Executive summary

Executive Summary

This report presents the Route Management Strategy (RMS) developed for the M3 Motorway fromJunction 1 Sunbury, south west London to Junction 14 Southampton. This RMS also includes the first500m of the A316(T) trunk road in south west London.

The M3 Motorway is a radial route from south west London and is approximately 93.5 kilometreslong. The M3 serves an area from the M4 Motorway in the north to the A3 Trunk Road in the southand provides access between London and the A303 Trunk Road to South West England.

This RMS contains a set of Route Outcomes that will promote studies and interventions to improve theoperation and maintenance of the M3 Motorway.

This RMS addresses the recommendations from the recently completed Multi-Modal Studies, namelythe London Orbit Multi-Modal Study, the Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study and the South CoastCorridor Multi-Modal Study. Comments from the South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Studywere also taken into account. Further details can be found in Section 3.6.

Chapter 3 of this report contains details of Policy Objectives as they relate to the M3, in co-ordinationwith the Government's Ten Year Transport Plan and the Highways Agency's Strategic Plans. ThePolicy Objectives for the route are considered using the five investment criteria of Safety,Environment, Economy, Accessibility and Integration. Local transport and planning policy objectiveshave also been identified and further details of these can be found in Appendix E in Volume 2 of thisdocument.

The Route Functions and Performance for the M3 are identified and analysed in Chapter 4. Thechapter reports the determination of the Strategic, Regional and Local Functions of the M3 within thestudy area. Within the chapter, factors affecting the route performance are identified by matching theStrategic, Regional and Local Route Functions against the five investment criteria.

Chapters 6 and 0 outline the Route Outcomes and Strategy Impact Statement, intended to guideinvestment into and improvement for the M3. The Strategy Impact Statement briefly describes theRMS Review process and outlines the impact the Route Outcomes will have on the future operationand maintenance of the M3.

Part 2 of Volume 1 contains the Land Use and Development Control Statement for the M3,highlighting the relationship between communities and the transport network anticipated to serve it.This chapter gives details of the planning policies and guidance pertinent to the M3 as well as currentand proposed major developments likely to impact on the future operation and function of the M3.

Volume 2 of this document contains the Appendices for this RMS, including the traffic and congestiondata.

Following a period of public and stakeholder consultation, this Route Management Strategy has beenformally published and adopted. A Route Management Plan will be developed by the HighwaysAgency to plan and carry out actions to fulfil the Route Outcomes over the next ten years.


Executive summary

1 Introduction

1 Introduction

1.1 Brief Description of the Route

The M3 Motorway forms the radial route from south-west London to Southampton on the south coast.It covers approximately 93.5 km (59 miles), starting from Junction 1 at Sunbury and finishing at theChilworth Roundabout (A33) just north of Southampton. At the Junction 14 interchange, the M3 linkswith the M27 south coast motorway towards Bournemouth and Portsmouth. This RMS also includesthe first 500m of the A316(T) to the east of Junction 1 of the M3.

Within this document, the carriageways will be taken as running westbound and eastbound,notwithstanding that some of the sections run more north/south. The study area is shown in Figure1.1. The M3 serves a catchment area between the A3(T) and A3(M) London to Portsmouth TrunkRoads, up to 25 km (16 miles) to the east, the M4 Motorway London to south Wales, 10 to 25 km (6 to16 miles) to the north and approximately bounded to the west from Salisbury Plain to the south coast.

figure 1.1

Figure 1.1: The M3 Motorway and Study Area

The M3 is generally a standard 3-lane dual carriageway motorway throughout its length. FromJunction 8 to Junction 9 the M3 is 2-lane dual carriageway motorway, and for approximately 2kilometres from Junction 9, on the eastbound carriageway, there is an additional climbing lane. AtJunction 14, the M3 divides into three directions: west to the M27 and Bournemouth; east to the M27and Portsmouth; and south to the A33 and Southampton. All of the junctions are grade separated forthrough traffic on the M3, but only Junction 2 at the M25 and Junction 14 at the M27/A33 are fullyfree-flowing for all movements. Junction 8 at the A303 is free flowing, but it remains a restrictedmovement junction.

The route predominantly passes through areas of Special Landscape with varying environmentalclassifications. The route passes through or near to many urban areas as well as bypassing majortowns in north Surrey and north east, central and south Hampshire. It serves the population centres ofsouth west London (Hounslow and Richmond-upon-Thames), north-west Surrey (Woking andCamberley), south and east Berkshire (Bracknell) and north-east, central and south Hampshire(Farnborough, Basingstoke, Winchester, Eastleigh and Southampton), as well as numerous smallerand more diffuse residential areas in between.

1.2 Overview of Route Management Strategies

The Highways Agency has issued a document titled "Route Management Strategy Guidance", whichsets out the framework under which this Route Management Strategy has been prepared. The currentVersion 2 of the Guidance is dated November 2003. The following section 1.2.1 of this report isextracted from the Guidance, and gives an overview of Route Management Strategies in general, andon the principles behind this one.

1.2.1 What is a Route Management Strategy?

Route Management Strategies '…is a technique being developed by the Highways Agency to providea framework for managing individual trunk routes as part of wider transport networks. RouteManagement Strategies will interlock with local transport strategies (set out in Local Transport Plans)within the context established by Regional Planning Guidance'. (Reference Para 3.1.34 'A New Dealfor Transport: Better for Everyone').

The Route Management Strategy (RMS) process has been developed to:

The development of RMSs assists the HA to achieve its objective which is:

The development of an RMS will be administered and delivered by the HA, with the assistance ofconsultants, through undertaking a Route Management Strategy Study.

It should be noted that whilst a RMS will be focused upon a particular route, the impact which otherroutes may have upon it and the impact that the route may have on others should be considered withinthe study. This would be particularly applicable where an issue on one route can be resolved throughan outcome on another.

An RMS comprises the following elements:

Policy Objectives are wider planning, economic and transport objectives that are pertinent to the route.

Route Functions and Performance describe the current roles of the route, those it is intended to serve in the future and assesses how well the route performs these.

The Land Use and Development Control Statement outlines the HA's approach to future land use and development issues which materially affect the route.

Route Problems and Issues are matters of concern to the HA, stakeholders or the public that may prevent the Policy Objectives being met or hinder the performance of Route Functions.

Route Outcomes set out what the HA will seek to achieve for the route over the 10 year period of the RMS. They should contribute to Policy Objectives, improve the performance of the route consistent with its future Functions and seek to address Route Problems and Issues. Some of the Outcomes may point towards individual projects and investigations which will subsequently be developed by the HA as a Route Management Plan.

The overall impact of the Route Outcomes on the Policy Objectives, Route Functions and Problems, iscontained within a Strategy Impact Statement. This statement can also be used to identify potentialactions which may contribute to delivering the Route Outcomes.

The figure below illustrates the relationships between the strategy elements and shows the key role ofthe Route Outcomes. The figure shows that each element is influenced by other elements and that thedevelopment of the Route Outcome is an iterative process.

figure 1.2

Figure 1.2: Route Management Strategy Element Relationships

1.3 Author

This report has been prepared by Mott MacDonald on behalf of the HA, in accordance with RouteManagement Strategy Guidance issued by the HA (Version 2 dated November 2003).

1.4 RMS Study Programme

The RMS study followed the timetable outlined below:

Start of Project (8 March 2002)

Consultation letters were sent to the Managing Agents and the Multi-Modal Studies concerned. It wasagreed to hold back from consulting local authorities and interested parties until the initial RMS wasready. A list of those consulted during this initial phase of the project is attached to Appendix B.

Draft Route Management Strategy Internal Workshop (13 May 2002)

Our initial view of the route functions, route objectives and problems and the draft strategy were setout at a workshop attended by the Managing Agents the NS Project Owner and the OD ProjectSponsor in order to develop an initial Draft RMS.

Break

There has been a break in the RMS process whilst the findings of the Multi-Modal Studies werefinalised and the published initial strategy was amended to reflect the outcomes from the relevantMMSs.

Public Consultation (October 2004 to January 2005)

A public consultation was carried out over a 14-week period to publicise the proposed RouteManagement Strategy and to encourage comments from members of the public.

Route Management Strategy Seminar (12 November 2004)

Representatives from key stakeholders and other organisations were invited to a Route ManagementStrategy Seminar. At the seminar, the RMS Study was introduced and a list of possible problems andsolutions were identified by the attendees.

Publication of Final Route Management Strategy (Spring 2005)

After taking into account comments received during public consultation, a ten-year RouteManagement Strategy has been published.

1.5 Current Situation

This RMS falls within the area of four Multi-Modal Studies:

These four studies overlapped the M3 RMS and this gave opportunities to share consultation. It wasoriginally intended that RMSs would focus on lower level local issues, with strategic issues beingcovered by the MMSs. However, from comments received from consultees on other RMS studies ithas become evident that it is not possible to divorce local from strategic issues, particularly in relationto the outcomes identified in the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport.

