Highways Agency

M40 (and A40 at M40 J1) (London to Birmingham) RMS

The Strategy

---

back to top

Introduction

The Route Management Strategy (RMS) is a technique developed by the Highways Agency (HA) to provide a framework for managing individual trunk routes as part of the wider transport network. The RMS process has been developed in order to:

• Assist the HA in planning and optimising investment in the trunk road/motorway network and in the delivery of HA strategic plans and ten year transport strategy;
• Provide consistency, transparency, openness and integration, particularly with other transport related strategies, including local and regional transport plans;
• Enable the HA to provide an input into these strategies and plans;
• Maximise customer focus;
• Improve forward planning over a 10-year horizon.

The RMS consists of several elements as follows:

• HA Policy Objectives for the route to cover planning, economic and transport objectives
• Route Functions and Performance. This will describe the purpose of the route now and how well it serves that purpose both now and in the future;
• Land Use and Development Control. This will outline the HA's approach to the future land use and development issues which materially affect the route;
• Route Problems and Issues. These will be the issues that concern the HA, stakeholders and the public and may hinder the performance or the route function;
• Route Outcomes. This will set out what the HA will seek to achieve over the next 10 year period. Some of the outcomes may point towards individual projects and investigations, which will be developed by the HA as a Route Management Plan.

Back to Top

Route Functions

Introduction

To ensure that any proposed improvements to, or works on, the route are congruent with the present and future purpose of the route, it is necessary to understand the required function of the route. Route functions have thus been developed for the M40/A40. The M40/A40 has a wide range of functions, as it provides both for longer distance and regional traffic movements as well as providing for local access to towns, villages and individual properties alongside the route. This chapter outlines the purpose and impact functions that have been derived for the M40/A40.

Deriving Route Functions

The functions outlined in this chapter have been identified following an analysis of the types of journeys undertaken on the M40/A40, the relationship between the M40/A40 and other parts of the national and local road network, and regional land use development. These functions have been identified through consultations between the Highways Agency and Stakeholders.

List of functions

Route functions can be described under the main headings of Strategic, Regional and Local Functions.

Strategic Functions:

• Throughout its length the M40/A40 is a key element in the strategic North West-South East link for England, linking to London and its international airports. Between Junctions 9 &10 it also forms part of a route from the East Midlands to South Central England;
• North of Junction 9 (A34) the M40 is part of the E 05 Greenock - Algeciras Reference Road in the International E Road system of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Between the M25 and the M42 the M40 forms part of the Trans European Network;
• The M40 provides the key link for freight traffic heading to and from the M25 to the Midlands and beyond;
• The M40 forms part of the key link for Freight Traffic between the Solent ports and the Midlands;
• The M40 is part of the "heavy load" grid;
• The M40 provides the key north west/south east link for National Tourist Traffic heading to and from the M25;
• The M40 forms part of the Highway Agency's landscape and biodiversity corridor;
• The M40 is the main route for express coach services from the North to Central London and London Airports;
• The M40 provides a strategic diversion route in the event of problems on the M1 between London and the Midlands.

Regional Functions:

• The M40 forms one of the 4 main accesses into Central London from the West;
• Sections of the M40/A40 form part of the Heavy Load Grid;
• The M40 provides access to the tourist centres in Warwick, Stratford upon Avon, Oxford, Banbury, London and various Historic Houses along the M40 corridor;
• High Load Route 15 (clearance 5.8m) passes under Bridge No M40/113.2 on the B4031 at Aynho (M40 J11).

Local Functions:

• The M40 forms part of the commuter route between Banbury and Oxford;
• Between J15 - J14 the M40 is used as a Warwick Southern By-pass;
• The M40 provides a route for heavy traffic between J12 and J14 in order to access Land Rover/Aston Martin Development at Gaydon.

Back to Top

Initial Policy Objectives

This chapter outlines the initial policy objectives of the draft M40/A40 Route Management Strategy (RMS). The RMS provides the necessary framework to assist in delivering key policy objectives on the Trunk Road network. The development of specific Route Policy Objectives are an essential component within the development of the strategy to ensure the impacts of the M40/A40 RMS remains consistent with overall National, Regional and Local Policy and Trunk Road network objectives.

'Transport 2010 The Ten Year Plan' published in July 2000 set out the Government's commitment to invest in transport, including, roads for the next ten years. Seven outcomes are contained in the plan which the HA will help to deliver (set out in HA document "Strategic Roads 2010").

