1 introduction

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd. has been commissioned by the Highways Agency, as part of theRoute Management Strategy (RMS) (North) Framework Consultancy Agreement, to undertake the M55 Blackpool to the M6, Route Management Strategy.

1.2 Overview

The Route Management Strategy for the M55 has been developed in order to provide a framework for managing the route, which will help to enhance the route as a part of the wider transport network.

The Strategy will encompass the Highways Agency Strategic Plans, and has been developed after consultation with the local authorities of Blackpool, Preston and Fylde, with reference to their general and transport plans. An assessment of regional strategy documents produced by organisations such as the North West Regional Assembly, the North West DevelopmentAgency, and the Strategic Rail Authority has also been undertaken in order to establish the current situation with regard to integration with other forms of transport.

The Strategy has been formulated after following many established processes, which involve the collection of established data on the route; the collection of new data deemed relevant to the study; and feedback from representatives from various local organisations and the general public.

The general aims of the RMS are as follows:

This report is the culmination of seven months study into the route. Further information can befound in the previous reports written for the RMS, these are:

This report will bring together all the previous reports, which have led to the formulation of theProblem and Action Identification Frameworks, the Route Management Plan, and the RouteAction Plan. The report will identify the actions necessary to eliminate problems and potential issues identified which would otherwise have an adverse effect on the operation of the route, thereby ensuring the route achieves its objectives in to the future.

1.3 Route Sections

For the purposes of this study the route was split up into sections so it would be easier to analyse more specific areas more accurately. The M55 runs through sparsely populated areas, and is divided by three junctions, it was therefore felt logical to divide each section at junction locations.

1.4 Problem and Action Identification Frameworks

The Problem Identification Framework has been produced from studies undertaken during production of Route Performance Indicators (RPI) and further Action Studies, which were deemed necessary. The background to the RPI's can be found in the Route Performance Framework Report. The problems encountered have been detailed in Section 4 of this report.The Action Identification Report tackles the elements described in the Problem Identification Framework, and forms the outline of plans to eradicate or improve each element. Detailed descriptions of the Actions can be found in Section 5, and both Frameworks can be found inAppendix A.

1.5 Route Management Plan

The Route Management Plan is a ten-year plan, which lists the proposed actions in order ofpriority. The plan does not detail specific tasks to be undertaken but gives an outline of the actions and their approximate chronology. The actions are split into four separate areas, which will help to programme the work and monitor progression.

1.6 Route Action Plan

The Route Action Plan is a three-year plan based on the first three years of the RouteManagement Plan. More detailed descriptions have been used here, but have still been grouped in the same original categories used for the Route Management Plan.

Both the Route Management Plan, and the Route Action Plan can be found in Appendix B.

1.7 Review

The Route Action Plan is to be updated annually with any changes in the route functions and problems being incorporated.

The entire strategy will be subject to review every three years, or sooner if it is felt that an unexpected change in the route performance has occurred. This review will cover any achievements or otherwise of the original strategy, and report on further actions required.


1 introduction

2 data collection

2 DATA COLLECTION

2.1 Introduction

In order to carry out the Route Management Strategy, a detailed data collection exercise was undertaken. This involved establishing what data was available, and how it could be obtained. In conjunction with this it was felt that extra data was needed to compliment the existing data, and to enable the Route Performance Indicators to be more accurately produced.

The data has been grouped in accordance with each of the Government transport criteria.

2.2 Economy

Annual Average Daily Traffic flows (AADT) were obtained for each section of the route in each direction. Included with this data was the Peak Hour Flow, showing the busiest hour in each day, and the percentage of heavy goods, and passenger carrying vehicles.

In addition, extra data for journey time surveys to assess delays, and queuing at exit slip roads was collected during site surveys.

Table 1 M55 Average Annual Daily Traffic Flows (AADT 2000)
Section AADT in both directions
1 37689
2 53075
3 63143
Table 2 M55 Average queuing lengths on off slip roads
Section Slip No. of Vehicles Available Capacity of Slip Road
1 Eastbound Off 23 118
1 Westbound Off 11 139
2 Eastbound Off 21 111
2 Westbound Off 23 104
3 Westbound Off 37 94

2.3 Safety

Accident data for the previous three years was obtained from Lancashire Constabulary. This enabled analysis of: number and location of accidents; occurrence during hours of darkness; and road conditions due to weather.

