Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers
1 introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
A one-day M1/M621 Route Management Strategy (RMS) Stakeholder workshop was held on 09 December 2003 at Queens Hotel, Leeds.
The day ran from 10am to 4pm and was organised for the Highways Agency by their engineering consultants Hyder Consulting Ltd and facilitated by Capital Value & Risk Limited (CVRL).
1.1 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of the workshop were:
- To introduce the objectives and broad remit ofthe M1/M621 Route Management Strategy (RMS), and role of the South andWest Yorkshire Motorway Best Use Study (SWYMBUS)
- To explain the current work undertaken indeveloping both the RMS and SWYMBUS and how they "fit" within theoverall strategy for the M1/M621
- To engage stakeholders in the development process by:
- Reviewing route functions
- Reviewing the problems/issues and constraintsalong the routes
- Reviewing route outcomes
- Consider potential Better Use options forincorporation in the RMS
- To confirm the way forward.
This document contains the Leeds Stakeholder Workshop report.
2.1 BACKROUND INFORMATION
2 WORKSHOP FINDINGS
2.1 BACKROUND INFORMATION
Presentations on the Route Management Strategy were given to provide attendees with background and issues associated with the route. Please refer to Appendix A for full presentation details.
The following sub-sections provide information on the route functions, outcomes and issues which the participants were asked to review.
2.1.1 Route Functions
These are categorized into Strategic, Regional, and Local functions and describes the role that the route currently has, the nature of journeys that occur on the route and the relationship between the route and other parts of the transport infrastructure and how this might change in the future.
For the purpose of the RMS, the route has been divided into 10 route sections and the functions associated with each section have been assessed and defined. These functions are listed, together with a summary table showing the related functions within each section.
View larger image
Strategic Functions
The motorways...
| A | Are part of the two Trans-European network routes for North-South movements in Yorkshire (Routes E13 and E15) |
|---|---|
| B | Provide a major transport link between the North and North East of England and the East Midlands, London and Continental Europe. |
| C | Are a part of the national motorway strategic core network. |
| D | Provide a link to important North-South and East-West corridors (A1, M62, M18, A616/A628) including the North European Trade Axis. |
| E | Are a strategic link between the M62 and the A1 for Trans-Pennine traffic to and from the North East of England |
| F | Are part of YDIS, the strategic diversion system for the Yorkshire motorway box |
| X | Provides an abnormal, high or wide load route, subject to restrictions. |
Regional Functions
The motorways...
| G | Provide a major transport link between the regional centres of population, employment, tourism and recreational areas |
|---|---|
| H | Are of vital importance to the economic performance and growth of the Yorkshire region |
Local Functions
The motorways...
| I | Provide bypasses around urban centres |
|---|---|
| J | Provide local access for employment and leisure purposes |
| K | Provide main commuter routes for traffic entering the cities of Sheffield and Leeds |
2.1.2 Route Objectives/Outcomes
In order to assist the RMS process, eight Strategy Components have been defined to help target the outcomes required for the RMS. They are:
- Safety
- Economy
- Environment
- Accessibility
- Integration
- Maintenance
- Operating the Network
- Improving the Network
Safety
Possible Route Objectives and Outcomes:
| S1 | provision of service area facilities that better meet needs and demands, including HGV's |
|---|---|
| S2 | application of a methodology to identify accident clusters and causation factors and to implement preventative actions to reduce incidents |
| S3 | to improve safety during maintenance works |
| S4 | to seek to improve safety for more vulnerable users |
| S5 | to encourage road users to travel at an appropriate speed |
| S6 | to encourage improved driver behavior |
| S7 | to achieve a consistent high standard of signing along the route |
| S8 | to improve the safe operation of junction merges and diverges |
Summary of issues identified prior to the workshop:
- issues are generally related to congestion, which causes unexpected queuing on the motorways and therefore potential vehicle conflicts
- the merging of traffic caused by the close proximity of junctions such as between J31-J32 (M1), and J2a-J3 (M621)
- poor lane discipline at junctions and at on and off slip-roads, e.g. merging traffic crossing the southbound ghost island at A1(M)/A64 Bramham Crossroads
- excessive speed approaching traffic lights and roundabouts
- concerns about the positioning of parapets on over bridges between J36-39 where the emergency phones are in front of the barriers
- footbridges over the motorways, where debris is thrown onto the road below
- J39 (Crigglestone, Southbound) where vehicles drifts across the lanes during night times on the long sweeping left hand bend, drivers over-react and clip the central reservation
- tight radii at J44 and J45 of the M1, and on J27 of the M62
- J39-42 and M621/ M1 Southbound merge, where high winds, flooding, and water build up on the carriageway causing very bad spray in wet weather
- informal crossing of the M621 by pedestrians gaining access to the Leeds United football ground when in use
Economy
Possible Route Objectives and Outcomes:
| C1 | implementation of a Land Use and Development Policy supporting sustainable development and regeneration without introducing further traffic congestion |
|---|---|
| C2 | continuing use of the Objective 1 Memorandum of Understanding in South Yorkshire |
| C3 | implementation of Objective 1 Memorandum of Understanding procedures elsewhere |
| C4 | to contribute to Regional and Local transport and development plans |
Summary of issues identified prior to the workshop:
- Congestion is one of the main issues raised so far, either on the motorway due to insufficient capacity, on a gradient that affects larger and older vehicles, at specific junctions where developments increases demand or at intersections of two or more main routes.
