Prioritisation of Resurfacing of Concrete Trunk Roads with Quieter Materials

The Highways Agency's Response Following Consultation

  1. Background
  2. Consultation with English local highway authorities and others
  3. Issues raised during consultation
  4. Final criteria adopted
  5. What happens next
Prioritisation of Resurfacing of Concrete Trunk Roads with Quieter Materials

1. Background

1.1 Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan

The Highways Agency (the Agency) is an executive agency of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Agency fulfils the Secretary of State's responsibilities for the day-to-day management and operation of the trunk road network which consists of nearly all motorways and the more important A class roads in England.

The Government recognises that traffic noise is a concern for many people and gave a commitment in "A new deal for trunk roads in England" published in July 1998 that "In future, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used for those areas where noise is a particular concern."

Additionally, in the Government's "Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan" published in July 2000, the Agency was set the target of installing quieter surfaces on over 60% of the trunk road network, including all concrete stretches by 2010*. Some 5% of the trunk road network is constructed with a concrete surface and to minimise the disruption to the users of the network and ensure the effective use of resources this work needs to be phased in over the 10 year period. Therefore the Agency needed to establish criteria for deciding the priority of some 70 stretches of concrete roads.

*This date refers to the start of the financial year which starts on 1 April 2010 and finishes on 31 March 2011.

1. Background

2. Consultation with English local highway authorities and others

The proposed criteria were derived to conform with the Agency's business plan objectives of minimising the whole life cost and disruption to the network and reducing traffic noise to benefit some three million people living within 600m of trunk roads. The proposed criteria were:

The Agency wrote to and sought the views of:

  1. All County Councils in England
  2. All District Councils in England
  3. London Boroughs affected by trunk roads
  4. Transport for London
  5. All Unitary Councils in England
  6. All City Councils in England
  7. All Metropolitan Councils in England
  8. All Borough Councils in England
  9. Local Government Association
  10. Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) Companies

It also published the consultation letter on its website and the Government's central register of consultations hosted on www.ukonline.gov.uk

2.1 Summary of Responses to Consultation

2.1.1 Facts and Figures

The Agency issued its consultation letter on 29 December 2000 requesting comments by 23 March 2001. It was sent to 417 English local authorities and 12 other organisations; 92 of whom responded which was a reasonable level of return considering that not all local authorities are affected by concrete trunk roads.

Table below shows the level of response received from those who were issued with the consultation letter:

Local Authority No of Letters Sent by HA Number of Letters Received Number of E-mails Received Total No of Responses
City Councils 35 6 0 6
Borough Council 130 16 3 19
Metropolitan Borough Council 26 3 2 5
District Council 136 31 4 35
County Council 35 20 1 21
London Borough 7 1 1 2
Local Government Association 1 1 0 1
Parish Council* 1 1 0 1
Transport for London 1 0 0 0
Unitary Authority 46 1 0 1
DBFO Company 11 1 0 1
TOTAL 429 81 11 92

* The consultation letter was not sent to Parish Councils as they are not Highway Authorities. However, some received copies of the letter through their Highway Authority and one Parish Council contacted the Agency for a copy of the consultation letter.

445 letters and e-mails were received from individuals, MPs, campaign groups and other organizations shown below:

Group Number of LettersReceived No of E-mails Received Total Number of Responses
Residents Association 1 0 1
Individual 73 11 84
Campaign Group 340 * 0 340
Chartered Surveyors 1 0 1
Member of Parliament 12 0 12
Council for the Protection of Rural England (East Devon Group) 1 0 1
Parish Councils * 10 0 10
Council for National Parks 1 0 1
Automobile Association 1 0 1
TOTAL 440 11 451

* 220 identical letters were received from different individuals campaigning for the resurfacing of A180. Their response has been considered as part of a campaign group instead of individuals.

* Since the beginning of July, 117 identical letters have been received from people living close to A50 Doveridge seeking priority for their road. Their response has been counted as part of a campaign group instead of individuals.

