Latest traffic information

Breadcrumb Navigation

You are here:

  1. Home »
  2. Road Projects »
  3. Area 5 »
  4. M1/M10 (London to M6, Jct 19) »
  5. Publications »
  6. Volume 1 of 2 - report, february 2005 »
  7. Volume 1 of 2 - report, february 2005

Website Navigation

Useful Links

Feature

Better information for your journey

The National Traffic Control Centre collects real-time information on road conditions.

Quick Links

How We Manage Our Roads

In this section you can find out more about how we manage and maintain these roads and plan for the future

The Project Control Framework

On 1st April 2008 we launched the Project Control Framework. The Framework sets out how we, together with the Department for Transport, manage and deliver major improvement projects.

Traffic news on your desktop

Helpful ways to access the latest traffic information when you need it.

« Previous
Next »

Volume 1 of 2 - report, february 2005

7 Route outcomes

7 Route Outcomes

7.1 Derivation

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

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

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

"Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers"

7.2 Proposed Route Outcome Summary Sheets

The following have been identified as Proposed Route Outcomes:

  • RO1 Improve journey time reliability along the M1 (Junctions 1-19)
  • RO2 Improve road users information
  • RO3 To reduce accidents clusters on the M1 and M10 with particular reference to junctions and known accident high risk sites
  • RO4 Minimise the impact of the M1 and M10 on the adjacent local environment
  • RO5 Minimise the impact of noise caused by the M1 where areas suffering from high noise severity
  • RO6 Improve Non-Motorised User (NMU) Facilities
  • RO7 M1 Junction 3 - Improve access to London Gateway Service from the M1 southbound carriageway
  • RO8 M1 Junction 5 - Reduce southbound off-slip queuing
  • RO9 M1 Junction 6 - Investigate improving access to/from M25
  • RO10 M1 Junction 11 - Improve operation of junction, including NMU facilities
  • RO11 M1 Junction 13 - Review capacity improvements at this junction
  • RO12 M1 Junction 14 - Improve capacity and reduce congestion problems
  • RO13 M1 Junctions 15 to 15A - Reduce congestion and improve accessibility at junctions
  • RO14 M1 Junction 17 - Improve accessibility at junction to allow Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGVs) to gain access to DIRFT
  • RO15 To minimise the traffic effects of housing developments from the Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) area
  • RO16 To work with key stakeholders (including London Luton Airport and Local Authorities) to ensure that the increased growth at Luton Airport, as suggested by the Airport White Paper, measures are implemented to accommodate development related traffic
  • RO17 To safeguard the use of route as an abnormal load route
  • RO18 Facilitate increased multi-modal transport integration in accordance with the 10 Year Plan for Transport
RO 1
Route Outcome

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

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

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

- Short Name		Improve road users information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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