- Locations where congestion is identified as a significant problem are listed under Section 4.7 Operating the Network and will be considered there.
Environment
Possible Route Objectives and Outcomes
| E1 | improved air quality, particularly in Air Quality Management Areas |
|---|---|
| E2 | implementation of a Landscape Management Plan and Biodiversity Action Plan over the whole route |
| E3 | to identify locations where noise levels are high and mitigate where appropriate |
| E4 | to encourage traffic to use the most appropriate route |
| E5 | to ensure effective measures are in place to protect watercourses from pollutant spillage on the Highway |
| E6 | to protect and enhance existing flora and fauna |
| E7 | to seek to maintain a clean and tidy route |
| E8 | to use environmentally friendly clean lighting when replacing existing or providing new systems |
| E9 | have due regard for visual intrusion |
Summary of issues identified prior to the workshop:
- J34 M1, with noise problems and poor air quality (it is within an Air Quality Management Area)
- Litter/ rubbish problems have been identified at Woolley Edge and Woodhall Services, and along the M621 in general
- Light pollution from high mast lighting on the M621
- there is a need for a Bio-diversity Action Plan covering the whole route
- there is a need for a Landscape Management Plan
Accessibility
Possible Route Objectives and Outcomes:
| A1 | implementation of a driver information strategy to promote the use of and improve access to park & ride sites, park & share facilities, and other public transport facilities |
|---|---|
| A2 | to improve facilities for non-motorised users crossing the route |
| A3 | to improve facilities for non-motorised users at grade separated junctions |
| A4 | to reduce community severance |
| A5 | to improve access to and from Public Transport and Park & Ride facilities |
Summary of issues identified prior to the workshop:
- issues occur at Chapeltown, Rotherham, and Sheffield (J34, 35 and 35a), where a Quality Bus Corridor is operating and there is extensive commuter traffic
- potential problems also exist for development sites along the whole route
- issues occur at Bramham Crossroads Junction on the A1(M)/A64 intersection
- the possible re-location of Leeds United Football Club
Integration
Possible Route Objectives and Outcomes:
| G1 | a strategy to encourage and formalize the use of park & share |
|---|---|
| G2 | a partnership with South Yorkshire PTE to influence and aid the implementation of their Park & Ride Strategy |
| G3 | 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 |
| G4 | to contribute to Regional and Local transport and development plans |
Summary of issues identified prior to the workshop:
- possible park and ride sites have been identified at J30, J31, J33, J34, J35, J35a, J36, J37, J38, and J44 (M1)
- Sheffield City Airport is accessed via J33 (M1)
- potential Supertram extensions to Waverley site near J33 (M1), and to the Waterside development near J34 (M1)
- Supertram crossing of J7 (M621) may provide opportunity for modal interchange
- possible Sheffield International Rail Freight Terminal between J33-34 (M1)
- possible relocation of Dodworth Rail Station on the Sheffield-Barnsley-Huddersfield railway
- potential to set up coach park and ride and park and share at Woodall and Wooley Edge
Maintenance
Possible Route Objectives and Outcomes:
| M1 | application of 'best practice' traffic management |
|---|---|
| M2 | to maximize the serviceability of the road, structures and other highway infrastructure |
| M3 | to minimize delay and disruption due to roadworks |
| M4 | to minimize adverse effects on the environment |
Summary of issues identified prior to the workshop:
- better coordination of resources might result if the maintenance programme was reviewed earlier
- safety during maintenance work at Tinsley Viaduct
Operating the Network
Possible Route Objectives and Outcomes:
| O1 | application of 'best practice' incident management |
|---|---|
| O2 | a strategy to implement Active Traffic Management and other capacity improvements to maximize the route availability for users where appropriate |