The Highways Agency therefore decided to carry out data gathering for the RMS and to produce adraft initial Route Management Strategy prior to the Secretary of State's decision on the MMSs. TheRMS process would then resume following the Secretary of State's announcement.

The Multi-Modal Studies reported their recommendations, and further details of these can be found insection 3.6 of this document. Following the reporting of the MMSs, the Secretary of State reviewedthe recommendations and made his announcement, on 9th July 2003, commenting on items to be takenforward. Details of these recommended items are outlined in section 1.8.

There is also an RMS underway for the A34 between the M3 and M40. The M3 RMS will take intoaccount the problems and issues where the two routes converge.

This RMS is also aware that a scoping study looking at strategic issues for the A34 corridor north ofSouthampton was started in the last quarter of 2003. Details of and the current situation regarding thisstudy can be found in section 3.6.6 of this document.

1.6 Consultation

This Route Management Strategy (RMS) for the M3 has been developed through initial consultation inMay 2002 with the following stakeholders:

A second round of consultation was carried out in December 2003 to January 2004. Potentiallyinterested stakeholders were identified and the details of these consultees can be seen in Table B-2 ofAppendix B in Volume 2 of this document.

1.7 M3 RMS Public Consultation

The Public Consultation period began on 11 October 2004 and finished on 14 January 2005. Thestandard length of a Public Consultation period is 12 weeks, however the HA extended this period forthe M3 RMS due to the consultation falling over Christmas and New Year period.

The consultation period gave members of the public and other stakeholders the opportunity to givetheir views on the Draft Route Management Strategy and how the Highways Agency (HA) shouldmanage and operate the M3 over the next 10 years. Comments received from the Public Consultation(PC) would be given careful consideration before the M3 RMS was finalised.

The views expressed by those who responded to the Public Consultation are not necessarily endorsedby the HA. Whilst serious consideration will be given to all suggested ideas, additions or changes tothe Draft RMS document these would not automatically be taken forward into the Final RMSdocument.

The M3 RMS Public Consultation reached a wide and varied audience, with 946 responses receivedfrom across the South East of England region and beyond including: Dorset, Somerset,Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and London.

The M3 Motorway, as well as its national functions continues to serve population areas immediatelyadjacent to the motorway and through the wider trunk road network, serves communities along theA303 and M27/A31 as far as Salisbury and Poole.

Of the identified problems three stood out with the greatest support for action. These were:

Environmental issues of noise and air quality generally along the whole route were among additionalcomments made by respondents. These comments also included driver and driving behaviour andgreater enforcement as well as improving the operation of Junction 9.

The full Public Consultation report can be found in Appendix P of Volume 2 of this RMS document.

1.8 Secretary of State's Announcement

Of the Multi-Modal Studies that the Secretary of State for Transport has responded to, the ThamesValley MMS has the most direct impact on this Route Management Strategy.

A Key conclusion of the MMS is that under the recommended strategy a satisfactory level ofperformance can be maintained on the motorway network in the study area without the need forgeneral motorway widening.

The Secretary of State has considered these recommendations in the light of the advice he has receivedfrom the Regional Assembly, the Highways Agency and other interested organisations. He supportsthe conclusion that general motorway widening is not required in the study area before 2016 and he isasking the Highways Agency:

The Secretary of State noted the recommendations for mass transit in the Blackwater Valley area. Hedid not believe that further development work is economically justified, and encouraged theBlackwater Valley authorities to consider lower cost bus based alternatives.

The Secretary of State is also asking the Highways Agency to consider the case for priority measureson appropriate parts of the motorway and trunk road network which would support the development ofbus and coach services.

The Secretary of State also supported the recommendation from a number of studies on the need forclose integration between land use and transport policies. He looks to local planning authorities tolocate major generators of personal travel in areas best served by public transport.


1 Introduction

2 Route description

2 Route Description

2.1 History

The Popham to Sunbury section of the M3 was designed in the late 1960s by Hampshire and SurreyCounty Councils. The Hampshire section (Popham to Hawley) was built in two contracts - Popham toBlack Dam, built by A Monk & Co, and Black Dam to Hawley built by W&C French and Co. Itincluded the separate Winchfield Bridge crossing the main London to Southampton railway line,which was let as an advance contract to Mears. The Hampshire section was opened in 1971 and theHawley to Lightwater Surrey section later that year. The final Surrey section to Sunbury was openedin 1974. The Surrey sections were built by A E Farr.

The Popham to Winchester section of M3 was designed by the Hampshire Sub-Unit of the SouthEastern Road Construction Unit. This was built as a dual two-lane motorway because at that timetraffic predictions did not warrant the dual three-lane which had been provided on the earlier section.It was built in two sections - Popham to Bridget's Farm and Bridget's Farm to Bar End. The twosections were opened in the summer of 1985.

A complete reassessment by Mott Hay & Anderson (now Mott MacDonald) of the line from Bar Endto Compton led to a major change of route, with the decision to move the line from the west to the eastof St Catherine's Hill, which required a deep cutting through Twyford Down. The constructioncompany Tarmac was awarded the contract for this length, and construction started in 1992.Environmental protest was the main issue during construction. The road opened in 1995.

The line of the final section of M3 from Compton at Chilworth was originally built by SouthernCounties Construction as the Otterbourne Chandlers Ford A33 Bypass. This was designed byHampshire County Council and opened in 1967. It was modified at Chilworth to connect with theM27 firstly in December 1975 when the western leg to Ower was built, and again in July 1984 whenthe eastern leg towards Portsmouth was opened. The upgrade of this whole length of A33 from trunkroad to motorway was carried out and opened in 1992.

In the last ten years there have been few changes to the M3. An additional interchange, Junction 4a,was opened at Farnborough in April 1992. The road markings through Junction 2, the interchangewith the M25, were amended to introduce a "tiger-tail" diverge and merge at the interchange. Thesigns and road markings at Junction 6, Basingstoke Black Dam, Junction 9, Winnall, and Junction 14,M27 links, have been altered to improve capacity. Traffic light phasing has been altered at Junction 3to improve the operation of the junction.

The Table in Appendix A lists the major maintenance schemes that have been carried out on the M3and A316. It should be noted that existing records only go back as far as 1988.

2.2 Road Condition and Traffic

The M3 between Junctions 1 and 14 is a total of 93.5 kilometres (58.3 miles) in length. It is primarilya dual three-lane motorway, with the section from Junction 8 to Junction 9 being dual two-lane. Table2.1 gives details of the distances from Junction 1 along the M3 and the lengths of other sections ofroad included in the study.

The carriageway is primarily of bituminous construction, with one section being concrete. Thisconcrete section runs for 9 kilometres (5.6 miles) on both westbound and eastbound carriageways onpart of the length between Junctions 8 and 9.

The existing level and pattern of traffic flow on the M3 reflects to some degree the routecharacterisation described in Appendix M in Volume 2 of this RMS. Combined (east and west)Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in 2002 ranged from a high of 125,570 vehicles at the easternend of the study area at the M3 junction with the M25, to a low of 58,564 vehicles just north ofWinchester and south of Basingstoke. This pattern is plotted in Figure M.1, of Appendix M in Volume2 of this document, which demonstrates the changing character of the route as an access to Londonand its environs, to a route that passes by some large conurbations and finally as an access to M27,Southampton and its environs.

The peak 2002 AADT of 125,570 between Junction 2 and Junction 3 reflects the proximity of the M25and London to the M3. The next section between Junction 3 and Junction 4 sees a slight drop invehicular flow to AADT of 115,000. The eastern section of the route continues to experience adecrease in traffic flow as far as the section between junction 9 and 8, where the lowest vehicular flowof AADT 58,600 is recorded. From this point flows begin to rise again, with AADT of 112,700recorded between Junction 11 and 12 and AADT of 121,600 recorded between Junction 13 andJunction 14. The general pattern shows that traffic levels are highest at each end of the M3, wherelarge urban areas (London and Southampton) are located and where the M3 meets other strategicroutes (M25 and M27).

This route characterisation is also reflected in the level of HGVs as a proportion of total traffic. TableM.1, in Volume 2 of this document, illustrates the proportion of HGVs in 2002 AADT. Thepercentage of HGVs varies between 4% and 11%. The higher percentage of HGVs between Junction 9and Junction 14 shows the strategic importance of the M3 between the M27 and Southampton Docksto the A34. These proportions can be compared to rates on the A2 from the port of Dover, whichcarries between 10% and 13% HGVs and the M20, a major strategic route, which has rates of around18%.

2.3 Air Quality

Three local authorities have declared Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) within their boundaryand that include the M3. This means that pollutant concentrations in these areas are not unexpected toachieve the objectives in the Air Quality Strategy.

Spelthorne Borough Council (SBC) has declared almost its entire borough, including Junction 1 of theM3, as an AQMA with regard to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollutants.

Also in Surrey, Surrey Heath Borough Council (SHBC) has declared an AQMA of the M3 corridorthrough its borough. The area includes the houses that are immediately adjacent to the M3 Motorway.The declaration will action against nitrogen dioxide pollutants and Particulate Matter < 10µm (PM10).

