Highways Agency

M4 (J1 to J15 London - Membury)

The Strategy

What is a Route Management Strategy?

The M4 Route Management Strategy (RMS) is being carried out by Mott MacDonald for the Highways Agency. The study will provide a 10 year framework for managing the M4 between Junction 1 in Chiswick and Junction 15 near Swindon which will interlock with local transport strategies. This plan will help the Highways Agency to meet their strategic aim:

Strategic 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 Route Management Strategy (RMS) embraces the five key policy objectives for transport:

Policy Objectives:

• To protect and enhance the built and natural environment
• To improve safety for all travellers
• To contribute to an efficient economy to support sustainable economic growth in appropriate locations
• To promote accessibility to everyday facilities for all, especially those without access to a car
• To promote the integration of all forms of transport and land use planning, leading to a better, more efficient transport system

The project is not concerned with the construction of new roads; instead it aims, with the help of the public, to make the best possible use of the current road.

Why have a Route Management Strategy?

The Highways Agency 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.

The process involves consultation with a wide variety of organisations from local councils to public transport operators. It will also involve an extensive public consultation to ensure that the views of the local people are considered.

Finally, the Route Management Strategy will ensure that transport improvements are integrated with other studies and plans, such as the Multi-Modal Studies being carried out in the local area and local transport plans.

How do we develop the Route Management Strategy?

The structure of the RMS and its development is determined by the issues raised through consultation. The timetable below sets out the key dates in the development of the strategy.

Route Functions

During the course of the initial RMS study, a number of functions of the M4 between Junctions 1 and Membury were agreed with the major stakeholders. These are listed below.

Existing Route Functions

National Functions

National functions describe how the M4, or part of it, serves as a transport corridor that caters for inter-regional and international passenger and/or goods movement.

Regional Functions

Regional functions explain how the M4, or part of it, serve as a transport route that caters for passenger and/or goods movement that are likely to have started and/or ended within Greater London, the South East, or the South West England regions.

Local Functions

Local functions give details of how the M4 serves as a transport route that caters for passenger and/or goods movements that are likely to have started and/or ended within their respective counties. This is generally either Berkshire, the west London Boroughs and/or Wiltshire.

Future Route Functions

National Functions

The RMS acknowledges that with the completion of London Heathrow's new Terminal 5, this will create a further shift in traffic movements towards Heathrow Airport. Direct access to Terminal 5 will be from the M25 motorway and there is unlikely to be strategic link between the three terminal areas. However, the M4 motorway will remain a key strategic "gateway" corridor for Heathrow's central terminal area, to and from Central London, Wales and the south west and west of England.

Regional Functions

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

Local Functions

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

Route Objectives

Derivation

Based upon the functions and problems identified previously, a number of Route Objectives have been developed. These provide specific objectives for the M4 route, which the strategy will seek to achieve, where appropriate, through a number of actions.

These objectives are grouped below under the five NATA assessment criteria of environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration. The Government's strategic objective for each of the NATA criteria is also given.

Environment

Government Objective:

To protect and enhance the built and natural environment

Safety

Government Objective:

To improve safety for all travellers

Economy

Government Objective:

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

Accessibility

Government Objective:

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

Integration

Government Objective:

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

Multi Modal Studies and Other Strategic Studies

This RMS is being undertaken in parallel with three Multi-Modal Studies, Orbit, South West and South Wales (SWARMMS) and Thames Valley (TVMMS). However, due to their overlapping study areas, SWARMMS and Orbit did not report detailed recommendations for the M4 route in Berkshire; this was deferred to the TVMMS.

Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study (TVMMS)

This study was initially known as the London to Reading Multi-Modal Study however it was later renamed to include the wider transport needs of the fast growing Thames Valley sub-region. Commissioned by the Government Office for the South East, TVMMS made its final report for recommendations in January 2003.

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

In these broader measures, the TVMMS did not favour widening of the M4, preferring to increase the management of the existing infrastructure. TVMMS recommended greater use of CCTV, variable speed limits and incident detection. The report even suggested a case for road user charging. The report understands that these methods of traffic flow management will not substantially increase capacity; however they can increase journey time reliability. This is more important regarding the M4, which the report has recognised as a corridor needing better management.

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

Secretary of State's Response to the Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study

The Secretary of State supported the study's conclusion that general motorway widening was not required in the study area before 2016. He asked the Highways Agency:

• to identify and develop smaller scale improvements on the trunk road network to address localised congestion problems;
• to develop appropriate management measures for the trunk road and motorway network in the Thames Valley, including better detection and management of incidents;
• to continue to monitor the performance and journey time reliability of motorway and trunk road network as these measures are taken forward.

The Secretary of State noted that, in developing appropriate management measures, it would be necessary to consider very carefully the impact on safety and traffic flows across the road network.

The Secretary of State encouraged the development of strategic partnerships between local authorities, the Highways Agency, coach and other transport operators, including BAA plc, to promote a wider network of longer distance bus and coach services on corridors. He asked the Highways Agency to consider the case for priority measures on the motorway and trunk road network which would support the development of these services.

The Secretary of State strongly endorsed the study recommendation for closer working between local authorities and other stakeholders to develop coherent cross boundary transport strategies. He looked to local authorities to develop co-ordinated Local Transport Plans.