2. Consultation with English local highway authorities and others

3. Issues raised during consultation

3.1 Comments on the proposed criteria

The proposed criteria and the main comments they attracted together with some of the recommendations by the consultees are discussed below:

3.1.1 Minimising whole life costs (WLC)

The Agency's trunk road and motorway maintenance programme is based principally on achieving minimum WLC i.e. providing the right treatment at the right time and avoiding premature works. Local authorities have been supportive of this principle, however some new issues have emerged:

There has also been the suggestion that minimising WLC gives undue weight to planned maintenance and would mean that newly built concrete roads would be resurfaced at the end of the 10 Year Programme. This is not necessarily so, as other criteria will also affect the timing of any works. However, the Agency needs to give priority to the safety of the users of the network by carrying out its planned maintenance.

It was also commented that WLC should be broadened to reflect environmental costs. This was not practical at this stage as the Agency did not have data on environmental cost and trying to gather the data would have delayed the announcement of the criteria.

3.1.2 Minimising congestion and roadworks

There was general support from local authorities and road users that the resurfacing programme should not lead to premature roadworks and congestion, not only on the trunk road network but also consequently on local roads. Therefore it is important to build flexibility into deciding when precisely a particular scheme will be taken forward. This means that the Agency will need to ensure that schemes are phased with other roadworks that might be planned both on the trunk road network and on the associated local authority roads.

3.1.3 Dealing with the noisiest sites that affect most people earlier

Giving priority to those schemes that would reduce noise pollution to the greatest number of people has received mixed reaction from those responding to the consultation. This criterion has been the focus of comments from rurally based individuals, campaign groups and local authorities. The main issue that they have raised is that using the number of people affected as criterion is biased against rural communities as they are sparsely populated and yet arguably affected more by noise.

The purpose of Government's commitment to install quieter surfaces on over 60% of the core trunk road network is to reduce traffic noise benefiting an estimated 3 million people living within 600m of trunk roads. Therefore, the level of noise and the number of people benefiting are implicitly key outcomes of this programme and this criterion aims to give priority to those roads that are noisier and affect higher concentration of properties.

To implement this criterion, some 70 stretches of concrete roads were divided into 155 contract sections. Number of properties per kilometre of each contract section together with level of noise at the centre of the post code of properties of each section were calculated. These were used to determine the ranking order of these contracts. Incidentally, it was also suggested during the consultation that the number of properties per kilometre of road should be used as a criterion which has now been partly adopted.

3.2 New Criteria Proposed During Consultation

3.2.1 Consider the length of time that people have endured traffic noise

Representations were made that those who have endured traffic noise for a longer period should be given a higher priority. It has also been suggested that adverse health implication of prolonged exposure to excessive noise should be considered.

Since the maintenance needs will be a key consideration in determining the programme, the older surfaces would be dealt with earlier in the programme, thereby bringing relief to those who have endured traffic noise for the longest period of time. Therefore this criterion should largely be satisfied, although not explicitly.

3.2.2 Schools and hospitals affected by traffic noise

Two local authorities have suggested that noisy roads affecting schools and hospitals should receive priority treatment. Generally schools and hospitals are located in areas of high population density and should be addressed in the Agency's proposed criterion of dealing with the noisiest sites that affect the greatest number of people. The Agency is currently identifying the schemes that satisfy this criterion.

3.2.3 Actual noise levels greater than those predicted at public inquiry

It was proposed that priority should be given to roads which have proved to be noisier than was predicted at the time of their Public Inquiry. Others have suggested that we should consider actual increase in traffic volume compared to those predicted at design stage as there is a relationship between level of noise and level of traffic.

Noise prediction is not a precise science and trying to predict future noise levels taking into account many variables such as traffic volume, traffic speed, the setting of the road (topographical parameters e.g. whether the road is in a cutting or on an embankment) and wind speed and direction can be less accurate than desired.

