Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers

Related pages

• Executive summary
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Route description
• 3 Policy objectives
• 4 Route functions
• 5 Land use and development control statement
• 6 Route problems and performance
• 7 Route outcomes
• 8 Strategy impact statement

6 Route problems and performance

6 Route Problems and Performance

6.1 Problems and Issues raised during Initial Consultations

Following the initial consultation letter, which was sent out to 175 consultees, a number of comments were received, which are detailed in Section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2.

The following is a summary of the consultations and comments received to date. These are the views of the consultees and they are not necessarily endorsed by the HA.

6.1.1 Comments received from Local Authorities

(i) Bedfordshire County Council

• Improvements are required at Junction 13 to alleviate severe traffic congestion.
• A bypass is needed of Dunstable and Luton, north of Junction 11 linking the A5 to the A505. (Note: The Dunstable Northern Bypass is now included in the TPI programme.)
• Severe congestion from Junction 6A with the M25 up to Junction 11 at Luton.
• Consider additional lanes by providing narrower lane widths.
• Entry restrictions onto the motorway.
• Active Traffic Management (ATM) information systems. (Note: The ATM is now underway)
• The close proximity of Toddington Services to Junction 12 is a problem.
• The anomalies in the rights of way network created by the construction of the M1 should be addressed.
• There are problems of noise, air quality and visual intrusion. From Junction 10 through to Junction 12. (Note: The Noise improvement has partially completed at this stage)

(ii) Buckinghamshire County Council

• Unless the M1 is increased to 4 lanes up to Milton Keynes traffic displacement from M1 will have a knock on effect on the A5 at Junction 9.

(iii) Hertfordshire County Council

• Widen the M1 from Junction 6A with the M25 up to Junction 11 at Luton. (Note: In programme)
• Junctions 7 and 8 traffic moving between M10 and Hemel Hempstead (A414) causes additional congestion.
• Local access between Junction 6 and the M25 needs to be addressed.
• Improve noise mitigation around Luton and Dunstable. (Note: Noise mitigation improvements underway)

(iv) Northamptonshire County Council

• Signpost Wellingborough from Junction 15 to relieve pressure on Junction 14 and the A509. Dual the A509.
• Signing in and around Northampton needs to be changed to take account of the trunking of the A508 and A45 from Junction 15 to the A14 at Thrapston and the de-trunking of the A45 west of Northampton. (Note: Most of the signing work have been completed.)
• The lack of north facing slip roads at Junction 17 causes problems for lorry traffic gaining access to DIRFT.
• All movements should be catered for at Junction 19.

(v) Bedford Borough Council

• Access to the A421/A507 at Junction 13 presents a hazard to motorists.
• Tailbacks often occur on the M10 northbound at Junction 8 where traffic merges with the M1.

(vi) Dacorum Borough Council

• Widen the M1 from Junction 6A with the M25 up to Junction 11 at Luton.
• Junctions 7 and 8 traffic moving between M10 and Hemel Hempstead (A414) causes additional congestion.
• Improve noise mitigation around Luton and Dunstable.

(vii) Luton Borough Council

• The de-classification of the M1 spur (J10-J10A) is needed to facilitate improvements to J10A that the Council wishes to make. Alternatively, improvements to Jct 10A should be included as part of the M1 RMS.
• The M1 widening proposals between J10-J13 are currently out to Consultation. Particular concern on the impact of the M1 Widening proposals (start of works 2008; complete 2011) on Translink (Luton Borough Council scheme expected to start Sept 2006, and completed end 2008) - issue relates to bridge over M1 and area of land immediately to the West of the bridge). Other issue is relationship of M1 widening to northern bypass of Dunstable, and need for a new junction with the M1 just north of Luton as part of that scheme. It is understood the two schemes likely to be built at the same time. Other concern is that the traffic and environmental work done on J10-J13 scheme does not consider the cumulative impacts of the new junction in this area.
• The M1 is particular source of noise and air pollution especially where it is on embankment through most of Luton. Some work already done on noise barriers and quieter road surfacing but M1 widening scheme/Strategy should maximise opportunities for measures to improve noise and air quality in the area.

(viii) Mid Bedfordshire District Council

• Any alterations to Junction 12 and the A5120 will have a dramatic effect locally.
• If the M1 is to be increased to four lanes consideration should be given to lengthening deceleration and acceleration lanes.
• A northbound crawler lane should be considered at Tingrith Hill north of Junction 12.
• Discourage local traffic from making short journeys on the M1.

