Britain’s Transport Infrastructure Motorways and Major Trunk Roads

January 2009

While the Department for Transport (DfT) has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, DfT does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information and it cannot accept liability for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidance this document contains.

Department for Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Telephone 020 7944 8300

Website www.dft.gov.uk

© Crown copyright, 2009

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non-commercial research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyright source of the material must be acknowledged and the title of the publication specified.

For any other use of this material, apply for a Click-Use Licence at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm, or by writing to the Licensing Division, Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail licensing@opsi.gov.uk

To order further copies contact: DfT Publications Tel: 0300 123 1102 E-mail: dftinf@capita.co.uk

ISBN 978 1 906581 81 7

For a fuller listing of DfT publications, see www.dft.gov.uk/about/dftpubdatabase/

Cover photo acknowledgements From left to right: Duncan Phillips / Alamy; Highways Agency; Birdlike Images Gregory Bajor / Alamy

Printed in Great Britain January 2009 on paper containing at least 75% recycled fibre.

Contents

Introduction 5

The Managed Motorway Concept 6

The National Roads Programme 8

Introduction

1. Roads – Delivering Choice and Reliability’ our Command Paper published in July 2008, set out the challenge that we face in sustaining the key role of the national road network in supporting economic growth and productivity, in the face of current congestion at peak times and traffic growth. It announced that up to £6 billion had been made available to fund improvements to national strategic roads in England, and set out the national schemes which were being considered for this funding.

2. This funding is in addition to the £3 billion allocated to strategic regional roads before 2015/16 through the Regional Funding Allocation process. The command paper listed schemes that were planned to start construction by 2010/11. Regions are currently reviewing their priorities for the period up to 2018/19.

3. The Command Paper explained that while some road building will be needed to provide extra capacity, we must also consider more innovative ways to add capacity to existing roads. That is why we have been exploring locations where the hard shoulder could be used to provide extra carriageway space on the motorway network.

4. The high level analysis in the Advanced Motorway Signalling and Traffic Management Feasibility Study (ATM feasibility study) published in March 2008 identified a number of sections of the motorway network that would benefit from controlled use of the hard shoulder (hard shoulder running - HSR) at congested times in the short and medium term. These included some sections which had previously been considered for future widening, but which could be converted to hard shoulder running at significantly lower cost than a conventional widening.

5. Since March, the Department and the Highways Agency have been undertaking more detailed development of the design, costs and benefits of HSR on these sections of motorway, and where appropriate have made a comparison with widening. This work has also developed further the concept of HSR for more widespread use across the network.

6. This document describes the conclusions of this work, explains the way in which we will apply the ‘managed motorways’ concept progressively across key parts of the network in England, and the schemes that will be taken forward. It also sets out our programme of other capacity enhancements on the national network.

7. In November 2008 we published Delivering a Sustainable Transport System, which set out the challenges for longer term transport planning beyond 2014. The approach we have developed for improving capacity and reliability on the motorway network provides an important element of the longer term strategy, alongside options we are developing for improving rail services and additional measures we will be investigating on the national road network to address our five transport goals and deliver value for money.

5

The Managed Motorway Concept

8. The ATM feasibility study found a strong economic case for implementing hard shoulder running schemes more widely across the motorway network, assuming operation of the hard shoulder with a 60mph speed limit, and concluded that widespread application would be safe and feasible.

9. The M42 pilot of HSR has given us valuable experience of installing and operating a hard shoulder running scheme and results to date indicate benefits in relation to traffic flow, journey time reliability, emissions per vehicle and compliance, at considerably lower cost than widening schemes. There continues to be no evidence to suggest that safety has been compromised by the introduction of the hard shoulder running scheme. Indeed results to date suggest an improvement, although more data from over a longer period of time is needed to confirm this.

10. We have undertaken further development of the managed motorways concept with the aim of further reducing capital and operating costs whilst optimising the benefits for road users and maintaining a high level of safety.

11. Further analysis has been undertaken of the implications of allowing 60mph running when the hard shoulder is open. The Highways Agency is now satisfied that 60mph running can be safely operated, and 60mph running is now in operation on the M42 scheme.