The Government recognised that excessive traffic noise was an important issue for many people and, in 1999, announced an annual ring-fenced budget of £5m to deal with the most serious cases. In order to identify the most serious and pressing cases a set of criteria were used to carry out an initial sift. The criteria, applicable to this programme to determine whether practicable and cost-effective mitigation can be provided, were:

(a) the trunk roads must have been opened before June 1988, but priority for attention is to be given to locations affected by roads which have remained unaltered since October 1969 (the qualifying date for the first noise mitigation measures);

(b) current (i.e. 1998) noise levels immediately adjacent to the road to be at least 80 dB(A); and

(c) in the case of roads opened or altered after October 1969, the current (i.e. 1998) noise levels must be at least 3 dB(A) greater than predicted for the design year.

Accordingly, the Agency has a programme for dealing with those noisy roads that have been opened before June 1988. To address the traffic noise associated with remaining concrete trunk roads, it was decided to adopt the new suggested criteria (i.e. consideration should be given to roads which have proved to be noisier than was predicted at the time of their Public Inquiry) and apply it to those roads that have been opened since 1988. A noise survey will be carried out for those roads that have not had one done and the results will be used in determining the priority of these roads.

3.2.4 Low Ambient Noise

A number of organisations and individuals have proposed that priority should be given to resurfacing roads that are the dominant and intrusive source of noise in an otherwise tranquil setting. It was suggested that rural communities suffer more from traffic noise as their environment was quiet before the road was built. Similarly, the Council for National Parks has commented that priority should be given to sections of road where noise disturbs wildlife or mars tranquillity in nationally designated areas such as the National Parks. It was also suggested that the impact of traffic noise on rural tourism in previously tranquil area should be considered. Adopting this criterion could mean that some of the large communities who are subject to high levels of traffic noise would be treated later and this would be in conflict with the Government's aspiration of bringing relief to most people early in the programme.

To progress this criterion would also require a major programme of research. There are few data available on ambient noise levels, particularly in the countryside, nor on actual or predicted noise levels emanating from roads and other major sources of noise. Such information would need to be obtained in order to come to a view as to which road passes through areas of greater or lesser tranquillity, and is therefore more or less intrusive.

It was also suggested that the criteria should be subjected to the mechanism in the Rural White Paper (RWP) "Our Countryside: the future" published in 2000. Section 9.4 of RWP is concerned with promoting tranquillity and in 9.4.3 gives a commitment to put low noise surfaces on 60% of the trunk road network, including all concrete roads, by 2010. The Agency is already implementing RWP commitments of providing low noise surfacing.

The RWP gave a commitment to the publication of a national noise strategy which will include mapping the main sources and areas of noise at a cost of £13 million. In rural areas this will involve major road and rail links. The mapping should be complete by 2004 and is being taken forward by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is difficult for the Agency to anticipate the outcome of this initiative. Rather it is be more appropriate to see what emerges from this developing area of Government policy, and how this might inform the priorities for resurfacing schemes towards the end of the initial four year programme.

3.2.5 Consider the impact of night-time noise

It is difficult to see how priority can be assigned without extensive noise measurements and assessing its impact at night. This would lead to a further delay in establishing the programme. The adopted criterion of dealing with the noisiest sites that affect most people earlier, should help to address some of the concerns about night-time noise.

3.2.6 Priority to be given to those suffering from noise from multiple transport modes

Adopting this criterion may not be an effective way of targeting resources, as the reduction of traffic noise may only have a marginal effect on the overall reduction of noise, if it is not a significant contributor to the overall noise level. To find out whether traffic noise is the dominant noise source or not, extensive noise measurements need to be carried out leading to delays in establishing the programme.

3.2.7 Include ride quality as a criterion

Some local authorities have suggested this criterion. It is assumed that this comment seeks to give priority to those roads which suffer from poor ride quality. This is outside the scope of the policy of dealing with traffic noise, however, trunk roads are maintained to a high standard and whenever any maintenance is needed, ride quality is dealt with as part of ongoing maintenance programme.