Lastly Rushmoor Borough Council (RmBC), an adjacent authority to SHBC, has also declared an areaextending 51m either side of the M3 Motorway centreline between Junctions 4 and 4a. The pollutantdeclared here is nitrogen dioxide. Both RmBC and SHBC are working together to formulate theiraction plans to reduce NO2 pollutants in their respective boroughs.

These local authorities are required to prepare an Air Quality Action Plan to try to achieve theobjectives. As operator of the M3, the HA is required to work with the local authorities to try toachieve the objectives. Achieving the Air Quality Strategy objectives is a Public Service Agreementtarget between Defra and DfT. The objective that is proving the most difficult to achieve is that forannual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations which is to be achieved by 2005. The EU has set amandatory limit value for nitrogen dioxide which is to be achieved by 2010.

It is therefore very important that the effect on air quality of the M3 RMS is carefully assessed so thatit improves air quality, especially in the Air Quality Management Areas. The RMS is an idealopportunity to produce a coherent strategy to help improve air quality in this area by reducingemissions from the M3 and should be seized.

Further details of all the M3 Motorway's local authorities' air quality status can be found in Volume 2,Appendix M.

2.4 The M3 Route

The route can be seen in three sections, Thames Valley and North Surrey, North Hampshire andfinally South Hampshire, as shown in Table 2.1.

Throughout its length, the M3 passes through landscapes and natural areas of high ecological,recreational and scenic value. Many sites are the subject of conservation designations and are worthyof particular protection. These natural areas are dispersed by urban areas varying in size from in filledsuburban settlements in south west London to commuter towns in north Surrey and north Hampshirethrough to historic towns, cities and coastal settlements in central and southern Hampshire.

Natural areas are sub-divisions of England, each with a characteristic association of wildlife andnatural features. They provide a way of interpreting the ecological variations of the country in terms ofnatural features, illustrating the distinctions between one area and another. Each natural area has aunique identity resulting from the interaction of wildlife, landforms, geology, land use and humanimpact.

Natural areas have been formally defined as "biogeographic zones which reflect the geologicalfoundation, the natural systems and processes and the wildlife in different parts of England, andprovide a framework for setting objectives for nature conservation"1.

Plans are included in Volume 2 Appendix J, showing the sites in proximity to the M3.

Table 2.1: Cumulative Junction Distances
JunctionLength of section in km (miles)Section Length in km (miles)
A316 north of Junction 10.5 (0.3)Thames Valley and North Surrey 31.6 (19.8)
Junction No.Distance from Junction 1 in
kilometres(miles)
Junction 10.0(0.0)
Junction 2 (M25)9.5(5.9)
Junction 321.0(13.1)
Junction 428.2(17.6)
Junction 4a31.1(19.4)
Fleet Service Area35.3(22.1)North Hampshire 46.9 (29.3)
Junction 543.2(27.0)
Junction 6 (Basingstoke)50.7(32.7)
Junction 760.3(37.7)
Junction 8 (A303)61.0(38.1)
Winchester Service Area71.9(44.9)
Junction 9 (A34)78.0(48.8)
Junction 1080.6(50.4)South Hampshire 15.5 (9.7)
Junction 1183.1(51.9)
Junction 1288.1(55.1)
Junction 13 (Eastleigh)92.5(57.8)
Junction 14 (M27)93.5(58.3)

2.4.1 Thames Valley and North Surrey - Junctions 1 to 4a

The Junction 1 to 4a section incorporates the approaches to London, the interchange with the M25 andthe Blackwater Valley towns of Fleet, Farnborough, Frimley, Bracknell and Camberley.

The M3, between Junctions 1 and 2, lies in the Thames Valley character area. This is predominatelygrazed pasture and includes a number of designed parklands on its higher grounds. Clay vales arecharacterised by large regular field patterns and small woods. In the southern half of the region theThames Valley (where the M3 lies) is edged by wooded ridges and rolling farmland. Rapiddevelopment in the areas of the M3, M4 and M25 has often left new structures and buildings unrelatedto the landscape around them. The overall impression is of a lack of cohesiveness, although oldervillages and woodlands survive in secluded areas.

From Junction 2 through to the west of Hook (Junction 5), the M3 travels through the landscape of theThames or London Basin Heaths. The London Basin is a large, trough-like basin which was formedaround 50 million years ago, and is filled with mostly sands and clay sediments. About one-third ofthe area is covered by London and the wildlife of the Natural Area is characterised by islands of seminatural habitats. These habitats include large areas of woodland, with extensive stands of mature beechwoods, significant areas of lowland mixed deciduous woodland and numerous large wood pastures andparklands. There are also notable areas of heathland in the natural area, including ChobhamCommon.

The London Basin is drained by the River Thames and its extensive network of tributaries. It also hasnumerous canals, with some areas that are very rich in plants and invertebrates. Other freshwaterhabitats include a series of flooded gravel pits and reservoirs that support nationally importantpopulations of waterfowl. Associated with many of these freshwater habitats are areas of grazingmarsh, neutral grasslands and fens.

The once extensive heathland is now largely fragmented and degraded but the landscape stillmaintains its open and "heathy" character. The area still contains large areas of rolling unenclosedheathland where the varying seasons and weathers change the character of the open landscape fromcolourful and exhilarating to sombre and bleak. The distinctive and widespread occurrence of oak,birch, bracken and pine reflects the poor acidic soils and heathland origins of this area.

2.4.2 North Hampshire - Junctions 4a to 9

The Junction 4a to 9 section passes through less developed areas, bypassing the towns of Basingstoke,Hook, Yately and Alton. This section includes the divergence of the A303 trunk route to south westEngland at Junction 8 and ends at the divergence of the A34 trunk route to central and northernEngland at Junction 9. The link between these two divergences is the most lightly trafficked part ofthe route, and is the least dominated by local commuter traffic. This section also contains the twomotorway service areas along the motorway, Fleet services operated by Welcome Break and theWinchester services, opened in 2000, and operated by Road Chef.

From Junction 5, the Hampshire Downs are part of the broad belt of Chalk linking the Dorset Downsand Salisbury Plain in the west with the South Downs in the east. This section of the M3 to betweenJunctions 11 and 12 is characterised by a complex landform consisting of strongly rolling downland,dissected by both deep and shallow sheltered valley landforms with numerous distinct hilltops, ridgesand scarps. These characteristics make the Downs both striking and conspicuous.

The main habitats found within this natural area include extensive chalk grasslands, ancientwoodlands, river valleys with chalk streams rich in wildlife, and arable headlands which support goodarable weed communities.

The landscape is large in scale with a predominantly rural character typified by often extensive viewsand widely dispersed settlements. Numerous wooded valleys are particularly characteristic features.Within them, ancient semi-natural woodlands are seemingly interconnected by a dense and welltrimmednetwork of mixed-species hedges with oak hedgerow trees that frequently mark field androad boundaries.

2.4.3 South Hampshire - Junctions 9 to 14

The Junction 9 to Junction 14 section passes through the extended Winchester and Southampton urbanarea, which includes Eastleigh, Chandler's Ford and smaller settlements such as Fair Oak andBishopstoke, Otterbourne, Twyford and Shawford. The M3 carries traffic using the A34 trunk routeand large amounts of local commuter traffic between these towns and cities and on to the M27 southcoast motorway, serving an area from Bournemouth and Poole in the west to Portsmouth in the east.

From Junction 12 of the M3, to its intersection with the M27, the M3 corridor passes through theSouth Hampshire Lowlands character area. The landscape of the South Coast Plain and HampshireLowlands is split between the generally open, often featureless landscape of the coastal plain and themore varied landscape in the west. The natural area contains a number of nature conservation features.Although relatively small in extent, the south-facing slopes of Portsdown Hill support some highquality chalk grassland, and the chalk rivers of the Itchen and Test flow through the natural area,supporting fine examples of threatened habitat and several key species. The floodplains of the RiversTest and Itchen contain some botanically rich neutral grassland and elsewhere in the natural area fenand fen-meadows occur, especially where chalk springs arise at the foot of the downs.

The low-lying undulating plain of the Hampshire Lowlands is characterised by its varied compositionof landscape features and land uses reflecting the changing soil types and local variations oftopography. A varied small-scale agricultural landscape, the lower ground is generally used forgrazing on the heavy, difficult to work clay soils with some arable use confined to pockets of betterdrained higher ground. The predominantly pasture farmland is set within a patchwork of small,intimate and irregular fields typical of an ancient landscape. Typically, settlements have a looselyclustered pattern with many villages often distinctly nucleated. The overall feeling is one of calmprosperity, with well-managed farmland and some large estates, although pressure from urbanexpansion and the M3 and M27 corridors mask the essentially rural character of the landscape.