| O3 | a strategy to implement Demand Management measures where these are appropriate, to deliver an achievable and defendable balance between future demands and constraints |
| O4 | to take action to reduce congestion and increase the reliability of journey times |
| O5 | to improve the availability of the route for abnormal, high, and wide loads |
Summary of issues identified prior to the workshop:
- there is a lack of high / wide loads facility on the route
- historic problems with traffic lights at J42 (M1), Lofthouse Interchange with the M62
- that improved information/ live media strategy would forewarn drivers about any disruptive incidents and enable them to choose alternative routes or travel arrangements
Locations on the M621 where congestion has been identified as significant include:
- J1 (Queuing on A6110, commuter traffic on inner ring road for Bradford/Leeds)
- J1-2 (Congestion when Leeds United football ground is in use)
- J2a-3 (Closeness of junctions causing problems for merging traffic)
- J3 (Congestion from Dewsbury Road)
- J4 and J5 (New developments planned)
- J7 (Severe peak hour congestion at present with further development planned)
Locations on the M1 where congestion has been identified as significant include:
- J31
- J32 (Junction with the M18)
- J33 (Junction for Sheffield, Sheffield City Airport, and the Special Enterprise Zone incl. the Waverley development and others)
- J34 (Meadowhall retail park and other Objective 1 developments)
- J35/J35A (Further development near Chapeltown),
- J36 (Objective 1 development sites on A6195),
- J36-37 (Long gradient affecting HGV's),
- J37 (Dodworth Bypass planned, new Objective 1 developments adjacent to A628)
- J38 and J39 (Multiple developments for retail and business parks),
- J40 (Development of Silkwood Park),
- J42 (Lofthouse Interchange with the M62),
- J43 (Junction with M621 into Leeds)
- J44 (Delta Park development)
- A1(M)/A64 Bramham Crossroads Junction (Traffic to Leeds, York and East Coast)
Improving the Network
Possible Route Objectives and Outcomes:
| N1 | a strategy for TPI schemes to widen sections of the M1 where appropriate |
|---|---|
| N2 | a strategy for LNMS schemes (e.g. climbing lanes, merge/diverge improvements) to make better use of the network |
| N3 | a strategy to reduce standing traffic on the motorways, and to reduce the variability of journey times and average speeds |
Summary of issues identified prior to the workshop:
- similar junction numbering system between M1 and A1(M) often causes location identification problem for breakdown and rescue services and confuses drivers
2.1.3 Making Better Use Solutions
The participants were also given a presentation from FaberMaunsell on recent work to consider Making Better Use of the network in South Yorkshire (SWYMBUS). Details are given in Appendix A.
As part of the workshop review process participants were also asked to review the options and to also identify potential making better use solutions.
2.2 OUTPUTS FROM WORKSHOP DISCUSSION GROUPS
Leeds Stakeholder Workshop
2.2 OUTPUTS FROM WORKSHOP DISCUSSION GROUPS
To aid discussion and development of the aforementioned functions, outcomes, issues and solutions the participants were divided into 4 syndicate groups. The workshop process comprised the following sessions:
Session 1 - Morning
- Review route functions
- Review issues / problems associated with the following outcomes:
- Safety
- Maintenance
- Environment
- Integration
- Accessibility
- Economy
- Operating the network
- Improving the Network
Session 2 - Afternoon
- Review Making Better Use options and identification of additional options. The discussion groups also rated the options as follows:
- "1" for the options you would like to see developed further by the RMS,
- "2" for the options that you are undecided about, and
- "3" for the options that you do not consider worth developing further.
Full details on the outputs from each discussion group session are given below.
Note: emboldened text in the options tables indicates additions/amendments provided at the workshop along with the above ratings provided by each group.