12. Designs have been developed to allow the hard shoulder to be opened up through junctions. On the M42 the hard shoulder is currently used for running traffic only between junctions, but is not open to traffic between the exit slip road and the entry slip road. The design that has been developed will be implemented on the M42 shortly and will allow for the safe operation of the hard shoulder through the whole of the junction, effectively providing a continuous additional traffic lane.

13. We have learned a lot from the operation of the M42 pilot which means that we can be more cost effective in designing future schemes. Following detailed risk analysis we consider that there is no significant additional risk to motorists by spacing gantries every 800m, as opposed to every 500m on the M42. Our analysis also showed that there is no additional risk in spacing Emergency Refuge Areas (ERA) every 800m. Indeed, spacing ERAs at these wider intervals may reduce overall risk because it discourages non-emergency use (for example, motorists stopping in an ERA to check a map), keeping them free for road users whose vehicles break down.

14. Along with the additional capacity that managed motorways provides will come a more intensive operational regime through traffic officers in regional control centres and on the road. Safety is of paramount importance.

6

15. We have reviewed carefully the compliance and enforcement arrangements needed to support managed motorways. The aim is to ‘design-in’ compliance to make it as easy as possible. But those who flout the rules and create a safety risk need to know that enforcement action will be taken. The arrangements used on the M42 have worked well and will form the basis of plans for wider roll-out. But we are keeping under review the arrangements for speed enforcement, including the use of average speed cameras rather than spot speed enforcement.

The next schemes

16. These improved designs have now been developed in detail for the next hard shoulder running scheme for parts of the motorway box around Birmingham. Technology is currently being rolled out to cover sections of the M6, M40 and additional sections of the M42. Construction started on this scheme towards the end of 2008.

17. The first phase includes a combination of variable speed limits and hard shoulder running on the M40, M42 and J4-5 of the M6 and will be delivered by the end of 2009. The next phase covers variable speed limits and hard shoulder running on the M6 J8-10a and will be delivered by Spring 2011.

18. We have also examined in detail the schemes identified as further candidates for HSR in the ATM Feasibility Study, and the later sections of the M25 previously proposed for widening.

19. This work has included examination of additional works that would be needed to support hard shoulder running at each location, such as hard shoulder strengthening, and has produced scheme specific cost estimates using the Highways Agency’s revised cost estimating methodology.

20. For the sections where we had previously been considering motorway widening, we were able to compare this directly with HSR. This more detailed work suggests that in all cases where there was originally a proposed widening solution, HSR would provide a feasible alternative; and that on average it would save around 40% of capital costs, while for particular schemes savings could be almost 60%. HSR schemes provide the majority of benefits that widening would, generally at a lower cost to the environment. Combining this with the fact that capital costs are significantly lower means that the value for money of HSR is generally higher.

21. Although further refinement of this work is needed for some schemes before final investment decisions can be taken, the work to date gives a high degree of confidence that HSR gives a better value for money solution which is significantly more affordable than widening, and gives benefits in terms of safety and reliability.

7

The National Roads Programme

22. Delivering Choice and Reliability announced that the Government planned to invest up to £6 billion in major improvements to the strategic national road network and set out the schemes which were being considered for this funding. As a result of the design work described above, we are now in a position to set out how these funds will be used, both for HSR schemes, and also for other improvements to junctions and major trunk roads.

Prioritisation of schemes

23. The schemes under consideration represent a large pool of potential work which will take some time to deliver. In deciding our priorities for the first tranche of investment, we have reflected Sir Rod Eddington’s recommendations, and the role that roads play in supporting wider governmental aims, as well as practical delivery considerations. These are described below.

24. Sir Rod Eddington recommended that we should focus on improving the performance of the congested national and city networks, and improve access to international gateways (such as Heathrow airport or the port of Felixstowe) to best support the national economy. We have focused on these key routes to maximise benefits for freight movements as well as for motorists.

25. Figure 1 shows the level of congestion on the network in 2003 in terms of peak speeds. Some stretches of motorway have speeds below 50mph at peak times.

26. Figure 2 shows how this picture would worsen by 2025 if no capacity enhancing schemes were to go forward beyond those already committed.