The Secretary of State endorsed the recommendation of the study for the promotion of measures to reduce travel demand and encourage more sustainable travel choices. He looked to local authorities to use their powers under the development control process to require travel plans for all new developments with significant transport implications.

The Secretary of State also supported close integration between land use and transport policies and looked to local planning authorities to locate major generators of personal travel in areas best served by public transport.

Other Studies

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

This RMS supports the development of these recommendations towards their implementation. Subsequent reviews of this RMS will identify how the adopted recommendations alter or strengthen the route management strategy for the M4.

Problems and possible solutions raised at the seminar and through correspondence

A number of issues have been raised through written submissions and at the seminar held on 20 June 2001. Some are general and apply to the whole route and others are specific to a certain area.

The identified problems and their associated possible solutions have been split into the following nine categories:

Please note that these pages list all the ideas raised by consultees and stakeholders for consideration during production of the RMS. The Highways Agency is not committed to taking these suggestions forward at this stage.

• Traffic management
• Local traffic
• Junctions
• Integration
• Accessibility
• Environment
• Noise and air quality
• Safety
• Traveller care

Route Management Plan

Introduction

Following publication of the final Route Management Strategy the Highways Agency will put together a Route Management Plan. This will consider actions which can be realistically delivered within the 10 years of the RMS. The Plan will include committed and potential actions with due consideration of the budget and resources available to them.

The Plan is intended to contribute to the Route Objectives, whilst supporting the Land Use and Development Control statement and seeking to maintain or improve the Route Functions.

A set of prioritised actions have been prepared which take into account the relationship between the policy objectives, functions and the route problems and issues.

The prioritised actions arising from the RMS as agreed at the Second Value Management Workshop will also require consideration in taking forward this Plan.

Highways Agency Schemes and Studies

At the time of writing this report, a number of studies, designs, maintenance schemes, and major maintenance contracts are included in the Co-ordinated Programme for the two Maintenance Areas.

TPI Schemes

Schemes that are successfully appraised and approved by the Secretary of State are entered into the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI), which is structured to deliver appraised road schemes more reliably and effectively than before.

The following are TPI Schemes that are under construction on the M4 Motorway:

1

M4 JCT 13 CHIEVELEY RECONSTRUCTION

Contract awarded 2003, anticipated to be completed in Autumn 2004

Other Major Schemes

Other major M4 schemes may be given the go-ahead in the future. However, planning processes have not been completed, and final decisions on whether to proceed have therefore not yet been made. These schemes are listed below:

1

M4 JCT 11 READING RECONSTRUCTION

Promoted by Reading BC - not a HA scheme

Further M4 studies and schemes have been identified during the course of the RMS study. These are detailed in the Action Study Outcomes of the separate document, "Report on Stakeholder Consultation."

Area 3 Contingency Plan

A Contingency Plan has been developed for Area 3 network, including the M4, to strengthen the HA's response (through its Agents) to emergency incidents on the network. The Plan has been operational since December 2003 and strengthens the HA's capability to manage an incident at a strategic level, and ensures that key personnel will be mobilised on a 24/7 basis.

The Plan defines the roles and responsibilities of key personnel and the lines of communication between them. It allows for full communications between the Area 3 team, the Emergency Services, the HA, local authorities and network stakeholders, to facilitate implementation of an effective incident management and recovery strategy.

Noise Mitigation

The Highways Agency is committed to improving the road surface of the trunk road network where it is deemed that there are serious noise related problems. In order to prioritise the problem areas, the Highways Agency developed the following criteria:

• minimising whole life cost, i.e. providing the right treatment at the right time with minimum disruption, and achieving value for money; we have a duty to protect the taxpayers' interest and wherever possible will try to programme works to fit in with maintenance needs;
• dealing with the noisiest sites that affect the most people; this meant that we would endeavour to improve the situation for the maximum number of people who are closest to trunk roads in the earlier part of the programme;
• minimising disruption to general public and users of the network; this meant that we would try to combine this work with other planned works on the network and use construction, procurement and traffic management methods that speed up the works;
• giving priority to roads opened since June 1988 and are shown to be noisier than predicted at the time of their Public Inquiry but particularly to locations affected by roads which have remained unaltered since October 1969 (the qualifying date for the first noise mitigation measures).

At present, only the M4 elevated section within the study area has been scheduled as a priority area for noise mitigation. However, the task is ongoing and the network will be constantly reviewed and resurfacing will be carried out in accordance with the agreed criteria.

Review Process

Clearly, the next 10 years will see priorities change for transport as the Government's 10-year plan starts to take shape. The Multi-Modal Studies promoted schemes, which aim to encourage greater use of public transport and have less reliance upon the car. Improvements to the railways will make some impact on reducing traffic levels generally throughout the UK. As these and other transport improvements come into effect, it will be necessary to review our planned actions for the M4 to ensure that our outcomes remain in line with changing demand patterns and other integrated transport developments.

It is therefore important to understand that the publication of the final RMS in 2004 does not mark the end of the planning process for the M4. The final Route Management Strategy will be updated at least every year and reviewed at least every three years.

Updates are likely to take the form of a re-assessment of scheme and study priorities through value management workshops, with some adjustment to programme being made, if it is felt that priorities have changed. The plans will also be adjusted in the light of each year's available budget, accelerating schemes whenever possible. New issues or problems which arise after publication of the final RMS will also be taken into consideration in any future review of the M4 plans.