing congestion on the
highway and public transport networks between 2001 and the forecast years.
1.5
Trip Distribution Model
1.5.1
Generalised Cost Inputs
Generalised cost is a measure of the total “cost” of a journey as perceived by a traveller.
In the case of car trips, the generalised cost between each origin and destination zone
input to the distribution model was calculated by the formula:
1
T + a * E + * (C * D + 0.5 * P )
v
where T is the journey time, E is the egress time from the parking space to the ultimate
destination, v is the value of time, C is the vehicle operating cost per unit distance, D is the
distance travelled, P is the parking cost and a is a weighting factor to represent the
disadvantage of walking rather than driving. For each zone, typical values of E and P were
estimated.
For public transport trips, the generalised cost between each origin and destination zone
input to the distribution model was calculated by the formula:
GT + v * F
where GT is the generalised time, v is the value of time and F is the fare for the journey. Fares
are estimated based on distance, using a formula calibrated from published fares manuals
(with separate parameters for different geographical areas, representing the different
pricing policies of different operators).
The generalised costs input to the distribution model were those obtained for the morning
peak assignments for HBW and HBS trips, and the off-peak assignments for all other user
groups. In addition, the generalised costs were weighted according to the proportion of
trips between each zone pair accounted for by the three modes, thus giving a single
generalised cost for each user group (for each zone pair).
- Exxiii -
1.5.2
Trip Distribution Function
The number of daily (12-hour) trips T for each user group, between zones i and j is given by
the formula:
Tij = Pi * A j * e
−θ *Cij
where Pi is the total number of trip attractions from zone i for that user group, Aj is the total
number of trip attractions to zone j for that user group, θ is a calibration factor and Cij is the
generalised cost of travel between zones i and j for that user group. Values of θ were
chosen for each user group to give a good replication of the base year matrices.
Following application of this formula, the matrices were furnessed to maintain the
production and attraction totals for each zone.
1.5.3
Control to Base Year Matrices
Whilst the distribution model was calibrated against base year data, it should be recognised
that the trip matrix calculated for any future year scenario could be considerably removed
from reality. This is because people consider other factors in addition to transport when
determining origins and destinations for their trips, such as family commitments and the type
of employment available in particular locations.
These discrepancies were overcome by creating a series of factor matrices for the 2001
Base Year which compare predicted and actual travel patterns. These factors were then
applied to future year outputs from the distribution model to provide an improved forecast
of the trip distribution.
In addition, it was recognised that the trip matrix could be perturbed unrealistically as a
result of some travel cost changes. Following a number of ‘reality’ tests at the base year,
therefore, the distribution model was constrained to ensure that the number of trips
between a particular pair of zones could not change by more than 10% within any one
iteration.
1.6
Mode Choice Model
1.6.1
Utility Calculations
The utility for a particular mode and journey is a function of the generalised cost for that
journey calculated as:
− b * GC − c
where GC is the generalised cost for the mode, b is a calibration factor and c is a constant
which represents the dislike which people generally have for using the particular mode.
Values of c were chosen for each user group and mode such that, when the mode choice
functions were applied to the base year matrices, a good replication of the base year
apportionment between modes was achieved.
It should be noted that, due to the mix of short-distance and long-distance trips in the
model, each with their own characteristics, different values of c were calculated for each
of three trip length ranges (based on “crow-fly” distances). This reflects, for example, that for
- Exxiv -
short trips there is generally a dislike for using public transport compared with car, whilst
public transport may be considered a preferable option to driving long distances.
1.6.2
Mode Choice Functions
For each user group in the car-available category, the number of daily (12-hour) car trips TC,
between any pair of zones is given by the formula:
TC = TT *
e CC
e CC + e ( 0.7*log(e
CR
+ e C B ))
where TT is the total number of trips between the zones for that user group, CC is the utility for
car between the zones for that user group, CR is the utility for rail between the zones for that
user group and CB is the utility for bus between the zones for that user group.
The number of daily public transport trips, TPT is thus given by the formula:
TPT = TT − TC
For each zone pair, the public transport trips are then segregated into the number of rail
trips TR and the number of bus trips TB using the formulae:
TR = TPT *
e CR
e CR + e CB
TB = TPT − TR
For user groups in the car-unavailable category, where all trips are made by public
transport, only the final two formulae are used.
1.6.3
Control to Base Year Matrices
In a similar way to the trip distribution mode, a series of factor matrices were created for the
Base Year which compare the predicted and actual allocation of trips between the modes.
These factors were then applied to the future year outputs from the mode choice model to
provide more realistic forecasts.
1.7
Trip Generation Model
1.7.1
Generalised Cost Inputs
The generalised cost input to the trip generation model is identical to the generalised cost
input to the trip distribution model, and is likewise weighted across the modes to give an
overall generalised cost for each user group and zone pair.
1.7.2
Trip Generation Function
For each user group and mode, the number of daily (12-hour) trips after taking account of
trip generation TN, between any pair of zones is given by the formula:
TN = TO *
( )
CN d
CO
- Exxv -
where TO is the number of trips between the zones for that user group and mode prior to
taking account of trip generation, CN is the weighted generalised cost between the zones
for that user group, CO is the weighted generalised cost in the previous iteration (or for the
base year in the case of the first iteration) between the zones for that user group and d is an
elasticity. The elasticities used were selected based on previous modelling work carried out
by the consultants.
1.8
Conclusion
The model development process followed a recognised path in that:
•
Recent observed data was used whenever possible;
•
Data synthesis was undertaken for those cells where observed data was
unavailable;
•
Model calibration coefficients were inferred from the base data with separate
subsets being used to reflect different behavioural responses (e.g. trip length banded mode
choice coefficients).
At the end of the process, a classic four stage model had been developed which
accommodated behavioural responses for route choice, re-distribution, mode choice and
trip generation/suppression. It also contained a significant level of disaggregation through
twelve user classes which could also accommodate different behavioural responses and
growth factors.
- Exxvi -
Appendix F – Corridor Assignment Validation
- Hi -
M1 Corridor
AM Peak
Road Location
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
Direction
Count
Modelled
Modelled - Modelled /
Count
Count
-631
0.88
-558
0.90
-488
0.93
19
1.00
-631
0.87
5
1.00
587
1.18
-448
0.91
-556
0.88
93
1.02
-1037
0.77
-68
0.98
-924
0.80
-185
0.95
-429
0.87
-385
0.90
305
1.14
-1246
0.71
-1561
0.67
48
1.01
-415
0.87
-516
0.87
-227
0.93
200
1.05
GEH
Between Junctions 6a and 7
Between Junctions 7 and 6a
Between Junctions 7 and 8
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
5327
5437
6521
6504