8

9

10

27. Much of the core motorway network comprising the M25, M1, M6 and M62, plus the motorways around our key cities would face speeds well below 70mph. This would mean congestion and stop-start operation, making journey times less reliable. Our longer term strategy over the next 10-15 years will be to provide for managed motorways across this core motorway network, linking and serving our major cities. The first tranche of investment will make a start on all these routes, including some of the most congested sections.

28. We have also given high priority to schemes which facilitate housing growth (for example around Kettering) helping to support the Government’s target to deliver three million new homes by 2020.

29. After further analysis a few schemes listed in the July document were considered to offer relatively low value for money and so will not be taken further at the current time. These are: M1 J21a-23a and J35a-39, M56 J6-8 and two further sections around the Birmingham Box (M5 J2-4a and M5 J2-M6 J8).

Practical considerations

30. Some schemes are relatively quick to deliver with few engineering complications, whereas some require more planning work, for example if they require additional land to be purchased and a public inquiry.

31. The schemes under consideration are at different stages of development and this has informed when they could feasibly be delivered. Experience has shown that it is difficult to predict with precision how quickly individual schemes will progress from design and construction to completion. The Highways Agency is also investigating the scope for further cost efficiencies in scheme delivery as technology and procurement practices develop. The proposed programme therefore includes a degree of overprogramming so that if one scheme is delayed, or if scheme costs are lower than currently assumed, other schemes can be advanced.

The first tranche of the roads programme

32. Taking all of the above into account, we are now able to announce how we intend to invest up to £6 billion, as outlined in July.

33. The following schemes have already been completed this financial year and are open to traffic:

• M6 Carlisle to Guardsmill • M1 Junction 6a to 10 widening just north of London • A14 Haughley New St to Stowmarket • M62 Junction 6 improvements • M25 Junction 1b-3 widening

11

34. This funding will permit completion of the following schemes which are already in construction:

• M1 J25-28 widening near Nottingham • A5117/A550 Deeside Park Junctions improvement • A1 between Bramham and Wetherby • M40 J15 (Longbridge Roundabout) • HSR on the motorway box (M40, M42 and J4-5 of the M6) around

Birmingham

35. Reflecting the priorities described above we plan to make a start on the following schemes in this and the next financial year:

• HSR on the M6 J8-10a north of Birmingham • Traffic management technology improvements on the A14 between

Felixstowe and the M1. • Upgrading the A1 to motorway standard between Dishforth and

Barton • Widening the M25 between junctions 16 and 23 in the north west

and junctions 27 and 30 in the north east, subject to achieving financial closure

• HSR on the M1 J10-13 between Luton and Milton Keynes • HSR on the M4 J19-20 and M5 J15-17 around Bristol

36. In addition to that we are looking to start most of the following schemes in the following two years (2010/11 and 2011/12):

• Widening the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton (already planned to start in 2010/11);

• Adding a lane to the eastbound M60 around Manchester between J12-15;

• Trialling a new system on part of the M25 to integrate the management of traffic on the motorway network with the management of the local road network

• Improving the key M1 Junction 19 interchange with the M6 and A14 • M20 junction 10a at Ashford • Widening the A14 around Kettering • HSR on the M6 J5-8 around Birmingham • HSR on the M1 J32-35a east of Sheffield • HSR on the M62 J18 to 20 (Manchester) • HSR on the M62 J25-30 from Bradford to Leeds • HSR on the M60 J8-12 around Manchester

37. In addition the £6 billion investment programme will allow the following schemes to begin construction by 2015:

• M25 J30 improvements in Essex • HSR on the M1 J28-31 south of Sheffield • HSR on the M1 J39-42 (Wakefield) • HSR on the M3 J2-4a west of London

12

• HSR on the M6 J10a-13 north of Birmingham • HSR on the M25 Junctions 5-7 in the south and 23-27 in the north • HSR on the M4 J3-12 west of London

38. When completed, together these schemes could deliver over 520 additional lane miles to the national strategic road network (of which over 340 lane miles are hard shoulder running).