Year Section
96 97 98 99 00 01
1 9 5 4 8 8 1
2 12 15 11 7 11 2
3 1 0 2 2 3 3

2.4 Environment

With regard to the environmental aspects of the route the following items were checked: National Parks, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Sites of Specific Interest, Heritage Sites, and Public Rights of Way.

For the production of Performance Indicators evidence of a Biodiversity Action Plan and Landscape Management Plan was obtained.

Watercourses affected by the route were also identified, with details of the highway drainage outfalls taken into consideration.

2.5 Accessibility

Analysis of severance on the route was carried out during the Strategy period, with special regard to vehicular access and public footpaths crossing over or under the motorway.

2.6 Integration

Various forms of information were collected to assess the level of integration on the route, the most relevant being: evidence and quality of signing for transport mode interchanges, and tourist information; bus and coach routes; and location of any dedicated service areas.


2 data collection

3 route functions

3 ROUTE FUNCTIONS

3.1 Introduction

The Route Functions aim to describe the role that the route currently fulfils. They provide an outline description of the nature of the journeys, such as where people are going, and why. A very important part of the functions of any route is its relationship with other forms of transport, whether it is access to trains, air travel, boat, or even pedestrian areas. The functions have been categorised as strategic, regional and local.

3.2 Strategic

3.3 Regional

3.4 Local


3 route functions

4 route objectives

4 ROUTE OBJECTIVES

4.1 Introduction

Based upon the functions identified in the previous section, Route Objectives set out the future role and aims of the route. The route objectives for the M55 have been derived from:

The objectives are developed under five categories:

These categories have been used as the basis of the RMS and all problems and actions, which have been developed, can be classified in them.

4.2 Economy

4.2.1 The Government Objective with re gard to economy is:

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

4.2.2 The Route Objectives that have been identified for the M55 are:

4.3 Safety

4.3.1 The Government Objective with regard to safety is:

"To improve safety for all travellers"

4.3.2 The Route Objectives that have been identified for the M55 are:

4.4 Environment

4.4.1 The Government Objective with regard to the environment is:

"To protect and enhance the built and natural environment"

4.4.2 The Route Objectives that have been identified for the M55 are:

4.5 Accessibility

4.5.1 The Government Objective with regard to accessibility is:

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

4.5.2 The Route Objectives that have been identified for the M55 are:

4.6 Integration

4.6.1 The Government Objective with regard to integration is:

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

4.6.2 The Route Objectives that have been identified for the M55 are:


4 route objectives

5 route problems

5 ROUTE PROBLEMS

5.1 Introduction

In order to ensure that the M55 meets and continues to satisfy the route objectives over the next ten years, an investigation has been carried out to identify problems on the route. This investigation assessed the current measured, and forecasted performance of the route by the use of performance indicators for the five main Highways Agency policy objective categories.The performance criteria are, in general, set nationally to enable standardisation of assessment between all Route Management Strategies but, where appropriate, local route specific criteria have been used.

The performance assessment can be found in detail, in the Route Performance Framework Report. The framework formed the basis of the problem identification for the route, and has been included in this document in Appendix C. The problems, which have been identified on the M55 are summarised below, and illustrated on the Problem Identification Framework, included in Appendix A.

5.2 Economy

5.2.1 Congestion at junctions 1 and 3

Two main factors with respect to the economy objective are, to 'maintain journey times', and to 'minimise traffic disruption'. A major determinant of the reliability of journey times is the ease at which junctions can be negotiated. Queuing, therefore at motorway junctions was seen as an important aspect of the route and included in the Performance Framework.

As part of the initial data collection exercise, surveys of queuing on off slip roads were carriedout in order to get a basic measure of the current situation, and establish if there are any safety implications with traffic queuing far enough back that it may start to impact on the motorway. The surveys were also used to enable an analysis of junction performance in ten years time, using forecast flows to be calibrated.