4741
4758
3323
4904
4597
3916
4426
3716
4562
3791
3347
3739
2170
4238
4700
3786
3132
3900
3476
3893
4695
4879
6033
6523
4110
4763
3910
4455
4041
4009
3389
3648
3638
3606
2919
3354
2474
2992
3139
3834
2717
3383
3249
4094
Location
Direction
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Count
4738
4354
5519
5083
4837
4414
3735
4645
4534
3855
4242
3717
4059
3712
3811
3327
2177
3404
3838
3645
3284
3235
3466
3255
Modelled
4048
3424
4624
4744
3977
4031
3914
3796
3722
3307
3818
3156
4396
3322
2932
2733
2536
2287
2999
2670
2707
2470
2886
2593
Modelled - Modelled / GEH Index
Count
Count
-690
0.85
10.41
-930
0.79
14.92
-896
0.84
12.58
-338
0.93
4.83
-859
0.82
12.94
-383
0.91
5.89
179
1.05
2.89
-849
0.82
13.07
-812
0.82
12.64
-548
0.86
9.16
-424
0.90
6.68
-561
0.85
9.58
337
1.08
5.19
-390
0.89
6.58
-878
0.77
15.13
-594
0.82
10.79
359
1.16
7.39
-1116
0.67
20.93
-840
0.78
14.36
-975
0.73
17.35
-577
0.82
10.54
-765
0.76
14.32
-580
0.83
10.30
-662
0.80
12.24
Location
Direction
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Count
5254
5142
6514
6279
5949
4912
4045
5372
5637
4642
5108
4332
4696
4537
3972
3302
2430
3810
4653
4244
3792
3566
4070
3760
Modelled
4744
4489
5952
6114
5268
4479
4599
4331
4921
4340
4172
4565
4357
4168
3313
3277
3130
3256
3965
3485
3577
3061
3984
3413
Count
Count
-511
0.90
7.22
-653
0.87
9.41
-561
0.91
7.11
-166
0.97
2.10
-681
0.89
9.09
-433
0.91
6.31
554
1.14
8.43
-1041
0.81
14.95
-716
0.87
9.85
-302
0.94
4.50
-936
0.82
13.75
233
1.05
3.50
-339
0.93
5.04
-369
0.92
5.59
-659
0.83
10.92
-25
0.99
0.43
701
1.29
13.29
-553
0.85
9.31
-689
0.85
10.49
-759
0.82
12.21
-215
0.94
3.54
-505
0.86
8.78
-86
0.98
1.36
-347
0.91
5.79
8.91
7.76
6.16
0.23
9.49
0.07
9.77
6.55
8.46
1.48
16.60
1.12
14.44
3.05
7.66
6.46
6.32
20.72
24.94
0.77
7.68
8.56
3.91
3.17
Off-Peak
Road
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
PM Peak
Road
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
A1/A1(M) Corridor
AM Peak
Road
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
Direction
Count
Between A1(M) Junction 10 and A6001 Junction
Between A6001 Junction and A1(M) Junction 10
Between A6001 Junction and A6001/B658 Junction
Between A6001/B658 Junction and A6001 Junction
Between A6001/B658 Junction and A603/B1042 Junction
Between A603/B1042 Junction and B1043 Junction
Between B1043 Junction and A603/B1042 Junction
Between B1043 Junction and A421 Junction
Between A421 Junction and B1043 Junction
Between A428/B1428 Junction and B645/B1048 Junction
Between B645/B1048 Junction and A428/B1428 Junction
Between B645/B1048 Junction and B661 Junction
Between B661 Junction and B645/B1048 Junction
Location
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
2565
3515
2378
3089
3951
2695
3951
2757
3787
2075
2919
1319
3917
1285
2917
1333
2276
1224
1806
1459
2157
716
914
897
1683
1130
2321
1251
1955
1608
1921
1395
1946
Modelled
Location
Direction
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Count
2095
1955
1963
1626
2151
2349
2151
2435
2213
2178
1980
1322
2016
1438
1320
1169
1302
1284
1009
1450
1332
596
718
920
882
1160
1488
1085
1382
1406
1261
1338
1280
Modelled
1789
1710
1788
1351
2226
2820
2226
2159
1809
2135
1837
1999
2135
1371
986
1250
798
1055
620
1066
658
578
313
574
208
1167
1599
576
588
793
823
1082
1016
Count
Count
-306
0.85
6.94
-244
0.88
5.71
-175
0.91
4.04
-275
0.83
7.13
75
1.03
1.61
471
1.20
9.27
76
1.04
1.61
-275
0.89
5.75
-404
0.82
9.02
-43
0.98
0.93
-143
0.93
3.27
677
1.51
16.62
119
1.06
2.62
-67
0.95
1.79
-334
0.75
9.82
81
1.07
2.33
-503
0.61
15.54
-229
0.82
6.68
-389
0.61
13.63
-384
0.74
10.82
-674
0.49
21.36
-18
0.97
0.74
-405
0.44
17.84
-346
0.62
12.68
-674
0.24
28.87
7
1.01
0.21
111
1.07
2.82
-509
0.53
17.66
-794
0.43
25.30
-613
0.56
18.49
-438
0.65
13.58
-256
0.81
7.35
-264
0.79
7.80
Location
Direction
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Count
3675
2409
3379
2019
2457
4321
2457
4191
2608
3833
2151
2745
2324
2947
1427
1307
2284
2011
1124
2249
1592
979
897
1415
1068
1115
1838
1975
1262
1959
1667
1958
1417
Modelled
3164
2075
2598
1782
2633
4187
2633
3250
2595
3434
1903
3298
2365
2884
1287
2137
817
1642
634
1593
679
1138
311
803
167
1261
1489
659
512
1059
937
1320
1379
Count
Count
-511
0.86
8.73
-334
0.86
7.06
-781
0.77
14.29
-237
0.88
5.44
176
1.07
3.49
-134
0.97
2.05
176
1.07
3.49
-942
0.78
15.44
-13
0.99
0.26
-398
0.90
6.61
-247
0.88
5.50
552
1.20
10.05
41
1.02
0.85
-62
0.98
1.15
-140
0.90
3.80
830
1.63
19.99
-1467
0.36
37.25
-369
0.82
8.62
-490
0.56
16.52
-656
0.71
14.97
-913
0.43
27.11
158
1.16
4.86
-586
0.35
23.84
-612
0.57
18.37
-902
0.16
36.29
146
1.13
4.24
-349
0.81
8.56
-1315
0.33
36.25
-750
0.41
25.17
-900
0.54
23.16
-730
0.56
20.23
-638
0.67
15.76
-39
0.97
1.03
2354
3260
2352
2844
3732
2324
3732
2605
3600
1786
2986
1710
3114
1233
2134
1103
1588
898
1003
998
1061
490
611
485
602
1172
1669
664
934
939
1486
1443
1483
Count
Count
-211
0.92
-255
0.93
-26
0.99
-245
0.92
-219
0.94
-370
0.86
-219
0.94
-152
0.94
-187
0.95
-289
0.86
67
1.02
391
1.30
-803
0.80
-52
0.96
-783
0.73
-231
0.83
-688
0.70
-327
0.73
-803
0.56
-461
0.68
-1096
0.49
-226
0.68
-303
0.67
-412
0.54
-1082
0.36
42
1.04
-652
0.72
-587
0.53
-1021
0.48
-669
0.58
-435
0.77
49
1.03
-463
0.76
GEH
4.26
4.38
0.54
4.50
3.53
7.39
3.53
2.93
3.08
6.58
1.23
10.05
13.54
1.45
15.58
6.62
15.66
10.03
21.42
13.15
27.33
9.19
10.96
15.67
32.00
1.24
14.60
18.96
26.86
18.75
10.54
1.29
11.18
Off-Peak
Road
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
PM Peak
Road
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1(M)
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
M11 Corridor
AM Peak
Road Location
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
Direction
Count
Modelled
Count
Count
-755
0.66
577
1.15
-406
0.76
1000
1.34
-677
0.67
644
1.26
-336
0.76
-118
0.92
-133
0.93
-45
0.98
224
1.10
86
1.03
375
1.15
-431
0.85
72
1.03
-749
0.71
GEH
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
2243
3904
1711
2940
2045
2479
1412
1463
2012
1931
2287
2483
2468
2854
2092
2547
1488
4481
1304
3940
1367
3123
1076
1344
1879
1886
2511
2569
2842
2422
2164
1798
Location
Direction
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Count
2150
2687
1707
2265
2097
1940
1384
1273
1603
1512
1991
1802
2131
1966
1802
1678
Modelled
1429
2960
1235
2412
1372
1975
999
1023
1411
1424
1663
1907
1713
1731
1549
1514
Count
Count
-721
0.66
17.04
273
1.10
5.13
-472
0.72
12.29
147
1.06
3.04
-725
0.65
17.41
35
1.02
0.79
-385
0.72
11.16
-251
0.80
7.40
-192
0.88
4.95
-88
0.94
2.29
-328
0.84
7.67
105
1.06
2.45
-418
0.80
9.53
-235
0.88
5.47
-253
0.86
6.18
-164
0.90
4.09
Location
Direction
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Count
3124
3116
2332
2555
2637
2158
1598
1484
2041
1890
2598
2366
2902
2472
2592
2108
Modelled
2517
3139
2107
2774
1756
2352
1284
1499
1938
2403
2542
2871
2787
2458
2557
2101
Count
Count
-607
0.81
11.44
23
1.01
0.41
-225
0.90
4.77
220
1.09
4.26
-881
0.67
18.81
194
1.09
4.09
-314
0.80
8.28
15
1.01
0.39
-103
0.95
2.31
513
1.27
11.07
-56
0.98
1.10
505
1.21
9.87
-115
0.96
2.16
-14
0.99
0.28
-35
0.99
0.68
-7
1.00
0.16
17.48
8.91
10.47
17.05
16.40
12.16
9.53
3.16
3.02
1.03
4.57
1.71
7.27
8.40
1.56
16.08
Off-Peak
Road
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
PM Peak
Road
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
M11
A14 Corridor
AM Peak
Road Location
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
Between M1 Junction 19 and A5199 Junction
Between A5199 Junction and M1 Junction 19
Between A5199 Junction and A508 Junction
Between A6 Junction and A43/A4300 Junction
Between A43/A4300 Junction and A6 Junction
Between A43/A4300 Junction and A43/A6013 Junction
Between A45/A605 Junction and B663 Junction
Between B663 Junction and A45/A605 Junction
Between B663 Junction and B660 Junction
Between B1514 Junction and A14 spur/A141 Junction
Between A14 spur/A141 Junction and B1514 Junction
Between B1050 Junction and M11 Junction 14
Between M11 Junction 14 and B1050 Junction
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Count
1627
1701
2010
1836
1980
1666
1810
1904
2594
2245
3218
3278
2409
2620
2256
2608
1827
1878
1609
1725
1645
1598
1514
1452
1751
1191
1538
1481
1508
1680
1874