39. Individual schemes are of course subject to confirmation of value for money and satisfactory completion of any statutory processes.

40. Figure 3 shows the schemes in this first tranche of the programme, as well as those already in construction and schemes for future consideration. It should be noted that the map does not show the traffic management technology improvements that will be made on a substantial section of the A14 and the M25. The proposed schemes target some of the most congested sections of the network.

13

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved Department for Transport 100039241 2009 gisu0809j097. gisu0809j097_nolables_Pub

Figure 3: The National Roads ProgrammeExisting and in construction managed motorway The first tranche of the roads programmeSections for consideration under DaSTS

14

Fiscal stimulus

41. The economic climate has changed dramatically in the months since the Feasibility Study was published. The programme that we now propose aims to pull forward works such as HSR enabling work and hard shoulder strengthening into 2009/10 and 2010/11 to provide much needed fiscal stimulus to the economy. This work, plus other investment to bring forward renewal of carriageways and structures, will contribute £300m of accelerated investment in those two years.

Impacts of the Programme

42. The November 2008 document, Delivering a Sustainable Transport System, described our five goals for transport: supporting economic growth, tackling climate change, contributing to better safety, security and health, promoting equality of opportunity and improving quality of life. The main focus of our programme for the national road network is supporting economic growth by reducing congestion and providing more reliable journeys for motorists and freight operators, but we are doing this in a way that fits with the other four goals.

43. The Government is committed to meeting its legally binding targets and budgets as set out in the Climate Change Act, to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases of at least 80% over 1990 levels by 2050, and is looking to make greenhouse gas reductions across the economy where they are, and in ways that are, most economically effective and will meet its targets. Transport has a key role to play.

44. Delivering low carbon transport has to go hand in hand with a prosperous economy. Government is developing a strategy for this, building on existing measures such as developing mandatory emissions standards for new cars, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation and supporting low carbon vehicle technology development.

45. Adding capacity to the strategic road network is expected to result in a small overall increase in carbon emissions, but as we will show below, the increase in emissions with HSR is not expected to be as large as it would be under conventional widening. The impacts for carbon dioxide will be reflected in government decisions on carbon budgets later this year.

46. Safety is of paramount importance and the managed motorway enables us, for example to slow traffic down in the approach to a queue, giving a smoother flow and avoiding heavy braking and accelerating which can cause accidents. The safety results of the M42 HSR pilot have been encouraging as outlined above.

47. The programme will improve access to transport networks from our ports and airports, along key corridors connecting our major cities and areas of housing growth, and support regional economies.

15

48. The quality of life of motorists and those living alongside our motorways are both important to us. HSR schemes generally make less environmental impact than equivalent widening would. The driving experience of motorists on the M42 pilot has been a good one and this is something which we aim to replicate across the core motorway network.

49. Building on the work in the Feasibility Study, we have used the National Transport Model (NTM) to analyse some of the impacts of the planned programme on the network. To do this we compared three scenarios:

• Reference case: In this case no improvements would go ahead except for those already under construction and planned regional schemes.

• HSR scenario: This scenario assumes that all of the first tranche of investment up to £6 billion would go ahead, including HSR schemes.

• Widening scenario: This scenario assumes that all of the sections in the first tranche are improved, but with HSR schemes replaced by conventional widening schemes.

50. From this analysis we can illustrate the expected effects in terms of traffic flow, average speeds at peak times and emissions in 2025.

Traffic Impacts

51. The traffic results are presented in table 1. The first column shows the absolute levels of traffic in the reference case, whilst columns two and three show the percentage increases with HSR and widening respectively for all roads and for motorways only.

Table 1: Traffic (billion vehicle km) and % increases – all roads England Reference Case HSR Scenario Widening Scenario

Motorways 113 0.32% 0.38% All roads 550 0.11% 0.13%

52. Traffic increases slightly in both the HSR and widening cases, but there is a smaller increase with HSR compared to conventional widening.

16

Impacts on speed

53. As can be seen in Figure 2 above, average speeds at peak times are forecast to decline over time on congested sections of the network. Table 2 outlines the impacts on average speed at peak times on the improved motorway links. The table shows that average speed travelled at peak times increases under both scenarios. HSR provides a speed increase of 17%, which is very close to what is achieved under conventional widening.