Current traffic flows and the geometric parameters of the junctions were used to produce an estimation of future traffic queues on exit slip roads. Growth factors were derived from the predicted vehicle queues during the next ten years. These growth factors were then used to factor up the measured queues.

From the investigations and analysis carried out, it was concluded that while queuing at these junctions was not at present, a significant problem, it would become so over the next ten years. This is particularly the case with regard to Junction 1, where problems do occasionally occur at present, and is likely to become a significant problem, early on during the ten year period.

5.3 Safety

5.3.1 Parking at Junction 1

The central island of the roundabout under the bridge at Junction 1 of the M55 has a diameter of approximately 80 metres, and is bisected by a section of carriageway. This carriageway allows abnormal load vehicles using the A6, which is a designated abnormal load route, to pass through the roundabout without having to negotiate the circulatory carriageway. Private vehicles are however using the central island as a car park during the daytime, and are using the central carriageway for access to and egress from the area.

During various traffic surveys which have been carried out along the route, it has been noted that as many as thirty vehicles are using the area at any time during the day. These vehicles also tend to enter and exit the area during busy peak times. In so doing, these vehicles are carrying out a hazardous manoeuvre on the roundabout during its busiest times.

Whilst gates are situated at the southern end of the central carriageway, these gates are never closed, and it is very likely that if they were, drivers would still attempt to access the area by other means.

Consultation with Lancashire County Council has highlighted that the road running through the roundabout, which is designed for use by oversize vehicles, cannot be used for that purpose because the road regularly has vehicles parked on it, which would obstruct the passage of any abnormal load vehicles.

Lancashire Constabulary has raised various points regarding parking in that area. Vehicles joining the circulatory carriageway are causing a hazard; potential fire to any of the vehicles could cause severe damage to the motorway structures and there is also the possibility of terrorist attack to a structure.

From the point of view of the vehicle owners, it should be noted that these people seem to be attempting to alleviate congestion in Preston by car sharing or using other forms of transport. However, in this situation the detrimental aspects previously stated far outweigh any benefits from relieving congestion by car sharing.

5.3.2 'Weaving Traffic' between M55 Junction 1 and M6

Junction 1 of the M55 is situated less than half a kilometre from the slip roads linking the M55 to the M6. It has been highlighted that it is common for vehicles passing between Junction 1 and the M6 link roads to 'weave' between the lanes at excessive speed.

An example of this would be vehicles joining the M55 Eastbound at Junction 1 and changing to the right hand lanes to continue towards the M6 Southbound On-Slip while vehicles alreadyon the M55 Eastbound travelling at high speed changing to the left hand lanes just beyond Junction 1 to continue towards the M6 North On-Slip. A similar situation occurs on theWestbound Section between the M6 and Junction 1. The weaving is also having an effect on the M6 entry slip roads, particularly southbound.

Investigation into the situation formed one of the Action Studies for the route. Weaving lengths were assessed against TD 22/92 which sets out the design standards and methodology for the geometric layout of grade separated junctions. A full assessment could not be carried out as weaving flows were not known and could not be measured during the period of the Action Study, but it is clear that the westbound carriageway weaving length is below the absolute minimum required by the standards. The eastbound carriageway layout is within the current design standards, with the weaving length being above the absolute minimum permitted.

The horizontal geometry of the link roads from the M55 to the M6 has also been checked against the current highway design standards (DMRB Vol. 6 Section 1), and found to comply with an 85kph design speed.

Currently, there are not an excessive number of accidents in this section, but concerns have been raised during the RMS Seminar that driving conditions can be hazardous at peak times. Predictions of traffic growth in the area do however highlight the need to carry out further investigation into the potential of future problems.

5.3.3 Incident Response Plan

An Incident Response Plan is a document, which provides detailed procedures of how the emergency services are utilised in the event of a major incident. The plan will indicate procedures to follow dependant upon the location, and scale of the incident. A Highway specific Incident Response Plan will contain procedures such as Route Diversion Strategies, which form an essential element towards the safe operation of a route following a major incident. It will also include details of the motorway construction and operation, such as for example, the locations of drainage outfalls, which may be of use to the emergency services.