On a similar theme, it has been proposed that the effects of tyre noise on the driver should be considered. This is a complex issue as the level of noise experienced by drivers depends on many factors such as the type of tyre, make of car and speed. Therefore addressing this issue would require a programme of research which would lead to delaying the establishment of the resurfacing programme.

3.2.8 Give priority to developing areas

This was suggested by a District Council. If a developing area is densely populated, it will get priority under the criterion of "dealing with the noisiest sites that affect the most people earlier". If a developing area is not densely populated, giving priority to them would be counter to our objective of improving the situation for the maximum number of people in the early part of the programme. However, these areas would benefit from the programme in due course.

3.2.9 Give priority where the local authorities and others are prepared to contribute to costs of resurfacing

Both local authorities and central government receive their funds from the Treasury and therefore whether local or central government funds any scheme is immaterial. In areas of excessive noise, private developers would need to provide noise mitigation measures as part of the planning consent and if any developer is prepared to fund a scheme, there are procedures under which this can be done.

3.2.10 Give consideration to weight of support for a particular scheme

It is difficult to judge the level of support for any scheme as some people are less prone to formally raise issues. Adopting this criterion may lead to giving less priority to those who have endured traffic noise more tolerantly.

3.2.11 Take account of level of compensation paid

This suggestion, which was made by a residents association, could be interpreted in two ways:

It could mean that areas that have already received compensation for traffic noise should be given less priority. It would be unfair to adopt this criterion as those who have received compensation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 were entitled to it and should not be treated differently.

If it is being suggested that the level of compensation is an indication of level of noise, the latter is being taken into account as part of adopted criterion of dealing with the noisiest sites that affect the most people in the early part of the programme.

3.2.12 Carry out a preliminary assessment of all roads before prioritising them and take account of number of houses built after the road was opened

This proposal was made by a local authority. The Agency continuously monitors the condition of its network to prioritise the maintenance schemes.

The suggestion that we should take account of number of houses built after the road was opened could be interpreted in two ways:

  1. it could be argued that these people chose to live in the area with the knowledge of traffic noise and should not receive priority;
  2. it could also be argued that owners of these properties did not receive compensation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and hence should be given priority; however, if the noise level was above the permitted level for residential properties, then the developer would have had to provide noise fencing as part of planning consent.

Whichever way this proposal is interpreted, data on number of houses built after roads have been opened are not available, making the implementation of this proposal impractical.

3.2.13 Take account of frequency of noise generated from a particular type of concrete road e.g. low frequency sounds have long wave length and travel further

This proposal, put forward by a local authority, would involve extensive noise measurement and further delay the finalisation of the criteria. The adopted criterion of dealing with the noisiest sites that affect most people partly covers this issue.

3.2.14 Consider potential accident savings

This proposal was combined with a suggestion that porous asphalt should be used as a low noise surfacing. However, the Agency no longer uses porous asphalt due to its high maintenance cost. All trunk roads must be maintained to achieve our standard for skid resistance. Concrete roads and those surfaced with quieter materials are subject to same standards.

There has also been a comment that quieter roads could lead to an increase in traffic speed and accidents. The Agency shall monitor accidents rates to see if there is any evidence to support this claim.

3.2.15 Consider noise reduction measures taken by local authorities

This was suggested by a local authority, however, the Agency does not have data on noise reduction measures that local authorities have implemented and trying to obtain this data will further delay the programme.

3.3 Other Comments Received During Consultation

3.3.1 DBFO companies should pay for the cost of resurfacing as they have profited from increase in traffic levels

DBFO contracts are awarded on a competitive basis and the use of concrete as surfacing material was not precluded at the time the contracts were awarded. Therefore there is no contractual basis for making DBFO companies pay but the Agency's negotiators will endeavour to obtain the best value for money outcome.