  1. Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, HMSO, 1995 back [1]

2 Route description

3 Policy objectives

3 Policy Objectives

3.1 Introduction

In the initial phase Mott MacDonald was asked to only approach key stakeholders identified by theHighways Agency. The key stakeholders identified were the Government Office for the South East,the various Multi-Modal Studies and the Highways Agency's Managing Agents for the M3. In laterstages of the RMS a wider audience was invited to comment on the future strategy for the M3. Theinitial consultation was to ensure that there was consistency of approach with regard to the Multi-Modal Studies, and also to avoid consultation overload with various organisations.

Based upon problems identified elsewhere in this report and the initial attempt at drafting the routefunctions, a number of Route Objectives have been developed. These provide specific objectives forthe M3, which the strategy will seek to achieve, where appropriate, through a number of actions.These objectives are grouped below under the five assessment criteria of environment, safety,economy, accessibility and integration, as listed in the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-ModalStudies (GOMMMS). The Government's strategic objective for each of the GOMMMS criteria is alsogiven. GOMMMS has now been superseded by the Transport Analysis Guidance Website (WebTAG).

3.2 Policy Areas

The following Policy Areas impact upon and are impacted by the route of the M3:

A plan showing the locations of the relevant Policy Areas is shown in Figure 3-1 below.

XXX image not supplied XXX

Figure 3-1 Policy Areas - South East Region

3.3 Policy Documents Reviewed

Policy Documents reviewed for the identification of national, regional and local policy objectives andtargets for this Route Management Study for the M3 have included the following:

A full list of Policy Documents reviewed is included in Appendix D.

3.4 Policy Objectives

The Policy Documents have been reviewed, and policy objectives have been abstracted from them.The findings from the national, regional and local policies have been collated to establish commonPolicy Objectives under each of the five key strategic objectives. These have been selected to set theframework for the management of the M3 Motorway.

Targets for the strategic and local transport authorities have been aligned to the respective policystatements they influence. All targets were set by the DETR in the publication "Transport 2010: TheTen Year Plan", unless otherwise stated in the tables.

The Policy Objectives established for the M3 Motorway are listed below. Full tables of the PolicyObjectives, including quoted objectives and their sources together with targets where appropriate areincluded in Appendix E.

3.4.1 Safety

Government Objective:

To improve safety for all travellers

Route Policy Objectives:

3.4.2 Environment

Government Objective:

To protect and enhance the built and natural environment

Route Objectives:

3.4.3 Economy

Government Objective:

To contribute to an efficient economy, and to support sustainable economic growth in appropriatelocations

Route Objectives:

3.4.4 Accessibility

Government Objective:

To promote accessibility to everyday facilities for all, especially those without a car

Route Objectives:

3.4.5 Integration

Government Objective:

To promote the integration of all forms of transport and land use planning, leading to a better, moreefficient transport system.

Route Objectives:

3.5 Managing Agents

The M3 is currently managed by two Managing Agents; Mouchel Consulting Limited and MottMacDonald Limited. The Managing Agents are responsible for carrying out design and constructionsupervision of maintenance and improvement schemes on the trunk road network, on behalf of theHighways Agency. Refer to Appendix G for further details of the Managing Agents.

3.6 Multi-Modal and other Strategic Studies

3.6.1 London Orbit Multi-Modal Study (Orbit)

The London Orbit Multi-Modal Study (Orbit) was commissioned by the Government Office for theSouth East and made its final report in November 2002. The intention of the study was to identifycauses of congestion along and approaching the M25, as shown in Figure 3-2, and recommend apreferred strategy of possible solutions to alleviate the impact of congestion on the M25.

figure 3.2

Figure 3-2 The Orbit Multi-Modal Study Area

The final Orbit study report recommended strategic measures to alleviate medium to long-termcongestion problems. The report identified a number of sections and junctions that will need wideningor improvements to increase capacity for future growth. In table 12.1 of the Orbit study, the reportidentified that the M25 approaches to the M3 Junction are operating at or near to capacity.

Widening of the M25 between Junctions 12 and 14 to D5 standard and between Junctions 14 and 15 toD6 standard, as proposed by the Orbit study, has begun and is anticipated to be completed by 2006.

The Orbit report recommended further implementation of demand management measures includingIntegral Demand Management (IDM). Through IDM, the report proposed increased use of CCTV,speed control and more variable speed limits. The study put forward the case for greater use of rampmetering and flow metering to increase vehicle movements and hence journey time reliability. Thereport also suggested that if ramp metering was successful, then introducing priority lanes for use bypublic transport should begin, on the widened sections of the motorway.

The Orbit study report supports further noise mitigation measures, including low noise resurfacing onmuch of the M25.

The Secretary of State has considered these recommendations and supported widening schemesrecommended by the study. The Secretary of State is also asking the Highways Agency to work upmore detailed proposals for improving the management of the M25 including better detection andmanagement of incidents, a major cause of delays on the motorway network, and, subject to theoutcome of the current pilot, the extension of variable speed limits.

The Orbit study and a number of other Multi-Modal Studies have recommended that increases in thecapacity of the strategic road network should be combined with the introduction of demandmanagement. The Secretary of State welcomes the contribution of the Multi-Modal Studies to thedebate on road user charging. The decisions to increase capacity on the strategic network are takenwith a parallel commitment to consider what is necessary to ensure that effective measures are in placeto lock in the benefits. The Secretary of State therefore asked the Highways Agency to consider thesematters further as it continues to develop proposals for capacity increases. At present there is littleevidence of how physical demand measures such as ramp metering might work in the UK and it wouldbe necessary to consider very carefully the impact on safety and traffic flows across the road network.

The Government has also decided to undertake a detailed feasibility study of road pricing. Decisionson whether to implement such a regime are for the future.

The Secretary of State also accepted that there is a good case for the further development of coachservices and encourages the development of strategic partnerships between local authorities, theHighways Agency, coach and other transport operators including BAA plc to promote a widernetwork of coach services. The Secretary of State would expect to see this building on existingservice patterns and to focus on the most promising routes.

The Orbit study made no specific key recommendations for the M3 pertinent for this RMS.

3.6.2 South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study (SWARMMS)

The South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study (SWARMMS) was commissioned by theGovernment Office of the South West and made its final report in May 2002. The SWARMMS studyarea, as seen in Figure 3-3, focussed on the M3 between Junctions 2 to 8 and onto the A303(T) to thesouth west England. The study area also included the M4 and M5 Motorways to south west England.

SWARMMS identified four transport themes; reducing the growth in travel demand, tourism, ruralaccess and inter-modal freight. These were the primary contributors to transport problems and issueson the strategic transport corridors to south Wales and the south west of England. The report split thestudy area into four route sections; the section pertinent to this M3 RMS is the London to Exetercorridor.

figure 3.3

Figure 3-3 SWARMMS Study Area

The SWARMMS report rejected calls for large-scale infrastructure schemes including:

The report acknowledged problems regarding peak time congestion on the M3 approaches to the M25,resulting in unreliable journey times. The report also remarked that the bus and coach network islimited on this trunk route and there is limited potential for freight transfer from road to rail. However,due to the overlap of the SWARMMS and Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study (TVMMS),SWARMMS did not report detailed recommendations for the M3 route in north Hampshire andSurrey.

The recommendations offered in the report for consideration in this RMS were increased bus andcoach patronage on the motorway.

In the report's overview of the SWARMMS strategy, it stated that, "the M3 should be operating withincapacity although speeds will be lower than currently". SWARMMS identified this as an issue for theTVMMS to deal with.

3.6.3 Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study (TVMMS)

This study was initially known as the London to Reading Multi-Modal Study, however it was laterexpanded to include the wider transport needs of the fast growing Thames Valley sub-region.Commissioned by the Government Office for the South East, TVMMS made its final report in January2003.

figure 3.4

Figure 3-4 The Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study Area.

The aim of the study was to formulate a coherent strategy, mutually supporting Orbit andSWARMMS. The study addressed the importance of transport in the region and its influenceregarding land use with special regard to protecting the environment, providing for social needs andmaintaining economic growth.

The report did not make specific recommendations; instead it presented broad strategic measures that,if introduced, would achieve in part the aspirations of the social, business and environmentalcommunities.

In these broader measures, the TVMMS did not favour widening of the M3, preferring to increase themanagement of the existing infrastructure. TVMMS recommended greater use of CCTV, variablespeed limits and incident detection. The report understands that these methods of traffic flowmanagement will not substantially increase capacity; however they can increase journey timereliability. This is more important regarding the M3, which the report has recognised as a corridorneeding better management.

The TVMMS recommended giving priority access to public transport, high occupancy vehicles andfreight traffic. The TVMMS report did not make any specific recommendation measures for the M3approaches to the M25. The report suggested a park and ride facility near to the M25, to alleviatetraffic congestion approaching London's Heathrow airport.

The TVMMS made known that any measures on the strategic trunk road network need identifying,designing and appraising through the RMS framework mechanism.