The Highways Agency has therefore identified the provision of an Incident Response Plan as an important part of managing the route. Whilst the emergency services do have their own generic incident response plans, the Highways Agency does not have a documented plan, specific to the M55, which addresses its concerns and requirements.

5.4 Environment

4.4.1 Protection to watercourses

It has been identified that there is a poor level of protection to watercourses running under and adjacent to the M55 route. At present the carriageway runoff, which could include fuel and oil from vehicles, in the event of spillage outfalls directly into the adjacent streams.

The level of protection is based upon the measures taken to separate carriageway drainage from the local watercourses. This could range from the highway draining directly into a treatment works, which offers high protection, to the highway drainage outfalling directly into an adjacent stream, as is currently the case. An acceptable level of protection would be satisfied by the installation of fuel interceptors, which would be placed in the drainage system directly upstream from any outfalls.

Investigation into the area has highlighted that none of the watercourses in the area have been classed as being environmentally sensitive, nevertheless, if the motorway was constructed under current guidelines, measures for protection would have to be put in place.

It is not envisaged that the watercourses are under significant threat, but there is always a risk of a major incident occurring, which may have a detrimental effect on the environment.

5.4.2 Noise Levels on Section 3

Section 3 of the M55 motorway that runs relatively close to the residential area of Fulwood, in the north of Preston.

During the formulation of the Route Performance Framework it was identified that Section 3 on the route has a significantly higher Performance Indicator Noise Severity Score than the other sections. This can be attributed to the higher traffic flow levels on this section; that the route is elevated from the M6 to Junction 1; and that there are more houses in the vicinity of the motorway here than on the other two sections.

The noise assessment indicated that when anticipated traffic growth over the next ten years is considered, noise levels in this area would still only be classed as moderate. However the margin of error associated with the analysis techniques is such that there is a possibility that noise levels could reach unacceptable levels during the strategy period.

It is important to note that investigation of traffic noise complaints in the area showed that none had been made to the Local Authority. Although we believe the noise levels will not become a major problem during the next ten years, the situation should be monitored at regular periods and a more detailed assessment made as to the levels of noise experienced adjacent to Junction 1.

5.5 Accessibility

5.5.1 Pedestrian crossing facilities at junctions 3 and 4

There are many rural footpaths in the Fylde area, which existed before the motorway was constructed. During construction some of the footpaths were severed, these have either been tied into an adjacent road crossing, or incorporated into underpasses along the route.

There are two locations where footpaths now require pedestrians to negotiate major motorway junctions, these are at junction 3 and 4. In both cases no specific provision has been made for pedestrians who would have to wait for gaps in the traffic in order to cross slip roads. During the course of the Strategy it has been reported that pedestrian movements around these junctions can be quite difficult at times due to the need to cross the top of busy slip roads.

5.6 Integration

5.6.1 Compatibility between motorway and local signing

Integration between forms of transport, and the role of the motorway as a part of a wider transport network has become very high on the list of Highways Agency objectives. This can take various forms, including park and ride schemes, strategic placement of car parks, and improving interfaces between road and rail.

Schemes such as these can be of great benefit in reducing congestion in town centres, and lowering journey times. However these schemes can only work effectively, if they are properly advertised, and their benefits made aware to as large an audience as possible.

From investigation of the signing in the area, it seems apparent that possibilities for modal shift are available but are not being used to their full potential.

During periods of high traffic volumes, in particular during football matches and other key events, the central routes into Blackpool i.e. Yeadon Way, from the M55 can become heavily congested. The introduction of additional motorway based communications on the westbound carriageway would enable the incoming traffic to be diverted along alternative routes to avoid this central congestion.

During Blackpool Illuminations many routes in and around Blackpool can become heavily congested, as traffic makes its way around the town in order to view the illuminations, which extend along the length of Blackpool promenade (A584). It has been identified that the routes taken by tourists visiting the Illuminations arriving from the M55 could be better signed to avoid or reduce congestion in the area.


