Executive summary

Executive Summary

This report outlines an Initial Route Management Strategy, which is being developed for the M1 between Junctions 1 to 19 and the M10.

During February 2002 an initial consultation letter was sent out to 175 consultees. 52 replies were received, of which 5 had no comment. Of the remaining 47 replies, there have been 30 comments relating to transportation issues, 17 comments relating to environmental issues, 11 relating to noise, 3 relating to air quality and 1 relating to drainage. Details of comments received during the initial consultation are to be found in Section 6 of this report.

A Draft Initial RMS Report was submitted to the Highways Agency, the findings of which were presented at an internal workshop on 19 April 2002. At the time of the report the main issues were:

Three Multi Modal Studies (MMSs); London to South Midlands (LSMMMS), ORBIT and East Midlands (M1MMS) were being carried out in parallel with this RMS, the outcomes of which will affect the development of appropriate strategies. For this reason the HA introduced a break in the programme and delayed completion of the Initial RMS until after the MMSs had reported.

This revised report therefore takes account of the seminar and workshop that took place at the Vauxhall Recreation Centre in Luton and the Highways Agency in Bedford, respectively during June and July 2003. In addition to the recommendations of the MMSs and the Secretary of State's (SOS's) response to the MMSs which forms the base information for a Public Consultation. A programme of remaining work is detailed in Section 1.6.

A Route Problems and Performance Framework is to be found in Section 6.4, which summaries the main issues.

A list of Route Functions and Objectives has been developed and are detailed in Sections 2 and 4 of this report. Route Problems and Performance are detailed in Section 6 and following the Seminar and subsequent workshop, a set of outcomes was agreed. The Route Outcomes are detailed in Section 7. The main issues that have been identified in light of the Government's transport criteria are:

Safety

Environment

Economy

Accessibility

Integration

Route Outcomes (RO) set out what the Highways Agency seeks 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.

A Public Consultation will be undertaken based on the findings of this Initial Route Management Strategy.


Executive summary

1 Introduction

1 Introduction

1.1 The M1 and M10 Study

The M1 is one of the main north south transport corridors in England, linking London and the major conurbations to the north including Northampton, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds. The M1 study route covers approximately 125.5 kms (80 miles), starting from Junction 1 (Brent Cross) to Junction 19 with the M6 and the A14(T). This part serves Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Rugby.

This study also includes the M10 which is approximately 4.5 kms (2.8 miles), connecting St Albans to the M1 Junction 7. The Highways Agency has programmed to widen the M1 between Junctions 6A (M25) and 10 (Luton) to become a four lane motorway with continuous hard shoulders. Once the M1 widening has been completed and open to traffic in 2008, the M10 will be de-classified to an all purpose trunk road and re-numbered as A414(T). It will then form part of the existing A414 connecting to the M1 motorway.

Mott MacDonald have been commissioned to prepare a 10 year Route Management Strategy (RMS) for the M1 (Junction 1-19) and M10. The following sections explain the process of preparing an RMS and the subsequent development of a Strategy Impact Statement.

1.2 What is a Route Management Strategy?

A Route Management Strategy is:

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

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

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

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

Whilst a RMS will be focused upon a particular route, the impact which other routes may have upon it and the impact that the route may have no others should be considered within the study. This would be particularly applicable where an issue on one route can be resolved through an outcome on another.

The HA has a set of strategic plans for the road network. The RMS system has been designed to ensure that these plans are used to develop roads that better serve the people who use them.

This RMS was developed in the first instance under the Route Management Strategy Guidance of January 2002, which set out a framework for assessing the comparative performance of the M1/M10 in relation to the rest of the strategic trunk road network in England. A new Route Management Strategy Guidance issued in November 2003, set out an amended methodology for preparing an RMS. This report follows the new methodology while retaining elements of the original assessment criteria.

A RMS comprises the following elements:

The overall impact of the Route Outcomes (ROs) on the Policy Objectives, Route Functions and Problems, is contained within a Strategy Impact Statement. This statement can also be used to identify potential actions, which may contribute to delivering the ROs.

The HA intends to have a RMS in place for each route in the strategic road network.

A RMS will lead to the preparation of a Route Management Plan (RMP) which will assist the HA to achieve its strategic aim which is to contribute to sustainable development by maintaining, operating and improving the trunk road network in support of the Government's integrated transport and land use planning polices.

1.3 Study Background

The RMS Guidance of November 2003 (Version 2) sets out the methodology for preparing a Route Management Strategy.

It is intended for use by the HA in managing the process, for consultants developing the RMS and Project Board members assisting in the process.

This methodology provides a flexible approach to undertaking any RMS Study which allows for the size and nature of the RMS to be reflected in the amount of work which needs to be undertaken and is sensitive to the extent of study and consultation that has already been undertaken on a route.

A Route Management Strategy comprises the following elements:

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

This Route Management Strategy (RMS) will provide a 10-year framework for preparing RMP managing the M10 and M1 between Junction 1 at Brent Cross in London and Junction 19 with the M6 and the A14(T).

The RMS embraces the five key policy objectives for transport:

This document sets out the problems and issues identified to date.

1.4 Current Situation

This RMS has been undertaken in parallel with three Multi-Modal Studies. Their final reports have been published and responded to by the Secretary of State (SOS).

  1. ORBIT, covering orbital movements around London;
  2. The London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study (LSMMMS), which broadly looks at transport north of the M25 up to and including Junction 19 on the M1; and
  3. The East Midlands Multi-Modal Study (M1MMS), broadly looking at transport issues along the M1 corridor from Junction 21 to 30. Although this study encompasses an area to the north of the M1 RMS, any proposals at the southern end of the study area may have an effect on the outcome of the RMS.

ORBIT and LSMMMS have overlapping boundaries in terms of their areas of interest, however for the purposes of the study, the boundary is assumed to be immediately north of the M25. It was originally intended that the RMSs would ocus on lower level local issues with strategic issues being covered by the MMSs. However from the comments made by the consultees, it became evident that it is not possible to divorce local from strategic issues, particularly in relation to the outcomes identified in the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport.

For this reason the HA allowed for a break in the M1 and M10 RMS programme and delayed completion of the Initial RMS until after the MMSs published their final reports and the SOS had made announcements on them after careful consideration.

1.5 The Secretary of State's Announcement

Of the Multi-Modal Studies that the Secretary of State (SOS) for Transport has responded to, the London to South Midlands MMS has the most direct impact on this Route Management Strategy. The details of the SOS's comments on these MMSs mentioned above are to be found in Sections 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12.

1.6 RMS Study Programme

The RMS timetable is outlined below and a flow chart detailing the process (see Figure 1.1) is to be found on the following page.

Start of Project (4 February 2002)

Consultation letters were sent to all key stakeholders, local authorities, transport operating companies, environmental organisations, local parish councils, pressure groups and business representatives explaining the study and inviting them to give their views.

Draft Route Management Strategy Internal Workshop (19 April 2002)

An internal workshop was held on 19 April 2002 which set out our view of the route functions, route objectives and problems and the draft strategy at a workshop attended by the Managing Agents the Project Owner and the Project Sponsor in order to develop an initial Draft RMS.

Break

Following the workshop there was a break in the RMS process until the three MMSs had published their final reports. The SOS's comments on the MMSs can be found in Sections 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12.

Route Management Strategy Seminar (16 June 2003)

Representatives from key stakeholders and other organisations were invited to a RMS Seminar, where the RMS Study was introduced and a list of possible problems and outcomes identified by the attendees. The seminar took account of the findings of the Multi- Modal Studies that are relevant to the RMS study.

Value Management (VM) Workshop (30 July 2003)

The workshop allowed the HA, major key stakeholders and local authorities to prioritise problems and solutions and identify a set of Outcomes which could be taken forward.

Prepare Initial Route Management Strategy (January 2005)

Following the VM workshop, the draft RMS was updated and is now presented as the Initial Route Management Strategy. This updated RMS details the HA's policy objectives, functions and problems which together with a land use development control statement form the basis of the report for Public Consultation. Subsequently a brochure and a questionnaire will be prepared for the public consultation.

Public Consultation (February 2005)

A public consultation will be carried out over a 12-week period to publicise the proposed RMS and to encourage comments from members of the public.

Publication of Final Route Management Strategy (planned for June 2005)

After taking into account comments received during public consultation, a final Route Management Strategy will be published.

Route Management Plan

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

Figure 1.1: The RMS Process

Figure 1.1: The RMS Process
1 Introduction

2 Route description

2 Route Description

2.1 Introduction

The London to Birmingham Motorway was officially opened on 2 November 1959. The M1 was constructed to alleviate severe congestion problems which had developed on the local road network and also to provide a long distance route from London to the Midlands and the north-east of England.

The motorway was one of the first to be built in the UK. It is around 200 miles (300 km) long and was constructed in stages between the 1950s and 1970s, with a further extension in the late 1990s. The M1 was first designed and constructed as a London to Birmingham route broadly following the route of the A5, starting south of St Albans and ending at Coventry. Subsequently the road was diverted at the southern end to Watford and then in two stages to London. The stub to St Albans becoming the M10. At the northern end, with changing traffic patterns, the road was extended northwards to Leeds and the stub remaining here became the M45.

Figure 2.1: Newspaper Cutting Wolverton Express - 6 November 1959

It is described that the M1 is a car park, due to the huge increase of cars on Britain's roads from 2.8 million in 1959 to over 27.5 million today. More importantly, a mere 13,000 vehicles were estimated to use the M1 on a daily basis in 1959 compared with today's figure of just over 88,000.

The introduction of the long distances and the fuel consumption involved, plus the added strain on haulage lorries required structural and engine modifications to off-set these problems. Added to this was a new problem for the driver, tiredness, which resulted in two service stations being added. The first introduced was at Newport Pagnell, followed by the Watford Gap.

2.2 Road Condition and Type

The M1 between Junctions 1 and 19 is a total of 125.5 kms (approximately 80 miles) in length whilst the M10 is 4.5 kms (approximately 2.8 miles) in length. The M1 and M10 are primarily dual-3 lane and dual-2 lane motorways respectively; with the exception of the M1 Junctions 6A-7 northbound, Junctions 7-8 both directions and Junction 9-10 northbound which are all four lane standard.

Table 2.1 below gives details of the distances from Junction 1 along the M1 and the lengths of the other sections of road included in the study.

Table 2.1: Distances between Junctions on M1 and M10
Location along M1 Junction with Distance from Junction 1 in kms (miles) Distance between junctions in kms (miles)
Junction 1 A406 & A41 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
Junction 2 A1 3.5 (2.2) 3.5 (2.2)
London Gateway Service 8.7 (5.4) 5.2 (3.2)
Junction 4 A41 10.8 (6.7) 2.1 (1.3)
Junction 5 A41 & A408 18.0 (11.2) 7.2 (4.5)
Junction 6 A405 21.9 (13.6) 3.9 (2.4)
Junction 6A M25 22.4 (13.9) 0.5 (0.3)
Junction 7 M10 25.9 (16.1) 3.5 (2.2)
Junction 8 A414 26.4 (16.4) 0.5 (0.3)
Junction 9 A5 & A5183 33.6 (20.9) 7.2 (4.5)
Junction 10 A1081 37.5 (23.3) 3.8 (2.4)
Junction 11 A505 43.1 (26.8) 5.6 (3.5)
Toddington Service 50.2 (31.2) 7.1 (4.4)
Junction 12 A5120 51.0 (31.7) 0.8 (0.5)
Junction 13 A421 & A507 62.3 (38.7) 11.3 (7.0)
Junction 14 A509 71.6 (44.5) 9.3 (5.8)
Newport Pagnell Service 76.1 (47.3) 4.5 (2.8)
Junction 15 A508 91.1 (56.6) 15.0 (9.3)
Junction 15A A43 & Rothersthrope Service 95.1 (59.1) 4.0 (2.5)
Junction 16 A45 101.3 (62.9) 6.1 (3.8)
Watford Gap Service 113.9 (70.7) 12.6 (7.8)
Junction 17 M45 116.6 (72.4) 2.7 (1.7)
Junction 18 A428, A5 & A361 119.0 (73.9) 2.4 (1.5)
Junction 19 A14 & M6 125.5 (77.9) 6.5 (4.0)
Location along M10 Junction with Length
Junction 10 to 10A M1 1.0 (0.6)
M10 M1 & A414 4.5 (2.8)

2.3 Traffic and Congestion

This section provides a review of existing traffic conditions and congestion on the M1/M10 corridor. In line with Government policy the HA is committed to reducing congestion on inter-urban trunk roads to 5% below current levels by 2010. It is also committed to strive towards a key objective of the 1998 Government White Paper "A New Deal for Transport Better for Everyone", that is, to take action to reduce congestion and increase the reliability of journey times.

Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) data has been supplied for the purpose of this RMS by the Babtie Group in their role as traffic monitoring agents (Southern Area) for the HA. Sixteen sets of fixed location ATCs sit the length of thestrategy route at variable distances. Two sets of links, between Junctions 12 and 14, do not have ATC counters. The easting and northing co-ordinates of the count locations have been plotted against the links and nodes defined in Table 2.1 to produce a data set that is consistent with the analytical framework of this report.

In July 2004, the Transport Secretary announced a Pilot Study Scheme to cut congestion and improve journey times on the M1 between Junction 13 to 7 (Milton Keynes South to St Albans). Details of which can be found in Section 2.16.

2.3.1 Existing Traffic Flow

The section of motorway within in the strategy area currently operates to varying levels of efficiency. Previous HA studies and information supplied by consultees to the strategy have provided a detailed insight into how the motorway operates on a daily basis.

Figure 2.2: M1 Junctions 1-19 2002 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

As Figure 2.2 illustrates, both the level and pattern of traffic flow on the M1 are almost identical north and southbound. The difference between northbound and southbound flow varies from just 170 vehicles between Junctions 4 and 5 and almost 4,000 between Junctions 16 and 17.

From a combined flow of 49,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) between Junctions 1 and 2, vehicle numbers rise progressively through to Junction 5 at Watford where a peak of 92,500 is reached. The next section to Junction 6A is notable for a fall in traffic flow to just over 70,000 AADT as the highway bypasses North Watford.

At Junction 6A, however, the M1's strategic function becomes clear as it joins with the M25, which is to provide one of the major corridors from Greater London to the Midlands and the north of England. Traffic doubles in both directions to bring combined AADT to over 148,000. From the M25, traffic levels on the M1 continue to rise to Junction 8 as traffic filters in and out of St Albans and Hemel Hempstead hitting a peak for the strategy area of AADT 177,000.

Junction 7 provides the main access to the M10 and although flows appear to be relatively low on this short piece of motorway, under AADT 24,000, the true impact lies on the M1 where the flows converge.

Junction 8 marks a change in the pattern of flow on the M1 as vehicle numbers begin to fall. From Junction 7 to Junction 15 south of Northampton, the level of traffic falls progressively to AADT 113,7001.

At Junction 15 there is a further fall up to Junction 15A, with over 16,000 less vehicles on the motorway than travelling one junction up between Junctions 15A and 16. In addition to the presence of Northampton, this may be explained by the proximity of the A43 and A45 providing east west links to the M40 and M11 respectively. At Junction 15A, a further change takes place in the prevailing pattern with an increase in traffic level to Junction 17 as the A45 (via the M45) contributes to levels similar to those through Luton of around AADT 130,000. Here the situation changes with a further fall to the northern extent of the strategy area at Junction 19. AADT in the final section of the M1/M10 RMS is 111,000 over 50 percent higher than at its origin 125.5 kms south at Junction 1.

2.3.2 Congestion and Stress

The pattern of traffic flow described has created a level of performance that is quite different from section to section; some links bare a greater weight of local trips than others, some carry heavier HGV traffic and others are more influenced by local development than others. To take into account these prevailing traffic conditions, a Congestion Reference Flow (CRF)2 has been calculated for each section of the M1 strategy area. The CRF is an estimate of the total AADT flow at which the carriageway is likely to be congested at peak periods and provides a useful mechanism for comparison with other elements of the trunk road network.

Figure 2.3 presents a graphical representation of the relationship between the CRF and actual 2003 AADT.

The CRF indicates a variable performance across the RMS study area with a number of link sections experiencing traffic flow above their theoretical design capacity.

In 2003, AADT on the strategy corridor was greater than CRF on the following performance sections:

The differential between CRF and 2003 AADT is most pronounced on the link section between Junctions 7 and 8. Here AADT is over 28,600 vehicles higher than the CRF. Although the disparity is greatest at this location, the sections that follow and precede this link are also notable for traffic levels above CRF. Link sections between Junctions 4 and 5, Junctions 5 and 6, Junctions 6A and 7, Junctions 7 and 8, Junctions 16 and 17 are all significantly over capacity.

Additionally, the link section between Junctions 11 and 12 is also over its CRF. Broadly speaking, sections that appear to be most congested are those between Junctions 4 and 8 affected by the M25, the M10 and the urban areas of Hertfordshire, Luton and Dunstable.

Figure 2.3: Relationship between CRF and 2003 AADTs

The differential between AADT and CRF described above can be converted into a Stress Factor; calculated as the ratio between the AADT and CRF, this is used to determine the level of performance between links. Values higher than 0.75 are generally held to give cause for concern. Typically, the sites with the highest stress factors are those with low road capacity. The application of the 0.75 threshold to performance sections on the M1/M10 indicates that all but two sections are under stress and threat of congestion.