3.3.2 Use tree planting and landscaping to reduce noise

The Agency already uses planting where there is an opportunity to do so. Planting has little effect on noise until it has developed over 10 years or more and only where there is a wide and dense area of planting.

3.3.3 Implement traffic calming to reduce speed as reduction in noise may encourage speeding

Traffic calming is not appropriate for most trunk roads, particularly on the relatively long and straight stretches of concrete roads.

3.3.4 Consider the potential high rate of use of finite resources such as "high polished stone value" aggregates (very hard aggregates) as thin surfacing

Unfortunately quieter surfaces do require the use of harder aggregates which are obtained from a limited number of sites. However, research is being carried out to identify ways of recycling the materials to reduce the depletion of current resources.

3.3.5 Consider the effects of traffic noise on safety of other local roads

It has been suggested that traffic noise from some roads is such that it drowns out local traffic noise and makes crossing village roads a safety hazard, especially for children. The Agency shares these concerns and the criterion of dealing with the noisiest sites that affect the most people aims to give priority to those stretches of roads that pass through populated areas.

3. Issues raised during consultation

4. Final criteria adopted

The criteria that will be used to prioritise the resurfacing of concrete trunk road network are the Agency's three proposed criteria plus a new one that was put forward during the consultation:

4. Final criteria adopted

5. What happens next

These criteria are now being used by the Agency's Operations Directorate to produce a programme for resurfacing these roads as part of Agency's business plan process.

Schemes that satisfy the first criterion and are planned for the following three years (2002/03, 2003/04 and 2004/05) together with those that take place in 2001/02 are listed below:

2001/02
Region Project Description Length (km) Properties Affected per km
South East A12 Hatfield Peverel 1.5 158
South East M11 J6-7 northbound 7 11
South East M27 J2-4 9 125
South East M25 J16-17 marker post 104/9 to 110/4 6 32
South West M5 J26-27 marker post 227/2 to 229/8 2.6 5
Midlands M42 J9-10 northbound carriageway 6.8 174
Midlands A1 Winthorpe to North Muskham 4.1 37
Midlands A1 Long Bennington Bypass 3.5 41
2002/03 - 2004/05
Region Project Description Length (km) Properties Affected per km
Midlands A1 Winthorpe - Coddington 3 93
Midlands A1 Coddington - Balderton 3 37
Midlands A1 Carlton - North Muskham 5.3 12
Midlands A46 Widmerpool to Willoughby 4 1
Midlands A46 Willoughby to Six Hills 4 0
Midlands M42 J2-3 contract 1 3.8 6
Midlands M42 J9-10 11.5 28
Midlands M69 Contract 2 J21 to flexible section 10 8
Northern A180 Harbrough - Stallingborough 4 11
Northern M180 Sandtoft J2 3.8 0
Northern M180 J2 - Beltoft 3.8 2
South East A12 Brentwood 2 4.4 87
South East A12 Witham 7 117
South East M25 J26-27 Contract 2 (MP153/1-158/6) 4.4 44
South East A47 East Dereham Bypass 3.2 205
South East M20 J10 - 11 6.5 58
South East M11 J9-8 Phase 1 7 27
South East M11 J6-7 southbound 7 11
South East M20 J11 - J13 (MP 100/1 - 109/2) 6 156
South West M5, J27 South to Willand 5 51
South West M5 J26-27 (MP217/8 - 220/0) 4.4 5
South West M5 J26-27 (MP 220/0 - 223/6) 3.6 5
South West M5 J26-27 (MP 223/6 to 227/2) 3.6 5

Highways Agency is currently identifying additional schemes that satisfy second and third criteria and could be added to this list. The Agency has also identified 17 roads with concrete surfaces that have been opened since June 1988 and has instigated a programme of noise surveys to identify those that satisfy the fourth criterion. These 17 roads are:

5. What happens next