2.2.1 Syndicate Group 1 - Safety & Maintenance
Leeds Stakeholder Workshop
2.2.1 Syndicate Group 1 - Safety & Maintenance
| Job Title | Organisation |
|---|---|
| Area Watchman | Carillion WSP |
| OD Assistant Project Sponsor | Highways Agency |
| Development Control | Highways Agency |
| Transportation Consultant | Hyder Consulting Limited |
| Representative | Transport Activists Round Table |
Group findings were as follows:
Route Functions:
Matrix as proposed by Hyder was approved although it was felt that a grading of the functions may be useful e.g. % applicable to either local, regional or strategic. The RMS Guidance may require review to adopt this approach
Distribution of commuter workplace destinations is widespread within the Leeds conurbation; destination is key which is relevant to LU/DCS and lack of use of public transport
Safety
- The initial list of issues are all of importance and should be given priority in the RMS
- M621 Closely spaced junctions. Accidents reduced during maintenance when a 30mph rather than 50mph speed limit was imposed.
- Is there a correlation between time of day and accidents? Would variable speed limits help?
- Incident delay and accident costs need to be quantified
- Access management on M621 should be considered especially for Leeds/Leeds trips- Is it technically/politically possible and who would benefit?
- On M621 should congestion/safety be maintained on route rather than off route?
- Issue S4 relating to safety of vulnerable users should relate to junctions
Economy
- Memorandum of Understanding - is it successful in dealing with Objective 1 issues e.g. are consents coming out? How can we decide on objectives C2/C3 relating to Land Use & Development Policy /Objective 1 without knowing the answers to the aforementioned questions. Further, is it sufficiently transparent?
Environment
- Climate Change - SWYMMS indicated a 25-30% increase in emissions. Area wide charging for reduction in emissions preventing trip length increases.
Access/Integration
- Issues listed are acceptable.
- Is Park and Ride always beneficial?
Operating the Network
- O4 - Reduce congestion: are small increases not significant?
Improving the Network
- N3 - standing traffic reduction is favoured
Maintenance
- Can TPI/ATM works be programmed to run with major maintenance?
- Co-ordination with local authorities? And also adjacent areas? NRSWA co-ordination required.
- Formal identification of start of tapers is being developed (M1)
| Option No. | Option Description | Some Advantages | Some Disadvantages | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OS1 |
Rest areas off existing junctions |
Provide relief for drivers fatigue |
Additional land required If facilities are required, need investment from external developers If no facilities, it will be less used by drivers Need routine maintenance for facilities |
2 |
|
OS2 |
Emergency refuge areas Incident Support Units |
Limited land required Allow emergency pull in when hard shoulder is used Safer for stopped vehicles than stopping on continuous hard shoulder |
Discontinuous relief May be hazardous to pull out of refuge May be hazardous if used by others at the same time |
1 |
|
OS3 |
Anti-swoop (diamond) road markings prior to diverges |
Discourage unnecessary lane changing |
Limits weaving areas |
2 |
|
OS4 |
Emergency access routes off the main carriageway Central Reserve crossovers are preferable combined with lane control |
Enable access for emergency vehicles during incidents |
Additional land required Would be used during non-emergencies if not properly protected Need maintenance (overgrowth) |
3 |
|
OS5 |
Speed enforcement systems (egg cameras) |
Improves speed compliance No land required Provide alternative additional funding |
Effective only at location of enforcement systems Require police enforcement |
1 |
|
OS6 |
Queue management systems/variable speed limits |
| Option No. | Option Description | Some Advantages | Some Disadvantages | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OC1 |
Implement land use and development control policy to protect the operation of the motorways |
Maintains the operation of the route, helping to make sure that developments are directed away from already problematic locations Help to identify capacities for development and other land use Supports RPG and other processes |
May conflict with economic aspirations of authorities May not be concurrent with plans of developers |
1* |
|
OC2 |
Provide improved information on congestion and incidents |
Enable better planning of journeys |
The majority of drivers do not plan their journeys. When they do plan their journeys, it is not done immediately before the journey, when latest information is available |
1 |
| Option No. | Option Description | Some Advantages | Some Disadvantages | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OM1 |
Eliminate day time maintenance works |
Will improve flow during day times. |
Will increase cost and duration of work Some restriction or lane closure may still be required during day time Alternative hazards due to night time working would exist |