In order to highlight congestion hotspots, the 10 sections with the highest Stress Factor on the M1 and M10 are listed below in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Congestion Hotspots on the M1 by Stress Level
Link Stress Level
1 Junction 7 to Junction 8 1.15
2 Junction 5 to Junction 6 1.08
3 Junction 6A to Junction 7 1.07
4 Junction 16 to Junction 17 1.06
5 Junction 4 to Junction 5 1.05
6 Junction 11 to Junction 12 1.01
7 Junction 2 to Junction 4 0.91
8 Junction 9 to Junction 10 0.87
9 Junction 12 to Junction 13 0.83
10 Junction 17 to Junction 18 0.81

The potential stress points are easily identified as areas between Junctions 4 and 6, 6A and 8, 11 to 12 and around Junction 17. This identifies the central links between Junctions 6A and 8 and the links between Junctions 10 and 11 as experiencing congestion. Both these methodologies provide an indicator of link performance and broadly speaking suggest the most congested sections are those affected by the M25, M10 and the urban areas of North Hertfordshire and Luton and Dunstable. They do not, however, provide an analysis of congestion levels through and on junctions. Stakeholder comment has substantiated the theoretical study that has been undertaken on links. The main issues to emerge are detailed by junction:

In summary, sections of main concern on the M1 motorway are those between:

Specific issues of concern have been identified on the following M1 junctions:

2.3.3 Traffic Growth Under a Do-Minimum Scenario

The 10 Year Plan for Transport, 2000-2010, commits the Government to reducing congestion on inter-urban trunk roads to 5% below current levels by 2010. As illustrated in Section 2.3.1, on the basis of 2003 AADT, the M1 and M10 are already experiencing unsustainable levels of traffic flow on many link sections. Later sections of this report will provide a view on the external factors which affect the future levels of traffic, however, in view of the 10 year life of this report it is useful to understand the base do-minimum increase in traffic caused by incremental year on year growth. Taking the central estimate for growth from the National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF)3, Figure 2.4 illustrates a 13.5% increase in all traffic on the M1/M10 corridor between 2003 and 2010. The net result will be to push those sections that are already under stress even further above their theoretical design capacity.

Figure 2.4: AADT in 2010 under a Do-Minimum (Central) Growth Scenario

To take four sections which are currently within limits (sections between Junctions 2&4, Junctions 8&9, Junctions 9&10 and between Junctions 10&11) above their threshold. Four sections that would remain below CRF are listed below;

It should be noted that no traffic data is available between Junctions 13 and 14 and no CRF data is available on this section and between Junctions 15A and 16.

The M1 is the principal corridor connecting London with major conurbations to the north including the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, East Midlands, West and South Yorkshire and beyond to the North East and Scotland. The standard on the M1 in the study area is mainly dual-3 lane, with the exception of Junctions 6A-7 northbound, Junctions 7-8 both directions and Junction 9-10 northbound which are all four lane standard. In the case of Junctions 7-8, the four lanes do not represent through running lanes alone, but need to accommodate weaving movements between the M10/M1 and M1/A414.

The HA carried out a review of the operational assessment of the main MKSM highway network of motorways, trunk roads and certain non-trunk roads, using the London-South Midlands Multi-Modal Study (LSMMMS) as a starting point. This review indicates that the proposed quantum of additional development arising from the Sub-Regional Strategy to 2016 and 2021 would have an impact on the sub-regional network as a whole that would be equivalent to adding about 2-3 years of trend-based background traffic growth. This additional growth would be added into a situation where peak hour spread and rising levels of congestion will be occurring already, despite the benefits gained from the new road infrastructure.

The Secretary of State has announced that the key recommendations from the LSMMMS, widening the two sections (between Junctions 6A-10 and Junctions 10-13) of the M1 to dual- 4 have entered into the Targeted Programme Improvement schemes.

2.4 Safety

2.4.1 Introduction

In 2000, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) (now the Department for Transport (DfT)), published a safety strategy in the document "Tomorrow's Roads Safer for Everyone" setting national casualty reduction targets for 2010. By 2010, against the average for 1994 to 1998, their aim is to achieve:

Within the context of these national targets, the HA have developed an additional set of targets that are specific to the UK motorway and trunk road network. Working within the same time frame, these aims are to:

It should be noted that the less onerous casualty reduction targets set for motorways and trunk roads are due to the higher design standards required for the construction of these types of road and because they already have relatively low accident rates and also carry higher proportions of traffic. Towards this end and as detailed in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" (1998), the HA's key objective for safety is:

"To improve safety for all road users and contribute to the Governments new safetystrategy and targets for 2010"

2.4.2 An Overview of Accidents on the M1

As indicated in Table 2.3 data derived from the national UK STATS19 database of injury accidents (supplied by TRL) for the three years, 2000 to 2002, shows that there were 2103 Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) on the 131 km length of the M1 and M10 in the RMS study area. Of this number, 2% (35) were fatal, 12% (252) serious and the remaining 86% (1816) slight. This equates to 535 PIAs per annum per 100 km. A comparative value of 290 PIAs per annum, per 100 km for a motorway of this type (Highways Agency Operational Folder, 2002), suggests that the M1, as a route, has an accident rate significantly higher than the national average.

Table 2.3: PIAs on M1 and M10 2000-2002
PIA Data Provided by TRL M1 Junction 1 to Junction 19 and M10
Severity No. %
Fatal 35 2
Serious 252 12
Slight 1816 86
Total 2103 100

Although the accident rate is high, the data reveals that the overall severity of accidents on the M1 and M10 remains in line with average levels for a motorway in England. The severity ratio of accidents on the trunk road network is calculated as the fatal and serious accident total divided by the total number of accidents. At 0.13, the severity ratio of accidents on the M1 and M10 is identical to the 0.13 average index.

As a section of road, the M1 and M10 also appear to have no specific problems pertaining to road surface condition. The relative severity and proportion of PIAs on the M1 and M10 under various road conditions are consistent with national average levels, as are the proportion of accidents involving skidding.

There is also little to be drawn from statistics pertaining to the number of accidents by lighting condition. Both the proportion of PIAs in daylight and darkness and the severity ratio of accidents are consistent with national average levels.

2.4.3 Accidents on Performance Sections of the M1 and M10

In order to identify the accident history of different parts of the motorway, the route is divided into sections, which relate to the motorway junctions. The data is presented in terms of accident totals, severity ratio and an accident rate per year per vehicle kilometre is provided. The severity ratio and rate per vehicle kilometre provides a means of comparison with different sections of the strategy area and also the entire motorway network. This barometer for comparison has been adopted from the Highways Agency original guidance for Route Management Strategies, published in May 2002. Although the guidance has been revised, these safety performance indicators (see Table 2.4 below) still provide national comparative indicators, which can be used within the strategy to determine the operation of the overall network in terms of safety.

Table 2.4: Safety Performance Indicator Bands
Scale Bad Bad/Moderate Moderate Moderate/Reasonable Reasonable
Accident rate (PIA per billion veh kilometres) Motorway > 0.20 0.20-0.16 0.15-0.11 0.10-0.6 0.5-0
Severity ratio Motorway > 0.32 0.32-0.25 0.24-0.16 0.15-0.08 < 0.08

2.4.4 Accident Rate for Performance Sections of the M1 and M10

Measured in Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) per 100 million vehicle kilometres (108 veh km), accident rates are available as combined results for junctions and links in each section.

Converting an accident rate into the points scoring framework in Table 2.4 shows that the high accident rate described in Section 2.4.2 is accounted for by a high number of accidents on a small number of links with very high accident rates. Under the scoring framework an accident rate of over 20 PIAs 100 million vehicle km is considered over the worst end of the scale. The M1 has six sections over this threshold and are listed in Table 2.5 below. Whereas the accident rate on M10 section is only 6.15 (108 veh km).

Table 2.5: Accident Rate on the M1
Section Accidents 2000-2002 Accident Rate (per 108 veh km)
Junction 9 to 10 306 55.21
Junction 10 to 10A 20 48.59
Junction 8 to 9 380 38.57
Junction 6A to 7 199 33.55
Junction 6 to 6A 21 25.12
Junction 1 to 2 47 22.56

The HA Operational Folder (2002), a supporting document to the HA Strategic Plan for Safety, provides additional context to the rates above. The report presents intervention4levels for safety. These are average values for a number of safety indicators for different road classes within the trunk road network. The average accident rate on a Motorway is 9.5. All six of these rates are, therefore, of concern.

2.4.5 Severity Ratio for Performance Sections of the M1 and M10

The severity ratio of accidents on the trunk road network is calculated as the fatal and serious accident total divided by the total number of accidents. Table 2.4 indicates the band classification for degrees of accident severity on the M1 and M10.

The data presented in Section 2.4.2 suggested that the severity ratio of accidents on the M1 and M10 is in line with the average ratio of 0.13 for a motorway and this is reflected in the section data. Severity ratios on almost half of the route (encompassing nine sections) are lower than this average. With the exception of two sections the remainder of the route has severity ratios in the central band in the scoring framework.

The two sections with severity ratios greater than 0.32 and falling into the worst banding are:

A degree of caution should be applied to these rates as they appear to be a consequence of a low total number of accidents rather than as being indicative of a wider safety issue.

The benefit of presenting accident rates and severity ratios as combined results for junctions and links is that they can be placed in the context of average national results providing a good over view of the general performance of the M1 and M10. The weakness of this data lies in its generality. To overcome this issue, data presented in the following section breaks down the PIA data received from TRL and allocates accidents to specific junctions and specific links in an effort to get under the surface of the overview presented. Data of this sort does not however, have any equal comparative national value and the analysis should, therefore, be treated in relative terms.

2.4.6 Accidents on M1 and M10 Links

Figure 2.5 presents the total number of accidents on link sections of the M1 and M10 by severity over the three years 2000 to 2002. In total over this period, there were 1870 PIAs on the 21 links that encompass the M1 and M10 in the RMS study area. Notably four link sections are responsible for over 50% of all link accidents on the M1 and M10. These are sections between M1 Junction 6A and 7, M1 Junction 8 and 9, M1 Junction 9 to 10 and M1 Junction 14 to Junction 15.

Figure 2.5: Total PIAs on Link Sections of the M1 and M10 2000 - 2002

Of the total number of link accidents in the RMS corridor, 2% (30) were fatal, 12% (222) serious and the remaining 87% (1618) slight. This equates to a rate of 479 PIAs per annum per 100 km, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 238 PIAs per annum per 100 km (Highways Agency Operational Folder 2002).

(i) Accident Rate

Although there is no national comparative indicator against which to measure the link only accident rates of the M1 and M10, calculating a link only rate does permit an identification of the relative performance of each link providing a degree of context to the absolute PIA numbers identified in Figure 2.6. Measured in PIAs per 100 million vehicle km (108 veh km), links with the highest accident rates on the M1 and M10 are:

(ii) Severity Ratio

The severity ratio of accidents on the trunk road network is calculated as the fatal and serious accident total divided by the total number of accidents. With no national comparative indicator available for link only accidents, the severity ratio calculated for links on the M1 and M10 simply highlights the relative performance of links in the RMS study area.

Links with the highest severity ratio are:

A degree of caution should, however, be exercised when approaching these results. As indicated in Figure 2.6, the links listed above have all experienced a relatively lower number of PIAs compared with other sections in the RMS corridor; the impact of a fatal or a severe accident tends to have a disproportionate impact in these circumstances.

2.4.7 Accidents on Junctions of M1 and M10

(i) Total Accidents on M1 and M10 Junctions and Motorway Service Areas

The UKSTATS19 database, from which the following data on accidents on M1 junctions is derived, defines a junction accident as one occurring within 20 metres of a junction. Figure 2.6 indicates the total number of PIAs that occurred on junctions of the M1 over the three years 2000 to 2002. The data is useful in highlighting the relative performance of junctions on the route, it does not, however, take into account the design or type of junction, nor the level of traffic flow through and on the junction's slip roads. The accident totals should, therefore, be approached with a degree of caution and simply seen in the relative context of the route.

Figure 2.6: Total PIAs on the M1 2000 - 2002

Junctions that appear to have a higher relative number of PIAs on the M1 are:

(ii) Severity Ratio

The relatively low number of accidents taking place on junctions reduces the validity of a comprehensive severity analysis. However, the PIA totals illustrated in Figure 2.6 are notable for:

2.4.8 Summary of Accident Data

The overview of performance of the M1 and M10 in terms of safety presented in Sections 2.4.2 to 2.4.7 is significant for revealing the very high number of total accidents that have taken place on the main carriageway over the three years to 2002. Accident rates on the route and on specific link sections are twice that of the national average. However, although the route is experiencing a high number of total PIAs it is notable that in terms of severity the M1 and M10 have ratios that are very much in line with average rates. It is possible that a correlation exists between these trends and the high level of traffic flow reported in Section 2.4.

Of particular note is the very high number of accidents reported on the central sections of the route around Luton area, between M1 Junctions 8 and 10, and a very high number of PIA incidents on Junction 1.

This section provides an overview of the overall accident situation on the M1 and M10. Within the context of this strategy document it would be inappropriate to assess each accident in detail.

Further work to solve problems at certain locations should be considered as an extension to the strategy.

2.5 Landscape Character and Key Environmental Features

The M1 from Junctions 1 to 19 and M10 pass through seven character areas as noted in TheCountryside Agencies Countryside Character publications, Volumes 7: South East andLondon and Volume 4: East Midlands (Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8).

The motorway begins in an area identified as the Northern Thames Basin, Hertfordshire Plateaux and River Valleys. This is a diverse landscape containing the River Colne. Extensive areas of broad-leaved woodlands are the principal feature of the areas beyond the motorway. Railway lines, prominent electricity pylons, elevated road sections, sound barriers and screen planting are key major influences on character. Any floodplain land is divided by hedgerow deficient boundaries. Some long views are possible over mixed scrub and woodland. The intensity of the industrial and residential 'town' contrasts strongly with the rural suburban edge.

The town of St Albans is visible from the M10 motorway, which connects to Junction 7 of the M1. The motorway then passes into the Chilterns, chalk hills and plateaus with prominent escarpments in many places. Extensive areas of the downland have been invaded by scrub. Luton lies to the east and extensive views are possible past industrial units. Electricity pylons run in extensive lines parallel to and across the M1. Small fields and dense ancient hedgerows are present along with extensive areas of beech woodland on the plateau. The agricultural landscape is dominated by hedges, trees and small woodland groups.

Panoramic views are now possible across the Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge to extensive tracts of woodland on distant ridges. Rolling countryside with settlements visible to the west of the M1 lie beyond the extensive solid hedgerows. Electricity pylons are still highly visible running next to the motorway.

On entering the Bedfordshire Claylands the landscape becomes open and intensively arable. Fields are bounded by sparse close cut hedges with varying hedgerow trees. The Great Ouse River is a prominent feature with it's' floodplains, river willows and larger hedges. Woodland is mainly deciduous and located on higher ridges. Views to towns and church spires can be seen to the east with long views to hills behind agricultural land. Major junctions to Milton Keynes dominate the immediate environment with lagoons and balancing ponds present at a number of junctions.

The motorway passes through a narrow section of the Yardley - Whittlewood Ridge characterised by medium sized fields with full hedgerows and numerous hedgerow oak trees. There is a low density of settlement and consequently few local roads.

With Northampton to the east, the Northampton Vales are dominated by views to the town. The River Nene and its' floodplains, spired churches and a flourmill are all prominent features. The motorway has characteristic (Owen Williams) concrete bridges which are noticeable landmarks along this stretch of the motorway. Further afield there are extensive views of small settlements and close-cropped hedges.

Open arable farmland mixed with pastureland enclosed by hedges and hedgerow trees are a key characteristic of the Northamptonshire Uplands. In the distance are mixed woodland, extensive hedge lines and farm buildings. Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is a major environmental and visual influence on the immediate area. Masts next to the motorway dominate the skyline, whilst the mainline railway and Grand Union Canal are both highly visible and run parallel to the west of the motorway. There is one service area (Watford Gap) on this stretch of the motorway. The characteristic concrete bridges continue to cross the motorway. Radio masts are also present at Rugby and dominate the skyline.

The motorway is of an age where the planting on the cut slopes has had the opportunity tomature.

2.6 Noise and Air Quality

2.6.1 Noise

The 1998 Roads Review outlined provisions for the mitigation of traffic noise from older (pre- 1988) roads, provided that certain criteria were satisfied. Within the current M1 RMS study area, a number of sites were identified as "noise hotspots" resulting from a history of public complaint, of which three inter-junction sections satisfied the criteria for further assessment and possible mitigation:

Section Location Managing Area
Junction 5 to 6 Watford/Garston (Herts) HA Area 5
Junction 10 to 11 Luton (south) HA Area 8
Junction 11 to 12 Luton/Dunstable HA Area 8

All were included in a list of sites, published in Hansard in November 1999.

These sites were taken forward for a more detailed assessment to quantify the severity of noise impact and suggest possible means of noise mitigation (noise barriers/bund and/or "low-noise" surfacing). The results were presented in the Reports published by the Parsons Brinckerhoff (Area 5) and AIRO Ltd (Area 8).

Furthermore, the Government is committed to:

Junction 1 - 2 Hendon

The original concrete carriageways were overlaid with a noise reducing thin surface course in early 2004.

Junction 5 - 6 Watford-Garston (Herts)

Most of the residential areas close to this section have had noise barriers installed at some time in the past. Until recently, two areas remained un-protected at Garston, for which calculations (Parsons Brinckerhoff K&D) indicated that mitigation measures were justified.

Appropriate measures were designed (Mouchel) with a view to installation within the Financial Year (FY) 2002/03. This work was delayed but was completed in early 2004.

Junctions 5 - 6 - 6A - 7 Watford-Hemel Hempstead (Herts)

Southbound carriageways of this section remain concrete. Now programmed for re-surfacing with noise reducing thin surface course in FY 2006/07.

Junction 10 - 12 Luton-Dunstable (Beds)

Substantial areas of residential development close to these sections remained un-protected until recently, for which calculations (AIRO Ltd) indicated that mitigation measures might be justified.