(ix) Milton Keynes Council

• A new Junction 13A and improvements to Junction 13.
• Congestion problems on southbound exit to Junction 14. Improve traffic signals on junction.
• Signpost Wellingborough from Junction 15 to relieve pressure on Junction 14 and the A509. Dual A509.
• Improvements should be considered to the A421 at Junction 13.
• The southbound exit at Junction 14 should be widened.
• Poor air quality around Newport Pagnell, north of Junction 14.

6.1.2 Comments received from Police

(i) Hertfordshire Constabulary

• Concern at M1 Junction 6, in particular the southbound exit and entry slip road where traffic emerges from Mount Pleasant Lane.

(ii) Metropolitan Police

• The northbound on slips at Junction 1 are split into two approaches. The first is the old slip from Staples Corner and this is reduced to two lanes with a speed restriction of 50 mph. The second is the new slip which takes the form of a two lane flyover taking traffic from the westbound of A406 directly onto the M1. This is also governed by a reduced speed limit. Where the two sections converge, the situation of an outside lane running alongside an inside lane with all its inherent dangers. There is a possibility at this point for a collision to occur when vehicles merging from the old slip attempting to make an overtaking manoeuvre and travelling directly into the path of a slower vehicle travelling on lane one of the new slip.
• There is a potential of collision at Junction 1 southbound carriageway where it divides with the nearside lane being dedicated to taking traffic onto the A406 eastbound. Invariable vehicles are seen crossing the solid white line which divides the carriageway at this point and as the motorists are sometimes lost or confused. They are slow moving wandering across into lane two of the carriageway.
• Traffic backs up on the southbound lanes as the queue of traffic attempting to enter Brent Cross Shopping Centre causes congestion. This breeds impatience and motorists swapping lanes to advance a few feet. The potential for collision with the rear of the queues requires monitoring and the facilitation of the traffic to exit the M1 on to the roundabout system at junction one requires manual encouragement to prevent the entrance to the roundabout being blocked by motorists attempting to travel eastbound onto the A406.
• The speed limits on the over bridges carrying the on/off slips at Junction 2 have been reduced to 30 mph for several years. As this is a structural requirement. It has caused no problem with safety aspects.
• Junction 3 (London Gateway Services) presents problems for motorists attempting to re join the M1 both north and south bound as many appear to be confused by the road leading to the Highways Agency Depot. Better signing would alleviate this problem. The southbound off slip which previously would attract motorists travelling too fast for the right hand bend at the top of the slip has had a illuminating sign advising further reduction in speed required. This sign appears to have reduced the number of collision with the barrier at this location.
• The on and off slips at Junction 4 north and south bound respectively cause little concern. There is the occasional vehicle which fails to address their speed when exiting southbound and this results in collision with the barriers systems. Illuminated warning sign recommending further reduction in speed may be advisable ( Similar to that sited at Junction 3)

(iii) Northamptonshire Police

• In view of current proposals to widen the M1 south of Junction 14 and vastly improve the layout & interchanges at Junction 19, widening of the M1 between J14 and J19 should also be considered to reduce congestion/ collision on this busy section of the M1 and provide a consistence layout through the route.

Note: There are no further comments or suggestions from the Bedfordshire and Leicestershire Police.

6.1.3 Comments received from Other Consultees

(i) CPRE Northants

• Use of variable speed limits on M1 to increase capacity.

(ii) CPRE Bedford

• Junction 13 gets very congested principally because of the roundabout on the south side.
• Install signal controlled access on to the southbound on slip at Junction 10.
• Use variable speed limits to improve capacity and reduce accidents between Junction 6A and 11.
• A footpath in the Tingrith area, approx 2.5 kms north of Junction 12 was severed during when the M1 was constructed and not reinstated.
• Signs to railheads off the M1 should be erected i.e. Junction 15A-5.5 kms to Northampton, Junction 14- 5.5 kms to Milton Keynes, Junction 12-1.5 kms to Harlington.
• There is a need for more roadside planting along the M1. All rural sections not having a hedge should be provided with one.
• There are too many lengths of the M1 that are unnecessarily lit. Lighting should be removed between Junctions.
• Some of the recently installed gantries have been insensitively sited and are dominant in the landscape. Consider visual intrusion in future.
• Use quieter road surfacing whenever surfacing work is carried out.