2 |
|
OM2 |
Investment in replacement infrastructure (lighting/ safety barriers) with lower maintenance requirements |
Over a period of time this will reduce maintenance costs |
Benefits will not be immediate |
1 |
|
OM3 |
When required use ARMCO wire where wider reserve permits |
Doesn't catch snow - less build up |
1 | |
|
OM4 |
Cast concrete central barriers |
Can tolerate reduced central reserve width More robust - hence less maintenance |
2 |
2.2.2 Syndicate Group 2 - Environment & Integration
Leeds Stakeholder Workshop
2.2.2 Syndicate Group 2 - Environment & Integration
| Job Title | Organisation |
|---|---|
| Assistant Route Manager | Highways Agency |
| Route Manager | Highways Agency |
| Project Manager | Hyder Consulting Limited |
| Transport Planning Advisor | Leeds Bradford Airport |
| Transport Planner | WYPTE |
Group findings were as follows:
- Function K also applies to Section 5
- Redefine J and K to clarify difference between peak hour, longer distance commuting and more local "utility" trips
- Remove I from Section 8
- Re-write G: "Provide a major transport link between the regional centres of population AND employment, tourism, recreational areas AND national and international transport gateways"
- Strategic functions could be changed to National functions
- New national function - provides access to national events/venues and attractions within the region
- Future Functions: New regional function to provide access to multi-modal transport interchanges
- Future Functions: Agree with Strategic and Regional having priority over local functions but local demand management can only be implemented if sustainable.
Environment Issues
Noise complaints are an issue over all of the populated network
Has Air Quality Management Area in Leeds been declared?
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) - does Yorkshire Link have one?
BAP - how is it to be delivered outside of TPI?
Additional Environmental outcome:
Use of recycled (sustainable) materials to be encouraged - 1 rating
Integration Issues
Lack of signing to existing opportunities e.g. Supertram terminal/park&ride at Crossgates (A64)
Lack of Park & Ride and share facilities
| Option No. | Option Description | Some Advantages | Some Disadvantages | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OE1 |
Develop and implement Route Landscape Management Plans |
Better co-ordinate resources |
Requires maintenance of Management Plans Requires revision and more input to planning process |
1 |
|
OE2 |
Develop and implement Route Biodiversity Action Plans |
Better co-ordinate resources |
Requires maintenance of Action Plans |
1 |
|
OE3 |
Low noise surfacing |
Reduces road traffic noise Note: 50% of M1/M621 Already covered |
1 | |
|
OE4 |
Work with Local Authorities to improve air quality (particularly in Air Quality Management Areas) |
Reduces concentration of air pollution by managing location of congestion |
1 | |
|
OE5 |
Permanent speed limit to improve air quality |
1 | ||
|
OE6 |
Investigate use of targeted planting to improve air quality |
2 | ||
|
OE7 |
VMS signing of poor air quality |
1 | ||
|
OE8 |
Demand management/ATM linked to air quality |
1 |
| Option No. | Option Description | Some Advantages | Some Disadvantages | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OG1 |
Strategy to encourage and formalize the use of park and share |
Help to facilitate park and ride schemes, hence reduce total number of vehicles on the road at concentrated locations Better co-ordinate drivers destination, without wandering around to locate parking space Expand destination of drivers, i.e. multiple P&S sites instead of one town centre |
Park and share may not be favoured by drivers unless priority for high occupancy vehicles is provided. Hence limited effect on the total numbers. Park and share sites need to be well lit, secure, and well maintained. Land required for site |
1 |
|
OG2 |
Park and ride at service areas |
Help to facilitate park and ride schemes, hence reduce total number of vehicles on the road at concentrated locations Better co-ordinate drivers destination, without wandering around to locate space Maximise utilisation of existing facilities, without additional manning or services |
Drivers may not be willing to pay the parking costs Service areas may not have room for this facility |
1 |
|
OG3 |
Park and ride at key junctions |
Help to facilitate park and ride schemes, hence reduce total number of vehicles on the road at concentrated locations Better co-ordinate drivers destination, without wandering around to locate space |
Park and ride may not be favoured by drivers unless priority for high occupancy vehicles is provided. Hence limited effect on the total numbers. Park and share sites need to be well lit, secure, and well maintained. Land required for site |
1 |
|
OG4 |
Bus / coach services plus bus stops at service areas |
Maximise utilisation of existing facilities, without additional manning or services |
Bus/ coach will be same in congested area unless dedicated lanes are provided to ensure journey time reliability |
1 |