5 route problems

6 route actions

6 ROUTE ACTIONS

6.1 Economy

6.1.1 Congestion at junctions 1 and 3

A three stage Action Plan has been formulated in order to address this problem.

Stage 1 - A prediction of traffic flows in the forthcoming years has highlighted the fact that excessive queuing is likely to occur during the next ten years, with Junction 1 being worse than Junction 3. Further monitoring of the slip roads should be carried out in order to assess the extent of this queuing, and to be able to more accurately predict the instant at which this may become excessive. Monitoring of traffic flows and queuing will allow comparisons to be made between actual and predicted flows, this will then allow a more accurate prediction of when and where problems will start to occur.

Stage 2 - As the necessity to improve the junction capacities becomes apparent, different methods of alleviating excessive queuing, by various means will be assessed and reports will be produced outlining the feasibility of each method.

Stage 3 - The final stage incorporates the design of the most suitable solution to the problem followed by its implementation on site.

Continued monitoring of the situation will be necessary, during and after any work is undertaken to ensure that the problems have been properly addressed and alleviated to an acceptable level.

6.2 Safety

6.2.1 Parking at Junction 1

It is apparent from discussions with Lancashire County Council and Lancashire Constabulary that neither organisation favours the use of the roundabout as a parking area. As the current situation has various security issues, the prohibition of parking under the structure at Junction 1 has been classified in the RMS as a high priority action.

Any action taken with respect to this area would have to be implemented by Lancashire County Council, after consultation with Lancashire Constabulary. The role of the Highways Agency would be to monitor the situation, liase with the relevant authorities, and encourage the closure of the area to private vehicles.

Subsequent to any action by the local authorities, the surrounding area should be monitored to ensure that the problem has not been moved to another unsuitable place nearby.

6.2.2 Broughton Interchange to M6 'Weaving Traffic'

Even though there are not an excessive number of accidents in this area, it is believed that with increased traffic flows in the future, the situation is likely to get worse. Therefore the action to alleviate the current situation of weaving traffic has been given high priority in the RMS.

The first stage of any action would be to undertake a full study of vehicle movements to establish the full extent of the problem. This study would comprise traffic movements from Junction 1 of the M55, through to entry onto the M6 either north or southbound. lane discipline, maximum and minimum speeds, accidents, and congestion would all be investigated.

Along with the traffic study, investigation would be carried out into the geometry of the junction and link roads to the M6. The increased traffic volume since construction may mean that certain relaxations in design standards which were allowed, would not be acceptable today.

Once a full understanding of the problem had been achieved, a list of practical solutions would be drawn up. Each solution would be assessed on its merits and comparisons of costs and benefits would be carried out.

The main problem associated with weaving in this area is the large differences in speeds of the vehicles as they move amongst each other. At present there is an advisory speed limit of 50 mph on the link roads between the M6 and the east of Junction 1. One possible solution to the problem would to make the current advisory speed limit mandatory, with the possibility of encompassing the whole of Junction 1 within this reduced speed limit length.

After a list of solutions has been drawn up, a feasibility study would then be undertaken, with practicality and costs being investigated.

The second stage of the action would be to implement any solutions, which had been recommended from the study. The effects of any implementations would then be studied during the remainder of the RMS at review stage to monitor that the intended results had been achieved.

6.2.3 Incident Response Plan

A route Incident Response Plan is a document that the Highways Agency are very keen to have in place for the M55. It will encompass the current undocumented plans of the emergency services, with information regarding diversion routes, environmental issues and any constraints, which are particular to the M55.

The Highways Agency is currently in the process of producing a documented Incident Response Plan. This will involve consultation with various organisations including, the emergency services, the Environment Agency, and the utility providers in the area. The production of the document shall be monitored, with a programme of completion, approval, and issue to be agreed upon. On completion, the Plan will be reviewed at set intervals, and revised when necessary.