(iii) British Waterways

• A feasibility study for Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway between junctions either side of Junction 13 has been carried out and is likely to be constructed.

(iv) English Nature - Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Northamptonshire

• The Route Management Plan should include a full environmental assessment.

(v) Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust

• Motorway embankments are valuable wildlife corridors.

(vi) British Horse Society

• Access across the M1 for horses and riders should be considered in any new junction proposals

(vii) National Express

• Congestion from Junctions 5 to 11 northbound and Junction 12 to 6 southbound.
• J14 is heavily congested into Milton Keynes - Provide priority lanes for public transport.

(viii) Redbourn Parish Council

• There is insufficient road capacity between Junctions 8 and 9.
• Road noise between Junctions 8 and 9 has an unacceptable impact on Redbourn.

(ix) Hanslope Parish Council

• Between Junctions 14 to 15 noise mitigation measures should be considered.
• Investigate the problems of flooding of the hamlet of Tathall End between Junctions 14 and 15.

(x) Moulsoe Parish Council

• Increased development in Cranfield Technology area increases traffic through Moulsoe to access the A421 and avoid Junction 13.
• Junction 14 is heavily congested into Milton Keynes - Provide priority lanes for public transport.
• A new Junction 13A is required.
• The dualling of the A509 is required at Junction 14.
• Pedestrians and cyclists have not been considered in the design of Junction 14.
• When M1 was built properties were promised sound attenuation bunds north of Junction 13.

(xi) Newport Pagnell Town Council

• Need for new Junction between Junctions 13 and 14.
• Noise fencing around Pennycress Way, Newport Pagnell, north of Junction 14.

(xii) Flamstead Parish Council

• At Junction 9 new noise reducing asphalt should be laid.

(xiii) Kislingbury Parish Council

• Noise pollution from the M1 should be addressed and screening of trees should be planted throughout parish to screen the M1 from the parish.

(xiv) Libourne Parish Council

• Concerns about traffic through Lilbourne village and traffic along the A5 from Junction 18.

(xv) Crick Parish Council

• There is no access from the M1 southbound to the M6, which increases traffic on Junction 18.
• Noise from the M1 at Junction 18 should be mitigated.

(xvi) Watford Parish Council

• Screening and noise fencing is required adjacent to Watford Gap south of Junction 17.

(xvii) Aspley Heath Parish Council

• Concerns about traffic congestion at Junction 13.

(xviii) Aspley Guise Parish Council

• From Junction 6A to Junction 19 the M1 should be 4 lanes each way.
• Junction 13 roundabout should be redesigned for additional capacity.
• A421 which crosses the M1 at Junction 13 should be dualled from Milton Keynes to the A1.
• Any motorway tolling should consider the resultant increase in traffic using local roads.
• A new Junction 13A should be constructed to link the A421 to Milton Keynes.
• A new Junction 12a should be constructed to relieve pressure on Junction 13.

(xix) Nether Heyford Parish Council

• Consider other forms of transport and deter local traffic from using motorway.
• Take account of the effects of noise around Junction 16.

(xx) Flitwick Town Parish Council

• Long queues on the M1 during the morning peak between Junction 11 to 8 southbound and vice versa in the evening peak. Additional lanes are required.
• Between Junctions 10 and 8 southbound HGVs occupy lanes 1 and 2. HGVs should be limited to lane 1.
• Traffic lights should be considered on Junctions 9 and 10 to control traffic in the peak periods.
• As there are no suitable alternatives to the M1 toll charges would be inappropriate.

(xxi) Tingrith Parish Meeting

• The close proximity of Toddington Services to the northbound exit onto Junction 12 is a potential safety problem.
• Bunding has recently been constructed to lessen noise from the M1 at Tingrith between Junctions 12 to 13. Any widening should consider additional noise mitigation and screen planting.

(xxii) Toddington Parish Council

• Between Junction 11 and 12 the A5/M1/A6 link, Dunstable and Luton northern bypass put forward in 1995, should be considered.

(xxiii) Chalgrave Parish Council

• HGVs should be restricted to the inside lane between Junction 11 and Junction 8 southbound due to the gradient.
• 4 lanes should be constructed between Junctions 11 and 8.
• Encourage more use of the M10 to connect to the M25.
• More VMS signs should be constructed between Junction 6A and Junction 11.
• Extend Junction 13 slip road northbound on to the M1.