1. Easing congestion - Reduction in congestion on inter-urban trunk roads to 5% below current levels (compared with present forecast growth of 28%) by 2010;
2. Effective Maintenance - Road condition maintained to a high standard so that the proportion requiring maintenance in any future year is held at an optimum level (between 7-8%);
3. Safer Travel - A 33% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network and a 10% reduction on the slight casualty rate by 2010;
4. Better Information - Greater confidence for road users in planning their journeys as a result of instant access to information about conditions on the network;
5. Quieter Roads - reduction in traffic noise benefiting 3 million people living within 600m of trunk roads;
6. Delivering in Partnership - A more effective roads programme with better evaluation of needs and options, quicker delivery and lower impact on the environment;
7. Smarter Roads - Increasing use of new technology to improve the real-time management of traffic on our strategic road network. New systems will provide more reliable journey times, improve safety and control traffic.

In addition to the high level objectives further RMS specific Policy Objectives have been developed. These are under the Government's five key objectives for transport, i.e. Environment, Safety, Economy, Accessibility and Integration. A review of national, regional and local policies was undertaken in the formulation of Route Policy Objectives specific to the M40/A40 corridor.

National Policy Documents

Documents reviewed included:

• A New Deal for Transport;
• A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England. (1998);
• Transport 2010: The Government's 10 Year Plan (2000);
• Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 7: The Countryside - Environmental Quality, Economic and Social Development;
• Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 11: Annex B;
• Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 13: Transport;
• DTLR Circular 4/2001 "Control of Development Affecting Trunk Roads and Agreement with Developers under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980".

Regional Policy Documents

Regional Government Policies have not yet manifested but the M40 passes through three government regions, the Southeast, the West Midlands and East Midlands;

• Regional policy for Southeast is set out in the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East. One of the key features in this document is that the policy should be developed to minimise the distance people need to travel.
• Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands is set out in RPG11. The key features included in this document were the announcement of the M40 J15 Longbridge improvement scheme (£57M) and model transfer to rail.
• The Regional Policy for the East Midlands has not yet been reported on.

Local Policy Documents

Structure plans and Local Plans for the M40 are still waiting to reach stage of formal adoption. These plans include:

• South Bucks District Local Plan;
• Wycombe District Local Plan;
• Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011;
• Oxfordshire Local Transport Plan;
• South Oxfordshire Local Plan;
• Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan;
• Warwick District Local Plan.

Back to Top

Initial Route Problems and Performance

Introduction

This chapter highlights the route problems and issues that concern the Highways Agency, stakeholders and the public, which are considered as hindering the performance or the route functions. Focusing on the existing situation, both traffic flow and road accident data have been used to assess the current operational route problems and overall performance.

Additionally accident data has been analysed for the route. This data can be split into two sections:

1. Personal Injury Accident Data;
2. Stress Levels Data.

The road accident appraisal is based on an analysis of Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data. Locally derived accident rates i.e. the average number of personal injury accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres (pias/100mvkm), have been compared for each route section against national average rates for the equivalent road type e.g. dual 2, 3 or 4 lane. Also calculated is the severity ratio or 'KSI value', defined as the number of fatal and serious accidents as a proportion of the total recorded injury accidents for that link.

Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) values have been used as a measure of the performance of each junction, and based on these calculated reference capacities, the 'stress levels' for each of the route sections are defined. When the traffic flow on a particular link reaches the CRF it is considered to be at '100% stress.' Problems, however, are usually perceived long before this flow level is reached, although it is generally accepted that journey time reliability is not a significant issue for roads with 'stress levels' lower than 75%.

Description of Problems

Drawing Nos. THRMSM - 022 to 025 'Route Problems' show problems and issues highlighted by the Stakeholders. These can be seen in the Draft Strategy Document - March 2004

Back to Top

Section 1 - A40 (Grand Union Canal/GLA Boundary) to the M40 Junction 1 (Denham):

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) levels are equal to the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF), and confirm that during the morning and evening peaks there is significant congestion in the "peak" direction.

In addition to this general A40 congestion, problems have also been highlighted at M40 Junction 1 (Denham), due to the junction running at over-capacity and with traffic signal movement conflicts for the Uxbridge to Denham movement.

However, with only 10 personal injury accidents (PIAs) having been recorded on this short stretch of dual three lane carriageway over a four year period between 1999 and 2002, this gives a local accident rate of 7.35 per 100mvkm, over 15% below the expected national average. Of these, 2 were classed as serious and 8 as slight injury accidents.