6.3 Environment

6.3.1 Protection to watercourses

The lack of protection to watercourses is not seen to be a major problem, as the watercourses in the area have not been designated as environmentally sensitive. However, as the situation does not comply with current guidelines for new construction, the steps to be taken to increase protection have been classed as high priority for the purposes of the RMS.

The first stage of any action would be to carry out an identification exercise into the outfall locations on the route, analyse their condition, and develop an understanding of the highway drainage system.

A study is then required to ascertain the feasibility of the measures required to improve the protection to watercourses along the route. These measures, such as the installation of fuel interceptors, would be discussed and a comprehensive plan of construction, and costs made.

The final stage of the process would be to programme and implement the recommendations previously identified.

The emergency services would then be advised of any measures taken and the route Incident Response Plan would be revised accordingly.

6.3.2 Noise Levels at Section 3

This action is not seen as a high priority, as at present there have been no complaints to the local authority due to high noise levels from the motorway. Noise levels on the route have not so far been found to cause a disturbance to nearby residents, and predictions made from analysis carried out during the RMS have not highlighted any serious problems expected during the next ten years.

Due to the limited types of noise survey that can be carried out because of the time restraints of this RMS, it is recommended that, a more detailed noise survey should be carried out in the area. Using any new data obtained, more accurate predictions could be made for the noise levels in ten years time. This would allow a more realistic assessment of the likelihood of disturbance to residents adjacent to the M55.

Once accurate data has been obtained from the area, it is recommended that the levels are monitored. The frequency of the monitoring will be determined after the initial readings have been analysed.

If, following a more detailed examination of the noise levels they are found to increase beyond acceptable levels, and complaints are received, it will be necessary to investigate methods to attenuate the noise.

6.4 Accessibility

6.4.1 Improve pedestrian crossing facilities at Junctions 3 and 4

Even though it is believed that the lack of facilities for pedestrians at these junctions needs to be addressed, there is no evidence of any problems associated with pedestrians getting into difficulty. Therefore, this action has been designated as low priority at this stage. A study would firstly be undertaken to assess the scale of the problem. This would involve ascertaining how many people cross the junctions on foot, and how many of these people have concerns on this matter.

Once a more accurate appreciation of the scale of the problem has been achieved, a list of possible solutions would be drawn up, with an appropriate cost benefit analysis. After the best, most efficient solution to the problem had been decided upon, design and implementation would then take place.

6.5 Integration

6.5.1 Introduction

In order to increase the level of integration between forms of transport, and to help ease traffic flow and knowledge, it is recommended the situation be tackled in two parts. Firstly to implement the motorway communications upgrade already planned for the M55, and secondly to consider enhancements to improve integration with the local signing in and around the town.

6.5.2 Provision of new motorway communications system on M55

The National Motorway Communications System Contract 2 (NMCS2) in Lancashire is a currently programmed Highways Agency scheme, which involves replacing and upgrading the existing motorway communications system. Implementation of this scheme on the M55 is due to begin on site in April 2004.

Preparation work for the scheme is largely complete, but a review of the installation requirements may still take place prior to work beginning on site if necessary. Any review could be used to establish any further installation requirements on the M55 in addition to the provisions made in the current scheme.

6.5.3 Compatibility of NMCS2 with local signing strategy for Blackpool.

It is perceived that the current situation approaching Blackpool is not especially bad, given the large number of people that visit the area throughout the year. However, it is also apparent that the opportunity for an area wide signing strategy, which encompasses the motorway and Blackpool is not being fully utilised.

The first stage would be to investigate the current compatibility, and identify the areas where improvements could be made most efficiently. This should be done by liasing with Blackpool Borough Council on any future proposals that they have.

Any further investigation into the local signing strategy should take into account the new motorway communications due for completion in 2005.

The second stage would be to review the possible usage of the NMCS2 in relation to the local signing strategy. This may involve the possibility of directing traffic to certain car parks depending on capacity, or away from the town centre, at times of acute congestion.

The final stage would be the implementation of any actions deemed suitable followed by monitoring to establish whether the signing strategy was having the desired effect.


6 route actions