Finally, despite giving priority to freight traffic on the trunk road network, the TVMMS supported thetransfer of freight traffic from road to rail, and called for transfer sites in the Thames Valley region tobe brought forward. The report highlighted three Strategic Rail Authority schemes; Southampton toWest Midlands (2006), north east to south west (2010) and the Great Western Main Line gaugeclearance to Bristol and Cardiff (2010). These schemes are likely to be delivered within the timescaleof both the Multi-Modal Study and this RMS. The TVMMS report anticipated that these schemes willgo some way in providing a feasible alternative to the carriage of freight on the road.

The Secretary of State considered these recommendations. He supported the conclusion that generalmotorway widening is not required in the study area before 2016 and he asked the Highways Agency(HA):

The Secretary of State also asked the HA to consider the case for priority measures on appropriateparts of the motorway and trunk road network which would support the development of bus and coachservices.

3.6.4 M27 Integrated Transport Study (M27 ITS)

The M27 Integrated Transport Study was commissioned to identify local low-cost improvementschemes, primarily on the M27, and to propose more strategic schemes that would be fed in to theSouth Coast Corridor Multi-Modal Study that was scheduled to begin in 2001.

The M3 and M27 Motorways work in combination to serve the Solent towns, covering an area fromSouthampton to Portsmouth. The M27 is a key feeder route for M3 and coast bound traffic across thesub-region and vice-versa to feed north and London bound traffic into the M3. Therefore the point oftheir convergence, the M27 Junction 4 and the M3 Junction 14 interchange is one of the most heavilyused junctions on the strategic road network in the Solent sub-region.

The aims and objectives of the M27 ITS were:

figure 3.5

Figure 3-5 The M27 Integrated Transport Study Area.

The M27 ITS study area, as seen above, stretches from Junction 1 of the M27 at Cadnam to the A27just east of Havant and includes the A3(M), M3 to Junction 12 and the cities and towns ofSouthampton, Portsmouth, Gosport, Eastleigh, Fareham, Havant and Waterlooville.

The impact of the M27 integrated transport study on the M3 is low. The study did not recommend anymajor schemes for the M3, although it does propose improvements to the M27 Junction 4 interchangewith the M3. The M27 ITS report proposed the following strategic improvement schemes for the M27:

The report identified these strategies for further development:

These proposals were taken forward to the South Coast Multi-Modal Study for further appraisal andcomment and possible inclusion for approval by the Secretary of State for Transport.

The Secretary of State's response is noted under the South Coast Corridor Multi-Modal Study section.

3.6.5 South Coast Multi-Modal Study (SoCoMMS)

The Government Office for the South East (GOSE) commissioned the South Coast CorridorMulti-Modal Study (SoCoMMS) for the Department for Transport in response to the New Deal forTransport: Better for Everyone White Paper. The study made its final report in August 2002.

The SoCoMMS report follows up the M27 Integrated Transport Study (M27 ITS). SoCoMMSevaluated the proposals made by the M27 ITS and produced an umbrella strategy for the whole of thesouth coast corridor route, from Southampton to Thanet, which included all of the M27 motorway.

The aim of the SoCoMMS study was to investigate the reliability, safety, access and environmentalproblems experienced on all modes of transport along the Southampton to Thanet corridor as shown inthe figure below. The study would then propose potential solutions or improvements mitigating thefuture impact of these problems and encouraging regeneration and greater economic activity in theregion. The study was also asked to develop an over-arching strategy for transport development in theregion.

figure 3.6

Figure 3-6 The SoCoMMS Study Area.

The SoCoMMS Study Area includes Southampton, but focuses mainly on east-west links. In thereport's final recommendations, there were no proposed improvements impacting directly onto theM3. However the report recommends the following improvement schemes:

These proposals are likely to result in an increased reliability of traffic movement to, around andbetween Southampton and the other Solent towns.

On the 9 July 2003 the Secretary of State for Transport gave his response to the SoCoMMS proposals.The Secretary of State recommended bringing forward M27 technology improvements, includingincreased CCTV and variable message signs to tackle congestion and response to incidents.

The Secretary of State confirmed his support for M27 widening between Junctions 3 and 4. TheSecretary has asked the Highways Agency to bring forward proposals for this scheme's entry in to theTargeted Programme for Improvements. In particular he is asking the HA to ensure that detaileddesign work is carried out to high environmental standards in order to minimise any adverseenvironmental impacts. The Secretary expects, subject to successful completion of necessary planningand statutory procedures, the delivery of the scheme within the next decade.

3.6.6 A34 North of Southampton Corridor Transport Study

The Ten Year Plan for transport included the "A34 North of Southampton" study in its list of tranche 3Multi-Modal Studies. In early 2004, a scoping study was commissioned, managed jointly by theGovernment Office for the South East and the South East England Regional Assembly. The overallaim of the study was to, to review of the broad scale of problems and key issues, and reassess the needfor a further study or studies. A number of conclusions emerged from the consultants report:

On this basis, the report identified four broad options:

  1. No Further Study

    This would leave a number of significant issues unresolved, notably the relationship between the capacity of the road and pressure for further development (housing and economic) along the study corridor (especially in Oxfordshire and Hampshire).

  2. Localised and/or Focused Studies in Oxfordshire and south Hampshire

    The main purpose would be to take account of future land use patterns and assess their implications for a transport infrastructure which is already at capacity.

  3. Whole Corridor Study

    Whilst this may provide benefits in terms of considering land use and/or transport interaction along the entire corridor, the costs and practicalities of such a study, coupled with the fact that in terms of national priority, conditions on the A34 are unlikely to warrant sufficient priority to mean schemes could be delivered within the next 10 to 15 year period, a whole corridor study at this stage seems unlikely.

  4. Hybrid of Options 2 and 3

    Carrying out local studies covering Oxfordshire and south Hampshire, but set in the context of the whole corridor, to take account of the impact of strategic and /or long distance trips.

Ministers have now considered the outcome of the study and options for further study. They havesuggested that regional partners should consider how the A34 corridor's potential needs rate againstother projects that people are hoping will find a place in the regional transport infrastructureprogramme over the next few years. This might then provide a timescale and funding limit for theoutputs from any studies and avoid the risk of wasteful and possibly premature speculation andargument over options that are unlikely to be progressed in the foreseeable future.

3.6.7 South East Regional Airport Strategy (SERAS) Second Edition

The SERAS Second Edition document made its final report in June 2003. Commissioned by the SouthEast England Regional Assembly, its aim is to comment and appraise commercial air service schemesat the major airports in the south east region. The report is to bring the appraisal into the context of theregion's policy objectives concerning the region's airports, as well as major airports on the outskirtsthe region.

SERAS concentrated predominantly on the major airports, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton.Southampton's airport was not considered as a location offering the capacity or infrastructure forsignificant expansion. However, this second edition considered in depth the expansion details andappraisal of Gatwick. London's Heathrow airport, which is more pertinent to this RMS for the M3, isnot considered as SEERA's preferential location for further expansion in air service provision. This is,as the report suggests, despite the larger airlines preferring Heathrow to Gatwick or Stansted, toremain as the hub airport for London. The forth-coming Terminal 5 at Heathrow was not mentioned inthis report.

If Gatwick was to be the airport receiving significant extra runway and passenger capacity in the southeast, for Gatwick users living or travelling from central and western Hampshire, the M3/M25/M23 islikely to be the preferred road route to the airport. Therefore increases in air services at Heathrow orGatwick have the potential to significantly increase demand on the M3.

The Highways Agency will continue to monitor airport expansion in the South East region.

3.6.8 South East England, London and East of England Regional Ports Study (SEAPORTS)

The South East and Anglian Ports Local Authority Group (SEAPLAG), in June 2001, commissioned astudy to be undertaken to develop a regional framework that provides strategic planning and transportguidance for the sustainable development of ports and related infrastructure in the East of England,South East and London. SEAPLAG covers ports from King's Lynn in the Wash to Poole in Dorset.

The report acknowledges that port activity is set to increase in the UK, although the type of freightmay change, the volume of freight will continue to rise. The SEAPORTS study's principal function isto develop a framework that identifies which ports are planning new infrastructure as well as locationsthat have the potential to meet the demand for extra capacity in the interim period to 2016. The reporthas made an initial assessment as to the suitability of the potential locations for increased port activityand the likely impact that will have on the social, economic, environmental and transportation needs inthe port's direct vicinity and in its hinterland.

Concluding the report, the consultants and not SEAPLAG, have suggested that the most feasible andsustainable framework that could be delivered is to increase capacity development at Shellhaven,Felixstowe, Dover, the Channel Tunnel and Great Yarmouth. This does not mean that there will be noport related development on the south coast and within south Hampshire. Port activity in this area isset to continue, but may not be able to offer the capacity to fulfil the demand that is anticipated in theframework's period.

The Dibden Bay proposal on the west side of Southampton Water did not receive positive feedback inits assessment, however the study mentioned that this proposal has progressed much further in theplanning system than the other alternative identified locations. With limited expansion at Felixstoweand even with the delivery of Dibden Bay, capacity would still reach a shortfall in comparison to theprojected demand for container handling in the East and South East of England.