6.1.4 Stakeholder Seminar

During the course of the initial consultation and subsequent Stakeholder Seminar, comments on problem areas, sometimes with suggestions for improvement, were made by stakeholders and consultees. Table 6.1 below lists all problems and issues raised during the initial consultation and Stakeholder Seminar with suggestions of how each could be dealt with and how the outcomes of the multi modal study affect the issues where applicable.

Problems/Issues	Possible Solutions	Proposed solutions from MMSs/LNMS	Comments
Traffic Management, Driver Information and Congestion
Congestion problems between Junctions 6A and 11.	Widening the M1 to dual-4 lane. Some consultees suggested dual-4 should be considered up to Junction 19. Provide additional lanes by adopting narrower lane widths. Implement variable speed limits to increase capacity. Consider the possibility of converting the hard shoulder into a running lane on Junction exits to improve diverge capacity (pilot study on M1 & M102 since 1999).	LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lane motorway between Junctions 6A-13 in two stages. J6A-10 as stage 1 J10-13 as stage 2	The SOS has announced that the recommendation from LSMMMS of widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A-13 has entered the TPI schemes.
Presence of high percentage of HGV's causes congestion particularly between Junctions 11 and 8 southbound.	Upgrade M1 to dual-4 lane. Provide additional capacity for HGV's by using the hard shoulder as a crawler lane on uphill sections. Restrict HGVs to lane 1 only at adverse gradient sections on M1.
Presence of high percentage of HGV's causes congestion north of Junction 12.	A northbound crawler lane should be considered at Tingrith Hill north of Junction 12.
Problems between A414 and M10. Traffic merges unnecessarily and causes queues.	Additional lane required on M1 northbound between Junctions 7 and 8
Junction 12 - Proximity of services causes weaving difficulties.	Continuous lane between services and junction being considered.	To be investigated as part of the J10-13 widening.	None
Lack of driver information to help avoid congestion.	Consider more VMS between M1 Junction 6A and 11.	LSMMMS recommended improving and implementing active traffic management systems.	A study in the forward programme for the use of VMS to display these messages is being studied by the Area 8 MAC.
Discourage local traffic from making short journeys on the M1.	LSMMMS recommendation of active traffic management systems. Restrict access to the M1	No	The SOS responded that there is little evidence of how physical demand measures such as ramp metering might work in the UK at present and it would be necessary to have a careful consideration of the impact on safety and traffic flows across the network.
Local Traffic
Displacement of congestion onto local road network		Widening J6A-13 may discourage using local road network. Matters have been considered in the LSMMMS.	The SOS has announced that the recommendation from LSMMMS of widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A-13 has entered the TPI schemes.
Number of HGV's on A5120, especially through Toddington is a concern to local residents.		Widening J6A-13 may discourage using local road network. Matters have been considered in the LSMMMS.
Congestion problems on A5	Dunstable Northern Bypass	The SOS has announced that the Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5-M1) link has entered the TPI.	None
Junctions
Junction 5 - congestion has impact on access to Watford	Undertake study to investigate possible causes and solutions.	Area 5 LNMS programme	M1 Junctions 1-5 access improvements are included into the Area 5 LNMS programme.
Junction 6 - problems occur as strategic and local traffic mix.	Undertake study to investigate possible causes and solutions.	No	None
Junction 9 - Congestion Problems. South on slips of particular concern	Widening of M1 between J6A and J10	No	None
Junction 10 - Operating at limit of capacity. Junction 10 has been signalised	Scheme to improve signal co-ordination required	No	None
Junction 11 - Junction has been recently signalised.	New junction and bypass of Dunstable and Luton connecting A5 to A505	The SOS has announced that the Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5-M1) link scheme has entered the TPI.	None
Junction 13 - Junction has capacity problems. Severe queuing in the morning peak.	Redesign junction as part of A421 scheme.	LSMMMS recommended re-modelling of Junction 13 especially with regard to proposed widening.	The SOS has announced that the recommendation from LSMMMS of widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between J6A-J13 has entered the TPI schemes.
Junction 14 - Severe congestion problems. Mainline queuing is a result, and difficulty in joining the motorway flow is apparent	Need to improve capacity at existing junction. Signpost Wellingborough from Junction 15 to relieve Junction 14 and A509. Possibly dual A509. Improve traffic signal phasing at junction. Widen southbound exit from M1	LSMMMS recommended undertaking a review of Junction 14, especially with regard to proposed widening.	The SOS has asked the HA to carry out a review of the operation of the M1 J14 in the light of proposed expansion of Milton Keynes - South Midlands and the early priority to widen the M1 up to J13.
Junction 15 - Capacity problems causing peak hour queuing and delays. Access difficulty from Grange Park. Further development proposals will aggravate problems.	Review traffic signal timings and arrangement and amend as appropriate. Review the whole junction layout in conjunction with future development proposals.	No	None