The following noise barriers were proposed in 2003, some of which have been installed as follows:

Section/Junction Location Status
J11 - J12: J11 to Kestrel way (both sides): now complete
North of Kestrel Way (short section) completion FY 2004/05
J11 Flyover (both sides): now complete
J10 - J11 Bradley Road to J 11 (both sides): now complete
Farley Green to Bradley Road (east side) completion FY 2004/05

Revised guidance on the treatment of noise hotspots was issued by the HA in December 2003 (Area Management Memo 43). This re-iterated the requirement that Hansard-listed sites which were constructed before 1969 and not altered since should be given highest priority for noise mitigation treatment (category 1) before 2011.

Action to achieve this aim has already been implemented as described above. A Table 2.1 detailing the responses received from Consultees is attached as Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Noise - Checklist of Consultees Responses
M1 Section Parish Private Comment Action
1-2
2-4
4-5
5-6
6-6A
6A-7
7-8
8-9 Redbourn PC Excessive road noise: no mitigation, elevated carriageways, noisy surface. Suggest "low-noise" surface, Depends on funding
9-10 Flamstead PC Traffic noise: request re-surfacing with new softer asphalt Depends on funding
10-10A
10-11
11-12
12-13 Tingrith Noise: barriers and low-noise surface required Depends on funding
13-14 Moulsoe PC M1 outside of boundary: mitigation promise when M1 built never materialised: re-consider Depends on funding
14-15 Hanslope PC Noise; inadequate screening Depends on funding
Newport Pagnell TC Soundproofing required at Pennycress Way Depends on funding
Milton Keynes Traffic nose Depends on funding
15-15A
15A-16 Kislingbury PC Noise pollution: new quieter road surfacing essential Depends on funding
16-17 Watford PC Noise pollution: Screening and noise baffling required Depends on funding
Lewis, Whilton Noise, dust, dirt increasing: "silent" surface required Depends on funding
17-18 Crick PC Noise: constant hum with N/W wind: suggest quieter surface Depends on funding
18-19

2.6.2 Air Quality

In November 2003, the HA have issued a new guidance on Air Quality Management (The Role of the Highways Agency in Local Air Quality Management). The HA's purpose is to operate, maintain and improve the strategic trunk road network with one of HA's key objectives being to respect the environment. The HA can influence their effect on air quality through:

The HA have plans for the network together with how these could affect air quality. LAs will need to be aware of these when assessing air quality and preparing their action plans.

Motor vehicles emit a variety of gaseous and particulate compounds, many of which are harmful to health and the environment. Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 and the subsequent Air Quality Regulations 1997 requires the LAs to review and assess the air quality 'from time to time' with a view to ascertaining if the AQ Objectives set for key pollutants could be achieved in time (2005 or earlier).

The review and assessment (R&A) of air quality is the first round in the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) process. It consists of 4 components; stages 1 - 3, and stage 4 and Action Plans. Each progressive stage consists of more complex screening, testing and modelling of pollutants. If pollutant levels are well below critical levels, a further stage is not necessary. On completion of stage 3, where it is expected that standards are likely to be exceeded at a future date (up to 2005), then an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) must be declared and a Stage 4 assessment and review undertaken, leading to the development of an Action Plan.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) issued a new guidance in February 2003. It requires LAs to carry out an Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) of local air quality (LAQM.PG03). This assessment is intended to identify those aspects that have changed since the first round of review and assessment, including any results of lessons learnt from the first round, which may require further assessment. The USA will also indicate which pollutants and specific locations within the District/Borough require a Detailed Assessment (DA) that will have to be carried out by the end of April 2004.

Whilst road transport is only one of the main sources of air pollution, nationally it is the largest single contributor for several pollutants (nitrogen dioxide NO2 and carbon monoxide CO). In general, the emissions are directly related to the volume of traffic. The width of the corridor affected by air pollution from roads in rural areas is relatively narrow: beyond 200m the impact is not generally considered to be significant. In urban areas, pollutants may combine with those from other sources such that broader areas can be affected.

Unlike the case for noise, where barriers and "quiet" surfacing can be effective, the scope for mitigation against air pollution from existing roads is limited to two potential measures: a reduction in traffic congestion and dense roadside planting.

The HA has direct involvement with the R&A process in a variety of ways. These include providing the DMRB air quality screening method to estimate concentrations near roads, providing traffic data, monitoring pollutant concentration, reviewing the LA's reports and participating in action plan meetings which will lead to implementing measures to improve air quality.

Table 2.7 provides a summary of the progress of each LA and any AQMAs declared to date.

Table 2.7: Air Quality - Checklist for Air Quality Management Areas (approximate boundaries) (will open in a new winow)

2.7 Integration and Accessibility

2.7.1 Introduction

Two of the main themes of the Government's 1998 White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport" are integration and accessibility. The paper marked a step change in thinking towards the provision of transport infrastructure in the UK, with the recognition that transport had a much wider role to play, with more far reaching impacts than those suggested in traditional appraisal techniques centred on economics, safety and the environment. The two concepts are inexorably linked by the HA's new strategic aim and new objectives as network operator.

The Government's vision of integration is twofold: firstly as a system that promotes seamless inter-change between different transport modes and secondly as the assimilation of land use and transport planning.

The concept of accessibility for the HA, is firstly in recognising that there are a significant number of non-motorised users utilising the network and secondly in acknowledging that not all members of society have access to the trunk road network by private car. In its new role as a network operator, the Highways Agency now has a clear remit to operate, maintain and improve its network for all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians and to contribute to the governments aim to create a fairer more inclusive society.5

Existing interchange facilities and the interface between the M1 and M10 and other transport modes are described below.

2.7.2 Integration and Accessibility on the M1/M10

(i) London Luton Airport (LLA)

In 2002, Luton was the United Kingdom's 8th busiest airport, with a throughput of 6.6 million passengers and 32,000 tonnes of cargo handled6.

The airport site comprises 245 hectares to the south-east of the Luton - Dunstable conurbation, accessed from the M1 at Junction 10A via Junction 10. The airport is served by rail services from Luton Airport Parkway station which is situated in the midway between the airport and M1 Junction 10. The airport is also served by express coach services from London, the West and East Midlands, the North East and major destinations including Heathrow and Gatwick Airport.

Survey by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) indicates that 25% of passengers accessed the airport by rail, bus or coach in 2003. An employee survey reveals that in the same year, 89% of staff travelled to work by private car, 4% travelled by bus and rail and a further 4% on foot or by bicycle.

The London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (LLAOL) is bringing forward a Master Plan during the 2005 in conjunction with the HA which will appraise the impact of airport growth on the local and strategy highway network and set out a new Airport Surface Access Strategy.

Through its surface access strategy has set targets for the year 2006 to:

In order to achieve these targets the LLAOL will rely on the development of the existing levels of rail and bus/coach provision described below:

(ii) Rail Access

Thameslink Rail operates a mixture of fast (CityFlier) and stopping (CityMetro) services from the south of London to Luton and Bedford. Thameslink provides a high degree of connectivity with London and the south-east with between 4 and 8 services every hour running via West Hampstead, Kentish Town, King's Cross, Farringdon, Blackfriars, London Bridge and Wimbledon and south to Brighton.

Midland Mainline operates an hourly service from Luton Airport Parkway station to London St Pancras, Leicester and Derby.

Connection to the airport from the railway station is provided by an LLAOL operated shuttle bus that takes 5 minutes and runs at a 10 minute frequency.

(iii) Bus and Coach Access

A wide range of bus and coach services utilise a set of stopping facilities located directly outside the main terminal building. The location of the Airport in relation to the M1 and M10 ensures that the majority of services ply the M1. Services include:

(iv) Translink

Translink is planned as a high quality guided bus service that will run between the urban conurbations of Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis. Figure 2.9 illustrates the proposed route running east - west, connecting London Luton Airport (at M1 Junction 10A) to Luton Parkway Station (at M1 Junction 10), the three town centres, the main line rail stations in Luton and London Luton Airport. The importance of the Translink system towards facilitating the sustainable growth of Luton and Dunstable has been recognised in two major studies. Both the "Sustainable Communities Strategy," produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and the LSMMMS argue that Translink and associated public transport infrastructure have a valuable role to play in the future development of the region.

In 2003, Translink was the subject of an application for a Transport and Works Act (TWA) order to secure powers to acquire land and planning permission and the DfT announced funding approval in December 2003. A public inquiry is expected in early 2005.7

Figure 2.9: Luton - Dunstable Translink Route Map

If Translink is approved and taken forward after the public inquiry, the developers hope to have the core route in operation by 2008. The impact that Translink could have on the M1 is not yet known.

2.8 Route Development Proposals

2.8.1 Managing Agents

(i) Area 5 - M25 Sphere Maintenance Area (M1 Junction 1 - 8 and M10)

The HA have appointed Mouchel Parkman as the Managing Agent (MA) and in partnership with Carillion as the Term Maintenance Contractor (TMC) for Area 5. The maintenance area includes the M1 from Junction 1 up to Junction 8 including the northbound off slip road and southbound on slip road. The contracts commenced on 1 September 2001.

Mouchel have provided the study team with all the available data including the future HA works.

Mouchel have identified various problems along the route which they hope to address during their maintenance period:

There are no plans at present for any variable speed gantries up between Junctions 1 and 8.

(ii) Area 8 - Maintenance Area (M1 north of Junction 8 - 19)

The HA have appointed Carillion-URS (C/URS) as the Managing Agent Contractor (MAC) for Area 8 commencing 1 September 2001. The maintenance area covers the M1 from Junction 8 to Junction 19.

C/URS have provided the RMS study team with all the available data including the future HA works programme.

C/URS are actively preparing strategic landscape plans, biodiversity plans and an environmental data base.

C/URS have highlighted a series of potential issues along the M1:

Figure 2.13: M1 Junction 19 - The Current Junction Arrangement Looking North

2.9 Multi-Modal Studies and Policy Direction

After the General Election in 1997, which saw a change of Government, two documents were published that would change the method and process that trunk road schemes would be planned, appraised and delivered. The New Deal for Transport and New Deal for Trunk Roads in England set the Government's strategy for transport commitment and enhancement. In these two documents the Government introduced a variety of measures as a refrain from building new roads, including greater consultation, protecting the natural and built environments and improving integration with other transport networks.

In respect of these changes, the HA was given a new direction and aim;

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

The Government also introduced the five investment criteria of, accessibility, economy, environment, integration and safety, to ensure that road-based schemes followed the consistency of the new approach to appraisal (NATA). The NATA procedure would be used against all current and future road schemes, especially those on the motorway and trunk road network. Schemes that were successfully appraised and approved by the Secretary of State (SOS) were entered into the Targeted Programme of Improvements(TPI), which was structured to deliver appraised road schemes more reliably and effectively than before.

The New Deal for Trunk Roads in England document sets out a programme of multi-modal studies that would be undertaken to focus and target improvements to the trunk road network.

In order to gain a wider perspective of the future of transport provision within a region, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" (DTLR 1998), proposed a series of studies to address problems on the strategic trunk road network not addressed in the Targeted Programme of Improvements. To implement these studies, in partnership with the Route Management Strategies; a series of Multi Modal Studies have been commissioned to consider problems and solutions affecting all modes of travel. This programme of studies is being taken forward by the Government Offices in partnership with Regional Planning Bodies. Thereafter it is anticipated that Multi-Modal studies will be instigated and led by Regional Planning Bodies.

MMSs are intended to be investigations of problems on or with all modes of transport. The initial programme of Studies was identified in the course of the 1998 Roads Review to address specific problems on the trunk road network. In practice, it is expected that the Studies will major on problems on the road, rail and bus systems, including access to ports and airports. The Studies could also include analysis of problems of air transport, coastal shipping and inland waterways.

A summary of the main recommendations made in each of the three MMSs which affect the outcome of this study are described below.

2.10 London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study (LSMMMS)

The London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study (LSMMMS) reported in February 2003 recommending a £4,159m package of measures designed to tackle existing and future transport problems in the South Midlands area north of London. In July 2003, the SOS made a statement on how these recommendations would be taken forward. The LSMMMS broadly looks at transport north of the M25 to include Junction 19 of the M1 as shown in Figure 2.14.

Figure 2.14: LSMMMS Study Area

The SOS has considered the study's recommendations for the improvement to the strategic road network in the light of the advice he has received from the Regional Assembly, the HA and the other interested organisations including the Statutory Environmental Bodies. In particular, the SOS has been mindful to ensure a balance for improved accessibility against the potential impact of schemes on the environment. The government remains committed to its policy presumption against new or expanded transport infrastructure that will adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas and sites, except where there is an overriding public interest in the development proceeding.

From his statement, the SOS confirmed his support for a programme of trunk road improvements which he asked the HA to take forward on a phased basis and to be implemented over the next 10 years. The SOS has announced that the following schemes to be included into TPI schemes.

The M1 between Junctions 6A and 13 will be taken to dual-4 lane standard. This stretch of the M1 has been prioritised into two sections as Junctions 6A to 10 and Junctions 10 to 13. With the former has been afforded the highest priority of any scheme within the study area. In the view of particularly high levels of congestion, the LSMMMS final report8 stated that this "should proceed at the earliest opportunity". Widening between Junctions 10 to 13 is recommended, but not in advance of Junctions 6A to 10.

The Dunstable Northern Bypass will be the main route around Dunstable and the main access to the M1.

The programme of widening will also affect adjoining roads in the proximity of the M1. The A421 will become dual-2 lane standard from M1 Junction 13 to east of the Milton Keynes and west to the existing section dual carriageway at Milton Keynes.

The SOS has also asked the HA to carry out a review of the operation of the M1 Junction 14 in the light of proposed expansion of Milton Keynes - South Midlands and the early priority to widen the M1 up to Junction 13.

The LSMMMS recommended the introduction of area wide road user charging post-2016. There is however little evidence of how physical demand measures such as ramp metering might work in the UK at present and it will be necessary to take into account the impact on safety and traffic flows across the road network.

The Government has decided to undertake a detailed feasibility study of road pricing9. Decisions on whether to implement such a regime are for the future.

The SOS has commented on the LSMMMS recommendations in terms of local road improvement on the following:

The SOS encouraged the LAs within the study area to work with local partners and delivery agencies to develop the following in more detail and, where appropriate, submit proposals for funding to the Department through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process.

Provision of funding will depend on the performance of schemes against the government's appraisal criteria.

The SOS endorses the support from the LSMMMS for promoting measures to reduce travel demand and encouraging more sustainable travel choices, which he looks to LAs to take these forward. The guidance on LTPs asked LAs to set out how they would work with employers, schools and other local organisations to develop travel plans. They must publish annual reports of progress on implementing their LTPs and use their powers10 under the development control process to require travel plans for all new developments with significant transport implications.

Finally, the SOS also supports the recommendation from a number of studies on the need for close integration between land use and transport policies. Current national planning policy already places a strong emphasis on locating development in appropriate locations to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce the need to travel, especially by car. The SOS looks to local planning authorities to locate major generators of personal travel in areas best served by public transport.

2.11 London Orbit Multi-Modal Study (ORBIT)

The London Orbital Multi Modal Study (ORBIT) was commissioned to examine the existing and future problems for orbital travel around London and to produce a long-term management strategy for the M25 (see Figure 2.15). The study reported in November 2002 recommending and supporting a package of measures centred on demand side management and supply side infrastructure improvement. These were in the main supported by the SOS in July 2003. For implementation purposes the proposals have been divided into two time frames, 2002 to 2011 and 2011 to 2021.

Figure 2.15: The ORBIT Study Area

The SOS supports the widening schemes and recommended a phased programme for widening most of the remaining 3 lanes sections of the M25 to dual-4 lanes over the next decade. One of the sections recommended for widening which is relevant to this RMS is:

2.12 East Midlands Multi Modal Study: North/South Movements on the M1 Corridor in the East Midlands (M1MMS)

The East Midlands Multi Modal Study (M1MMS) reported in February 2002, which looks specifically at transport issues in the M1 corridor between Junction 21 and just north of Junction 30, and between the A1 in the east and the A38/A61 in the west (Figure 2.16).

Figure 2.16: Movements on the M1 Corridor MMS Area

On 10 December 2002, the SOS has announced a £1.57 billion package of measures aimed at tackling congestion in two key East Midlands transport corridors (M1 Junction 21-30 and A453) and showed his support on the M1MMS's recommendation for:

The main recommendations as they impact upon the RMS study area, therefore, pertain to road widening, including climbing lanes and junction improvements. These are of particular note in the following areas:

The implementation of these schemes will be subject to the successful completion of all remaining statutory procedures. The improvements will relieve congestion and improve safety and accessibility. The SOS is asking the HA to carry out further detailed work and to ensure the detailed design work on these schemes is carried out so as to minimise environmental impacts. Hence, these schemes can be taken forward quickly and largely delivered over the next 10 years.

In April 2004, the SOS has also announced the scheme below entered the TPI schemes

.

Unlike the recommendations from the M1MMS, the scheme provides widening to only 4 lanes plus climbing and weaving lanes where necessary, and major junction improvements at Junctions 21-21A, Junction 23A-24A; Junctions 26A and 28.

2.13 A43/A45 Route Management Strategy

The A43/A45 RMS is being undertaken by Carillion-URS (C/URS) on behalf of the HA. The initial consultations with stakeholders to identify problems and issues were completed in June 2003. In November 2003 a new Guidance document for the development of Route Management Strategies was published. A new draft RMS framework is being formulated by C/URS comprising their pervious inputs. Within the draft framework, there are two issues which are pertinent to the M1/M10 RMS. These issues are identified as Outcomes 10 and 15 of the A43/A45 RMS.