Section 2A - M40 Junction 1 to 1A:

Other than peak period link congestion, there are associated safety problems both on the M40 eastern and western slip road approaches to the M25, resulting in frequent rear shunts due to traffic slowing down or exiting late onto the slip roads. There are also significant road safety issues on the "M40 west-to-M25 south", and the "M40 east-to-M25 south" dedicated slips - primarily on account of road geometry and inappropriate vehicle speeds, particularly during wet weather conditions.

Over the five year period, a total of 48 Personal Injury Accidents (PIA's) have occurred on this section, giving a local accident rate that is 9% above the expected national average. However, the great majority of these PIAs are classified as "slight" in severity.

Section 2B - This section, from Junction 1A to Junction 3, has been assessed as smaller sub-sections as follows:

M40 Junction 1A to 2:

In an effort to combat driver fatigue problems between M40 Oxford to London, there are currently proposals for a Motorway Service Area (MSA) to be located adjacent Junction 2 at Beaconsfield.

M40 Junction 2 to 3:

Current delay/accident problems are highlighted at Junction 3 (Loudwater), in the northbound direction due to narrowing of the carriageway from 4 to 3 lanes, in combination with motorway exit slip road queues. There is also a particular safety problem with southbound traffic merging at Junction 3, with slower moving motorway traffic using the uphill nearside lane as a "climber lane".

Also, to help improve access for local traffic it is argued that Junction 3 would benefit from full access onto/off the motorway.

Section 2C:

2C1 - M40 Junction 3 to 4:

Congestion and delay are key issues along this route section and especially through Junction 4 (Handy Cross), with the nearside lanes provided as dedicated entry and exit slip roads, the main carriageway reduces to only 2 lanes each way. As a result there have been a large number of related shunt-type accidents.

It is understood that Junction 4 (Handy Cross) has been the focus of a detailed review by Buckinghamshire County Council, with the aim of improving the existing traffic signal operation.

The Highways Agency is currently taking forward a TPI scheme for Junction 4, subject to successful completion of statutory procedures.

With 133 PIAs recorded over the five year period (3 fatal and 22 serious), this gives a very high local accident rate of nearly 50% above the expected national average.

2C2 - M40 Junction 4 to 5:

Aside from the problems experienced at Junction 4 (Handy Cross), as described previously, there would appear to be no other major issues of concern along this route section.

Section 2D - M40 Junction 5 to 6:

Detailed analysis of the accident records indicates the frequent occurrence of incidents on the southbound "uphill" direction, through the "Chiltern Gap", many of which have been either rear shunt type collisions or a result of vehicles manoeuvring between lanes whilst overtaking.

With 72 PIAs recorded over the five year period, this gives a local accident rate of 40% above the expected national average.

A major area of concern is the informal park-and-ride facility located immediately below J6 (Lewknor), which has come about as a result of Oxford - London bus services stopping off at this point and which has attracted crime to the area. There is a strong perception that this facility should be formalised, with improved signing, passenger facilities, and with the installation of security lighting / CCTV surveillance.

Section 2E - M40 Junction 6 to Junction 8:

Driver fatigue / tiredness has been expressed as a contributory factor in several accidents along this link section, particularly in the north-westbound direction. Similarly, foggy weather conditions have also been a common factor in several incidents.

With a total of 134 PIAs recorded over the five year period, this gives a local accident rate of 7% higher than the expected national average, with 5 fatal and 11 serious incidents.

Section 2F - M40 Junction 8 to 9:

Detailed analysis of the accident records shows a major accident cluster on the northbound carriageway in the vicinity of the tight left hand "Shabbington bend", approximately 7kms north of J8.

With 127 PIAs recorded over the five year period, this gives a local accident rate of 30% below the national average. However of these accidents there is a significantly larger proportion of "fatal" and "serious" accidents than would normally be expected. Causes for these accidents will need to be investigated

Section 2G - M40 Junction 9 to 10:

Major congestion, delay and capacity problems have been identified at J9 (Bicester), on the key A34 and A41 corridors as well as on the M40 southbound exit slip. As a result of these delays, there is a major rat-running issue with regard to the B430 and adjacent unclassified roads as an alternative to the M40 J9-J10 link connection. This is a Priority Action Site. The Highways Agency is currently undertaking a study of this Junction.

Accident values are consistent with the national average.

Section 2H:

M40 Junction 10 to 11

There are major concerns with the existing Junction 10 slip road geometry, with the Ardley access loop perceived to be too tight. The northbound off slip is also regularly at full capacity up to Cherwell Valley MSA.

There are also problems with heavy goods vehicles parking on the hard shoulder of the entry and exit slip roads to and from the MSA, and parking also spills over onto lay-bys on side roads between Junctions 9 and 10.