Junction 15A - Traffic flow conflict causing queuing and delays.	Provide a new roundabout exit slip road from M1 to A43 directly onto the A43 west roundabout.	No	None
Junction 17 - The lack of north facing slip roads means that HGV movements to the SW and DIRFT have to be routed via M6.	Review the existing junction layout.	No	None
Junction 19 - Lack of access from M1 southbound at Junction 19 to M6 causes traffic to route via Junction 18.	Junction 19 Road Base Study looked at the improvements to J19. The study has now been included into the TPI schemes.	LSMMMS recognised J19 Road Base Study.	In February 2003, the SOS has announced that the Improvement of Junction 19 proposal has been included into the TPI schemes.
Severance/Accessibility
Concern that any alterations to Junction 12 will have a detrimental impact on local transport in Mid Bedfordshire.	To be considered as part of the M1 widening scheme.	No
A footpath in the Tingrith area, approx 2.5 kms north of Junction 12 was severed when the M1 was constructed and notreinstated	Carry out study of community severance problems
Pedestrians and cyclists have not been catered for in the redesign of Junction 1	Consider cyclists and pedestrian needs in future junction designs	LSMMMS recommended undertaking a review of M1 Junction 14.	The SOS is asking the HA to carry out a review of the operation of the M1 J14 in the light of proposed expansion of Milton Keynes - South Midlands and the early priority to widen the M1 up to J13.
Integration/Modal Shift
Junction 14 access to the coachway at Milton Keynes is affected by congestion in the peak hours	The HA to liaise with the local authority to priorities the access for the coachway at Junction 14.	LSMMMS recommended undertaking a review of M1 Junction 14.	The SOS has asked the HA to carry out a review of the operation of the M1 J14 in the light of proposed expansion of Milton Keynes - South Midlands and the early priority to widen the M1 up to J13.
Improve information about the location of train stations	Provide signs to railheads off the M1 should be erected i.e. Junction 15A-5.5 kms to Northampton, Junction 14- 5.5 kms to Milton Keynes, Junction 12-1.5 kms to Harlington.	LSMMMS recommended improving and implementing active traffic management systems.
Landscaping and Biodiversity
Screening is required adjacent to Watford Gap south of Junction 17	Undertake study	No
Lengths of the M1 that are unnecessarily lit.	Undertake study of lighting requirements for the M1	No
Some of the recently installed gantries have been insensitively sited and are dominant in the landscape.	Consider visual intrusion in future designs	No
Safety and Accidents
The plinths to a number of the Owen William bridge piers in the central reserve, provide insufficient protection to stop crossover accidents.	A series of measures are being implemented but in general modifications involve either constructing a double height box beam barrier or increasing the height of the plinth (or boat).	No
Junction 6 to 6A came within the worst banding for accident severity. 38 PIA's have occurred on this 1.3km section of road between 1996-2000. Of these injuries, 12 were rated as killed or severely injured (KSI). 6 of these KSI's occurred in 1996, whilst none occurred in 1998 or 2000.	Carry out study to investigate possible causes and solutions.	No
Noise and Air Quality
Noise and air quality problems between Junction 10 and 12 (Luton and Barnstaple)	Identified as a "Noise Hotspot" resulting from a history of public complaint. A budget has been allocated for constructing noise mitigation.	Area 8 LNMS Programme	Noise barriers have been installed at the locations below: J11 to Kestrel way (both side) Bradley Road to J11 (both side) Some other locations between J10-J12 are to be completed within the next 2 years.
When M1 was built, properties north of Junction 13 expected sound attenuation bunds to be constructed.	Carry out study of noise levels	No	Issue to be addressed by Area 8 MAC
Between Junctions 14 to 15 noise mitigation measures should be considered for Newport Pagnell	Carry out study of noise levels	Area 8 LNMS Programme	M1 J14-J15 Stage 2 Noise Assessment Study is included into the Area 8 LNMS Programme.
Consider the effects of noise around Junction 16	Carry out study of noise levels	Area 8 LNMS Programme	M1 J15A-J16 Stage 2 Noise Assessment Study is included into the Area 8 LNMS Programme.
Consider noise mitigation adjacent to Watford Gap south of Junction 17	Carry out study of noise levels	No
Traveller Care
No provision of a motorway service area on the busiest section of the M1, J6A-10.	None	No	It is not the HA's responsibility to provide, operate or maintain the motorway services areas (MASs). However, the HA will liaise with the local authorities to identify a suitable location for providing a MSA.
Maintenance
Area 8 MAC have highlighted problems with maintaining central reserve safety barriers and lighting.	Area 8 MAC suggest constructing low maintenance concrete central reserve barriers, dismantling lighting and erecting lighting behind the verge.	No	Issue to be addressed by Area 8 MAC
Planning and Development
Further development planned within vicinity of Junctions 8-11 will exacerbate congestion problems.		No
New development at Junction 10 mayincrease congestion problems.		No
New development likely to have impact onoperation of Junction 13.	Review junction capacity to serve development	No
Due to expansion of DIRFT development,problems may occur at Junction 18 in thefuture.	Consider the need for an all movement at Junction 18.	No
Others
Poor lane use by motorists causes delay		No