1803
2250
2545
2751
2468
4229
2811
2766
2273
2443
2417
1966
2744
1366
2135
1138
1999
Modelled
1329
1049
1755
1297
1787
1242
1787
1242
2779
2501
3166
2874
2243
2289
2139
2035
1368
908
1838
1349
1753
1330
1520
931
1558
975
1492
1122
1378
1017
1154
861
2917
1878
3806
2160
3619
2873
2545
1727
2226
1803
1801
2924
1729
2658
1102
3401
Count
Count
-298
0.82
-653
0.62
-254
0.87
-539
0.71
-193
0.90
-425
0.75
-23
0.99
-662
0.65
185
1.07
256
1.11
-52
0.98
-403
0.88
-166
0.93
-331
0.87
-116
0.95
-573
0.78
-460
0.75
-971
0.48
229
1.14
-376
0.78
108
1.07
-269
0.83
7
1.00
-521
0.64
-194
0.89
-216
0.82
-46
0.97
-358
0.76
-130
0.91
-663
0.61
-720
0.62
-942
0.48
667
1.30
-667
0.74
1056
1.38
-308
0.88
-610
0.86
62
1.02
-221
0.92
-546
0.76
-217
0.91
-613
0.75
-165
0.92
180
1.07
362
1.27
523
1.25
-37
0.97
1402
1.70
GEH
7.75
17.60
5.87
13.61
4.44
11.13
0.54
16.69
3.56
5.25
0.93
7.27
3.44
6.69
2.48
11.89
11.50
26.01
5.52
9.59
2.61
7.02
0.17
15.10
4.76
6.57
1.18
9.94
3.43
18.05
18.49
25.80
13.12
14.18
18.44
6.40
9.74
1.17
4.29
12.21
4.50
13.35
3.80
3.37
9.21
10.69
1.09
26.97
Off-Peak
Road
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
Location
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Count
1243
1390
1451
1511
1376
1432
1401
1459
1913
1993
2451
2551
2011
2048
1873
1873
1455
1398
1318
1400
1223
1274
1131
1191
1111
1155
1320
1377
1248
1296
1591
1676
2071
2086
2346
2470
2776
2486
1697
1792
1686
1898
1898
1948
1205
1083
1246
1534
Modelled
913
874
1234
1262
1198
1232
1198
1232
1878
2262
2199
2315
1684
1922
1528
1567
914
762
1382
1153
1339
1108
1135
913
1182
984
1040
1046
990
955
882
831
1985
1544
2625
2768
3142
2874
1560
1763
1648
1715
1631
1789
1631
1768
1207
1549
Count
Count
-330
0.73
10.05
-516
0.63
15.34
-218
0.85
5.94
-249
0.84
6.68
-177
0.87
4.95
-200
0.86
5.48
-203
0.86
5.63
-226
0.84
6.17
-36
0.98
0.82
270
1.14
5.84
-252
0.90
5.23
-237
0.91
4.80
-327
0.84
7.61
-126
0.94
2.82
-345
0.82
8.36
-306
0.84
7.39
-542
0.63
15.73
-636
0.55
19.34
65
1.05
1.76
-247
0.82
6.92
115
1.09
3.22
-166
0.87
4.81
4
1.00
0.11
-279
0.77
8.59
71
1.06
2.09
-171
0.85
5.24
-280
0.79
8.14
-331
0.76
9.50
-257
0.79
7.69
-342
0.74
10.19
-709
0.55
20.15
-845
0.50
23.86
-87
0.96
1.92
-542
0.74
12.73
279
1.12
5.59
298
1.12
5.82
366
1.13
6.73
388
1.16
7.50
-137
0.92
3.39
-30
0.98
0.70
-39
0.98
0.95
-183
0.90
4.31
-268
0.86
6.37
-159
0.92
3.68
426
1.35
11.30
685
1.63
18.14
-39
0.97
1.11
15
1.01
0.39
PM Peak
Road
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
A14
Location
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Count
1512
1584
1865
2019
1694
1989
1913
1838
2322
2491
3281
3281
2685
2521
2652
2260
1909
1834
1665
1656
1606
1672
1447
1482
1189
1783
1511
1548
1402
1164
1939
1974
2797
2797
2733
3090
2743
3879
2287
2596
2201
2734
2544
2192
1968
1326
1719
1549
Modelled
1230
1017
1560
1599
1535
1558
1535
1558
2475
2774
3098
3140
2273
2105
2143
1755
1174
971
1923
1326
1865
1273
1554
1076
1607
1155
1344
1243
1157
1075
1001
807
2809
1768
2992
3015
3194
3807
985
1440
1311
1504
2185
2076
1340
1875
951
1464
Count
Count
-282
0.81
7.61
-567
0.64
15.72
-305
0.84
7.37
-421
0.79
9.89
-159
0.91
3.96
-431
0.78
10.22
-378
0.80
9.11
-280
0.85
6.79
153
1.07
3.12
283
1.11
5.51
-183
0.94
3.24
-141
0.96
2.48
-412
0.85
8.27
-415
0.84
8.64
-509
0.81
10.39
-505
0.78
11.26
-735
0.61
18.73
-863
0.53
23.04
258
1.15
6.09
-330
0.80
8.54
259
1.16
6.21
-398
0.76
10.39
107
1.07
2.76
-406
0.73
11.34
418
1.35
11.17
-628
0.65
16.38
-167
0.89
4.41
-305
0.80
8.16
-246
0.82
6.87
-88
0.92
2.64
-937
0.52
24.45
-1167
0.41
31.28
12
1.00
0.22
-1029
0.63
21.54
260
1.10
4.85
-74
0.98
1.35
450
1.16
8.27
-72
0.98
1.16
-1303
0.43
32.21
-1156
0.55
25.74
-890
0.60
21.24
-1230
0.55
26.71
-359
0.86
7.38
-116
0.95
2.51
-628
0.68
15.44
549
1.41
13.72
-768
0.55
21.02
-84
0.95
2.18
A421/A428 Corridor
AM Peak
Road
Location
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
Direction
Count
Modelled
Count
Count
432
1.45
322
1.46
-218
0.83
477
1.45
214
1.23
466
1.35
-97
0.86
13
1.01
8
1.01
-109
0.91
-324
0.70
-205
0.80
-438
0.65
-271
0.79
-797
0.45
-255
0.81
-813
0.51
-691
0.60
-306
0.72
-349
0.71
4
1.00
134
1.14
-532
0.47
-200
0.77
-191
0.71
135
1.24
66
1.09
-18
0.98
10
1.01
-40
0.94
210
1.18
-231
0.71
GEH
Between A421 spur Junction and B4034 Junction
Between B4034 Junction and A421 spur Junction
Between A5134 Junction and A421 spur Junction
Between A421 spur Junction and A5134 Junction
Between New Road Junction and A1 Junction
Between A1 Junction and New Road Junction
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
968
702
1293
1068
916
1323
695
990
769
1153
1063
1035
1247
1322
1451
1368
1645
1734
1092
1202
784
964
1007
889
660
557
766
766
1010
663
1179
802
1399
1024
1075
1546
1130
1789
598
1003
777
1045
739
829
808
1051
654
1114
832
1043
786
853
788
1098
475
689
470
692
832
748
1020
623
1389
572
Location
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Count
559
542
928
891
879
845
745
699
787
798
863
827
1014
1079
939
951
1223
1379
758
727
617
585
771
772
466
427
507
507
518
552
595
626
Modelled
445
588
952
1232
1247
1366
416
1187
419
1336
693
490
892
964
828
984
933
868
724
614
833
1434
587
983
590
1086
643
1173
494
1127
428
1171
Count
Count
-114
0.80
5.09
46
1.09
1.94
24
1.03
0.80
340
1.38
10.44
368
1.42
11.30
522
1.62
15.69
-329
0.56
13.66
488
1.70
15.90
-368
0.53
14.97
538
1.67
16.47
-170
0.80
6.09
-336
0.59
13.11
-122
0.88
3.97
-116
0.89
3.62
-111
0.88
3.75
33
1.03
1.05
-290
0.76
8.83
-511
0.63
15.23
-34
0.95
1.26
-113
0.84
4.37
216
1.35
8.04
849
2.45
26.72
-184
0.76
7.05
211
1.27
7.13
124
1.27
5.38
659
2.54
23.95
136
1.27
5.69
667
2.32
23.01
-25
0.95
1.09
575
2.04
19.83
-167
0.72
7.36
544
1.87
18.16
Location
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Count
757
915
1074
1312
1333
928
993
848
851
1045
1193
984
1409
1331
1586
1373
1741
1673
1409
1042
870
1707
830
1090
485
652
672
672
613
1019
732
1110
Modelled
895
1116
998
1617
1052
1851
1121
818
781
911
633
622
1134
1126
973
1141
1198
907
695
646
1044
1352
579
962
895
1033
1031
1134
920
924
921
1000
Count
Count
139
1.18
4.82
201
1.22
6.31
-76
0.93
2.35
304
1.23
7.95
-281
0.79
8.15
924
2.00
24.79
128
1.13
3.94
-30
0.96
1.04
-70
0.92
2.44
-134
0.87
4.28
-560
0.53
18.53
-362
0.63
12.77
-274
0.81
7.70
-206
0.85
5.87
-612
0.61
17.12
-231
0.83
6.52
-543
0.69
14.16
-765
0.54
21.31
-713
0.49
22.00
-396
0.62
13.61
173
1.20
5.60
-355
0.79
9.07
-251
0.70
9.45
-128
0.88
4.00
410
1.84
15.59
381
1.58
13.12
359
1.53
12.29
462
1.69
15.37
307
1.50
11.09
-94
0.91
3.03
189
1.26
6.56
-110
0.90
3.38
12.54
10.96
6.34
13.20
6.68
11.82
3.81
0.42
0.29
3.27
10.80
6.72
13.67
7.87
24.55
7.23
23.11
18.54
9.99
10.89
0.13
4.18
19.53
7.13
8.03
5.41
2.32
0.66
0.30
1.57
5.87
8.80
Off-Peak
Road
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
PM Peak
Road
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A421
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
A428
Appendix G – Scenario B&C Reference Case
Framework Analyses
Scenario B Reference Case Framework Analysis 2031
2001 vs 2031 Scen B Ref Case
Base = 2001
Test = 2031 Scen B Ref Case
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
5,049,861
7,723,100
2,673,239
1.53
109,029,549
188,603,205
79,573,657
1.73
13,356,384
26,536,944
13,180,560
1.99
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
1103.00
235.81
166.56
573.87
188.38
102.80
-529.13
-47.44
-63.76
0.52
0.80
0.62
Car
Rail
Bus
322.92
59.04
51.36
145.83
49.45
26.95
-177.09
-9.59
-24.41
0.45
0.84
0.52
Car
Public Transport
1,625
955
2,491
1,300
866
345
1.53
1.36
Car
Public Transport
1,825
1,120
2,800
1,564
975
444
1.53
1.40
Car
Public Transport
1,940
1,415
2,927
1,764
987
349
1.51
1.25
Car
Public Transport
1,510
4,105
2,173
4,464
663
359
1.44
1.09
Car
Public Transport
2,235
4,990
3,064
5,309
829
319
1.37
1.06
Car
Public Transport
2,290
5,825
3,282
6,345
992
520
1.43
1.09
Car
Public Transport
2,515
6,275
3,736
7,000
1,221
725
1.49
1.12
Car
Public Transport
2,590
5,705
4,355
6,400
1,765
695
1.68
1.12
SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
5,049,861
7,723,100
2,673,239
1.53
109,029,549
188,603,205
79,573,657
1.73
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
147453295
202725201