Accident rates are significantly lower than the national average although there is a high proportion of more serious accidents.

M40 Junction 11 to 12:

Detailed analysis of relevant accident records along this link indicates problems with regard to frequent single vehicle accidents, with inappropriate speeds and/or driver fatigue often cited as a major contributory factor.

At J11/A422 (Banbury), lack of capacity is also seen as a key problem issue, with rat-running on Nethercote Lane highlighted as an alternative east/west route as a means of avoiding this busy junction. Oxfordshire County Council are currently reviewing this junction, with the aim of implementing improvements.

Junction 12 (Gaydon) is also perceived as being heavily congested, with exit-blocking on the slip roads. The geometric layout does not conform to current standards. With the proposed expansion of the Land Rover / Aston Martin operations nearby, coupled with the development of the former Southam Cement Works at Long Itchington, consideration will given to carrying out a study to allow for increased capacity in the future.

M40 Junction 12 to 13:

With no northern access onto/off the M40 at Junction 13, local traffic is forced to join the motorway at Junction 14, causing knock-on capacity problems at that junction. This then, in turn, has a further knock-on effect at Junction 15.

Accident rates are 30% lower than the national average.

M40 Junction 13 to 14:

Junction 14 is currently heavily congested during peak periods, with exit-blocking along the M40 slip road.

Section 2J - M40 Junction 14 to 15:

This link section acts as a Warwick southern relief road, with local traffic mixing with long distance traffic, resulting in Junction 15 being congested at peak periods with delays and exit-blocking along the M40 slip roads. The congestion problems are exacerbated by the A46 core trunk road crossing the M40, resulting in large volumes of traffic changing routes at this Junction 15 "hub". The Highways Agency are considering a major improvement scheme for this junction as part of their TPI schedule.

Accident rates are lower than the national average.

Section 3: This section is managed by Amey Mouchel (MAC) and split in two sections as follows:

M40 Junction 15 to 16:

With there being no northern exit from or southern access onto the M40 at Junction 16, currently there are difficulties in defining a M40-M42 diversion strategy.

Also, with the proposed extension to the Blyth Valley Business Park, near M42 Junction 4, together with a proposal to widen the M42 to dual 4 lanes between Junctions 3 and 7 (West Midlands Area Multi-Modal Study), the need to provide north facing exit and south facing entry slips at Junction 16 will become even more crucial.

Accident rates are lower than the national average.

M40 Junction 16 to M42 Junction 3A:

This link forms the last section of the Amey Mouchel specified HA Area 9 route length. Accident rates are lower than the national average.

Air Quality Management Area

The Local Authorities that have declared AQMA's alongside the M40 are Wycombe District Council and South Oxfordshire District Council.

Initial Route Outcomes

How they were derived

The development of the Route Outcomes has been undertaken by reviewing the Route Functions, Objectives and Problems that have already been identified. To enable a cohesive strategy to be developed, a manageable number of Route Outcomes have been identified which contribute to more than one of the identified Route Functions, Objectives and Problems. The Route Outcomes have been developed through an analysis of relevant data, site visits, engineering judgment and the result of the stakeholder and public consultation. These Route Outcomes will be used by the Highways Agency to develop the Route Management Plan for the M40/A40, and to identify specific measures. These Route Outcomes are given in Annex C, and summarised below.

RO1	To reduce the number of accidents occurring along the route;
RO2	To reduce the number / severity of accidents occurring at junctions;
RO3	To reduce the impact of delays caused by accidents and highway maintenance;
RO4	To reduce the impact of delays caused by traffic congestion whilst maintaining accessibility;
RO5	To encourage sustainable travel;
RO6	To improve safety and operation at the interchange with the M25 at Junction 1A;
RO7	To improve operation at M40 at Junction 3 Loudwater;
RO8	To improve safety and operation at the M40 Junction 4 (Handy Cross) Interchange;
RO9	To improve safety and operation at the M40 Junction 9 (A34/A41) Interchange;
RO10	To improve safety and operation at the M40 Junction 10 (A43) interchange;
RO11	To improve safety and operation at the M40 Junction 12 (Gaydon) interchange;
RO12	To improve safety and operation at the M40 Junction 13 (Leamington Spa) interchange;
RO13	To improve safety and operation at the M40 Junction 15 (Warwick) interchange;
RO14	To improve safety and operation at the M40 Junction 16 (A3400) interchange;
RO15	Insufficient capacity to meet future demand;
RO16	To improve the ease of crossing the motorway by cycle, foot, or horseback;
RO17	To minimise the effects of the M40 on both the natural and built environment.