6.2 Problems and Issues Identified at Value Management Workshop

Prior to the Value Management Workshop the problems and issues identified at the M1 RMS Seminar were reviewed by the RMS team. Those issues currently being actioned by the HA were identified along with issues which were considered to be outside the remit of the RMS workshop discussions and were numerically numbered by order of identification at the seminar. The remainder of the problems; those not being actioned to date; were listed for specific review of the M1 RMS Workshop and numbered within the list with an "L" prefix, as shown below.

Note: These problems /comments are not necessarily the view of the HA.

6.3 M1 RMS List of Problems for Review at the M1 RMS Workshop

No		Problems
L1	Economy	Between Watford Gap & Junction 17 Northbound -Provision of a crawler Lane
L2	Safety	Junction 15 & 15A - Provide an auxiliary lane to carry the A43 traffic that is soon to be officially signed along the motorway, rather than around the Northampton Ring Road
L3	Accessibility	Current scheme to provide new parapets to bridges needs linking with study of usages of bridges by NMUs. Consideration should also be given (in conjunction with the County Councils) of the re-provision of Rights of Way severed at the time of motorway construction
L4	Environment	Noise - Quieter surfaces and more noise barriers should be provided
L5	Economy	Junction 5 - Southbound off slip backs up onto M1 in peak periods. This is associated with the traffic signals on the junction with the A4008 and A41(T). There may be possible improvements that could be made to signal phasing and junction design
L6	Safety	A405 - Vehicles on the M25 which wish to travel south on the M1 or vehicles travelling north on the M1 wishing to join the M25 cannot use Junction 6/6A. Instead they have to use Junction 5 on the M1 and connect to the M25 at Junction 21a via the A405. Local traffic from Bricket Wood also has to use the A405, which causes considerable conflict. If there is congestion on the M25 westbound vehicles leave at Junction 22 and use the roads (such as the B556) around Bricket Wood in order to get to Junction 5 on the M1. A solution would be to look at ways of segregating the motorway traffic from the local traffic on the section of the A405 between M1 junction 5 and M25 Junction 21a
L7	Safety	Junction 6A M1 southbound off slip - Queuing accidents are common particularly in winter. There is a possible solution in improving the road markings and taking M25 eastbound vehicles off first before M25 westbound vehicles
L8	Economy	Junction 8 -Traffic going to Hemel Hempsteadbacks up onto the motorway slip roads and onto the motorway
L9	Safety	Junction 9 -The southbound on slip from the A5183 is a very tight bend which stops vehicles, particularly HGVs from accelerating and joining the motorway at a reasonable speed. Merging traffic then joins the M1 on a hill which exacerbates the problem. The result is that there are frequent collisions between slow moving HGVs climbing the steep gradient and much faster vehicles. The solution is to construct an additional climbing lane southbound on the M1
L10	Safety	Junction 4-5 - Northbound there are problems with ponding of water. There are now 40mph signs used, static signs have been erected
L11	Safety	Short on and off slips at Junctions 10 and 11
L12	Integration	A significant proportion of traffic on this stretch of the M1 appears to be made up of local trips
L13	Safety	Junction 11 - hard shoulder use
L14	General	Controlled motorway - Driving discipline is poor on the M1, such as slower vehicles using the middle lane and driving too close. Examples of managing the traffic flow and improving safety have been shown with variable speed limits set on the M25. This should be considered for the M1
L15	Accessibility	Improved Signage Generally - consistency between Area 5 and Area 8
L16	Safety	Lack of HGV parking results in queues on the slip roads
L17	Economy	M1 Junction 1 and Junction 7 Bus Lanes
L18	Accessibility	Crossing points for NMU's should be provided across the M1 at Junction 11
L19	Safety	The future of the route as it enters and starts/terminates in London and a particular point to be raised relates to accessibility from all directions at Junction 2, which limits vehicle choice often forcing strategic movement onto local Barnet/TfL roads to the detriment of the local air quality, noise nuisance and congestion