16229614
9766678
244174429
333794127
27913111
16866508
96721134
131068926
11683497
7099830
1.66
1.65
1.72
1.73
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
39.20
53.89
4.31
2.60
39.21
53.60
4.48
2.71
0.01
-0.29
0.17
0.11
1.00
0.99
1.04
1.04
Rail
57.35
60.43
3.08
1.05
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
47.06
5.63
8.25
16.33
5.63
5.98
-30.74
0.00
-2.27
0.35
1.00
0.72
Car
Rail
Bus
74.50
12.88
6.19
62.48
9.21
4.27
-12.02
-3.66
-1.91
0.84
0.72
0.69
Car
Rail
Bus
30.08
1.68
2.04
20.35
1.57
1.34
-9.73
-0.11
-0.70
0.68
0.94
0.66
Car
Rail
Bus
39.28
2.88
3.20
14.87
2.82
2.29
-24.41
-0.06
-0.91
0.38
0.98
0.71
Car
Rail
Bus
28.60
3.96
2.16
11.63
3.12
1.43
-16.97
-0.84
-0.73
0.41
0.79
0.66
109,029,549
188,603,205
79,573,657
1.73
59.04
51.36
49.45
26.95
-9.59
-24.41
0.84
0.52
Rail
Bus
ECONOMY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Average Speed:
64.45
53.40
-11.05
0.83
Rail
57.35
60.43
3.08
1.05
Car
Rail
Bus
44.38
21.13
6.94
17.31
14.17
5.37
-27.07
-6.95
-1.57
0.39
0.67
0.77
Car
Rail
Bus
30.31
16.44
6.06
11.68
10.88
4.43
-18.63
-5.56
-1.63
0.39
0.66
0.73
Car
Rail
Bus
56.00
16.88
5.06
21.42
9.74
2.86
-34.58
-7.13
-2.20
0.38
0.58
0.57
Car
Rail
Bus
73.31
19.75
7.75
26.83
13.47
5.25
-46.48
-6.28
-2.50
0.37
0.68
0.68
Car
Rail
Bus
42.56
16.25
5.56
21.17
10.60
4.19
-21.39
-5.65
-1.37
0.50
0.65
0.75
Car
Rail
Bus
82.88
13.06
6.44
38.59
11.60
4.51
-44.28
-1.46
-1.93
0.47
0.89
0.70
Car
Rail
Bus
139.19
22.38
6.81
55.27
15.25
4.76
-83.92
-7.13
-2.05
0.40
0.68
0.70
Car
Rail
Bus
57.69
24.94
8.13
21.81
16.66
5.66
-35.87
-8.28
-2.46
0.38
0.67
0.70
Car
Rail
Bus
58.94
20.06
6.19
25.91
13.50
3.67
-33.03
-6.56
-2.52
0.44
0.67
0.59
Scenario C Reference Case Framework Analysis 2031
2001 vs 2031 Scen C Ref Case
Base = 2001
Test = 2031 Scen C Ref Case
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
5,049,861
9,084,673
4,034,812
1.80
109,029,549
207,853,097
98,823,548
1.91
13,356,384
26,475,615
13,119,231
1.98
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
1103.00
235.81
166.56
559.13
171.36
96.78
-543.87
-64.45
-69.78
0.51
0.73
0.58
Car
Rail
Bus
322.92
59.04
51.36
140.19
44.35
25.56
-182.73
-14.69
-25.80
0.43
0.75
0.50
Car
Public Transport
1,625
955
2,609
1,327
984
372
1.61
1.39
Car
Public Transport
1,825
1,120
2,873
1,591
1,048
471
1.57
1.42
Car
Public Transport
1,940
1,415
3,000
1,791
1,060
376
1.55
1.27
Car
Public Transport
1,510
4,105
2,264
4,755
754
650
1.50
1.16
Car
Public Transport
2,235
4,990
3,173
5,645
938
655
1.42
1.13
Car
Public Transport
2,290
5,825
3,373
6,682
1,083
857
1.47
1.15
Car
Public Transport
2,515
6,275
3,827
7,364
1,312
1,089
1.52
1.17
Car
Public Transport
2,590
5,705
4,445
6,718
1,855
1,013
1.72
1.18
SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
5,049,861
9,084,673
4,034,812
1.80
109,029,549
207,853,097
98,823,548
1.91
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
147453295
202725201
16229614
9766678
244394251
336979469
30873091
18520527
96940956
134254268
14643477
8753849
1.66
1.66
1.90
1.90
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
39.20
53.89
4.31
2.60
38.75
53.42
4.89
2.94
-0.45
-0.47
0.58
0.34
0.99
0.99
1.13
1.13
Rail
57.35
60.45
3.10
1.05
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
47.06
5.63
8.25
13.66
5.08
5.64
-33.40
-0.55
-2.61
0.29
0.90
0.68
Car
Rail
Bus
74.50
12.88
6.19
60.35
8.51
4.02
-14.15
-4.37
-2.17
0.81
0.66
0.65
Car
Rail
Bus
30.08
1.68
2.04
20.05
1.42
1.27
-10.03
-0.26
-0.77
0.67
0.84
0.62
Car
Rail
Bus
39.28
2.88
3.20
13.90
2.59
2.14
-25.38
-0.29
-1.06
0.35
0.90
0.67
Car
Rail
Bus
28.60
3.96
2.16
6.44
2.83
1.31
-22.16
-1.13
-0.85
0.23
0.72
0.61
109,029,549
207,853,097
98,823,548
1.91
59.04
51.36
44.35
25.56
-14.69
-25.80
0.75
0.50
Rail
Bus
ECONOMY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Average Speed:
64.45
48.23
-16.23
0.75
Rail
57.35
60.45
3.10
1.05
Car
Rail
Bus
44.38
21.13
6.94
15.78
13.74
5.04
-28.60
-7.39
-1.90
0.36
0.65
0.73
Car
Rail
Bus
30.31
16.44
6.06
9.96
10.53
3.72
-20.36
-5.91
-2.34
0.33
0.64
0.61
Car
Rail
Bus
56.00
16.88
5.06
20.15
9.47
2.70
-35.85
-7.41
-2.36
0.36
0.56
0.53
Car
Rail
Bus
73.31
19.75
7.75
24.99
13.05
4.92
-48.32
-6.70
-2.83
0.34
0.66
0.63
Car
Rail
Bus
42.56
16.25
5.56
20.17
10.19
3.94
-22.39
-6.06
-1.62
0.47
0.63
0.71
Car
Rail
Bus
82.88
13.06
6.44
36.67
11.21
4.23
-46.20
-1.85
-2.20
0.44
0.86
0.66
Car
Rail
Bus
139.19
22.38
6.81
52.29
14.78
4.41
-86.89
-7.60
-2.40
0.38
0.66
0.65
Car
Rail
Bus
57.69
24.94
8.13
20.09
16.13
5.27
-37.60
-8.81
-2.85
0.35
0.65
0.65
Car
Rail
Bus
58.94
20.06
6.19
24.30
13.09
3.08
-34.63
-6.97
-3.11
0.41
0.65
0.50
Appendix H – Strategy Themes for Option Development
Table H.1 Schedule of ‘Environmental’ Theme Strategy Components
Road Infrastructure
Bus lanes on motorways plus other bus priority schemes
Rail
WCML:
High-Speed Services: provide high-speed paths equivalent to those provided under West Coast
Route Modernisation (WCRM) PUG 2
Silverlink Services: provide 8 paths per hour south of Milton Keynes evenly spaced, of which at
least 2 must be on the high-speed line
Freight Services: provide 90 paths per day by 2010 (= 2000 + 100%), 154 by 2020 (= original EWS
requirement to allow for 300% growth, but by 2010), of which 1 per hour must be on the highspeed line
ECML:
Provide 25% more passenger paths and 25% more freight paths than foreseen under the ECML
Upgrade Programme
Double suburban frequency
MML:
Provide quadruple track to Kettering (requires re-instatement of double-track along the freight
line and other improvements)
Electrify from Bedford to Leicester
Provide high quality Felixstowe–Nuneaton Freight route with clearance for 9’6” containers
Provide clearance for 9’6” containers between Birmingham and all Thames and Solent Ports
Provide clearance for piggyback units between the Channel Tunnel and Scotland along the
WCML and from Dover, Felixstowe, and Portsmouth to the WCML
Invest all main lines with spare capacity and diversionary opportunities to improve reliability
Provide new inter modal terminals on existing railway land in Northampton and Cricklewood
Restraint
Increase car operating costs by 50% to represent more punitive fiscal regime
Increase central parking charges by 50%
Reduce central area road space to reflect urban initiatives such as bus priority
Other Measures
Motorway and dual all-purpose speed limits reduced to 50 mph (increases capacity, reduces
attractiveness and maximises fuel efficiency)
Other inter-urban all-purpose roads reduced to 50 mph
Urban roads all 30 mph
Increase in inter -city bus travel to provide improved public transport accessibility
Encourage load sharing and modal shift through ‘carrot’ methods and ‘stick’ methods to include
a 25% increase in HGV operating costs
- Hi -
Table H.2 Schedule of ‘Safety’ Theme Strategy Components
Road Infrastructure
In principle do not under-provide on high-speed safe routes. Therefore, as a starting
point:
M1 widening Junction 6A-13 to D6
M1 widening north of Junction 13 to D5
M25 widening to D6
M40 widening to D4
A1(M) widening Junction 6-8 to D4
A1(M) widening Junction 8-10 to D3
A1(M) widening north of Junction 10 to D3
A6, A10, A120 and A414 widening to D2
M11 widening Junction 6-8 to D4
M11 widening Junction 8-14 to D3
A14 from M1 to M11 widening to D3 provision throughout
A505 from M1 to M11 widening to D3 throughout
A421 from M1 to A1 widening to D2 throughout
A45 from M1 to A14 widening to D2 throughout
A5 Dunstable Bypass
Rail
WCML – as for Environmental Strategy
ECML – as for Environmental Strategy
MML – as for Environmental Strategy
East –West Rail Route for passengers as proposed
Other Measures
Implementation of safe routes to school
Lower speed limits on non-PRN routes
High quality interchange between E-W and N-S Rail routes
Central area restraint measures plus strategic Park and Ride
Freight consolidation to minimise empty running (ie fewer veh-kms. therefore safer)
- Hii -
Table H.3 Schedule of ‘Economy’ Theme Strategy Components
Road Infrastructure
M1 widening Junction 6A-13 to D4
M1 widening north of Junction 13 to D4
A1(M) widening to Junction 6-8 to D3
A1(M) widening to Junction 8-10 to D3
M11 widening to D3 throughout
A421/A428 widening to D3 throughout