Further to this study report, Dibden Bay was refused planning permission by the Secretary of State forTransport in April 2004.

The Highways Agency will continue to monitor seaport expansion in the south east and especially inthe south Hampshire ports that could have a material impact on the operation of the M3 motorway.

3.6.9 Area 3 Area Wide Directional Signing Strategy

In January 2005, the Highways Agency's appointed Maintenance Agent for Area 3, Mott MacDonald,reviewed the directional signing strategy along all of the trunk routes within Area 3. The report madeonly a few recommendations to change the signing along the M3 route. Of those recommendations,the most significant was to remove Newbury directional signing from the detrunked A339 route atJunction 6. Directional signing for Newbury would instead be added at Junction 8 and 9 respectively,directing traffic to utilise the A303 and/or A34 trunk routes.

All of the recommended changes to the directional signing in Area 3 will be actioned withinmaintenance schemes and programmes planned for the affected sections of the routes including theM3 Motorway. Therefore there will not be a specific scheme for alterations to the directional signing.

3.6.10 Other Studies

This RMS is aware of a study concerning the Highways Agency (HA) and the Chief Police OfficersAssociation in the changing roles and responsibilities on the motorway and trunk road network. Thereport released in June 2003 recommends significant changes, including increased network patrols andgreater HA involvement in both major and minor incident management.

This RMS supports the development of these recommendations towards their implementation.Subsequent reviews of this RMS will identify how the adopted recommendations alter or strengthenthe route management strategy for the M3.

The implementation of these new Traffic Officers in Area 3, which includes the M3 Motorway, is dueto begin in 2005.


3 Policy objectives

4 Route functions and performance

4 Route Functions and Performance

4.1 Derivation

The Government, in its vision for transport in England ("Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan" (1998)),describes the motorways and trunk roads that make up the strategic road network in England as beingthe "backbone of our transport system". They provide the main transport arteries for the country,playing a vital role, both economically and socially. Although representing less than 4% of the totalroad network in England, the strategic road network carries around 34% of traffic and 67% of freight(by vehicle miles)2, providing for the efficient movement of goods and people while at the same timemaintaining the Government's 5 objectives for transport: safety, environment, economy, accessibilityand integration.

The Highways Agency in its role as Network Operator has a remit that runs beyond the traditionalnotion of the Agency as road builder and maintainer towards achieving a wider strategic aim:

"to contribute to sustainable development by maintaining, operating and improving the trunk roadnetwork in support of the Government's integrated transport and land use policies".

In its management of the motorway and trunk road network towards this end, the HA are guided by anumber of key objectives:

Providing focus for these key objectives within the Government's five investment criteria, the HAhave produced a set of strategic plans, outlining its method, strategy and vision for the future. Theseplans provide the context for the development of a set of performance functions for the M3 whichreflect the character and operation of the route.

During the course of the RMS study, a number of functions of the M3 between Junctions 1 and 14were agreed with the major stakeholders. These are listed below.

4.1.1 Strategic Functions

Strategic functions describe how the M3, or part of it, serves as a transport corridor that caters forinter-regional and international passenger and/or goods movement.

4.1.2 Regional Functions

Regional functions explain how the M3, or part of it, serves as a transport route that caters forpassenger and/or goods movement that are likely to have started and/or ended within the South andSouth East regions.

4.1.3 Local Functions

Local functions give details of how the M3 serves as a transport route that caters for passenger and/orgoods movements that are likely to have started and/or ended within their respective counties. This isgenerally either Hampshire and/or Surrey.

4.2 Function Performance

The future route performance of the M3 is dependent on improvements to its operation andmaintenance that will begin to resolve the conflict between its functions.

Through maintenance studies and schemes that the RMS can identify and recommend, these also havethe potential to influence and improve the route functions and therefore give greater route performancewhilst minimising whole life costs.

The RMS anticipates changes in the functions of the route that will incorporate greater integrationbetween local and strategic-regional functions. Reducing the conflict between functions is likely tomake a greater impact on route performance, improving safety for all users, increasing journey timereliability and improving integration and accessibility for the route's catchment area.

Route performance can be affected by potentially large traffic generating developments or land use.The Land Use and Development Control Statement in Part 2 of Volume 1 of this RMS proposes howthe HA will respond to planning applications and to future development plans or strategies which havethe potential to increase traffic movements and reduce route performance. There is strict developmentcontrol along the M3 due in part to the environmental sensitivity and designation of the countrysideadjacent to the route. The future of the route's performance in the period of this RMS is likely to beaffected by some of the proposed major developments. However, the longer term regeneration of thesouth Hampshire towns is likely to bring with it growth in traffic using the M3.

The following tables indicate factors that are affecting route performance in co-ordination with thefive investment criteria.

4.3 Factors Affecting Route Performance

Table 4-1 Factors Affecting Route Performance - Strategic Functions
Existing Route FunctionFactors Affecting Route Performance
SafetyEnvironmentEconomyAccessibilityIntegration
SF1Forms part of the E5 Euroroute from Gibraltar to Greenock in Scotland via Portsmouth.

Close proximity of junctions increases potential for problems with merging and diverging traffic.

At capacity junctions cause "exit blocking" where off slip queues tail back to the main carriageway.

Projectiles being thrown from over carriageway structures.

Strict development control relating to the Hampshire Downs, the Metropolitan Green Belt and SSSIs may affect any future plans to improve the route.

Noise and air quality affected by high volumes of traffic, especially in peak times.

Congestion delay, particularly in peak periods, impact on journey time, reliability and the economic functioning of the route.

Incidents (including accidents, breakdowns, planned and unplanned maintenance) cause delay, especially in peak periods.

The perception of excessive and/or unreliable journey times to the coast is not assisting the economic regeneration of the south Hampshire PAER.

Local usage conflicts with strategic functions.

Conflict with Non-Motorised Users at junctions.

Improved frequency in strategic bus and coach operations.

Poor integration between the M3 and M27 around Southampton and Eastleigh causes congestion on the local road network.
SF2Is part of the M3/M27/A31 trunk route between London, the south coast and the South West
SF3Is part of the M3/A303 trunk route between London and the South West 
SF4Is part of the M3/A34 trunk route between the south coast, the Midlands and the NorthPoor integration between the M3 and M27 around Southampton and Eastleigh causes congestion on the local road network.
SF5Provides strategic access to the south coast ports
SF6Provides a road-based alternative to the London to Bournemouth and London to Salisbury main line railways
Table 4-2 Factors Affecting Route Performance - Regional Functions
Existing Route FunctionFactors Affecting Route Performance
SafetyEnvironmentEconomyAccessibilityIntegration
RF1Acts as a key element in the regional road network, serving communities in south-west London, north-west Surrey, the Berkshire Unitary Authorities, Hampshire and its Unitary Authorities, The Isle of Wight, and parts of Wiltshire and Dorset

Close proximity of junctions increases potential for problems with merging and diverging traffic.

At capacity junctions cause "exit blocking" where off slip queues tail back to the main carriageway.

Projectiles being thrown from over carriageway structures.

Strict development control relating to the Hampshire Downs, the Metropolitan Green Belt and SSSIs may affect any future plans to improve the route.

Noise and air quality affected by high volumes of traffic, especially in peak times.

Congestion delay, particularly in peak periods, impact on journey time, reliability and the economic functioning of the route.

Incidents (including accidents, breakdowns, planned and unplanned maintenance) cause delay, especially in peak periods.

The perception of excessive and/or unreliable journey times to the coast is not assisting the economic regeneration of the south Hampshire PAER.

Improved frequency in strategic bus and coach operations.

Regional usage conflicts with strategic functions.

Local usage conflicts with regional functions.

Conflict with Non-Motorised Users at junctions.

Perceived cost and frequency of public transport makes the car more convenient for regional journeys.

Poor regional east-west rail services increase tourism use of the car.

Poor integration between the M3 and M27 around Southampton and Eastleigh causes congestion on the local road network.
RF2Provides the main highway link between the major population centres in Hampshire, Surrey, Dorset, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and London.
RF3Gives regional access to the M25 and London
RF4Provides regional access to the south coast and the Solent townsPoor integration between the M3 and M27 around Southampton and Eastleigh causes congestion on the local road network.
RF5Provides regional access to Heathrow and Gatwick International airportsLack of adequate cost effective public transport alternatives encourages private car usage to the major airports.
RF6Provides regional access to Southampton and Bournemouth International Airports and Farnborough aerodrome

Poor integration between the M3 and M27 around Southampton and Eastleigh causes congestion on the local road network.

Potential for greater interchange with local public transport.

RF7Acts as a feeder route to bring customers to regional tourist destinations
Table 4-3 Factors Affecting Route Performance - Local Functions
Existing Route FunctionFactors Affecting Route Performance
SafetyEnvironmentEconomyAccessibilityIntegration
LF1Acts as a route around Winchester, Basingstoke and the Blackwater Valley towns

Close proximity of junctions increases potential for problems with merging and diverging traffic.