A43/A45 RMS Outcome 10 To ease capacity problems at the A45/M1 Junction 15 Interchange
Related Issues
  • Capacity problems causing peak hour queuing and delays
  • Junction design
  • Access difficulty from Grange Park
  • Further development proposals will aggravate problem
Possible Actions
  • Review traffic signal timings and arrangements and amend as appropriate
  • Review whole junction layout in conjunction with future development proposals
  • Control further development proposals which could increase congestion
A43/A45 RMS Outcome 15 To reduce traffic queuing at M1 Junction 15A where traffic travelling south from the M1 to the A43 crosses traffic travelling north from the A43 to the M1 at the roundabout south of the M1
Related Issues
  • Traffic flow conflict causing queuing and delays
  • Junction design
Possible Actions
  • Provide new northbound exit slip road from M1 to A43 directly onto A43 west roundabout
Other issues Relevant LNMS construction currently under Area 8 Programme for 2005-6: M1 Junction 15A New Northbound Off-slip (December 2005)

The A43/A45 RMS completed its public consultation in June 2004 and is preparing the final strategy report to be published in due course.

2.14 M1 Junctions 6A to 10 Widening

The widening scheme was originally proposed in the early to mid 1990s and a Public Inquiry was held in 1995. Despite a positive recommendation by the Inspector, the scheme was subsequently put on hold. Following the completion of the LSMMMS the Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, announced in July 2003 that the widening would proceed as part of the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI). The Statutory Orders was made in January 2004.

The widening work will be carried out on both carriageways of the M1 between Junctions 6A and 10 to bring it up to a full standard four lane motorway with continuous hard shoulders. This will be achieved by widening the following sections:

Figure 2.17: M1 Widening J6A-J10

2.15 M1 Junction 19

Junction 19 is a key node in both the national and Trans-European highway network; it is an intersection between three major motorway and trunk roads; the M1, the M6 and the A14(T). More than 100,000 vehicles a day use this Junction. It also gives access to Swinford and Catthorpe and minor local roads. At present it is possible to perform ten out of twelve possible turning movements at the junction; the exception is the A14 to/from the M1 (S) which is not possible.

Direct merge and diverge slip roads are provided for movements between the M6 and the M1(S). Other movements are catered for by a dumbbell roundabout arrangement linked beneath the M1. There is one lane eastbound beneath the bridge and two lanes westbound.

This arrangement does not currently allow for movements from/to the A14(T) to/from the M1(S).

The main issues at M1 Junction 19 relate to highway capacity, congestion and safety and the possible impact of future and planned developments on the local road network. The study has examined the problems and looked at a range of possible improvement solutions. These have been designed so that the junction can operate safely and without serious congestion well into the future. Consultations during this work have taken place with a wide group of public and private organisations, the local community and landowners. A variety of options were developed and assessed. A single 'Preferred Scheme' that addresses the problems for the long term has been selected (see Figure 2.18).

Figure 2.18: M1 Junction 19 Preferred Solution - All Movement Junction

A small scale improvement has recently been implemented by the HA on a short term measure. This has involved the signalisation of both the roundabouts and the rearrangement of both dumbbell roundabouts.

In February 2003, the SOS for Transport announced that the proposal has been included into the TPI schemes. It is anticipated that the construction period will be commenced during the financial year 2007/8 and will open to traffic in 2010/11.

2.16 Pilot Study Scheme - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane

On 9 December 2004, the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling announced an innovation scheme to reduce congestion and improve journey times on the M1 motorways by creating dedicated lanes which will be reserved for vehicles carrying 2 or more people. The High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or carpool lane could be created by using the hard-shoulder as a running lane or by widening the road to create an additional lane. They would be reserved for the use of cars, offering a faster and more reliable journey. The HOV lane aims to encourage drivers to share cars. Britain's first HOV motorway lanes will be tested on the M1, northbound and southbound as below:

The car sharing lane will operate at peak times to help minimise delay and congestion for road users. There is work already planned to widen the motorway at this section from dual-3 to dual-4 lanes. It is estimated that there would be 5% fewer cars on the road if car sharing was adopted. Work is due to start in Autumn 2005.

Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling said:

"the Government is determined to tackle congestion on Britain's roads. Carpool lanes help drivers carrying several people by providing dedicated lanes. This makes best use of scares capacity on our roads."

"Carpool lanes are part of the Government's commitment to provide better service to road users. These lanes have been used to great effect both in America and Australia and within the UK and could play a key role in reducing congestion on motorways. I hope that drivers will be encouraged to consider car pooling to take advantage of the new lanes. It works elsewhere. There is no reason why it can't work here as well."

If the scheme proves successful, the Government will consider extending the car-sharing lanes as far as Junction 13 when this section of motorway is widened.

2.17 Local Transport Plans

In July 1998 the government produced the integrated transport white paper, 'A New Deal For Transport - Better For Everyone', setting out the national transport framework. A centrepiece of the proposal was for the preparation of local transport plans (LTPs) by LAs to set out the way in which an integrated transport system would be delivered at local level. The Transport Bill was passed in parliament in 2000 which put a statutory duty on LAs to prepare an LTP to be submitted to Government Offices by 31 July 2000.

The LTP system is built around 5 year integrated transport strategies setting out LA policies for the promotion of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities. The current LTPs cover a period from financial years 2001/02 to 2005/06 and the LAs are required to publish annual progress reports throughout this period. LTPs contribute towards establishing the framework for the development of the RMS. New LTP guidance is currently out for consultation and once this is finalised it will guide new LTP's from 2005/06 until 2010/11.

  1. No count data is available between M1 Luton Spur junctions 10 and 10A. back [1]
  2. A Methodology for the calculation of the CRF is included in Appendix B. back [2]
  3. National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997, DETR. back [3]
  4. In forthcoming guidance the term 'intervention level' is be replaced with 'investigatory level'. In this light and for the purposes of this report, the term 'investigatory level' will be adopted henceforth. back [4]
  5. Source: "Encouraging Sustainable Travel - Highways Agency Strategic Plan for Accessibility", Highways Agency 2000. back [5]
  6. Response to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" Second Edition (February2003), London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, June 2003. back [6]
  7. Source: http://www.translinkexpress.org.uk/timescales01.htm back [7]
  8. London South Midlands Multi Modal Study (2003), page 215, paragraph 25. back [8]
  9. Further details of the Government's thinking are set out in, "Managing Our Roads", which is available on the DfT website. back [9]
  10. Guidance on these powers is contained in "Using the planning process to secure travel plans" which is published jointlywith the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in July 2002. back [10]

2 Route description

3 Policy objectives

3 Policy Objectives

3.1 Introduction

In July 1998, the Government set out its plan for a new integrated transport system within its white paper 'A new deal for Transport: Better for Everyone'. It set out policy for a transport system that is safe, efficient, clean and fair and which allows people to make more sustainable transport choices. One of its central themes included the integration within and between different types of transport; with policies for the environment; with land use planning; and with policies for education, health and wealth creation.

Since then the Government have published a second white paper for transport "The Future of Transport - a network for 2030". This paper is built around three central themes of sustained investment, improvements in transport management and planning ahead. In summary these refer to:

The white paper strategy seeks to plan for transport over the next 30 years. For the road network this will include:

In order for HA policy objectives for the M1 and M10 to integrate with wider planning, economic and transport objectives, a comprehensive review of national, regional and local objectives pertinent to the route, has been undertaken. These objectives and their sources are described in more detail below.

3.2 National Objectives

The framework for National transport policy objectives, are set out in the transport white paper and is also supported by further documents including Planning Policy Guidance, Highway Authority Strategic Plans and DTLR Circular 4/2001. Because this RMS has been developed within the lifetime of the 1998 white paper 'A new deal for Transport: Better for Everyone', the majority of this RMS's national objectives are based on its policy objectives.

3.3 Regional Objectives

The regional objectives have been sourced from the Regional Planning Guidance 9 and 8 (RPG 9 and 8), the Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) Panel Report and the Regional Transport Strategies that compose chapters in this document.

3.4 Local Objectives

The local objectives have been sourced from Structure Plans, Local Plans and Local Transport Plans of the County Council's and District Council's with which the M1 and M10 traverses.

3.5 Route Objectives

Derived from problems and issues on the M1 Junction 1 to 19 and M10 RMS corridor, these have been identified and listed under the five objectives for transport: Environment, Safety, Economy, Accessibility and Integration.

3.5.1 Environment

To protect and enhance the built and natural environment Route Objectives:

3.5.2 Safety

To improve safety for all travellers Route Objectives:

3.5.3 Economy

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

Route Objectives:

3.5.4 Accessibility

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

Route Objectives:

3.5.5 Integration

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

Route Objectives:

3 Policy objectives

4 Route functions

4 Route Functions

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 being the "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 total road network in England, the strategic road network carries around 34% of traffic and 67% of freight (by vehicle miles)11, providing for the efficient movement of goods and people while at the same time maintaining the Government's 5 objectives for transport: safety, economy, environment, accessibility and integration.

The Highways Agency in its role as Network Operator has a remit that runs beyond the traditional notion 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 trunkroad network 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 a number of key objectives:

Providing focus for these key objectives within the Governments 5 investment criteria, the HA have produced a set of strategic plans, outlining its method, strategy and vision for the future. These plans provide the context for the development of a set of performance functions for the M1 and M10 which reflect the character and operation of the route.

4.1 Existing Route Functions

The following list is an initial view of the route functions for the M1 between Junctions 1 and 19 and the M10:

4.1.1 National Functions

4.1.2 Regional Functions

In accordance with the work undertaken by the LSMMMS; it is recognised that the M1 will continue to form a crucial aspect of the regional transport network.

4.1.3 Local Functions

4.2 Function Performance

The tables overleaf (Table 4.1 to Table 4.3), presents the M1 and M10's existing functions against the five HA economic factors namely Safety, Economy, Environment, Accessibility and Integration. Having taken account of potential land use developments and policies, the function of the M1 in future will not change and for the this reason the set of future performance functions remains the same.

Table 4.1: Factors Affecting Performance Functions - Strategic Functions
NoExisting Route FunctionsFactors Affecting Route Performance
SafetyEconomyEnvironmentAccessibilityIntegration
NF1Forms part of a major transport link between London and the M25 to the East and West Midlands, the North West and YorkshireAccidents on the route may generate major disruption.

Slow vehicles using the middle lane and driving too close.

At capacity junctions cause "exit blocking" where off slip queues tail back to the main carriageway.		Congestion delays could impact on the economic function of the M1 and of other strategic routes, also upsetting the local pattern of inter-settlement commuting and movement of goods and services.

Congestion delays, particularly on M1 Junction 10 and 10A and negatively affecting Luton Airport.

Problems exacerbated by accident locations and people leaving the Watford Gap service area.		Traffic noise is a matter of complaint.

Noise and Air Quality affected by increased vehicular flow.

Visual intrusion from Junction 10 to 12.

Flooding problems of the hamlet of Tathall End between Junctions 14 and 15.		Congestion occurs at most junctions between Junctions 4 and 17

Vehicles cannot use Junction 6/6A to get on to M25 or M1. Junction 6 access and egress is substandard.

Junctions 7 and 8 traffic moving between M10 and Hemel Hempstead (A414) causes additional congestion.		Inadequate NMUs facilities at junctions.

Lack of adequate cost effective public transport alternatives encourages private car usage to the major airports.

Lack of traffic information system on the corridor for the road users.
NF2Forms part of the Trans European Road Network.
NF3Provides a route for heavy and wide loads.
NF4Provides a link to London Luton Airport.
NF5Provide the main route for coaches between London and Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton and the North.
NF6Provide a key link for freight from M25 to Midlands and the North.
NF7Forms a Highways Agency landscape and biodiversity corridor
Table 4.2: Factors Affecting Performance Functions - Regional Functions
NoExisting Route FunctionsFactors Affecting Route Performance
SafetyEconomyEnvironmentAccessibilityIntegration
RF1Provides a major north south road transport link between the M25 and the North Circular Road.Heavy congestion at peak times at interchanges is a potential cause of accidents.Congestion delays, particularly on M1 Junction 10 and 10A impact on economic function and negatively affecting Luton Airport.

Problems exacerbated by accident locations.

Congestion may deter employees from using the M1 motorway, suffocating the regional economy.		Noise and Air Quality affected by high volumes of traffic at peak time.Availability and awareness of user facilities.Inadequate NMUs facilities at junctions.

Lack of adequate cost effective public transport alternatives encourages private car usage to the major airports.

Lack of traffic information system on the corridor for the road users.
RF2Provides a major transport link between regional centres of population and employment.
Table 4.3: Factors Affecting Performance Functions - Local Functions
NoExisting Route FunctionsFactors Affecting Route Performance
SafetyEconomyEnvironmentAccessibilityIntegration
LF1It relieves communities along its length of traffic.Accidents on the route may generate disruption to this function.Poor junction layouts at local communities can cause potential delay and disruption to local economies.Noise and Air Pollution from increased vehicle flow.Conflict with Non-Motorised Users at junctions.

Regional usage conflicts with strategic functions.

Local usage conflicts with regional functions.		Inadequate NMUs facilities at junctions.

Lack of adequate cost effective public transport alternatives encourages private car usage to the major airports.
LF2It provides a distributor function around large population centres: including Luton, Milton Keynes, London and Northampton.
LF3It acts as a commuter route.

4.3 Future Route Functions

Table 4.1 - Table 4.3 identify possible factors affecting the performance of the existing functions of the M1 and M10. Integrating these factors into the existing functions within the context of Section 4.2 has led to the development of a set of future functions for the route. The nature of the route is such that the future route functions include all existing functions (NF1-NF7, RF1-RF2 and LF1-LF3), all of which are expected to hold for the life time of this RMS. There are, however, an additional function, which will become increasingly important over time. Future National and Local Functions remain unchanged.

4.3.1 National Functions

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

4.3.2 Regional Functions

The additional Regional Function is:

4.3.3 Local Functions

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


4 Route functions

5 Land use and development control statement

5 Land Use and Development Control Statement

5.1 Introduction

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) sets out national planning policy in respect of transport. In accordance with Annex B of PPG13 the Highways Agency (HA) encourages local planning authorities (LPAs) to consider alternatives to the use of the private car in devising access to local developments. The HA will take these alternatives into account, providing they have been agreed and secured, when it assesses the scale of or need for relevant highways works.

Under the "plan led" system county councils and LPAs produce Development Plans. In the South East of England these are set in the strategic context of Regional Planning Guidance 9 (RPG 9) and in the East Midlands the Development Plans are set in the strategic context of Regional Planning Guidance 8 (RPG 8). Both RPG 9 and RPG 8 should be read in the context of the Government's 10 year plan for transport (Transport 2010) published in July 2000.

A Regional Transport Strategy prepared by the Regional Planning Body, the South East England Regional Assembly is an integral part of RPG 9, providing the regional priorities for transport investment and management across all modes to support RPG 9.

A draft Regional Transport Strategy has been prepared by the Regional Planning Body, the East Midlands Regional Assembly, and will in its final form be part of RPG 8. The Regional Transport Strategy will provide regional priorities for transport investment and management across all modes to support RPG 8.

County Councils are responsible for Structure Plans, which set the strategic framework for development within each county. District Councils produce Local Plans that set out the locations in which particular types of development should take place; an indication of the overall density of that development; together with policies that govern land use development within their area. Unitary authorities may produce a combined Unitary Development Plan for their area. County Councils also produce Mineral Plans. Developers then submit planning applications with detailed proposals for individual sites. In addition, local highway authorities prepare Local Transport Plans (LTPs) that look specifically at transport issues and set out authorities' proposals in this field over a 5-year period.

The new Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act, together with associated revised legislation and emerging guidance, changes completely the way planning is done in England. The Act has received Royal Assent and came into force in the Autumn of 2004. Among its key objectives are to create a more holistic planning framework to deliver a wider land use planning approach rather than simply guiding land use.

The new system will put Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) on a statutory basis, abolish Structure Plans (after a transitional period) and introduce Local Development Framework (LDF) to replace Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans. LDFs will themselves be set a or 'folder' of Local Development Documents which together will guide development in the local authority's area.

The LDF will be made up of a Core Strategy (consistent with the RSS), Development Plan Documents (outlining policies within themselves), Supplementary Planning Documents (similar to current Supplementary Planning Guidance) and a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) formally setting out the consultation and engagement processes throughout the life of the LDF. In addition it will include a Local Development Plan which sets a timetable for developing, monitoring and reviewing the LDF.

It is envisaged that Land Use and Development Control Statements from this and other RMSs could from part of the LDF and the HA will seek to discuss at the earliest stages with Local Authorities how best this can be achieved during the preparation of their LDFs.

The HA strongly encourages LAs to consult it during the drawing up of Development Plans and LTPs with the object of ensuring that the Trunk Road network is properly integrated into the planning process. This is particularly pertinent in the light of fundamental changes to the development plan system described above.

The Government's development control policy for the motorway and trunk road network is set out in DTLR Circular 04/2001. This policy dictates the need to ensure that motorways are kept safe and free flowing. The development control policy refers to the operation of existing junctions and the effects of the increased traffic movements due to the impact of development proposals.

Circular 04/2001 also deals with the capacity of the trunk road network. It says "Where the assessed traffic flows exceed the capacity of the trunk roads concerned at any time within the 15 year period (after a development is complete), the Agency will normally direct that a condition be attached to any planning permission that may be granted. The effect of the condition will be to specify the improvements which will be required both to accommodate this traffic and to ensure the safety of all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists." The Policy states that direct access to motorways will be limited to grade separated junctions from other trunk routes or major local roads, Motorway Service Areas (MSAs) and exceptionally other major transport interchanges.

5.2 The Impact of Development on the M1 Junction 1 to 19 and M10

The stretch of M1 motorway covered by Junctions 1 to 19 runs through 3 London Borough's, 4 different Counties and 14 separate Districts. Each of these administrative areas, (and others that are close by but do not directly accommodate part of the M1) are subject to continuing land use change and development pressures which in many instances will impact upon the future use and operation of the M1 motorway.