A505 from M1 to M11D3 throughout
A14 from M1to M11 D3 throughout
A414 from M1/M25 to M11 D2 throughout
Rail
Major new rail facility providing paths for long-distance travel (HSL) to be constructed by
2015
Re-allocate some inter-city paths to suburban (WCML to Silverlink) and freight
East-West Rail Route, double frequency of proposed option, double-track throughout,
electrify, and provide north and south facing junctions with all main lines crossed
Reopen Kettering – Manton Junction line for passenger services to include additional
hourly semi-fast trains between London and Leicester stopping at a new station in Corby
Express coach to infill lack of rail services
Other Measures
Central area road pricing to minimise congestion/encourage free flow speeds
Complementary urban public transport improvements
- Hiii -
Table H.4 Schedule of ‘Accessibility’ Theme Strategy Components
Road Infrastructure
Maximum road improvement as for Safety Strategy
Rail
Include HSL
High quality East-West Rail Route 15minute frequency
High quality interchange between East-West Rail Route and radial main lines
Improved services to Stansted, Luton, and Heathrow including links to East-West Rail
Route and Thameslink and high quality interchanges at locations such as West
Hampstead
Other
Improved local bus services
Improved inter-city bus provision to cover gaps left by rail
Strategic Park and Ride
Table H.5 Schedule of ‘Integration’ Theme Strategy Components
Road Infrastructure
Restraint policies are maximised under this proposal
No new road construction
Motorway tolls
Urban congestion charging
Selective motorway junction closures
Rail
Additional Parkway stations ‘motorway/inter-city’ transfer
Provide major new inter modal terminals or freight villages where WCML, ECML and MML
cross the M25 and at Milton Keynes and Northampton.
Bus
Urban priority
High quality fleets
Strategic Park and Ride for all towns and cities > 50,000 population on all major radial
routes
Air
Improved public transport connections N/S/E/W For Stansted and Luton
- Hiv -
- Hv -
Scenario B Reference Case Framework Analysis 2031
2031 Scen B Ref Case vs Strategy
Base = 2031 Scen B Ref Case
Test = 2031 Scen B Strategy
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
7,723,100
7,708,550
-14,550
1.00
188,603,205
187,297,634
-1,305,571
0.99
26,536,944
24,959,511
-1,577,433
0.94
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
573.87
188.38
102.80
581.73
197.59
102.88
7.86
9.21
0.08
1.01
1.05
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
145.83
49.45
26.95
146.28
51.58
26.96
0.45
2.13
0.01
1.00
1.04
1.00
Car
Public Transport
2,491
1,300
2,491
1,255
0
-45
1.00
0.97
Car
Public Transport
2,800
1,564
2,845
1,573
45
9
1.02
1.01
Car
Public Transport
2,927
1,764
2,973
1,764
45
0
1.02
1.00
Car
Public Transport
2,173
4,464
2,282
4,418
109
-45
1.05
0.99
Car
Public Transport
3,064
5,309
3,136
5,309
73
0
1.02
1.00
Car
Public Transport
3,282
6,345
3,245
6,273
-36
-73
0.99
0.99
Car
Public Transport
3,736
7,000
3,682
6,700
-55
-300
0.99
0.96
Car
Public Transport
4,355
6,400
4,264
6,045
-91
-355
0.98
0.94
SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
7,723,100
7,708,550
-14,550
1.00
188,603,205
187,297,634
-1,305,571
0.99
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
244174429
333794127
27913111
16866508
235283648
326993884
26860735
15175343
-8890781
-6800243
-1052376
-1691165
0.96
0.98
0.96
0.90
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
39.21
53.60
4.48
2.71
38.93
54.11
4.44
2.51
-0.28
0.51
-0.04
-0.20
0.99
1.01
0.99
0.93
Rail
60.43
58.41
-2.03
0.97
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
16.33
5.63
5.98
16.68
5.90
6.00
0.35
0.27
0.02
1.02
1.05
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
62.48
9.21
4.27
62.76
9.94
4.29
0.27
0.73
0.02
1.00
1.08
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
20.35
1.57
1.34
20.32
1.68
1.33
-0.04
0.11
-0.01
1.00
1.07
0.99
Car
Rail
Bus
14.87
2.82
2.29
15.50
2.94
2.29
0.63
0.12
0.00
1.04
1.04
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
11.63
3.12
1.43
11.81
3.22
1.43
0.18
0.10
0.00
1.02
1.03
1.00
188,603,205
187,297,634
-1,305,571
0.99
49.45
26.95
51.58
26.96
2.13
0.01
1.04
1.00
Rail
Bus
ECONOMY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Average Speed:
53.40
54.30
0.90
1.02
Rail
60.43
58.41
-2.03
0.97
Car
Rail
Bus
17.31
14.17
5.37
18.13
14.76
5.27
0.82
0.59
-0.10
1.05
1.04
0.98
Car
Rail
Bus
11.68
10.88
4.43
11.72
11.56
4.33
0.04
0.69
-0.10
1.00
1.06
0.98
Car
Rail
Bus
21.42
9.74
2.86
21.68
10.53
2.78
0.25
0.78
-0.08
1.01
1.08
0.97
Car
Rail
Bus
26.83
13.47
5.25
26.56
14.03
5.15
-0.27
0.57
-0.10
0.99
1.04
0.98
Car
Rail
Bus
21.17
10.60
4.19
20.70
11.27
4.16
-0.47
0.67
-0.04
0.98
1.06
0.99
Car
Rail
Bus
38.59
11.60
4.51
38.46
13.74
4.43
-0.14
2.14
-0.08
1.00
1.18
0.98
Car
Rail
Bus
55.27
15.25
4.76
55.57
16.01
4.68
0.29
0.76
-0.08
1.01
1.05
0.98
Car
Rail
Bus
21.81
16.66
5.66
21.95
16.88
5.57
0.14
0.22
-0.10
1.01
1.01
0.98
Car
Rail
Bus
25.91
13.50
3.67
26.26
13.76
3.57
0.35
0.25
-0.10
1.01
1.02
0.97
Scenario C Reference Case Framework Analysis 2031
2031 Scen C Ref Case vs Strategy
Base = 2031 Scen C Ref Case
Test = 2031 Scen C Strategy
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
9,084,673
9,070,301
-14,372
1.00
207,853,097
206,895,166
-957,930
1.00
26,475,615
24,941,055
-1,534,560
0.94
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
559.13
171.36
96.78
567.28
179.56
96.84
8.15
8.19
0.06
1.01
1.05
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
140.19
44.35
25.56
140.74
46.29
25.51
0.54
1.95
-0.05
1.00
1.04
1.00
Car
Public Transport
2,609
1,327
2,591
1,273
-18
-55
0.99
0.96
Car
Public Transport
2,873
1,591
2,936
1,600
64
9
1.02
1.01
Car
Public Transport
3,000
1,791
3,055
1,791
55
0
1.02
1.00
Car
Public Transport
2,264
4,755
2,282
4,709
18
-45
1.01
0.99
Car
Public Transport
3,173
5,645
3,127
5,636
-45
-9
0.99
1.00
Car
Public Transport
3,373
6,682
3,391
6,618
18
-64
1.01
0.99
Car
Public Transport
3,827
7,364
3,845
7,045
18
-318
1.00
0.96
Car
Public Transport
4,445
6,718
4,345
6,345
-100
-373
0.98
0.94
SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
9,084,673
9,070,301
-14,372
1.00
207,853,097
206,895,166
-957,930
1.00
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
244394251
336979469
30873091
18520527
235785916
330388360
30177744
17047446
-8608335
-6591109
-695347
-1473081
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.92
Motorway
A-Road
B-Road
Unclassified
38.75
53.42
4.89
2.94
38.44
53.86
4.92
2.78
-0.31
0.44
0.03
-0.16
0.99
1.01
1.01
0.95
Rail
60.45
58.08
-2.38
0.96
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Car
Rail
Bus
13.66
5.08
5.64
14.13
5.33
5.64
0.47
0.25
0.00
1.03
1.05
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
60.35
8.51
4.02
60.64
9.17
4.04
0.29
0.67
0.02
1.00
1.08
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
20.05
1.42
1.27
19.95
1.52
1.27
-0.10
0.11
0.00
1.00
1.08
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
13.90
2.59
2.14
12.66
2.69
2.14
-1.25
0.10
0.00
0.91
1.04
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
6.44
2.83
1.31
6.51
2.94
1.31
0.07
0.11
0.00
1.01
1.04
1.00
207,853,097
206,895,166
-957,930
1.00
44.35
25.56
46.29
25.51
1.95
-0.05
1.04
1.00
Rail
Bus
ECONOMY OBJECTIVES
Base
Test
Test - Base
Test / Base
Average Speed:
48.23
48.10
-0.13
1.00
Rail
60.45
58.08
-2.38
0.96
Car
Rail
Bus
15.78
13.74
5.04
16.01
14.27
5.02
0.24
0.53
-0.02
1.01
1.04
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
9.96
10.53
3.72
9.60
11.13
3.53
-0.35
0.61
-0.20
0.96
1.06
0.95
Car
Rail
Bus
20.15
9.47
2.70
20.50
10.19
2.69
0.35
0.73
-0.02
1.02
1.08
0.99
Car
Rail
Bus
24.99
13.05
4.92
24.21
13.58
4.92
-0.78
0.53
0.00
0.97
1.04
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
20.17
10.19
3.94
20.38
10.82
3.94
0.22
0.63
0.00
1.01
1.06
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
36.67
11.21
4.23
36.26
13.23
4.21
-0.41
2.02
-0.02
0.99
1.18
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
52.29
14.78
4.41
52.12
15.50
4.41
-0.18
0.73
0.00
1.00
1.05
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
20.09
16.13
5.27
20.76
16.31
5.27
0.67
0.18
0.00
1.03