Table 2: Peak period speeds (mph) and % increases – HSR schemes only

Reference Case HSR Scenario Widening Scenario 55.2 17% 18%

Carbon impacts

54. We also assessed the impacts of the proposed programme in terms of carbon emissions using the NTM. As discussed in the Feasibility Study, although the introduction of managed motorways reduces emissions per vehicle, owing to smoother running of traffic, total emissions increase owing to the higher level of traffic and higher speeds. The data that we have is not sophisticated enough to give a definite picture but indications are that the increase in carbon emissions for the HSR scenario would be about 0.4% over the reference case. Table 3 shows the results from traffic increases, but not the positive impact of smoother running.

Table 3: Carbon dioxide (million tonnes) and % increases – all roads England

Reference Case HSR Scenario Widening Scenario 94.9 0.4% 0.5%

55. Localised environmental impacts on the landscape and local air quality issues will be considered at the scheme level before any section of the network is improved.

Completing the strategy

56. Our priority for this initial tranche of the programme is tackling some of the most congested parts of national road network. However, most of the other schemes we have considered are expected to deliver high value for money, and we intend to roll out managed motorways more widely across the motorway network over the next 10 to 15 years.

57. The further locations planned for HSR are:

• M1 J13-19 south of Rugby • M1 J24-25 (Long Eaton) • M3 J9 – 14 (Southampton)

17

• M5 J4a - J6 south of Birmingham • M6 J2-4 between Coventry and Birmingham • The remaining stretch of the M6 between Birmingham and

Manchester • M6 J21a to 26 west of Manchester • M20 J3 to 5 (Maidstone) • M23 J8 to 10 (Gatwick) • M27 J4 to 11 (Southampton) • M60 J24 to 27 and 1 to 4 (incl link to M56 J3) (Manchester) • M60 J12 to 18 (Manchester) • M62 J10 – 12 (Manchester)

58. We will be looking into major junction improvements on the M1 J21-21a (Leicester) and J23a-24 south of Long Eaton. In addition, the HA will work with local authorities to consider further the options for relieving congestion on the A1 around Newcastle and Gateshead.

59. The timing of schemes that are not prioritised for the first tranche of up to £6 billion will be assessed as part of our Delivering a Sustainable Transport System exercise to establish the spending priorities for transport across modes after 2014.

60. Map 3 also shows what completion of this strategy will deliver, with managed motorways provided across the core of the motorway network. As the map shows, the programme we are announcing now makes a substantial step towards delivering this.

Optimising the benefits

High Occupancy Lanes

61. As we progress capacity enhancement schemes across the network we are looking to ensure that we optimise the benefits of our investments.

62. The ATM feasibility study noted that lanes reserved for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) have the potential to provide significant benefits in terms of the number of people moving along a congested corridor; but the solution must be appropriate to each particular situation.

63. For the Highways Agency network, giving priority to HOVs joining or leaving a motorway at a junction, as in the scheme operating at the M606 / M62 junction, offers the most promising opportunities for applying the HOV approach. The Highways Agency is considering whether to broaden the scope of the M62 trial to test the application of a HOV lane on the main carriageway. This would mean extending the existing HOV access road onto the hard shoulder between junctions 26-27 of the M62. HOV may have applications in other circumstances, such as access to airports.

18

Other measures

64. To optimise the benefits, we plan to provide for ramp-metering – the use of traffic lights on motorway entry slip roads – as an integral element of HSR schemes, to ensure the best traffic flow onto the motorways.

65. We are also considering ‘Integrated Demand Management’ whereby traffic controls on the motorway are coordinated with those on the adjoining road network.

66. The ATM Feasibility Study noted that managed motorway infrastructure could potentially enable additional capacity to be tolled, as seen in the USA. Further analysis of the concept of single lane tolling has been carried out since March 2008. This work has indicated that toll lanes could be beneficial in reducing congestion but significant costs would be associated with their introduction and operation. The Government currently has no plans to seek the powers that would be necessary to implement single lane tolling.

19