At capacity junctions cause "exit blocking" where off slip queues tail back to the main carriageway.

Projectiles being thrown from over carriageway structures.

Strict development control relating to the Hampshire Downs, the Metropolitan Green Belt and SSSIs may affect any future plans to improve the route.

Noise and air quality affected by high volumes of traffic, especially in peak times.

Embankments, trees and hedgerows mitigate the visual impact of the motorway and provide important wildlifehabitats.

Congestion delay, particularly in peak periods, impact on journey time, reliability and the economic functioning of the route.

Incidents (including accidents, breakdowns, planned and unplanned maintenance) cause delay, especially in peak periods.

Important to the local economy.

Conflict with Non-Motorised Users at junctionsLimited transport interchanges with park and ride initiatives and rail.
LF2Acts as a route through large population centres, giving relief to local roads
LF3Acts as a commuter route to local employment centres in Southampton and the Solent towns, Winchester, Basingstoke, the Blackwater Valley towns and south-west London
LF4Acts as a wildlife corridor

4.4 Future Route Functions

4.4.1 Future Strategic Functions

There are no changes expected to the Strategic Functions, subject to the availability of capacity

4.4.2 Future Regional Functions

There are no changes expected to the Regional Functions, subject to the availability of capacity

4.4.3 Future Local Functions

There are no changes expected to the Local Functions, subject to the availability of capacity

  1. Source: "Road to the Future", Highways Agency Strategic Plan for Operating the Network, 2000) back [2]

4 Route functions and performance

5 Route problems and issues

5 Route Problems and Issues

The HA gives priority to maintenance whilst minimising whole life costs. In developing its role asnetwork operator, the HA would like to deal with problems and issues along the route in a manner thatgives the greatest beneficial impact to users and communities along the route as well as to the fiveinvestment criteria of safety, environment, economy, accessibility and integration.

5.1 Derivation

During the course of the initial consultation, comments on problem areas, sometimes with suggestionsfor improvement, were made by the stakeholders approached.

A draft Route Performance Framework was developed during the early stages of this RMS study togive a broad indication of where problem areas and potential issues lie. The Route PerformanceFramework, which has not been updated, is included in Appendix F.

Further Route Problems and Issues have been raised through consultation with key stakeholders,including the Highways Agency, the Managing Agent for Area 3 (Mott MacDonald), the Hampshireand Sussex Police Forces and internal consultations within the RMS consultant (Mott MacDonald).

The Public Consultation and Stakeholder Seminar presented a further opportunity to identify furtherRoute Problems and Issues and discuss the development of the previously identified problems andissues.

5.2 Problems and Issues

Problems and issues are considered to be obstacles to the effective fulfilment of the Route Functions.Problems and issues are also identified as situations that affect the Policy Objectives.

The following tables give a clear indication as to how problems and issues along the route affectparticular Functions and Policy Objectives of the M3. The tables are split, by the nature of theproblems and/or issues, into the five investment criteria, as listed above.

5.2.1 Route Safety Problems and Issues

Table 5-1: Route Problems - Safety
Problem/IssueCause/SourceFunctionObjective
Accident Clusters: High occurrence of accidents between Junction 2 and 4.High volumes of traffic and congestion in peak times, increasing the likelihood of accidents.SF2, SF3, SF6, RF3, RF4, RF5, LF2, LF4S1, S3, S4
Projectiles: Occurrences of stones being thrown from over-bridges between Fleet MSA and Junction 3.Poor protection of structures that are over the motorwaySF2, SF3, SF6, RF3, RF4, RF5, LF1, LF2, LF4S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
Motorway Onslips: Traffic has difficulty merging, creating congestion at the following locations, westbound at Junction 9, Junction 10 and Junction 11 and eastbound at Junctions 13 and 14.Short onslips at gradient inhibit smooth merging manoeuvres.SF4, SF5, RF1, RF6, LF1, LF2, LF4S1, S3, S4, Ec1, Ec5
Traffic Weaving: Vehicle manoeuvres and weaving increases likelihood of an accident or incident at Junctions 7 and 8.The junctions are too close to one-another and the A303(T) diverges at Junction 8.SF3, SF6, RF5, RF7S1, S3, S4, Ec1, Ec5
Traffic Weaving: Westbound vehicles are weaving between lanes attempting to exit the motorway whilst avoiding vehicles entering the motorway between Junctions 12 and 14.Close proximity of junctions, high volumes of traffic.SF4, SF5, RF1, RF6, LF1, LF2, LF4S1, S3, S4, Ec1, Ec5
Traffic Weaving: Eastbound traffic merging and weaving between the M27 link roads and Junction 13.High volumes of traffic merging from six lanes into three lanes with the addition of another junction.SF1, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF6, LF1, LF2, LF4S1, S3, S4, Ec1, Ec5
Twyford Cutting Gradient: Congestion caused during peak times, resulting in traffic "shockwaves" effect.Steep gradient through Twyford Down, larger and heavier vehicles needing to slow before gradient climb and merging traffic from Junctions 13 and 10.SF1, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF6, LF1, LF2, LF4S1, S3, Ec1, Ec5
Incidents During Maintenance: Increased incidents during maintenance works.Lack of advance warning and speed of vehicles through works areas.SF1, SF2, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF5, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 Ec1, Ec5

5.2.2 Route Environment Problems and Issues

Table 5-2: Route Problems - Environment
Problem/IssueCause/SourceFunctionObjective
Environmentally Sensitive Sites: Encouraging tourism to and economic activity in the proposed South Downs National Park and the Metropolitan Green Belt without compromising the environmental well being of the area.Environmental status and sensitivity of the South Downs and the Green Belt.SF2, SF3, RF4, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3En2, En3, En4, In4
Noise Fencing: The noise fencing has a "tunnel effect" look.Noise barriers are dull and uninteresting for drivers; it also blocks the landscape views from the motorway.SF2, SF3, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF5, LF1, LF2, LF4En1, En3, En4, In4
Litter: On the M3 in SurreyClose proximity of a landfill site, the climatic conditions cause rubbish and litter to be blown onto the motorway.RF1, RF3, RF5, RF7, LF3En3, En4
Lighting: Some sections of the motorway remain unlit.Lighting installation has been restricted due to environmental sensitivity; however additional lighting may help alleviate the accident clusters.SF2, SF3, SF5, SF6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6,RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4En2, En3, S1, S3, S4, In4
Crossing of watercourses: Issues of water quality.Road run-off and drainage from the road surface as well as chemical and substance spillages.SF1, SF2, SF3, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3En2, En3, En4, In4
Air Quality: The M3 is part of Air Quality Management Areas that have been declared in Spelthorne, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Boroughs.Readings of Nitrogen-dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10) have been recorded that are above the standard limits.SF1, SF2, SF3, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3En1, En3, En4, In4
Noise: Close proximity of houses next to M3 suffering from noise pollution.Increased growth of traffic along the whole of the M3.SF1, SF2, SF3, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3En1, En3, En4, In4