1.01
1.00
Car
Rail
Bus
24.30
13.09
3.08
24.77
13.33
3.08
0.47
0.24
0.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
Greenhouse
Gases
Estimated Population
Annoyed in 2031 Ref Case
69,800
Number of properties
exposed to a road link which
improves air quality = 200,000
(NO2)
400,000 (PM10)
Quantitative Impacts
Annoyed in 2031 Test Case
69,450
There is a predicted decrease in CO2 emissions with the 10-Year Plan in place. This is
due to a slight reduction in vehicle kilometres.
NO2 =minus 57,000
PM10 = minus 7,000
Index =
Net change air
quality µg m-3 x
weighted properties
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£ m)
Assessment
Net decrease in
Estimated
Population
Annoyed
400
Number properties exposed
to a road link with no change
in air quality = 340,000 (NO2)
22,000 (PM10)
N/A
Decrease of 321
KiloTonnes CO2
Approximately 9% of the properties considered in this assessment within 200m of road
links with predicted 2031 roadside NO2 concentrations above 40µgm-3 and an
increases in NO2 concentrations of at least 4µg m-3. Less than 1% of the properties
considered in this assessment are within 200m of road links with a predicted increase in
roadside PM10 concentrations of at least 2µgm-3.
Number properties exposed
to a road link which worsens
air quality = 210,000 (NO2)
300,000 (PM10)
Qualitative Impacts
The overall pattern of noise exposure across the Study Area is changed very little by
the 10YP and EW railway because road traffic changes are low. It is expected that
new roads under the 10YP will be built with mitigation in the form of low noise road
surfacing and/or noise barriers. This mitigation is predicted to produce a very slight
reduction in net noise annoyance across the Study Area. The level of mitigation
assumed may be conservative, so noise benefits could be greater if more generous
mitigation can be provided.
There is a predicted slight improvement in air quality within the Study Area.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Environment Noise
Local Air Quality
Description of interventions - see below
Option 1– Version 1 of the Plan
versus Reference Case A
Objective
Qualitative Impacts
Moderate adverse impacts have been assessed for the M1, M11 and A421/A428
corridors. Neutral impacts are assessed for the A1 and A14 corridors, as they do not
contain any Option 1 schemes. Overall effects on the Study Area are therefore
assessed as moderate adverse, and arise mainly from the effects of widening schemes
upon non-statutory designated areas such as AGLVs.
Townscape
Moderate adverse impacts have been assessed for the M1 corridor, with slight adverse
effects predicted for the A421/A428 corridor. The three remaining corridors will
experience neutral impacts. Overall effects on the Study Area are therefore assessed
as moderate adverse, and arise mainly from the impact of motorway widening on
urban open spaces.
Heritage of
M1 Corridor: Slight Adverse Impact on known Archaeological Sites to Large Adverse
Historic Resources Impact on non-Statutory Area of Archaeological Significance adjacent to motorway.
Slight Adverse to Luton Hoo Registered Historic Park or Garden, Conservation Area and
Grade I Listed Building.
A505 Dunstable Bypass: Moderate Adverse Impact to Thorn Hill SAM, plus slight adverse
impact to known Archaeological Sites.
M11 Corridor Large Adverse to 2 SAMs, plus slight adverse to known and potential
Archaeological Sites.
A421/A428 Corridor (Highway): Slight adverse impact to two Archaeological
Notification Areas, but mostly slightly beneficial to neutral to cultural heritage resources
including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.
Aylesbury to Bletchley rail link: Slight adverse to one Conservation Area, but largely
neutral to cultural heritage resources.
Bicester to Bletchley rail link: Slight adverse to industrial archaeology associated with
the railway, but largely neutral to cultural heritage resources.
Most of the schemes are neutral to slight adverse to Heritage of Historic Resources, with
the exception of the M11 Junctions 8-9 scheme.
Sub-Objective
Landscape
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£ m)
Assessment
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Large Adverse
N/A
N/A
N/A
Qualitative Impacts
There are several cases where potential for serious or very serious impacts are
predicted, particularly where nationally designated sites or ancient woodland lie
adjacent or in close proximity to the road or rail corridors. The A421/A428 is the most
significantly constrained corridor with one SSSI and several areas of ancient woodland
affected whereas the M1 Corridor is relatively unconstrained by sites of high nature
conservation value. However, there are many locally designated sites which may be
affected in this corridor. Overall, approximately three nationally designated sites and
fourteen non-statutory designated sites are predicted to be affected. More than one
site is predicted to have serious adverse effects as a result of the interventions involving
land take from designated sites, and therefore Option 1 will have a major adverse
effect.
Mitigation measures will reduce dramatically the impact on water resources. The road
widening schemes will increase run-off levels. Generally, suitable drainage design
incorporated into infrastructure schemes will be likely to mitigate impacts. Environment
Agency PPG’s should be followed during construction.
A neutral effect over the whole Study Area, as the changes in road and rail trips are so
small. A slight increase in public transport use (1,651 extra rail trips per 12 hour day
related to a Reference Case of 5,114,441 trips) would be offset by a slight increase in
car usage with respect to the Reference Case (extra 5,471 extra trips per 12 hour day
related to a Reference Case of 34,438,005 trips).
A slightly beneficial effect over the whole Study Area, as the road widening and new
road and rail route would provide the potential to resolve some existing problems
related to traveller care, views and stress and these benefits would be experienced by
a large number of people.
Objective
Journey
Ambience
Physical Fitness
Water
Environment
Sub-Objective
Biodiversity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Slight Beneficial
Neutral
Slight Adverse
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£ m)
Assessment
Major Adverse
Integration
Accessibility
Economy
Access to the
Transport System
Transport
Interchange
Severance
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Improved road and rail travel reliability.
Improvements to the strategic network will have some positive impacts on the
economies of the Study Area and other regions.
Positive effect on option values for road and rail for population larger than 2,000
people.
Given the assumption that all severance impacts from widening schemes, from new
infrastructure, and from capacity alterations for both rail and roads will be mitigated
through the provision of alternative or new crossings, no adverse impacts from these
interventions are predicted. The provision of new infrastructure and alternative uses for
existing infrastructure benefits will be gained in term of severance for some of the
population in the Study Area as a whole.
A proposal to open a station at Winslow, between Bletchley and Bicester, with a
connection to Aylesbury and hence through services to London.
All the proposed highway and rail schemes would increase interchange opportunities.
Reliability
Wider Economic
Impacts
Option Values
Transport
Economic
Efficiency
Security
Fatal accidents are reduced
by 5, serious by 92 and slight
by 541
Slight increase in road security since vehicles will be stationary for less time. No change N/A
in rail security.
Benefit/cost ratio = 2.28 (2.45
Benefit/cost ratio of 2.28, increasing to 2.45 if accident benefits are included. Hence,
if accidents included)
good value for money. Individual highway schemes have benefit/cost ratios greater
than 1.00; rail scheme has benefit/cost ratio of 0.74. Benefits associated with increased
number of highway lanes available during maintenance or accidents not included.