In order, therefore, to promote an efficient transport system it is necessary to fully integrate transport and land use planning. This approach will contribute to delivering sustainable solutions and will reflect the Governments latest strategic policy aim.

One of the key areas that form the framework for the development of a Route Management Strategy (RMS) is the relationship with 'Development Plans' namely, Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), Unitary Development Plans in the London Boroughs, County Structure Plans and District or borough wide Local Plans. The eventual route objectives, which set out the future role and aims for the route, will be informed and influenced (in part) by a thorough examination and consideration of these plans, and the inherent implications of their output. It is likely that this will result in a future relationship with the development plan process. This is particularly pertinent in light of fundamental changes to the development plan system. First outlined in the Government Planning Green Paper, "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change" in December 2001 the present system of structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans was replaced with a new single level of plan known as a Local Development Framework12. The context for this plan will continue to be set by Regional Planning Guidance or by their future successor, the Regional Spatial Strategy. RPG 9 (South East) and RPG 8 (East Midlands) cover the length of the M1 from Junction 1 to 19.

5.2.1 Development Proposals - Study methodology

In order to promote an efficient transport system it is necessary to fully integrate transport and land use planning. This approach will contribute to delivering sustainable solutions and will reflect the Governments latest strategic policy aim.

One of the key areas that form the framework for the development of a RMS is the relationship with 'Development Plans'. However, with the introduction of the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), which has now received Royal Assent, these development plans will be reformed.

The provisions of the Act will come into force at different stages at the discretion of the SOS, through the issuing of commencement orders. The provisions for reforming development plans came into force in autumn 2004, with the remaining sections following over the next 12 months. For development plans, the reforms will change the development plan making process. In England, Regional Planning Guidance will be replaced by Regional Spatial Strategies. Local Plans will be replaced by Local Development Schemes; comprising Local Development Documents and Development Plan Documents. Reforms to major infrastructure projects, planning contributions, compulsory purchases and local development orders are also included within the Act.

For this RMS however, current Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), Unitary Development Plans, County Structure Plans and District or Borough wide Local Plans are still applicable and the eventual route objectives, which set out the future role and aims for the route, will be informed and influenced (in part) by a thorough examination and consideration of these plans, and the inherent implications of their output.

To assemble a schedule of key data from extant and emerging development plans, all available documents have been collected from the appropriate local authorities including some that are close by but do not directly accommodate part of the M1. In view of the recent changes to the planning process, it has been assumed that as the strategy progresses, close liaison with these authorities will facilitate a more up to date analysis and ensure that any other committed or proposed developments, not appearing as planned allocations, are equally taken into account.

The analysis of these plans has identified potential land use developments that might affect the future performance of the M1. Those developments deemed as having a particularly significant impact upon future use and performance of the road have been highlighted as "key development sites" and are discussed in Section 5.2.2.

5.2.2 Development Proposals - Findings

In general terms it is clear that the M1 passes through or close by a number of large urban conurbations, each of which will be the subject of an ongoing continued growth over the next 10 years. This will continue to put pressure on those parts of the motorway network that service these centres. In addition there are a number of site specific development proposals for residential, employment, and /or leisure use which in themselves, by virtue of their size and location, are likely to have a significant impact upon the future characteristics of the M1 and it's junctions.

On 5 February 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Communities Plan (Sustainable Communities: Building the future) which set out a long-term programme of action for delivering sustainable communities in both urban and rural areas by tackling housing supply issues in the South East, low demand in other parts of the country, and the quality of open spaces. The Plan aims to accelerate the provision of housing particularly affordable ones.

The Plan proposes three growth areas within the East of England at Milton Keynes-South Midlands, Thames Gateway and London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough Corridor. The first of these growth areas have the prospect for significant impact on the M1 corridor.

The paragraphs below outline the nature and extent of identified key development sites / areas, which it is considered should be the subject of more detailed review.

(i) Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy

To establish the possible extent and location of future growth a sub-regional study was proposed by RPG9 for Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) area. The final report of the MKSM study was published in September 2002. This concluded that the study area has considerable potential for growth over the next 30 years.

The MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy has been prepared in response to the Government's request to the three Regional Planning Bodies whose areas cover parts of the sub-region to develop proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance for the following:

The levels of housing & economic growth seen as realistic in the MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy over the 30 year period to 2031 are:

Transport improvements included M1widening and junction improvements from 6A to 13.

In the shorter-term, local development plans reveal a considerable grouping of major development proposals around Junctions 10 and 10A, which will have an inevitable impact upon the future use and operation of this part of the motorway. These include:

At its southern most end the M1 directly serves north-west London with land around Junctions 1 to 3 almost entirely developed. Whilst such areas will be the subject of incremental growth year on year, this will be well dispersed and it is likely that within this part of the conurbation it will only be the larger proposals for redevelopment and regeneration that will give rise to significant alterations in the demands placed upon the motorway. Three such areas that are considered worthy of note include the redevelopment of Wembley stadium and its environs for leisure and commercial uses, the continued expansion and development of the Park Royal Industrial Estate [Key site B], and the Cricklewood and Brent Cross mixed use redevelopment area. (see Figure 5.1).

The Cricklewood, West Hendon and Brent Cross Regeneration plan suggests that eventual regeneration could create 5,000 housing units and 5,000 new jobs, with the potential for more jobs resulting from the Masterplan exercise and Commercial Market Testing. Plans include associated retail and leisure uses, and new transport systems including accesses to the M1, a new rail station and a rapid transport system. Provision for an enhanced rail freight transfer depot at Crinklewood for use by business in London and the South East has also been allocated.

Figure 5.1: [Key Site A] Cricklewood, West Hendon & Brent Cross Regeneration Area

Moving north, in close proximity to Junction 4 is the Centennial Park, Elstree development area [Key site C] which is one of English Partnerships Strategic Sites and comprises a 27 ha employment site adjoining the A41 which has planning consent for 75,000sqm of class B employment uses.

Junction 5 of the M1 serves south Watford which, as a centre is planning only incremental growth to meet structure plan targets [Key site D]. However within the District boundary at Junction 6 / 6A is the Leavesdon Aerodrome / Studios site, Figure 5.2.

In 2001, MEPC submitted two planning applications for the redevelopment of the former Leavesden Aerodrome and some adjoining land as a new film studio and related media park, for companies in the telecom, media and technology sectors. One of the applications was to develop a maximum of 121,500 sq m of new commercial and film studio floor space with associated leisure uses, some residential development and access improvements including a direct connection to the A41. This application was amended in January 2002 to modify the means of access to and from the Park, to re-position the playing fields and pitches and to introduce detailed phasing arrangements. This application was refused by both Three Rivers District Council and Watford Council.

The other application is identical to the pervious one as amended except that it proposes to phase the development as follows:

Both Councils have resolved to approve this application subject to the prior completion of a S106 Planning Agreement. Negotiations covering the content of the Agreement are currently taking place.

Although not identified as a Key site, it is worth noting proposals for the development of Watford Junction railway station as a major transport interchange. The station is envisaged as a regional hub with interchange facilities between trains and buses, taxis, cycles, pedestrians and cars. In the long term this may include the development of park and ride and park way stations. Much of this strategic thinking and planning is in anticipation of a new link into Crossrail Line One and an eventual link into the cross channel Eurostar network.

Figure 5.2: [Key Site E] Leavesdon Studios: A Site Overview (left) and Plans developed by MEPC (right)

Junction 7 and the M10 serving St Albans will be impacted by the continued growth of St Albans. The town, the fourth largest settlement in the County, lies just a few miles away from London's northern fringe on the junction of a number of strategic transport routes, including the M25, the A414 and the St Pancras railway line. As such it is developing as a key commuter settlement, offering a high quality urban environment in a rural location. [Key site F]

Similarly at Junction 8, Hemel Hempstead will continue to grow incrementally alongside it's two site specific development areas at Three Cherry Trees Lane [Key site G] and Two waters and Aspley [Key site H]. Together these sites comprise over 30 ha of land to accommodate new industrial and employment uses together with over 1000 new homes.

Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9, March 2001) identifies the general area of Milton Keynes and the South Midlands as one of the four potential major growth areas in the South East. In July 2003 a draft report of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy was published for consultation. It concluded that the study area has considerable potential for sustainable growth over the next 30 years that will be of benefit both locally and nationally.

Wigmore Employment Area [Key site I]

Within the Luton Local Plan a 40 ha employment site including light industrial, office warehousing and airport related uses with a possible new access arrangement tunnelled under the exiting airport has been allocated. The Wigmore employment area was established through policy EMP3 in the Borough of Luton Local Plan 1997, as a fundamental means of meeting Luton's employment needs. The site continues to represent an opportunity to modernise Luton's economic base and to accommodate development arising from the continued growth of London Luton Airport.

Butterfield Area [Key site J]

Butterfield is a 41 ha site north east of Luton. The Borough Council has agreed that planning permission should be granted, but it is subject to a legal agreement, which has not been finalised. Uses for the site include the combination of University Campus, innovative centre and technology village - which can benefit from close relation to the University and viceversa, an Hotel, a Park & Ride facility & extension to the Vale Cemetery.

Stockwood Area (Luton Town Football Club) [Key site K]

The Stockwood area consists of some 22 hectares of land lying on Luton Borough Councils boundary. It is made up of two parcels of farmland separated by Newlands Road. Within the Borough boundary the land forms the last accessible, large scale site not yet allocated for development.

Luton Town Football Club needs to be relocated within a new stadium, and it is considered that the Stockwood area is a suitable location for this facility. Other sporting facilities for which there is an identified need may also be appropriate for this area. Development of the site is constrained however, by the topography of the land and proposals for widening the M1, which require part of the site to be safeguarded for such purposes.

Luton Airport [Key site L]

The publication of the Department for Transport White Paper "The Future of Air Transport", December 2003, is intended to provide a strategic framework for the development of air travel in the United Kingdom over the next 30 years. The future growth for London Luton Airport has been reviewed within this document.

Luton currently handles about 7 million passengers per annum (mppa), and is expected to grow steadily towards its current planning limit of 10mppa. Forecasts suggest that there would be sufficient demand to justify expansion of Luton to full potential of a single runway, and carry up to 30mppa up to the 2030 period, which the government supports.

As the principle road to and from Luton airport, the M1 could see an increase in vehicle flows as the airport grows, which the White Paper states could contribute 'to pressures on the road network, beyond 2015, depending on the rate of build up'.

The consultation paper "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" included two options for a replacement runway at Luton. One of these options involved moving the runway to NNE-SSW alignment and extending it. The other option which was put forward was for a replacement full-length runway to the south of the existing runway and on the same alignment, with the latter to be used as a taxi runway. The White paper concluded that there was little argument for re-aligning the runway and has therefore not supported it. There is a stronger case in favour of the later option and this is however, not a favoured option by the operator. Instead the operator would rather extend the existing runway and taxiway.

The White Paper has concluded that the Government supports the growth of Luton up to the maximum use of a single full-length runway based broadly on the current alignment, on condition that the overall environment impacts of such development will be carefully controlled and adequate mitigation.

The Bedfordshire structure plan provides for Luton Airport to develop to a capacity of 10 million passengers per annum (mppa) by 2010 from a 2000 throughput of 6mppa. The airport does not feature prominently in the economic appraisal of the final eight options for providing increased capacity in the South East region, however, the report states that:

"By 2030, the runway options would require measures to deal with pressure on the M1between Junctions 9 and 13 caused by a combination of airport-related and other motorwaytraffic growth."

Translink [Key site M] - A proposed 12km guided busway between Dunstable and Luton airport via Luton town centre and railway station, and possibly the new football club park and ride to mitigate against the impact of the stadium and developments to be served by the East Luton Corridor - see below.

East Luton Corridor and Vauxhall site (see Figure 5.3) - served by a dualling of the A505 from Junction 10A to Princess Roundabout to enhance access to Butterfield. Also there is a proposed link into the proposed A5-M1 link i.e. Luton Northern bypass and East Circular North.

Figure 5.3: [Key Site N] Planned Development in the Luton Area13

Whilst Junction 11 will also inevitably feel some of the pressure both from the above and from the growth of Luton and Dunstable it is not until Junction 13 is reached that the next site specific major development area is brought into focus. This Junction will be needed to serve the planned new settlement at Elstow Garden Village (on the former site of Elstow Storage Depot) Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4: [Key Site P] An Artist's Impression of Elstow Garden Village

This new settlement will comprise at least 4500 new homes, wrapped around the retained Wilstead Industrial Estate. It also forms part of the strategic A421 corridor [Key site O] which seeks to accommodate a total of 11,000 new homes (including Elstow Garden Village) together with industrial and commercial development, linking the Cranfield Development Area [Key site Q] for High Tech business and class B uses to Bedford and the M1 at Junction 13.

Junction 14 serves the Regional Centre of Milton Keynes [Key site R]. The strategic importance of Milton Keynes leapt in February 2003 with the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister that (as provisionally identified in RPG 9), it had been earmarked as one of four "regional growth areas", the cornerstone of the Governments "Sustainable Communities" programme14. "Sustainable Communities: building for the future"15 lays out a growth plan that will see Milton Keynes share £164 million (with Ashford and London-Stansted- Cambridge16) for "site assembly and remediation of brownfield land, delivery mechanisms, additional affordable housing and essential local infrastructure". It is anticipated that the investment will contribute towards the potential for growth of 300,000 jobs and 370,000 new homes in the area by 2031. While Milton Keynes is the focus for this development, a number of other urban centres in the South Midlands are also included. Most critically for this study among their number are Northampton and Luton. Full details of these proposals will be included in revised and updated RPG/RSS for the area, to be finalised in 2004. In the shorter term the relocation of Wimbledon football club to Milton Keynes in 2004 should be noted. However, above and beyond the early stages of this planning application, it remains unclear as to whether the existing pattern of match day traffic will change. Although there are no other significant site specific development proposals worthy of independent note, Milton Keynes continues to experience an above average rate of incremental growth. This includes the provision of 20,000 new homes for the City between 2001 and 2011 and some 80ha of land allocated for warehousing and distribution development.

Junctions 15, 15A and 16 south of Northampton are the subject of a number of significant site specific development proposals and also form part of the "regional growth area" defined by the Deputy Prime Minister and discussed above. RPG8 for the East Midlands provides the immediate policy framework for this growth. The guidance states that Northampton's role and function, as a major population and employment centre should be fostered by new transport infrastructure and facilities to support its anticipated future rate of growth.

Grange Park at Junction 15 [Key site S] is a mixed use development site accommodating some 1500 new homes on 40 ha and 30 ha of industrial and commercial uses. Being so close to Junction 15 extensive remodelling here has already taken place.

Swan Valley manufacturing and business park, served by Junctions 15A and 16 (see Figure 5.5), extends to some 84ha with the potential to accommodate 2million square feet of office, manufacturing, warehouse and business support space. Milton Ham adjacent, also has 10 ha allocated for class B1 uses that currently has planning applications for class B8 uses thereon.

Faber Maunsell has submitted a proposed development to the HA relating to the Swan Valley & Pineham Developments. The proposal has analysed the slip roads at the Junction 15A and highlighted the northbound on-slip is below design standard. The forecast design year flow the M1 mainline in the PM peak is towards the upper limit for a three lane motorway and the addition of a significant flow of traffic on the on-slip will cause interference and a possible safety hazard.

Figure 5.5: [Key Site T] A Master Plan for Swan Valley, M1 Junction 15A

Finally at Junction 18 sits the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) and logistics park (see Figure 5.6). This facility, with a rail terminal, has planning consent for 371,000 sq metres of manufacturing and distribution development all accessed via Junction 18. Located on the West Coast Main Line railway line as part of the Trans European Combined Transport Network, the site currently runs at around 68 percent occupancy, with 118,000 sq metres available. Further to the existing site, proposals exist for a sizeable extension to the facility. The proposals envisage the extension of the current DIRFT Logistics Park on 54 hectares (133 acres) of land adjacent to the existing complex. The application seeks approval for some 180,741 sq metres of warehouse distribution and manufacturing floorspace, most of which will benefit from the ability to take direct rail connection from the existing International Railport. If approved, the scheme will also necessitate minor local highway infrastructure works to the A428 and the demolition of 6 residences.

The land in question is located to the west of the existing DIRFT Logistics Park and is bounded by the West Coast Main Line railway in the south, the A5(T) to the east and the District and County boundaries of Daventry and Northamptonshire to the north and west. The application follows close on the heels of the commencement of construction of a Midlands Regional Distribution Hub for the Royal Mail. This facility is being built adjacent to the M1 motorway on the zone known as DIRFT East and is scheduled for occupation in the late summer of 2003.

Figure 5.6: [Key Site U] The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal Adjacent to M1 Junction 18

The development of the Royal Mail unit means that two thirds of the first phase of DIRFT Logistics Park is now committed. The whole project is expected to be complete by 2006.

5.3 Land Use and Development Framework for the M1 Junction 1 to 19 and M10

The land use and development control framework overleaf provides a concise summary of HA policy with respect to the development issues described in Section 5.2.

