Feature
Better information for your journey
The National Traffic Control Centre collects real-time information on road conditions.
Quick Links
The Project Control Framework
On 1st April 2008 we launched the Project Control Framework. The Framework sets out how we, together with the Department for Transport, manage and deliver major improvement projects.
Traffic news on your desktop
Helpful ways to access the latest traffic information when you need it.
Disconnected Pages
Route Problems and Issues
Following a detailed review of the route, including data analysis, consultations with key stakeholders and a coach tour, the following problems and issues have been identified:
| Economy | Ec. 1 | Congestion at junctions. |
|---|---|---|
| Ec. 2 | Congestion on links. | |
| Ec. 3 | HGVs cause congestion on two-lane sections. | |
| Ec. 4 | Potential for increase in traffic due to improvements external to route. | |
| Ec. 5 | Congestion caused by major events (Football, etc). | |
| Ec. 6 | At-grade junction reduces efficiency of route. | |
| Ec. 7 | Potential traffic increase caused by developments. | |
| Ec. 8 | Regional development sites may cause considerable increase in traffic. | |
| Ec. 9 | Maintenance/Safety issues at interfaces between HA and local authority controlled route sections. | |
| Ec. 10 | Transfer of traffic onto local roads during (major) roadworks. | |
| Ec. 11 | General maintenance issues particularly on two-lane sections. | |
| Ec. 12 | Winter maintenance problems (gritting, snow clearance, etc). | |
| Ec. 13 | Overall signing and lining strategy needs to be reviewed. | |
| Ec. 14 | Half junctions restrict access to route. | |
| Ec. 15 | Drivers' perception of major/minor route at A56/A682 Junction. | |
| Ec. 16 | Inconsistent signing of destinations from eastern end of M65. | |
| Ec. 17 | Signing promotes inappropriate route from M6 to Leyland. | |
| Ec. 18 | Signing in poor condition/obscured. | |
| Ec. 19 | Lack of user facilities on route. | |
| Ec. 20 | Standard of A56. | |
| Ec. 21 | Lack of electronic Variable Message Signs. | |
| Ec. 22 | Lack of information on driver location - breakdown/accident locations. | |
| Ec. 23 | Lancashire County Council do not have the same development control powers as the Highways agency. | |
| Ec. 24 | Currently the RMS guidance does not identify the need for stakeholders to be involved in the review | |
| Safety | S. 1 | Illegal pedestrian encroachment onto carriageways. |
| S. 2 | At-grade pedestrian crossings increase risk to non-motorised users. | |
| S. 3 | Objects thrown onto carriageway. | |
| S. 4 | Unlit sections of carriageway on M66 between Junctions 1 and 0 and on M65 between Junctions 2 and 6 may increase accident risk. | |
| S. 5 | Minor road access onto carriageway (A56 only). | |
| S. 6 | Junction layout safety concerns. | |
| S. 7 | Inappropriate traffic use and flows on A6177. | |
| S. 8 | No hardshoulder on A56. | |
| S. 9 | Gaps in safety fencing to allow access to side roads (A56). | |
| S. 10 | Central reservation fencing not to current standards (A56). | |
| S. 11 | Slow moving HGVs exiting lay-bys. | |
| S. 12 | Unsuitable abnormal loads lay-by. | |
| S. 13 | Close junction proximity causes significant weaving. | |
| S. 14 | Flooding on carriageway. | |
| S. 15 | Police Observation Posts are of the old drive-through design with poor sight lines. | |
| S. 16 | Poor emergency telephone coverage on A56. | |
| S. 17 | Rear shunt accidents caused by congestion. | |
| S. 18 | High accident levels/severity ratio. | |
| S. 19 | Perceived high accident levels on Rawtenstall Spur. | |
| S. 20 | Lack of co-ordination of Incident Response Plans. | |
| S. 22 | Livestock Fencing. | |
| S. 23 | Existing lighting may not be to current standards. | |
| Environment | En. 1 | Lack of audit for highway drainage / outfall location and receiving sites. |
| En. 2 | Lack of LMP / environmental database information for M65 J10-14. | |
| En. 3 | Lack of continuity between HA and County management areas on environmental matters. | |
| En. 4 | Lack of route specific BAP / action plans, and potential for inappropriate management within LMP and activities resulting in adverse impacts on protected species. | |
| En. 5 | Poor air quality / exceedences of National Air Quality Objectives associated with use of RMS corridor. | |
| En. 6 | Inappropriate traffic use and flows on A6177. | |
| En. 7 | Ensure proper management of surplus land. | |
| En. 8 | Need for large mammal crossings at M66 Junction 1 (E.g. badgers). | |
| En. 9 | Noise problems of M66. | |
| En. 10 | Litter problems on M66 from Land-fill site. | |
| Accessibility | A. 1 | Severance issues for residential and development areas. |
| A. 2 | Reduced accessibility for Vulnerable Users across route. | |
| A. 3 | Reduced accessibility for Vulnerable Users along route. | |
| Integration | I. 1 | M65 restricts improvements to rail infrastructure. |
| I. 2 | Poor signing to other forms of transport. | |
| I. 3 | Inconsistency in provision of alternative modes of transport. | |
| I. 4 | A perceived lack of co-operation between key stakeholders. |