5.2.3 Route Economy Problems and Issues

Table 5-3: Route Problems - Economy
Problem/IssueCause/SourceFunctionObjective
Congestion: Eastbound congestion and queues occurring regularly during peak times at the Junction 2 with the M25.High volumes of traffic and the morning rush hour. Maintenance and road works also cause increased occurrences of congestion in the proximity of Junction 2.SF2, SF3, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF5, RF7, LF4Ec1, Ec5
Congestion: Localised congestion between junctions in the Surrey/Blackwater Valley area, Junctions 4a to Junction 3Some local traffic using the motorway to bypass more congested local roads.SF2, SF3, SF6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec3, Ec4, Ec5, A2, In3, In4
Congestion - Junctions: Junction 3 causes "exit blocking" onto the M3 during peak periods, especially in the morning.Junction is operating near to capacity in the morning peak and the traffic signals may need adjusting to increase traffic movement at the junction.SF2, SF3, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF7, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec5, A2, A3, S1, S3, S4
Congestion - Junctions: Likelihood of increased traffic movements at Junctions 5 and/or 4a.Major new housing development at Elvetham Heath, adjacent to the M3 near Fleet MSA.SF2, SF3, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF3, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec2, Ec3, Ec4, Ec5, A2, In1, In3, In2, In4
Congestion - Junctions: Junction 6 is operating at capacity and "exit blocking" is occurring more often in the morning peak period. There is the likelihood of increased traffic movements at this junction too.Continuing development in and around Basingstoke.SF2, SF3, RF1, RF2, RF3, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec2, Ec3, Ec4, Ec5, A2, In1, In3, In2, In4
Congestion - Junctions: Opportunity to use Junction 7 and 6 in combination for access to Basingstoke.Junction 6 is operating at capacity and causing "exit blocking" back onto the M3 motorway.SF2, SF3, RF1, RF2, RF3, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec5, A1, A2, In3, In4
Congestion - Junctions: Junction 9 is operating at capacity and queues form on the A34 and M3 westbound. Junction 9 is also a signalised junction.High volumes of traffic wanting to access the A34 northbound and the M3SF1, SF2, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec5, In2, In4
Impact of Routine and Emergency Maintenance Works on Traffic Flows: Congestion and tailbacks.There is a profound effect of incidents and accidents on the M3 especially during peak periods. The impact of such incidents also affects local roads near or adjacent to the motorway causing wide spread congestion.SF1, SF2, SF3, SF4, SF5, SF6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec5, In1, In2, In4
Lack of Information concerning Origin/Destination of Trunk Road Traffic: Unable to differentiate between users on basis of functionRoadside interview data not available.SF1, SF2, SF3, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF4Ec1, Ec5, A2, In1, In3, In4
Advanced Warning Signs: Road user information is not always available or accurate. EMS, VMS and further advanced warning systems do nt operate effectively to prevent further incidents.Lack of variable message signs in north Hampshire and Surrey, although some have been erected, they are infrequently used to warn of journey time incidents and to slow approaching traffic speed. Currently controlled by the respective Police forces.SF1, SF2, SF3, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF4Ec1, Ec5, A2, In1, In3, In4
Economic Vitality: In Surrey and north Hampshire economic vitality continues to grow as does travel demand and car dependency too.Surrey and north Hampshire are within the prominent commuter belt of south west London.SF2, SF3, SF5, SF6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF4Ec1, Ec2, Ec3, Ec4, Ec5, A1, A2, A3, In1, In2, In3, In4
Economic Vitality: South Hampshire relies on having the strategic transport corridors and inter-regional links to promote economic activity. These communities are trying to attract new businesses and commerce to the area to help regenerate their local economies.The regeneration status given to the south Hampshire towns and the growth of travel demand and car dependency.SF1, SF2, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec2, Ec3, Ec4, Ec5, A1, A2, A3, In1, In2, In3, In4
Regeneration There is a proven need for economic regeneration in Southampton, Portsmouth and southern Hampshire. The towns and cities are classified as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration (PAER). Maintaining the existing strategic transport corridors will assist in the economic regeneration of the Solent area.Local deprivation and a need for economic investment in southern Hampshire.SF1, SF2, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF2, LF3, LF4Ec1, Ec2, Ec3, Ec4, Ec5, A1, A2, A3, In1, In2, In3, In4

5.2.4 Route Accessibility Problems and Issues

Table 5-4: Route Problems - Accessibility
Problem/IssueCause/SourceFunctionObjective
Severance in Communities: M3 motorway divides the town of CamberleyJunction proximity and congestion experienced at and between Junctions 4a and 3 increases traffic. NMUs have to use busy local roads to cross underneath or over the motorway; this includes access to school, shops and other services.SF2, SF3, SF5, RF1, RF3, RF3, RF5, LF2, LF3, LF4A1, A3, In4
Severance in Communities:The M3 divides the towns of Eastleigh and Chandlers Ford.Junction proximity and congestion experienced at and between Junctions 12 and 14 increases traffic. NMUs have to use busy local roads to cross underneath or over the motorway, this includes access to school, shops and other services.SF1, SF2, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF6, LF2, LF4A1, A3, In4
Public Transport:Poor interchange with rail through the transport corridor between Southampton and Winchester - as an alternative to using the private car.Railway Stations not generally signed from the M3. Railway line does not serve the many smaller communities adjacent to the M3 in southern Hampshire.SF1, SF4, SF5, RF1, RF2, RF4, RF6, LF1, LF2, LF4A2, In1, In3, In4
Access to Basingstoke: Lack of sustainable transport services, over used Junction 6 as sole access to Basingstoke. Opportunity to use Junction 7 as an alternative to Junction 6.Attractiveness of the road access over the rail services. Poor bus service frequency. Lack of sustainable transport alternatives and interchanges, i.e. park and ride in Basingstoke..SF2, SF3, RF1, RF2, RF3, LF1, LF2, LF4A1, A2, A3, In3, In4
Non-Motorised User facilities:the safeguarding of footpaths, cycle routes and bridle ways, which are near to or cross the M3NMU facilities could be damaged and become inaccessible during the maintenance, improvement or operation of the route.RF1, RF2, LF1, LF2, LF3A1, A3

5.2.5 Route Integration Problems and Issues

Table 5-5: Route Problems - Integration
Problem/IssueCause/SourceFunctionObjective
Land Use and Transport Planning:The HA, Hampshire County Council and Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council are communicating on strategies to alleviate the congestion and transport problems in and around Basingstoke.Continuing economic and residential development along the M3 corridor, continuing growth in traffic movements and increasing travel demand is placing increasing pressure on the strategic infrastructure.SF1, SF2, SF3, SF4, SF5, SF6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF1, LF2, LF3, LF4In4, In3, Ec1, Ec2, Ec5, A1, A2
Park and Ride facilities for Basingstoke:Lack of transport and access alternatives into Basingstoke town centreBasingstoke is predominantly signed from Junction 6 of the M3 motorway. Junction 6 is also operating at capacity.RF1, RF2, LF1, LF2, LF4In3, In1, In4, A1, A3
Sustainable Transport Alternative:The lack ofpublic transport alternatives to the private car. Increased opportunitiesfor possible Park and Ride Facilities for Long Distance Rail CommutersRailway infrastructure constraints are hinderingpossible increased frequency during busy periods to give a more attractivealternative to the private car. Cost effectiveness and conveniencecontinues to place the private car ahead of public transport.SF1, SF3, SF4, SF5, SF6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, LF4In1, In3, In4, A2, A1, Ec1, Ec5

The Route Problem and Issue tables were summarised under the following Key Route Issue headings:


5 Route problems and issues

6 Route outcomes

6 Route Outcomes

6.1 Derivation

Route Outcomes set out what the HA will seek to obtain from the M3 route over the ten year period ofthe RMS. They are designed to contribute to the Policy Objectives defined in Section 3, improve theperformance of the Route Functions defined in Section 4, support the Land Use and DevelopmentControl statement outlined in Part 2 of Volume 1 and address Route Problems and Issues along thewhole route or at specific locations.

Route Outcomes are initially developed from Route Problems and Issues, proposed land usedevelopments, development planning control policies and where poor route performance has beenidentified. For each scenario that affects the function or performance of the M3 route, a RouteOutcome has been derived. This produces a large number of outcomes that after rationalisation, theHA will seek to obtain as the output for the M3 over the next ten years.

The Route Outcomes focus on achieving the three elements of the HA's slogan, they are:

"Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers"

The M3 serves as an important strategic corridor to South West England, the south Hampshire coastand to the towns and cities of, the Blackwater Valley, Basingstoke, Winchester and Southampton. TheM3 contributes to and assists in the regeneration of the Solent towns. Encouraging the use ofalternatives to the car to gain access to South West England, the New Forest and the south Hampshirecoast, maintaining air quality managed areas and wildlife habitats adjacent to the M3, add to theenvironmental consequence of some Route Outcomes.

The following pages outline nineteen Route Outcomes for the M3 Route Management Strategy overthe next ten years. Each proposed outcome gives an indication of the impact, timescale and activitiesto complete in order to achieve the output. Other Route Outcomes that may be affected by the outputand supporting Policy Objectives are listed to indicate the influence the proposed Route Outcome willhave to improve the operation, maintenance and performance of the M3.

6.2 Route Outcome Summary Sheets

The method of numbering these route outcomes does not reflect or make any assumption as to theHA's prioritisation for delivery of the possible actions, found in the summary sheets, or the importanceof particular route outcomes over others.

The following have been identified as Route Outcomes:

6.3 Route Outcome Summary Sheets

Download all Route Ourcome tables (100KB PDF)


6 Route outcomes

7 Strategy impact statement

7 Strategy Impact Statement

7.1 Statement

This RMS has identified a number of key route issues. In order to overcome these route issues astrategy has been devised, culminating in the Route Outcomes, which will enable the performance ofthe M3 route to be improved.

The Strategy Impact Statement demonstrates how the implementation of the Route Outcomes willresult in a beneficial impact on the performance of the route.

7.2 Impact Tables

The four impact tables, which present the impact of the Route Outcomes on various factors consideredin the preparation of the RMS, can be found on the following pages. The impact tables are assessedusing the Route Outcomes against the various performance criteria that make up the M3 RouteManagement Strategy.

The impact tables are as follows:

Following completion of the RMS, a Route Management Plan will be developed by the HA providingthe implementation plan for actions which will contribute to the Route Outcomes.

7.3 Review

A general review of the RMS is anticipated to take place every five years to monitor progress andensure that the Route Outcomes are still appropriate. However a general review is unlikely to takeplace in the initial period after publication. A general review will also revise any changes to the RouteFunctions, the Policy Objectives and update the Route Problems and Issues.

A major review of the RMS might be triggered where there may be a fundamental change, whichaffects the M3 route. Such triggers might include significant development proposals or changes toGovernment, HA, Regional and Local strategies and policies.

Download tables 7.1 to 7.4 (100KB PDF)


7 Strategy impact statement