Route Section Strategy Elements HA Response to Planning Applications HA Response to Reviews of Development Plans and Local Transport Plans
Whole Route
  • Existing conditions on M1 will not be made worse as a result of development related traffic.
  • Development identified in approved Development Plans will be facilities provided sustainable measures to accommodate development within road capacity are employed or acceptance highway improvement measures can be identified.
  • In considering proposed development greater account shall be taken of transport options that are sustainable.
  • Direct access to the M1 shall be limited to that defined in Circular Roads 04/2001.
  • Where major improvements to M1 are needed to facilitate development the possibility of contributions as a way forward will be explored.
  • The HA will direct refusal in the case of any development that can be shown to reduce safety on M1.
  • The HA will expect developers to fund capacity improvement measures on M1 in cases where development related traffic reduces the effective life of the motorway. In cases where improvement measures are not a practicable solution the HA will expect development proposals to include measures to ensure that conditions on M1 are made no worse off compared to the situation if the development had not taken place.
  • The HA will work with local planning authorities, developers and other to identify sustainable traffic options. The HA will not normally impose a condition in respect of such options but instead will strive to secure them through the use of planning conditions.
  • The HA will normally direct refusal where proposals involve additional direct access to the M1 or M1 motorway spurs. However consideration will be given to proposals that involve alterations to existing motorway junctions.
  • Any proposals for a new MSA would be considered under the policy applying at the time.
  • The HA has no remit to directly accept contribut ons towards improvements to the M1 where these are needed to serve development. It will work with Local Planning Authorities to see if contributions, secured by agreement, can provide a way of facilitating development if appropriate.
  • The HA will expect policies and proposals in revised Planes to be compatible with the Government's development control policy as set out in Circular Roads 04/2001.
  • The HA will encourage Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to draw up development briefs where appropriate.
  • The HA will encourage policies and proposals that encourage the use of alternatives to the private car.
  • The HA will expect Development plans to make clear that Transport Assessments will be needed in support of planning applications where appropriate.
  1. See Planning Green Paper (2001): "Planning: delivering a fundamental change", ODPM, for further details of this process. back [12]
  2. Sourced from the Luton and Dunstable Local Transport Plan [N] insert full reference here back [13]
  3. Also see Milton Keynes And South Midlands South Midlands Study, September 2002 back [14]
  4. ODPM (2003) "Sustainable Communities: building for the future" back [15]
  5. The forth growth area, Thames Gateway is subject of a separate £436 million, allocation. back [16]

5 Land use and development control statement

6 Route problems and performance

6 Route Problems and Performance

6.1 Problems and Issues raised during Initial Consultations

Following the initial consultation letter, which was sent out to 175 consultees, a number of comments were received, which are detailed in Section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2.

The following is a summary of the consultations and comments received to date. These are the views of the consultees and they are not necessarily endorsed by the HA.

6.1.1 Comments received from Local Authorities

(i) Bedfordshire County Council
(ii) Buckinghamshire County Council
(iii) Hertfordshire County Council
(iv) Northamptonshire County Council
(v) Bedford Borough Council
(vi) Dacorum Borough Council
(vii) Luton Borough Council
(viii) Mid Bedfordshire District Council
(ix) Milton Keynes Council

6.1.2 Comments received from Police

(i) Hertfordshire Constabulary
(ii) Metropolitan Police
(iii) Northamptonshire Police

Note: There are no further comments or suggestions from the Bedfordshire and Leicestershire Police.

6.1.3 Comments received from Other Consultees

(i) CPRE Northants
(ii) CPRE Bedford
(iii) British Waterways
(iv) English Nature - Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Northamptonshire
(v) Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust
(vi) British Horse Society
(vii) National Express
(viii) Redbourn Parish Council
(ix) Hanslope Parish Council
(x) Moulsoe Parish Council
(xi) Newport Pagnell Town Council
(xii) Flamstead Parish Council
(xiii) Kislingbury Parish Council
(xiv) Libourne Parish Council
(xv) Crick Parish Council
(xvi) Watford Parish Council
(xvii) Aspley Heath Parish Council
(xviii) Aspley Guise Parish Council
(xix) Nether Heyford Parish Council
(xx) Flitwick Town Parish Council
(xxi) Tingrith Parish Meeting
(xxii) Toddington Parish Council
(xxiii) Chalgrave Parish Council

6.1.4 Stakeholder Seminar

During the course of the initial consultation and subsequent Stakeholder Seminar, comments on problem areas, sometimes with suggestions for improvement, were made by stakeholders and consultees. Table 6.1 below lists all problems and issues raised during the initial consultation and Stakeholder Seminar with suggestions of how each could be dealt with and how the outcomes of the multi modal study affect the issues where applicable.

Problems/Issues Possible Solutions Proposed solutions from MMSs/LNMS Comments
Traffic Management, Driver Information and Congestion
Congestion problems between Junctions 6A and 11. Widening the M1 to dual-4 lane.

Some consultees suggested dual-4 should be considered up to Junction 19.

Provide additional lanes by adopting narrower lane widths.

Implement variable speed limits to increase capacity.

Consider the possibility of converting the hard shoulder into a running lane on Junction exits to improve diverge capacity (pilot study on M1 & M102 since 1999).		 LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lane motorway between Junctions 6A-13 in two stages.
  • J6A-10 as stage 1
  • J10-13 as stage 2
 The SOS has announced that the recommendation from LSMMMS of widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A-13 has entered the TPI schemes.
Presence of high percentage of HGV's causes congestion particularly between Junctions 11 and 8 southbound. Upgrade M1 to dual-4 lane.

Provide additional capacity for HGV's by using the hard shoulder as a crawler lane on uphill sections.
Restrict HGVs to lane 1 only at adverse gradient sections on M1.
Presence of high percentage of HGV's causes congestion north of Junction 12. A northbound crawler lane should be considered at Tingrith Hill north of Junction 12.
Problems between A414 and M10. Traffic merges unnecessarily and causes queues. Additional lane required on M1 northbound between Junctions 7 and 8
Junction 12 - Proximity of services causes weaving difficulties. Continuous lane between services and junction being considered. To be investigated as part of the J10-13 widening. None
Lack of driver information to help avoid congestion. Consider more VMS between M1 Junction 6A and 11. LSMMMS recommended improving and implementing active traffic management systems. A study in the forward programme for the use of VMS to display these messages is being studied by the Area 8 MAC.
Discourage local traffic from making short journeys on the M1. LSMMMS recommendation of active traffic management systems.

Restrict access to the M1		 No The SOS responded that there is little evidence of how physical demand measures such as ramp metering might work in the UK at present and it would be necessary to have a careful consideration of the impact on safety and traffic flows across the network.
Local Traffic
Displacement of congestion onto local road network Widening J6A-13 may discourage using local road network. Matters have been considered in the LSMMMS. The SOS has announced that the recommendation from LSMMMS of widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A-13 has entered the TPI schemes.
Number of HGV's on A5120, especially through Toddington is a concern to local residents. Widening J6A-13 may discourage using local road network. Matters have been considered in the LSMMMS.
Congestion problems on A5 Dunstable Northern Bypass The SOS has announced that the Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5-M1) link has entered the TPI. None
Junctions
Junction 5 - congestion has impact on access to Watford Undertake study to investigate possible causes and solutions. Area 5 LNMS programme M1 Junctions 1-5 access improvements are included into the Area 5 LNMS programme.
Junction 6 - problems occur as strategic and local traffic mix. Undertake study to investigate possible causes and solutions. No None
Junction 9 - Congestion Problems. South on slips of particular concern Widening of M1 between J6A and J10 No None
Junction 10 - Operating at limit of capacity. Junction 10 has been signalised Scheme to improve signal co-ordination required No None
Junction 11 - Junction has been recently signalised. New junction and bypass of Dunstable and Luton connecting A5 to A505 The SOS has announced that the Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5-M1) link scheme has entered the TPI. None
Junction 13 - Junction has capacity problems. Severe queuing in the morning peak. Redesign junction as part of A421 scheme. LSMMMS recommended re-modelling of Junction 13 especially with regard to proposed widening. The SOS has announced that the recommendation from LSMMMS of widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between J6A-J13 has entered the TPI schemes.
Junction 14 - Severe congestion problems. Mainline queuing is a result, and difficulty in joining the motorway flow is apparent Need to improve capacity at existing junction.

Signpost Wellingborough from Junction 15 to relieve Junction 14 and A509. Possibly dual A509.

Improve traffic signal phasing at junction.

Widen southbound exit from M1		 LSMMMS recommended undertaking a review of Junction 14, especially with regard to proposed widening. The SOS has asked the HA to carry out a review of the operation of the M1 J14 in the light of proposed expansion of Milton Keynes - South Midlands and the early priority to widen the M1 up to J13.
Junction 15 - Capacity problems causing peak hour queuing and delays. Access difficulty from Grange Park. Further development proposals will aggravate problems. Review traffic signal timings and arrangement and amend as appropriate. Review the whole junction layout in conjunction with future development proposals. No None
Junction 15A - Traffic flow conflict causing queuing and delays. Provide a new roundabout exit slip road from M1 to A43 directly onto the A43 west roundabout. No None
Junction 17 - The lack of north facing slip roads means that HGV movements to the SW and DIRFT have to be routed via M6. Review the existing junction layout. No None
Junction 19 - Lack of access from M1 southbound at Junction 19 to M6 causes traffic to route via Junction 18. Junction 19 Road Base Study looked at the improvements to J19. The study has now been included into the TPI schemes. LSMMMS recognised J19 Road Base Study. In February 2003, the SOS has announced that the Improvement of Junction 19 proposal has been included into the TPI schemes.
Severance/Accessibility
Concern that any alterations to Junction 12 will have a detrimental impact on local transport in Mid Bedfordshire. To be considered as part of the M1 widening scheme. No
A footpath in the Tingrith area, approx 2.5 kms north of Junction 12 was severed when the M1 was constructed and notreinstated Carry out study of community severance problems
Pedestrians and cyclists have not been catered for in the redesign of Junction 1 Consider cyclists and pedestrian needs in future junction designs LSMMMS recommended undertaking a review of M1 Junction 14. The SOS is asking the HA to carry out a review of the operation of the M1 J14 in the light of proposed expansion of Milton Keynes - South Midlands and the early priority to widen the M1 up to J13.
Integration/Modal Shift
Junction 14 access to the coachway at Milton Keynes is affected by congestion in the peak hours The HA to liaise with the local authority to priorities the access for the coachway at Junction 14. LSMMMS recommended undertaking a review of M1 Junction 14. The SOS has asked the HA to carry out a review of the operation of the M1 J14 in the light of proposed expansion of Milton Keynes - South Midlands and the early priority to widen the M1 up to J13.
Improve information about the location of train stations Provide signs to railheads off the M1 should be erected i.e. Junction 15A-5.5 kms to Northampton, Junction 14- 5.5 kms to Milton Keynes, Junction 12-1.5 kms to Harlington. LSMMMS recommended improving and implementing active traffic management systems.
Landscaping and Biodiversity
Screening is required adjacent to Watford Gap south of Junction 17 Undertake study No
Lengths of the M1 that are unnecessarily lit. Undertake study of lighting requirements for the M1 No
Some of the recently installed gantries have been insensitively sited and are dominant in the landscape. Consider visual intrusion in future designs No
Safety and Accidents
The plinths to a number of the Owen William bridge piers in the central reserve, provide insufficient protection to stop crossover accidents. A series of measures are being implemented but in general modifications involve either constructing a double height box beam barrier or increasing the height of the plinth (or boat). No
Junction 6 to 6A came within the worst banding for accident severity.

38 PIA's have occurred on this 1.3km section of road between 1996-2000. Of these injuries, 12 were rated as killed or severely injured (KSI). 6 of these KSI's occurred in 1996, whilst none occurred in 1998 or 2000.		 Carry out study to investigate possible causes and solutions. No
Noise and Air Quality
Noise and air quality problems between Junction 10 and 12 (Luton and Barnstaple) Identified as a "Noise Hotspot" resulting from a history of public complaint. A budget has been allocated for constructing noise mitigation. Area 8 LNMS Programme Noise barriers have been installed at the locations below:
  • J11 to Kestrel way (both side)
  • Bradley Road to J11 (both side)
Some other locations between J10-J12 are to be completed within the next 2 years.
When M1 was built, properties north of Junction 13 expected sound attenuation bunds to be constructed. Carry out study of noise levels No Issue to be addressed by Area 8 MAC
Between Junctions 14 to 15 noise mitigation measures should be considered for Newport Pagnell Carry out study of noise levels Area 8 LNMS Programme M1 J14-J15 Stage 2 Noise Assessment Study is included into the Area 8 LNMS Programme.
Consider the effects of noise around Junction 16 Carry out study of noise levels Area 8 LNMS Programme M1 J15A-J16 Stage 2 Noise Assessment Study is included into the Area 8 LNMS Programme.
Consider noise mitigation adjacent to Watford Gap south of Junction 17 Carry out study of noise levels No
Traveller Care
No provision of a motorway service area on the busiest section of the M1, J6A-10. None No It is not the HA's responsibility to provide, operate or maintain the motorway services areas (MASs). However, the HA will liaise with the local authorities to identify a suitable location for providing a MSA.
Maintenance
Area 8 MAC have highlighted problems with maintaining central reserve safety barriers and lighting. Area 8 MAC suggest constructing low maintenance concrete central reserve barriers, dismantling lighting and erecting lighting behind the verge. No Issue to be addressed by Area 8 MAC
Planning and Development
Further development planned within vicinity of Junctions 8-11 will exacerbate congestion problems. No
New development at Junction 10 mayincrease congestion problems. No
New development likely to have impact onoperation of Junction 13. Review junction capacity to serve development No
Due to expansion of DIRFT development,problems may occur at Junction 18 in thefuture. Consider the need for an all movement at Junction 18. No
Others
Poor lane use by motorists causes delay No

6.2 Problems and Issues Identified at Value Management Workshop

Prior to the Value Management Workshop the problems and issues identified at the M1 RMS Seminar were reviewed by the RMS team. Those issues currently being actioned by the HA were identified along with issues which were considered to be outside the remit of the RMS workshop discussions and were numerically numbered by order of identification at the seminar. The remainder of the problems; those not being actioned to date; were listed for specific review of the M1 RMS Workshop and numbered within the list with an "L" prefix, as shown below.

Note: These problems /comments are not necessarily the view of the HA.

6.3 M1 RMS List of Problems for Review at the M1 RMS Workshop

No Problems
L1 Economy Between Watford Gap & Junction 17 Northbound -Provision of a crawler Lane
L2 Safety Junction 15 & 15A - Provide an auxiliary lane to carry the A43 traffic that is soon to be officially signed along the motorway, rather than around the Northampton Ring Road
L3 Accessibility Current scheme to provide new parapets to bridges needs linking with study of usages of bridges by NMUs. Consideration should also be given (in conjunction with the County Councils) of the re-provision of Rights of Way severed at the time of motorway construction
L4 Environment Noise - Quieter surfaces and more noise barriers should be provided
L5 Economy Junction 5 - Southbound off slip backs up onto M1 in peak periods. This is associated with the traffic signals on the junction with the A4008 and A41(T). There may be possible improvements that could be made to signal phasing and junction design
L6 Safety A405 - Vehicles on the M25 which wish to travel south on the M1 or vehicles travelling north on the M1 wishing to join the M25 cannot use Junction 6/6A. Instead they have to use Junction 5 on the M1 and connect to the M25 at Junction 21a via the A405. Local traffic from Bricket Wood also has to use the A405, which causes considerable conflict. If there is congestion on the M25 westbound vehicles leave at Junction 22 and use the roads (such as the B556) around Bricket Wood in order to get to Junction 5 on the M1. A solution would be to look at ways of segregating the motorway traffic from the local traffic on the section of the A405 between M1 junction 5 and M25 Junction 21a
L7 Safety Junction 6A M1 southbound off slip - Queuing accidents are common particularly in winter. There is a possible solution in improving the road markings and taking M25 eastbound vehicles off first before M25 westbound vehicles
L8 Economy Junction 8 -Traffic going to Hemel Hempsteadbacks up onto the motorway slip roads and onto the motorway
L9 Safety Junction 9 -The southbound on slip from the A5183 is a very tight bend which stops vehicles, particularly HGVs from accelerating and joining the motorway at a reasonable speed. Merging traffic then joins the M1 on a hill which exacerbates the problem. The result is that there are frequent collisions between slow moving HGVs climbing the steep gradient and much faster vehicles. The solution is to construct an additional climbing lane southbound on the M1
L10 Safety Junction 4-5 - Northbound there are problems with ponding of water. There are now 40mph signs used, static signs have been erected
L11 Safety Short on and off slips at Junctions 10 and 11
L12 Integration A significant proportion of traffic on this stretch of the M1 appears to be made up of local trips
L13 Safety Junction 11 - hard shoulder use
L14 General Controlled motorway - Driving discipline is poor on the M1, such as slower vehicles using the middle lane and driving too close. Examples of managing the traffic flow and improving safety have been shown with variable speed limits set on the M25. This should be considered for the M1
L15 Accessibility Improved Signage Generally - consistency between Area 5 and Area 8
L16 Safety Lack of HGV parking results in queues on the slip roads
L17 Economy M1 Junction 1 and Junction 7 Bus Lanes
L18 Accessibility Crossing points for NMU's should be provided across the M1 at Junction 11
L19 Safety The future of the route as it enters and starts/terminates in London and a particular point to be raised relates to accessibility from all directions at Junction 2, which limits vehicle choice often forcing strategic movement onto local Barnet/TfL roads to the detriment of the local air quality, noise nuisance and congestion

6.4 Route Problems and Outcomes Framework

A framework was used at the workshop for assessing the problems listed on the previous pages and referenced by their "L" number; and subsequently agreeing the associated outcomes for the route.

An explanation of the assessment sections of this framework is included below:

Severity of Problem:

H
Existing severe detrimental effect - needs to be solved urgently.
M
Existing problem. Potential to cause detrimental effect in the future or major benefits if solved.
L
Wish list. Issues that make the route more pleasant or easier to use.

Benefits

+++
Extremely Beneficial
++
Very Beneficial
+
Beneficial
-
Negative
--
Very Negative
---
Extremely Negative

The complete problems and outcomes framework, as reviewed and completed by the workshop, is included on the following pages.