Qualitative Impacts
An overall reduction in accidents in all 3 categories.
Objective
Safety
Sub-Objective
Accidents
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Strongly Beneficial
Present value of
costs = £783m.
Present value of
benefits = £1,786m.
Net present value =
£1,003m.
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£ m)
Assessment
Slight Beneficial
Qualitative Impacts
Some package elements are safeguarded at a local level and therefore comply with N/A
policy. Some elements may be contrary to a range of environmental and sustainability
policies at local, regional and national level.
The package includes road improvements which do not fully accord with government N/A
policy on sustainability and reducing the need to travel by private transport. The
public transport improvements are consistent with wider policy.
Objective
Other
Government
Policies
Sub-Objective
Land-Use Policy
Neutral
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£ m)
Assessment
Neutral to Slight
Beneficial
Qualitative Impacts
the 10YP and full rail strategy because road traffic changes are low. It is expected
that new roads under the 10YP will be built with mitigation in the form of low noise road
surfacing and/or noise barriers. This mitigation is predicted to produce a very slight
reduction in net noise annoyance across the Study Area. The level of mitigation
assumed may be conservative, so noise benefits could be greater if more generous
mitigation can be provided.
There is a predicted slight degradation in air quality within the Study Area.
There is a predicted decrease in CO2 emissions with the 10-Year Plan plus Full Rail
Strategy in place. This is due to a slight reduction in vehicle kilometres.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Environment Noise
Local Air Quality
Greenhouse
Gases
69,250
Number properties within
200m of a road link with no
change in air quality = 70,000
(NO2)
22,000 (PM10)
N/A
69,800
Number of properties within
200m of a road link which
Approximately 17% of the properties considered in this assessment within 200m of road improves air quality = 350,000
(NO2)
increases in NO2 concentrations of at least 4µg m-3. Approximately 3% of the
350,000 (PM10)
properties considered in this assessment are within 200m of road links with a predicted
increase in roadside PM10 concentrations of at least 2µgm-3.
worsens air quality = 360,000
(NO2) 380,000 (PM10)
Option 2 – Version 2 of the Plan
Decrease of 333
KiloTonnes CO2
NO2 =840,000
PM10 = 63,000
Index =
Net change air
quality µg m-3 x
weighted properties
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Net decrease in
Estimated
Population
Annoyed
600
Objective
Qualitative Impacts
Moderate adverse impacts have been assessed for the M1, M11 and A421/A428
corridors. Slight adverse impacts on the A1 corridor are predicted. Neutral impacts
are assessed for the A14 corridor, as it does not contain any Test 1 schemes. Overall
effects on the Study Area are therefore assessed as moderate adverse, and arise
mainly from the effects of widening schemes and new road and rail schemes upon
landscape character and non statutory designated areas such as AGLVs.
Townscape
Moderate adverse impacts have been assessed for the M1, A1 and M11 corridors, with
slight adverse effects predicted for the A421/A428 corridor. The A14 corridor will
experience neutral impacts. Overall effects on the Study Area are therefore assessed
as moderate adverse, and arise mainly from the impact of road and rail widening on
urban areas, open spaces and occasional Conservation Areas.
Heritage of
M1 Corridor (Rail): Potential large adverse impact on Berkhampstead Castle SAM and
Historic Resources Norcott Court Farm SAM, plus slight adverse impacts on a wide variety of SAMs,
Registered Gardens, Conservation Areas, Archaeological Priority Areas, Listed Buildings
and known and unknown Archaeological Sites.
A1 Corridor (Rail): Potential neutral to slight adverse on a wide range of SAMs,
Registered Gardens, Conservation Areas, Archaeological Priority Areas, Listed Buildings
and known and unknown Archaeological Sites.
M11 Corridor (Rail): Potential large adverse impact on site of Roman temple at Harlow
SAM, but in general neutral to slight adverse on a range of SAMs, Registered Gardens,
Conservation Areas, Archaeological Priority Areas, Listed Buildings and known and
unknown Archaeological Sites.
A421/A428 Corridor (Rail): Because the route is not defined, the impact is uncertain,
but any land take in the vicinity of cultural heritage resources will result in a slight to
large adverse impact.
Most of the schemes are neutral to slight adverse to Heritage of Historic Resources,
with the exception of the M1 and M11 rail schemes.
Sub-Objective
Landscape
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Large Adverse
N/A
N/A
N/A
Safety
Qualitative Impacts
There are many occasions where serious or very serious adverse affects are predicted.
The M11 Corridor is very constrained, with approximately seven SSSIs directly or
indirectly affected. The M1 Corridor rail interventions also have significant adverse
affects associated with the eight SSSIs that may be affected. The A1 rail interventions
potentially affect one cSAC and three SSSIs. The M1 road corridor is less constrained.
Overall, approximately 17 statutory and 18 non-statutory designated sites are
predicted to be affected by this option, with the M11 Corridor being most constrained.
Several sites are predicted to have serious or very serious adverse effects on
biodiversity and this results in a major adverse effect for this option.
incorporated into infrastructure schemes will be likely to mitigate impacts.
Environment Agency PPG’s should be followed during construction.
Overall, it is considered that Option 2 would have a neutral effect over the whole
Study Area, as the changes in road and rail trips are so small. A slight increase in
public transport use (7,512 extra rail trips per 12 hour day related to a Reference Case
of 5,114,441 trips) would be offset by a slight increase in car usage with respect to the
Reference Case (7, 643 extra trips per 12 hour day related to a Reference Case of
34,438,005 trips).
A moderate beneficial effect over the whole Study Area. The increased number of rail
improvements in Option 2 compared to Option 1 would increase the overall journey
ambience benefits that accrue and these benefits would be experienced by a larger
number of people than in Option 1
Objective
Accidents
Journey
Ambience
Physical Fitness
Water
Environment
Sub-Objective
Biodiversity
by 28, serious by 405 and
slight by 541
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Slight Beneficial
Moderate
Beneficial
Neutral
Slight Adverse
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Major Adverse
Transport
Economic
Efficiency
Economy
Accessibility
Qualitative Impacts
Slight increase in road security since vehicles will be stationary for less time. No
change in rail security.
Benefit/cost ratio of 0.49, increasing to 0.68 if various additional benefits are included.
Hence, sufficient to take forward proposals forward for more detailed development,
with a view to achieving lower cost solutions or identifying further benefits. (eg
additional rail services using spare track capacity provided). Benefits associated with
increased number of highway lanes available during maintenance or accidents not
included.
people.
through the provision of alternative or new crossings no adverse impacts from these
interventions are predicted.
connection to Aylesbury and hence through services to London. In addition,
proposals for new stations at Cambourne (located between Cambridge and St Neots)
and Olney (located between Bedford and Northampton).
Sub-Objective
Security
Objective
Access to the
Transport System
Severance
Reliability
Wider Economic
Impacts
Option Values
N/A
N/A
N/A
Slight beneficial
Neutral
Strongly Beneficial
Benefit/cost ratio = 0.45 (0.68 Present value of
if additional benefts included) costs = £4,977m.
Present value of
Net present value =
-£2,517m.
N/A
Slight Beneficial
N/A
Slight Beneficial
N/A
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Beneficial
Other
Government
Policies
Land-Use Policy
Bedford becomes a major transport hub because of the extension of the complete
Bristol – Stansted route, would improve interchange opportunities at St Neots and also
access to Stansted Airport.
The rerouting of the West Anglia services via Stratford would make Stratford a major
interchange point between stations in the east of the Study Area and other parts of
southern England and Europe.
Some package elements conform to local land-use policy; substantially increased
public transport service levels accord with policy thrust at all levels. Road-based
elements may be contrary to a range of environmental and sustainability policies at
local, regional and national level.
The package includes road improvements which do not fully conform with wider
government policy on the environment and sustainability. However, there are
considerable improvements to public transport which accord with wider policy. The
impacts of road investment will be less than those of public transport.
N/A
N/A
Qualitative Impacts
All the proposed highway and rail schemes would increase interchange opportunities. N/A
Objective
Integration
Sub-Objective
Transport
Interchange
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Beneficial
Greenhouse
Gases
There is a predicted increase in CO2 emissions with the 10-Year Plan plus Full Strategy
A in place. This is due to a slight increase in traffic.
Approximately 8% of the properties considered in this assessment within 200m of road
Qualitative Impacts
the full strategy because in terms of noise emissions road traffic changes are low. It is
expected that new or widened roads will be built with mitigation in the form of low
noise road surfacing and/or noise barriers. This mitigation, whilst effective on these
roads, is predicted to produce only a very slight reduction in net noise annoyance
across the Study Area. The level of mitigation assumed may be conservative, so noise
benefits could be greater if more generous mitigation can be provided.
There is a predicted marginal degradation in air quality within the Study Area.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Environment Noise
Local Air Quality
NO2 =11,000
PM10 = minus 7,000
Index =
Net change air
quality µg m-3 x
weighted properties
(NO2)
22,000 (PM10)
N/A
Increase of 150
KiloTonnes CO2
(NO2) 420,000 (PM10)
69,800
improves air quality = 170,000
(NO2)
320,000 (PM10)
69,690
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Net decrease in
Estimated
Population
Annoyed
100
Qualitative Impacts
Substantial adverse impacts have been assessed for the M1 corridor. Moderate
N/A
adverse impacts have been assessed for the M1, A1, A421/A428, and A14 corridors.