6.4.1 General

No Key Problems Problem Severity (H/M/L) Comments Responsibility Considered by M1/M10 RMS? Route Outcome Benefits for route
L14 The general driving discipline is poor on the M1. Slower vehicles using the middle lane and vehicles are driving too close.

Slow vehicles, inappropriate speed and Head Way, Approach speed to stationary traffic - Driver Discipline.		 H Investigate the variable speed limits set on the M25 has shown as an example of managing the traffic flow and improving road safety. This should also be considered for the M1. HA / Police / DSA Yes To improve safety, reduce congestion, reduce accidents and improve driver behaviour. +++
1 Review all existing diversion routes (strategic, regional and local) in both directions, to ensure that the most appropriate route is being utilised, taking into account of capacity and environmental issues. M There is an active programme of review of Symbol Signed Diversion Routes (SSDRs). All current signed routes have been reviewed, discussed and agreed with the respective authorities. This is currently being studied by the Area 8 MAC. HA / Area 8 MAC Yes To improve safety, reduce congestion, caused by accidents. ++
2 Traffic information provided by radio and by signs should be more accurate and more reliable. M There is a study in the forward programme use of VMSs to display these messages. This is currently being studied by the Area 8 MAC. HA / Area 8 MAC Yes To improve driver's information. ++
4 Strengthening and consistency of the central reserve barriers. Consider concrete barriers throughout the M1 to minimise cross over accidents, which are often the most severe and cause the greatest congestion and closure time. M This is currently being studied by the Area 8 MAC. HA / Area 8 MAC Yes To improve safety and reduce accidents. +
5 Response to non fatal accidents, as there is considerable room for improvement. M This is currently being studied by the Area 8 MAC. HA / Area 8 MAC / Police Yes Reduce congestion caused by accident and increase availability. +

6.4.2 Safety

No Key Problems Problem Severity (H/M/L) Comments Responsibility Considered by M1/M10 RMS? Route Outcome Benefits for route
L2 Junction 15 & 15A:

Consider the provision of an auxiliary lane to carry the A43 traffic.		 M A43/A45 route now uses the stretch of the M1 between Junctions 15 and 15A. The A43/A45 RMS has now identified a need for a link road at Junction 15A and therefore there is a requirement for reporting between the two RMSs. HA Yes Increase safety and reduce congestion +++
L6 A405:

Vehicles from the M25 wish to travel onto the south of M1 and vehicles from the north of the M1 wish to join the M25 cannot use the M1 Junction 6/6A.

Instead they have to use the M1 Junction 5 and connect to the M25 at Junction 21A via the A405. Local traffic from Bricket Wood also has to use the A405, which causes considerable conflict. If there is congestion on the M25 westbound, vehicles leave at M25 Junction 22 and use the local roads (such as the B556) around Bricket Wood in order to get to Junction 5 on the M1.		 H Use of A405 to access M25 / M1. This issue has been studied - "Golden Triangle Study". The issue needs to be examined by the M25 RMS. HA M25 RMS Increase safety and reduce congestion
Queuing onto M1 from Junction 6. This issue also needs to be examined by M25 RMS. HA Yes / M25 RMS Increase safety and reduce congestion +++
Junction 6 access and egress is substandard. HA Yes Increase safety and reduce congestion +++
L7 M1 Junction 6A southbound off slip: Queuing accidents are common particularly in winter. H Confusion for road users is the major problem. There is some poor behaviour including pushing in to exit at Junction 6A and this results in accidents.

This issue needs to be dealt with as part of the widening scheme.		 HA Yes Increase safety and reduce congestion +++
L9 M1 Junction 9 southbound on slip from the A5183 is a very tight bend which stops vehicles, particularly HGVs from accelerating and joining the motorway at a reasonable speed.

Merging traffic then joins the M1 on a hill which exacerbates the problem. The result is that there are frequent collisions between slow moving HGVs climbing the steep gradient and much faster vehicles.		 H Cannot justify any additional lane proposed to solve this problem economically. The main problem is that the On Slip is too short and needs to be extended up the hill. To be resolved as part of M1 widening scheme.
L10 There are problems with ponding of water at M1 Junction 4 to 5 northbound. There are now 40mph signs used and static signs have been erected H Will be reviewed at Area 5 LNMS review. HA / Area 5 MA Yes Increase safety and improve route availability +++
L11 Short on and off slips at Junction 10 and 11 H Accidents and acceleration problems uphill. Part of M1 widening considered Junction outside scope of widening. HA Yes Increase safety and reduce congestion +
L13 Junction 11 - hard shoulder use.

Queuing occurs on the main line of M1, drivers tend to leave at Junction 11 and want to use the hard shoulder to speed journeys. This is also a problem at many junctions on the M1.		 M Review the existing junctions' layout and widening the entry and exit arms if necessary. HA/ Are 5 MA / Area 8 MAC Yes Reduce congestion and improve accessibility ++
L16 Lack of HGV parking along the M1 resulting in queues on the slip roads.

Problem at most of the MSAs was predominantly foreign drivers. Specific issue between Junctions 9 and 10.		 H Potential for accidents due to HGV's parking on hard shoulder.

There is a study in the forward programme to identify the extent of the problem. This is being studied by the Area 8 MAC.

Examine facilities on the continent and examine implementation.		 HA / Area 8 MAC Yes Increase safety and improve journey ambience +
2 Difficult access to London Gateway Service Area (MSA) from the M1 southbound carriageway. The slip lane off the motorway towards the MSA contains a very sharp right hand turn as it turns into an over-bridge to reach the MSA which sits on the northbound carriageway. M This is being addressed by the M25 Sphere commission. HA / Area 5 MA Yes Improve traveller care and increase safety. +
7 M1 Junction 7 with the M10:

There is a lot of northbound weaving between vehicles on the M1 wishing to get off at Junction 8 and vehicles joining from the M10 and wishing to continue on the M1.		 H The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A- 13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes. HA Yes Increase safety and reduce congestion. ++
8 M1 Junction 8 - 9 has a high accident rate on the southbound carriageway H There are some signs being erected to highlight to motorists the need to keep their distance. Also there are 2 VMS signs have been erected in April 2004. A further review of the accident cluster in the next financial year by the Area 8 MAC. HA / Area 8 MAC Yes Reduce accident and increase traveller's information. ++
10 M1 Junction 10:

The on-slips at this junction are not long enough for vehicles to build up their speed to merge onto the motorway.		 M This issue is currently being earmarked for a study review by the Area 8 MAC.

The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A- 13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes.		 HA / Area 8 MAC Yes Reduce accident and congestion. +
13 Toddington Service Station:

The close proximity of Toddington MSA to Junction 12 is causing
  • Confusion for drivers over where the correct junction exit is.
  • A high number of weaving movements and making access to lane 2 difficult for drivers exiting the MSA
 M The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A- 13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI scheme HA Yes Improve traveller care and reduce congestion. ++
14 Slow moving HGV's on M1 between the south of Junction 11 and south of Junction 12 M The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A- 13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes. HA Yes Reduce congestion. ++

6.4.3 Accessibility

No Key Problems Problem Severity (H/M/L) Comments Responsibility Considered by M1/M10 RMS? Route Outcome Benefits for route
L3 Current scheme to provide new parapets to bridges. Consider linking with study of usages of bridges by NMUs.

Consider (in conjunction with the County Councils) the re-provision of Rights of Way severed at the time of motorway construction.		 L Specific Issue: Re-provision of rights of way. HA Yes Increase accessibility and safety. Also reduce severance. Neutral
L Specific Issue: Provision of higher parapets on bridges.

Consider to replace the existing low parapets to avoid any projectiles being thrown over carriageway structure.		 HA Yes Increase safety. Avoid congestion and increase and availability. +
L15 Inconsistency signing between Area 5 and 8. M This should be expanded to also pick up any inconsistencies with TfL.

Investigate issue further.		 HA / Area 5 MA / Area 8 MAC Yes Increase safety and reduce congestion +
L18 Crossing points for NMU's across the M1 at Junction 11. M Deal with this issue in partnership with Luton Borough Council. HA Yes Increase accessibility and safety ++

6.4.4 Environment

No Key Problems Problem Severity (H/M/L) Comments Responsibility Considered by M1/M10 RMS? Route Outcome Benefits for route
L4 Noise pollution on the M1 motorway.

Complaints have been received about noise between Junctions 2 and 3.		 M Work is being undertaken between Junctions 10 and 12. Junctions 6A to 13 noise issues are covered by the widening.

Quieter surfaces and noise barriers should be widely use on the M1.		 HA Yes Reduce noise problems +
2 Noise pollution at Crick near Junction 18 M Issue to be addressed by MAC HA Yes Reduce noise pollution +
3 Street Lighting:

There needs to be a consistent provision without any dark patches and cut offs.		 L Issue to be addressed by MAC HA / MAC Yes Reduce lighting pollution +
4 Visual Intrusion:

The lighting from Toddington Services has a large impact on the local residents within the immediate area such as the village of Toddington.		 L This is an issue to be addressed by the joint relevant LAs, the HA and MAC.

It is felt that planting and screening could provide a solution to this problem which would also help to reduce the noisepollution in the area.		 HA/ MAC / LAs Yes Reduce lighting pollution +

6.4.5 Integration

No Key Problems Problem Severity (H/M/L) Comments Responsibility Considered by M1/M10 RMS? Route Outcome Benefits for route
L12 A significant proportion of traffic on some stretches of the M1 appears to be made up of local trips. Unnecessary local trips could increase the traffic volume on the M1 and causing congestion. H To identify and control these unnecessary local trips running on the M1. HA/ LPAs/ Regional Planning Body Yes Improve safety and reduce congestion ++

6.4.6 Economy

No Key Problems Problem Severity (H/M/L) Comments Responsibility Considered by M1/M10 RMS? Route Outcome Benefits for route
L1 Between Watford Gap & Junction 17 Northbound. The problem is exacerbated by people leaving the Watford Gap service area. M Constraints: Watford Gap over bridge, M45 Junction, Crick Lane over bridge, Rail bridge. HA Yes Improve safety and reduce congestion ++
L5 M1 Junction 5 southbound off-slip tail backs up onto M1 in peak periods. This is associated with the traffic signals on the junction with the A4008 and A41. H The junction is close to/at capacity at peak times resulting in collisions in the winter months. Poor driver discipline exacerbates the problem. HA / Herts Yes Improve safety and reduce congestion +++
L8 M1 Junction 8

Traffic going to Hemel Hempstead backs up onto the motorway slip roads and onto the motorway.		 H Congestion is common during the morning peak Northbound towards Hemel Hempstead. There is also conflict on the Southbound exit to the M10. Widening should solve all these problems therefore keep in the RMS as an overview/watching brief. HA Yes Improve safety and reduce congestion +++
L17 M1 Junction 1 and Junction 7:

Bus Lanes Problems: Congestion, Driver behaviour.		 M Buses have not been identified previously as an issue. Junction 1: Buses should leave at Junction 2 to follow the preferred route into London. Junction 7: congestion issues should be reduced as part of the widening. HA Yes Reduce journey times and increase integration +
L19 The future of the route as it enters and starts/terminates in London and a particular point to be raised relates to accessibility from all directions at Junction 2, which limits vehicle choice often forcing strategic movement onto local Barnet/TfL roads to the detriment of the local air quality, noise nuisance and congestion. H Access problems at Junctions 2, 3 and 4 and problems with identifying the ongoing routes at Junction 1. There are major impacts of the planned regeneration to be considered Barnet / HA / TfL No Improve accessibility, safety, environmental issues and reduce congestion. ++
2 M1 Junction 6 & 6A

Despite improvements carried out between Junction 6 and 6A, there are still capacity and queuing problems for vehicles travelling northwards on the M1 from the M25.		 H The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A-13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes. HA / MAC Yes Reduce congestion and increase accessibility. +
5 M1 Junction 10:

Future expansion at Luton Airport could cause queuing back onto the motorway		 H The White Paper "The Future of Air Transport" published by DfT in December 2003 states that the M1 is the principal access road for traffic to and from Luton airport. Improvements to the M1 and M25 and the provision of bypasses for Dunstable and Luton were announced in July 2003. Growth of the airport could contribute to pressures on the road network beyond 2015, depending on the rate of build up. HA Yes Reduce congestion and increase accessibility. ++
6 M1 Junctions 13 and 14:

Capacity problems		 H The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A-13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes. HA Yes Reduce congestion and increase accessibility. ++

6 Route problems and performance

7 Route outcomes

7 Route Outcomes

7.1 Derivation

Route Outcomes set out what the HA will seek to obtain from the route over the 10 year period of the Route Management Strategy. They are designed to contribute to the Policy Objectives defined in Section 3, improve the performance of the Route Functions defined in Section 4, support the Land Use and Development Control Statement outlined in Section 5 and address Route Problems and issues set out in Section 6.

Route Outcomes are initially developed from Route Problems and Issues, proposed land use development, development planning control policies and where poor route performance has been identified. For each scenario that affects the function or performance of the M1 and M10 route, a Route Outcome has been derived. This produces a large number of outcomes that after rationalisation, the HA will seek to obtain as the output for the M1/M10 over the next 10 years.

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

"Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers"

7.2 Proposed Route Outcome Summary Sheets

The following have been identified as Proposed Route Outcomes:

RO 1
Route Outcome

- Short Name		Improve journey time reliability along the M1 (Junctions 1-19)

Improve Journey Time Reliability
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF3, NF4, NF5, NF6, RF1, RF2, LF1. LF2 and LF3
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased journey time reliability for national and regional traffic
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Major benefits to be derived in terms of National and Regional competitiveness
  • Relief for communities along the length of M1
Related Issues
  • Capacity and queuing problems for vehicles generate congestion on the M1
  • Sever congestion at number of junctions on the M1
  • Presence of high percentage of HGV's causes congestion, particularly between J11 and 8 southbound
Locations
  • M1 Junctions 1 to 19 (both directions) and M10
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route Policy Objectives SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC4 To seek to plan all works to achieve optimum whole life costs with minimal disruption to users
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC6 To seek to improve journey time and reliability and information EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate schemes and measures to reduce congestion and improve journey time reliability
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Consider demand management measures
  • Improve incident management, reduce congestion after accidents and incidents at and between junctions
  • Examine congestion problems
  • Providing useful information so that users can make informed decisions on alternative routes when congestion has occurred and thus avoid further traffic being held on the motorway
  • Improve carriageway markings
Other issues
  • Widening between Junctions 6A-10 is now included in TPI
  • Dunstable Northern Bypass is also included in TPI
RO 2
Route Outcome

- Short Name		Improve road users information

Improve Road Users Information
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, LF1, LF2 and LF3
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased reliability and journey time
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Better informed travellers
Related Issues
  • Improve information about the location of train stations
  • Inconsistency signing between Area 5 and 8
  • Signpost Wellingborough from J15 to relieve pressure on J14 and the A509.
  • Signing in and around Northampton needs to be changed to account of the trunking of A508 and A45 from J15 to the A14 at Thrapston
  • Risk of accidents
  • Lack of driver information to help avoid congestion
Locations
  • M1 Junctions 1 to 19 (both directions) and M10
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC6 To seek to improve journey time and reliability and information
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • IN1 To improve user information
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate schemes to improve road user information and communication media
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Improve carriageway markings and signing
  • Consider the introduction of further Variable Message Signs (VMSs) on M1 to provide earlier information allowing road users to make informed decisions when incidents have occurred (especially between J6A and J11)
  • Consider improved CCTV coverage to monitor flow conditions
  • Improve real time information on transport based websites and communication media
  • Advance warning of traffic disruption, roadworks, congestion and incidents
  • To review all the existing signs (including gantries) and road markings
  • Keep signing consistent between the Highways Agency's Area 5 and 8
  • Ensure faded road markings are re-painted
  • Considered the provision of signing to railheads off the M1
Other issues
  • Most of the signing work have been completed by the Highways Agency
RO 3
Route Outcome

- Short Name		To reduce accidents clusters on the M1 and M10 with particular reference to junctions and known accidents high risk sites

Accident Reduction
Related Route FunctionsNF1, LF1 and LF3
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased reliability and journey time
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Reduce congestion on M1
Related Issues
  • Response to non-fatal accidents, as there is considerable room for improvement
  • J6 to J6A came within the worst banding for accident severity. 38 PIA's have been occurred on this section of road between 1996-2000.
  • Queuing accidents are common particularly in winter at J6A
  • J8 to J9 has a high accident rate on the southbound carriageway
Locations
  • M1 Junctions 1 to 19 (both directions) and M10
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY2 To investigate where the provision of improved lighting would improve safety, without disproportionate environmental damage
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing anong the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • SY7 To seek to improve safety for people working on the route
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC6 To seek to improve journey time and reliability and information
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleContinually monitor and improve the management of the route after accidents and incidents
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Consider demand management measures
  • Carry out safety review of M1 junctions
  • Consider modifying the entry and exit lanes at junctions, subject to studies
  • Develop incident management plan (applies to whole route)
Other issues
  • Strategic and Local Diversions
RO 4
Route Outcome

- Short Name		Minimise the impact of the M1 and M10 on the adjacent local environment