Overall effects on the Study Area are therefore assessed as substantial adverse, and
arise principally from the effects of a new road scheme within an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. Adverse impacts also arise from widening schemes and new road
and rail schemes affecting landscape character and non statutory designated areas
such as AGLVs.
Moderate adverse impacts have been assessed for the M1, A1 and M11 corridors, with N/A
slight adverse effects predicted for the A421/A428 and A14 corridors. Overall effects
on the Study Area are therefore assessed as moderate adverse, and arise mainly from
the impact of road and rail interventions on urban areas, open spaces and
Conservation Areas.
Objective
Townscape
Sub-Objective
Landscape
Moderate Adverse
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Substantial Adverse
Objective
Sub-Objective
Qualitative Impacts
Heritage of
M1 Corridor (Luton Northern Bypass): Slight Adverse Impact on SAM at Dray's ditches
N/A
Historic Resources and Historic Garden at Manor Farm, Upper Sundon. Slight adverse impact on known
and unknown Archaeological Sites, and possibly on listed buildings.
A1 Corridor (Beeston and Sandy Bypass): Slight adverse impact on known and
unknown Archaeological Sites. Neutral impact on all other cultural heritage resources.
M11 Corridor (J 9-14): Large Adverse impact to 2 SAMs, plus slight adverse impact to
known and potential Archaeological Sites and unidentified listed buildings, and slight
adverse impact to listed building at Ickleton Abbey Farm.
A421 Corridor (M1 J 13 to A 5130): Neutral impact on known cultural heritage
resources.
A14 Corridor (A1 to M1): Slight adverse impact on four SAMs, but neutral impact on all
known cultural heritage resources. Neutral to slight adverse impact on unknown
Archaeological Sites and listed buildings.
(B1047 (Horningsea) and A11): Neutral impact on all known cultural heritage
resources, potential slight adverse impact on unknown Archaeological Sites and listed
buildings.
with the exception of the M11 Junctions 9-14 scheme.
Biodiversity
The A14 Corridor is the most constrained, with one cSAC and approximately thirteen
N/A
sites being potentially adversely affected. The A1 Corridor is also constrained, with
one cSAC and several other serious adverse impacts predicted. Of the interventions,
the rail has the most significant impacts, with the Luton Northern Bypass also having
direct impacts on designated sites. The M1 road corridor affects largely local sites.
Overall, two internationally designated site (cSACs), approximately 28 statutory and 38
non-statutory sites are predicted to be adversely affected, many of them seriously or
very seriously where they are adjacent to or crossing the road or rail corridors. As a
result, Option 3 is predicted to result in major adverse effects.
Major Adverse
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Large Adverse
Economy
Safety
Transport
Economic
Efficiency
Security
Accidents
Journey
Ambience
Physical Fitness
included.
Qualitative Impacts
Reference Case (3,031 extra trips per 12 hour day related to a Reference Case of
34,438,005 trips).
A moderate beneficial effect over the whole Study Area. The increased number of
road improvements in Option 3 compared to Option 2 would increase the overall
journey ambience benefits that accrue and these benefits would be experienced by
a larger number of people than in Option 2. However, these improvements would not
be large enough to produce a large beneficial score.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Water
Environment
if additional benefits
included)
slight by 872
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Present value of
costs = £5,211m.
Present value of
Net present value =
-£2,465m.
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Moderate
Beneficial
Neutral
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Adverse
Integration
Accessibility
Land-Use Policy
Transport
Interchange
Access to the
Transport System
Severance
Some package elements are safeguarded at a local level and therefore comply with
policy. Some elements may be contrary to a range of environmental and
sustainability policies at local, regional and national level.
Qualitative Impacts
people.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Reliability
Wider Economic
Impacts
Option Values
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Slight beneficial
Neutral
Strongly Beneficial
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Beneficial
Slight beneficial
Qualitative Impacts
The package includes road improvements which do not fully conform with
government policy on sustainability, the wider environment and reducing the need to
travel by private transport. The significant level of public transport improvements is
consistent with wider policy, and their impacts are likely to dominate the impact of
road elements.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Other
Government
Policies
N/A
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Beneficial
Qualitative Impacts
the full strategy because in terms of noise emissions road traffic changes are low. It is
roads, is predicted to produce only a very slight reduction in net noise annoyance
across the Study Area. The level of mitigation assumed may be conservative, so noise
benefits could be greater if more generous mitigation can be provided.
There is a predicted decrease in CO2 emissions with Full Strategy B in place. This is
Objective
Sub-Objective
Environment Noise
Local Air Quality
Greenhouse
Gases
68,400
(NO2)
23,000 (PM10)
N/A
Annoyed in 2031 Ref Case B
69,200
(NO2)
370,000 (PM10)
(NO2) 360,000 (PM10)
versus Reference Case B
Decrease of 399
KiloTonnes CO2
NO2 =580,000
PM10 = 41,000
Index =
Net change air
quality µg m-3 x
weighted properties
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Net decrease in
Estimated
Population
Annoyed
800
Qualitative Impacts
N/A
such as AGLVs.
Conservation Areas.
Objective
Townscape
Sub-Objective
Landscape
Moderate Adverse
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Substantial Adverse
Objective
Sub-Objective
Qualitative Impacts
Heritage of
N/A
resources.
buildings.
Biodiversity
N/A
Major Adverse
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Large Adverse
Safety
Security
Accidents
Journey
Ambience
Physical Fitness
Qualitative Impacts
of 5,115,307 trips) would be complimented by a slight decrease in car usage with
respect to the Reference Case (3,770 less rail trips per 12 hour day related to a
Reference Case of 33,963,650 trips). However, this slight change in balance of road
and rail trips would still be too low to qualify as a slight benefit
Objective
Sub-Objective
Water
Environment
Moderate
Beneficial
Neutral
Fatal accidents are reduced Slight Beneficial
by 28, serious by 416 and slight
by 1013
N/A
Slight Beneficial
N/A
N/A
N/A
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Adverse
Accessibility
Qualitative Impacts
included.
N/A
people.
N/A
N/A
Access to the
Transport System
Severance
Reliability
Wider Economic
Impacts
Option Values
Sub-Objective
Transport
Economic
Efficiency
Objective
Economy
Slight Beneficial
Neutral
Strongly Beneficial
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Benefit/cost ratio = 0.88 (1.06 if Present value of
additional benefts included)
costs = £5,211m.
Present value of
Net present value =
-£626m.
N/A
Slight Beneficial
N/A
Slight Beneficial
Other
Government
Policies
Land-Use Policy
road elements.
N/A
N/A
Qualitative Impacts
All the proposed highway and rail schemes would increase interchange opportunities. N/A
Objective
Integration
Sub-Objective
Transport
Interchange
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Beneficial
74,200
70,290
(NO2)
6,000 (PM10)
(NO2)
460,000 (PM10)
(NO2) 280,000 (PM10)
Qualitative Impacts
the full strategy because in terms of noise emissions road traffic changes are low. In
the base case noise annoyance is slightly higher than for the lower flow scenarios. It is
roads, is predicted to produce only a slight reduction in net noise annoyance across
the Study Area. The reduction appears to be larger than under the lower flow
scenarios, possibly because more traffic is mitigated. The level of mitigation assumed
may be conservative, so noise benefits could be greater if more generous mitigation
can be provided.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Environment Noise
Local Air Quality
versus Reference Case C
NO2 = minus 450,000
PM10 = minus 34,000
Index =
Net change air
quality µg m-3 x
weighted properties
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Net decrease in
Estimated
Population
Annoyed
3,900
Townscape
Landscape
There is a predicted decrease in CO2 emissions with the Full Strategy C in place. This is N/A
N/A
such as AGLVs.
Conservation Areas.
Qualitative Impacts
Objective
Sub-Objective
Greenhouse
Gases
Moderate Adverse
Substantial Adverse
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Decrease of 80
KiloTonnes CO2
Objective
Sub-Objective
Qualitative Impacts
Heritage of
N/A
resources.
buildings.
Biodiversity
N/A
Major Adverse
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Large Adverse
Economy
Safety
Transport
Economic
Efficiency
Security
Accidents
Journey
Ambience
Physical Fitness
included.
Qualitative Impacts
Reference Case (1,327 extra trips per 12 hour day related to a Reference Case of
35,416,436 trips).
Objective
Sub-Objective
Water
Environment
if additional benefits
included)
slight by 851
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Present value of
costs = £5,211m.
Present value of
Net present value =
-£2,163m.
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Moderate
Beneficial
Neutral
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Adverse
Integration
Accessibility
Land-Use Policy
Transport
Interchange
Access to the
Transport System
Severance
Qualitative Impacts
people.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Reliability
Wider Economic
Impacts
Option Values
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Neutral
Strongly Beneficial
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Beneficial
Slight Beneficial
Qualitative Impacts
road elements.
Objective
Sub-Objective
Other
Government
Policies
N/A
Present Value Cost
to the government
(£m)
Assessment
Slight Beneficial

London to South Midlands Multi

Transcription

Similar documents

view printable hirail catenary bucket truck brochure

Untitled - Investin Homes

SPEcificAtionS

RMFL - Blue Force Gear

Bartop Brochure

ScandFibre pres Scanmed RFC 140626

Conductor Rail Support Profile for AS/RS and Transfer Cars

Thyssen Flow 2 - Only Lifts Ltd

AFTER PARTY at wobbly barn

Hy-rail for backhoe loaders