Minimise Environment Impact
Related Route FunctionsNF7 and LF3
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Improve environment for local residents
  • Increase integration between local land uses
  • Promote Bio-diversity
Related Issues
  • Too many lengths of the M1 are unnecessarily lit. Lighting should be removed between junctions.
  • The lighting from MSA has a large impact on the local residents within the immediate area such as the village of Toddington
  • Screening and noise barriers are required adjacent to Watford Gap, south of J17
  • More roadside planting along the M1 is required
  • M1 widening scheme should maximise opportunities for measures to improve noise and air quality around Luton
  • Noise, air quality and visual intrusion from Junction 10 to 12
  • There are problems with ponding of water at M1 J4 to J5 northbound.
  • Investigate the problems of flooding of the Hamlet of Tathall End between Junctions 14 and 15
Locations
  • The length of the M1 (both directions)
Policy Objectives
  • ENV2 To improve air quality (with especial regard to Air Quality Management Areas)
  • ENV3 To minimise the adverse effect of lighting on the environment
  • ENV4 To seek to ensure effective measures are in place to enhance water quality along the route from pollutant spillage on the highway
  • ENV5 To maintain a clean & tidy Route
  • ENV6 To minimise or avoid impact on environmentally designated areas
  • ENV7 To protect environment elsewhere in the region by encouraging appropriate traffic to use the route
  • ENV8 Promote Bio-diversity
  • SY2 To investigate where the provision of improved lighting would improve safety, without disproportionate environmental damage
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Produce Biodiversity Action Plan and Environmental Management Plan for entire route, subject to funding
  • Reduce disturbance and protecting and enhancing the visual quality and tranquillity of the surrounding countryside
  • Collaborate with Environment Agency to investigate the integrity of the M1 motorway's drainage network, to reduce water pollution from motorway drainage and spills
  • Carry out study on current lit areas
  • Collaborate with neighbouring local authorities who have designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)
Other issues
  • Collaborate with neighbouring Local Authorities who have designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)
RO 5
Route Outcome

- Short Name		Minimise the impact of noise caused by M1 where areas suffering from high noise severity

Minimise noise impact
Related Route FunctionsNF7, LF2 and LF3.
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Improve environment for local residents
Related Issues
  • M1 widening scheme should maximise opportunities for measures to improve noise and air quality around Luton
  • Improve noise mitigation around Luton and Dunstable
  • Noise complaints have been received between J2 and J3
  • New noise road surfacing should be considered at J9
  • Between J14 and J15, noise mitigation measures should be considered
  • Consider the effect of noise around J16
  • Screening and noise barriers are required adjacent to Watford Gap, south of J17
  • Noise pollution at Crick near J18
Locations
  • The section of M1 around Luton and Dunstable
  • J2-J3
  • J9
  • J14-J15
  • J16-J17
  • J18
Policy Objectives
  • ENV1 To mitigate and seek to reduce noise levels in line with government policy
  • ENV6 To avoid impact on environmentally designated areas
  • ENV7 To protect environment elsewhere in the region by encouraging appropriate traffic to use the route
  • ENV8 Promote Bio-diversity
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate schemes to reduce noise issue
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Consider maximising the use of quieter surfacing on M1
  • Benefit of noise barriers where appropriate (additional planting may be required to mitigate against the visual impact of the noise barriers)
  • Provide noise mitigation measures, where appropriate
Other issues
  • Some of the noise improvement has partially completed at this stage
  • Noise mitigation improvements underway
RO 6
Route Outcome

- Short Name		Improve Non-Motorised User (NMU) Facilities

NMU Facilities
Related Route FunctionsLF2 and LF3.
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Safer and easier access for vulnerable users
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Link between communities and local access
  • Improve safety facilitating journey time reliability for all vehicular traffic
  • Journey time reliability for all national, regional and local traffic
  • Less threatening environment for NMUs (pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists)
Related Issues
  • Accidents risk
  • Lack of NMUs facilities
  • Pedestrians and cyclists have not been considered in the design of some junctions on the M1
Locations
  • The length of the M1
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC3 To seek to make appropriate provision for non-motorised users
  • AC4 To seek to make appropriate provision for disabled and elderly users
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate schemes to improve
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Increase the height of parapets to improve safety for cyclists and equestrian users
  • Improve crossing facilities at junctions
  • Collaborate with Sustrans and the relevant local authorities to provide cycle routes where appropriate
Other issuesThe Highways Agency is not responsible for all junctions
RO 7
Route Outcome

- Short Name		M1 Junction 3 - Improve access to London Gateway Service from the M1 southbound carriageway

M1-Jct 3 Improve Access
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, RF1 RF2 and LF1
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased reliability and journey time
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Relief for communities along the length of M1
Related Issues
  • This junction presents problems for motorists attempting to re-join the M1 both northbound and southbound as many appear to be confused by the road leading to the HA depot
  • Difficult access to London Gateway Services from the M1 southbound carriageway. The southbound off slip towards the services contains a very sharp right hand turn.
Locations
  • Slip roads approaching Junction 3 of M1
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY2 To investigate where the provision of improved lighting would improve safety, without disproportionate environmental damage
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate schemes to improve accessibility on the approaching slip roads at junction
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Work with services station provider to improve accessibility to London Gateway Service
  • Review current entry and exit slip roads operation
Other issues
  • Collaborate with neighbouring Local Authorities who have designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)
RO 8
Route Outcome

- Short Name		M1 Junction 5 - Reduce southbound off-slip queuing

M1-Jct 5 Reduce Queuing
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, RF1 RF2 and LF1
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased reliability and journey time
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Relief for communities along the length of M1
Related Issues
  • Congestion at this junction has impact on access to Watford
  • Traffic tailbacks onto M1 in peak periods
Locations
  • Slip roads approaching Junction 5 of M1
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY2 To investigate where the provision of improved lighting would improve safety, without disproportionate environmental damage
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate schemes to reduce queuing on the approaching slip roads at junction
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Consider demand management measures
  • Provide useful information to users integrated with other forms of communication media
  • Improve carriageway markings and signing
Other issuesNone
RO 9
Route Outcome

- Short Name		M1 Junction 6 - Investigate improving access to/from M25

M1-Jct 6 Improve Access
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF3, NF4, NF5, NF6, RF1, RF2 and LF1
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased reliability and journey time
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Major benefits to be derived in terms of National and Regional competitiveness
  • Relief for communities along the length of M1
Related Issues
  • Problems occur as national, regional and local traffic mix
  • Vehicles from M25 wish to travel onto the south of M1 and vehicles from the north of M1 wish to join the M25 cannot use the M1 Junction 6/6A
Locations
  • M1 Junction 6 with M25
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY2 To investigate where the provision of improved lighting would improve safety, without disproportionate environmental damage
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate schemes to improve the accessibility at this major interchange to/from M25
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Consider demand management measures
  • Study improvement of existing junction geometry
Other issuesNone
RO 10
Route Outcome

- Short Name		M1 Junction 11 - Improve operation of junction, including NMU facilities

M1-Jct 11 Better Operation and NMU Facilities
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF4, NF5, NF6, RF2, LF1 and LF2
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Safer and easier access for vulnerable users
  • Less threatening environment for NMUs (pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists)
  • Journey time reliability for all national, regional and local traffic
  • Reduced community severance, whilst increasing accessibility
Related Issues
  • Long queues on the M1 during the morning peak between J11-J8 s/b and vice versa in the pm peak. Additional lanes are required.
  • Short on and off slips at this junction
  • No crossing point for NMU's across the M1 at Junction 11
Locations
  • M1 Junction 11 with A505
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • SY7 To seek to improve safety for people working on the route
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetTo work with Local Highways Authorities to undertake studies to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Study how junction operation can be improved whilst reducing/removing congestion on the motorway
  • Study pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian movements, facilities and potential improvements
  • Consider alternations to junction with full consultation
Other issuesNone
RO 11
Route Outcome

- Short Name		M1 Junction 13 - Review capacity improvements at this junction

M1-Jct 13 Capacity Improvement
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF4, NF5, NF6, RF2, LF1 and LF2
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Increased reliability and journey time certainty
  • Increased accessibility on the RMS corridor
  • Reduced congestion on M1
Related Issues
  • Short on and off slips at this junction
  • J13 should be redesigned for additional capacity
  • Concerns about traffic congestion at J13
Locations
  • M1 Junction 13 with A421 and A507
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • SY7 To seek to improve safety for people working on the route
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetTo work with Local Highway Authorities to undertake studies to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Study how junction operation can be improved whilst reducing/removing congestion on the motorway
  • Consider improved signing and road markings
  • Consider demand management measures
Other issuesNone
RO 12
Route Outcome

- Short Name		M1 Junction 14 - Improve capacity and reduce congestion problems

M1-Jct 14 Capacity and Congestion Problems
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF4, NF5, NF6, RF2, LF1 and LF2
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Increased reliability and journey time certainty
  • Increased accessibility on the RMS corridor
  • Reduced congestion on M1
Related Issues
  • Congestion problems at southbound on/off slip of M1 Junction 14
  • J14 access to the coachway at Milton Keynes is affected by congestion in the peak hours
  • No Non-Motorised User (NMU) facilities have been considered in the design of J14
Locations
  • M1 Junction 14 with A509
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • SY7 To seek to improve safety for people working on the route
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Study how junction operation can be improved whilst reducing/removing congestion on the motorway
  • Consider improved signing and road markings
  • Consider demand management measures
Other issuesNone
RO 13
Route Outcome

- Short Name		M1 Junctions 15 to 15A - Reduce congestion and improve accessibility at junctions

M1-Jct 15 to 15A Reduce Congestion and Improve Capacity
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF3, NF4, NF5, NF6, RF2 and LF2
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Increased reliability and journey time certainty
  • Increased accessibility on the RMS corridor
  • Reduced congestion on M1
Related Issues
  • Access difficulty from Grange Park
  • Further development proposals will aggravate problems
  • Lack of sign posts at junctions
  • Capacity problems at junction causing peal hour queuing and delays
Locations
  • M1 Junctions 15 (with A508) and 15A
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • SY7 To seek to improve safety for people working on the route
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetUndertake studies to identify appropriate schemes to reduce queuing on and at Junction approaches
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Study how junction operation can be improved whilst reducing/removing congestion on the motorway
  • Consider demand management measures
  • Consider improved signing and road markings
Other issues
  • Liaison with ongoing A43/A45 Route Management Strategy is required
RO 14
Route Outcome

- Short Name		M1 Junction 17 - Improve accessibility at junction to allow Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) to gain access to DIRFT

M1-Jct 17 Improve Access
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF3, NF4, NF5, NF6, RF2 and LF2
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Safer journeys for all users
  • Better informed traveller
  • Increased reliability and journey time certainty
  • Major benefits to be derived in terms of National and Regional competitiveness
  • Reduced community severance, whilst increasing accessibility
Related Issues
  • Lack of north facing slips at J17 causes problems for lorry traffic/HGV gaining access to DIRFT
Locations
  • M1 Junction 17 with M45
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • SY7 To seek to improve safety for people working on the route
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetTo work with Local Highway Authorities to undertake studies to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Study how junction operation can be improved whilst reducing/removing congestion on the motorway
  • Review current entry and exit slip roads operation
Other issuesNone
RO 15
Route Outcome

- Short Name		To minimise the traffic effects of housing developments from the Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) area

Minimise Traffic Effects from Developments
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF5, NF6, RF2, LF1, LF2 and LF3
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased reliability and journey time certainty
  • Reduced congestion on the M1
  • Support growth of Milton Keynes and South Midlands area
Related Issues
  • Growth at Milton Keynes and South Midlands area
  • Development in the urban contributions along the M1 corridor
Locations
  • Milton Keynes
Policy Objectives
  • ENV1 To mitigate and seek to reduce noise levels in line with government policy
  • ENV2 To improve air quality (with especial regard to Air Quality Management Areas)
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY4 To seek to manage vehicles speeds at appropriate levels
  • SY5 To review safety and the security for non-motorised users crossing the route at interchanges or bridges/subways
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • SY7 To seek to improve safety for people working on the route
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN2 To increase knowledge of user patterns and needs
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetTo work with relevant partners to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Work with the key stakeholders (including Government Offices and Local Authorities) to ensure that traffic resulting from housing developments as part of the Milton Keynes-South Midlands Growth Area are minimised
  • To ensure new developments are not added to the M1 peak flows
Other issuesNone
RO 16
Route Outcome

- Short Name		To work with key stakeholders (including London Luton Airport and Local Authorities) to ensure that the increased growth at Luton Airport, as suggested by the Airport White Paper, measures are implemented to accommodate development related traffic
Accommodate London Luton Airport Growth
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF4, NF5, and LF2
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased reliability and journey time certainty
  • Reduced congestion on the M1
Related Issues
  • Growth at London Luton Airport
Locations
  • Urban and rural areas along the M1 corridor
  • Junctions and links on the M1 and M10
Policy Objectives
  • ENV1 To mitigate and seek to reduce noise levels in line with government policy
  • ENV2 To improve air quality (with especial regard to Air Quality Management Areas)
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY3 To seek to achieve a consistent high standard of variable and static signing along the route
  • SY6 To seek to improve the quality of user facilities and provide adequate rest and emergency facilities
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regiona and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC5 To seek to maximise the availability for use of the route for users, and the serviceability of the road, structures and other highways equipment
  • AC1 To seek to reduce community severance
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • AC3 To seek to make appropriate provision for non-motorised users
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
Target-
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Work with relevant partners to ensure that measures are implemented to accommodate development related traffic
Other issues
  • The Future of Air Transport - White Paper
RO 17
Route Outcome

- Short Name		To safeguard the use of route as an abnormal load route

Safeguard Abnormal Load Route
Related Route FunctionsNF2, NF3, NF5, NF6 and LF2
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Journey time reliability for abnormal loads
  • Major transport route for freight movements
  • Route serving industrial and commercial development
Related Issues
  • Presence of high percentage of HGVs causes congestion between J8 and J12
  • HGVs may affect journey time reliability of other traffic
Locations
  • The length of M1 (Junctions 1-19)
  • In particular around J14
Policy Objectives
  • SY1 To review and where possible improve the safer operations of the route
  • SY7 To seek to improve safety for people working on the route
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC6 To seek to improve journey time and reliability and information
  • EC8 To seek to reduce congestion at major interchanges
  • IN1 To improve user information
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
TargetUndertake studies where appropriate to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Implement study to clarify the usage of the route as an abnormal load route
  • Consider identifying suitable locations for abnormal load lay-byes
Other issuesNone
RO 18
Route Outcome

- Short Name		Facilitate increased multi-modal transport integration in accordance with the 10 Year Plan for Transport

Multi-Modal Integration
Related Route FunctionsNF1, NF2, NF4, NF5, RF2 and LF2
Improvements to Related Route Functions
  • Increased accessibility on the RMS corridor
  • Reduced congestion on the M1 and M10
  • Increased accessibility to public transport and the countryside
Related Issues
  • Park and Ride at Milton Keynes (J14)
  • Future expansion at Luton Airport could have impact on the M1 motorway
  • Further development planned within vicinity of Junctions 8-11 will exacerbate congestion problems
  • New developments at J10 and J13, may have impact on operation of the junctions
Locations
  • Milton Keynes and South Midland area
  • London Luton Airport
Policy Objectives
  • EC1 To seek to priorities actions with regards to the needs of the national, regional and local economy
  • EC2 To seek to reduce congestion, particularly between London and Milton Keynes
  • EC3 To seek to minimise traffic disruption due to traffic incidents
  • EC4 To seek to plan all works to achieve optimum whole life costs with minimal disruption to users
  • EC6 To seek to improve journey time and reliability and information
  • EC7 To seek to support the objectives in Land Use Planning System
  • AC2 To seek to make appropriate provision for and encourage the use of public transport
  • IN3 To support regional transport strategy, local transport plans and development plans
  • IN4 To make better use of the route by working in partnership with road users, transport providers and operators, local authorities and those affected by the network
  • IN5 To recognise the two-way interaction between the RMS and other RMSs (e.g. A43/A45 RMS - suggestions on Junctions 15 and 15A)
TargetWork with relevant partners to identify appropriate measures
TimescaleTo be Agreed
Possible ActionsActions to consider in study may include:

  • Continued close liaison with the London Luton Airport and Strategic Rail Authority, Local Authorities and other public transport operators who can work to provide choice of transport alternatives at Luton Airport
Other issuesNone

7 Route outcomes

8 Strategy impact statement

8 Strategy Impact Statement

8.1 Statement

The RMS for the M1 Junction 1-19 and M10 has identified a number of key route issues. In order to overcome these route issues a strategy has been devised, culminating in Route Outcomes, which will enable the performance of the route to be improved.

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

Based on an analysis of the route functions, and through consultation, a number of key Route Outcomes have been identified. These have been determined on the basis of the impact they are expected to have on the Route Functions, such as serving local businesses and communities or the route issues they address, such as provision of crossing facilities for nonmotorised and vulnerable users.

The key Proposed Route Outcomes are as follows:

8.2 Key Route Outcomes Analysis

The key Route Outcomes are expected to have a positive impact on the route as a whole. The four impact tables, which present the impact of the Route Outcomes on various factors considered in the preparation of the RMS, can be found on the following pages. The impact tables are assessed using the proposed Route Outcomes against the various performance criteria that make up the M1 and M10 Route Management Strategy.

The Impact tables are as follows:

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

8.3 What Happens Next?

It will be the responsibility of the HA to develop actions which will achieve the Route Outcomes set out in the RMS using advice provided in the Forward Planning Guidance and decisions taken in the bidding process. The HA should consider actions which can realistically be delivered within the 10 years of the RMS. They should then produce a Route Management Plan which includes committed and potential actions with due consideration of the budget and resources available to them.

The HA area team will follow the procedures set out in the Programme Objectives Guide (POG) in order to identify and develop appropriate actions to deliver the Route Specific Objectives from the Route Management Strategy.

Programme Development is a continuing process and the Programme Objectives Guide is used to identify the types of Maintenance and Making Better Use (MBU) projects that should be added to the existing programme.

The POG provides direction to Traffic Operations Directorate (TOD), Managing Agents (MAs) and Managing Agent Contractors (MACs) staff on the type of Maintenance and Making Better Use (MBU) projects that should be identified to extend forward programme and to deliver the outcomes set down in the 10 Year Plan and other Ministerial commitments.

8 Strategy impact statement