6.4 Route Problems and Outcomes Framework

A framework was used at the workshop for assessing the problems listed on the previous pages and referenced by their "L" number; and subsequently agreeing the associated outcomes for the route.

An explanation of the assessment sections of this framework is included below:

Severity of Problem:

H

Existing severe detrimental effect - needs to be solved urgently.

M

Existing problem. Potential to cause detrimental effect in the future or major benefits if solved.

L

Wish list. Issues that make the route more pleasant or easier to use.

Benefits

+++

Extremely Beneficial

++

Very Beneficial

+

Beneficial

-

Negative

--

Very Negative

---

Extremely Negative

The complete problems and outcomes framework, as reviewed and completed by the workshop, is included on the following pages.

6.4.1 General

No	Key Problems	Problem Severity (H/M/L)	Comments	Responsibility	Considered by M1/M10 RMS?	Route Outcome	Benefits for route
L14	The general driving discipline is poor on the M1. Slower vehicles using the middle lane and vehicles are driving too close. Slow vehicles, inappropriate speed and Head Way, Approach speed to stationary traffic - Driver Discipline.	H	Investigate the variable speed limits set on the M25 has shown as an example of managing the traffic flow and improving road safety. This should also be considered for the M1.	HA / Police / DSA	Yes	To improve safety, reduce congestion, reduce accidents and improve driver behaviour.	+++
1	Review all existing diversion routes (strategic, regional and local) in both directions, to ensure that the most appropriate route is being utilised, taking into account of capacity and environmental issues.	M	There is an active programme of review of Symbol Signed Diversion Routes (SSDRs). All current signed routes have been reviewed, discussed and agreed with the respective authorities. This is currently being studied by the Area 8 MAC.	HA / Area 8 MAC	Yes	To improve safety, reduce congestion, caused by accidents.	++
2	Traffic information provided by radio and by signs should be more accurate and more reliable.	M	There is a study in the forward programme use of VMSs to display these messages. This is currently being studied by the Area 8 MAC.	HA / Area 8 MAC	Yes	To improve driver's information.	++
4	Strengthening and consistency of the central reserve barriers. Consider concrete barriers throughout the M1 to minimise cross over accidents, which are often the most severe and cause the greatest congestion and closure time.	M	This is currently being studied by the Area 8 MAC.	HA / Area 8 MAC	Yes	To improve safety and reduce accidents.	+
5	Response to non fatal accidents, as there is considerable room for improvement.	M	This is currently being studied by the Area 8 MAC.	HA / Area 8 MAC / Police	Yes	Reduce congestion caused by accident and increase availability.	+

6.4.2 Safety

No	Key Problems	Problem Severity (H/M/L)	Comments	Responsibility	Considered by M1/M10 RMS?	Route Outcome	Benefits for route
L2	Junction 15 & 15A: Consider the provision of an auxiliary lane to carry the A43 traffic.	M	A43/A45 route now uses the stretch of the M1 between Junctions 15 and 15A. The A43/A45 RMS has now identified a need for a link road at Junction 15A and therefore there is a requirement for reporting between the two RMSs.	HA	Yes	Increase safety and reduce congestion	+++
L6	A405: Vehicles from the M25 wish to travel onto the south of M1 and vehicles from the north of the M1 wish to join the M25 cannot use the M1 Junction 6/6A. Instead they have to use the M1 Junction 5 and connect to the M25 at Junction 21A via the A405. Local traffic from Bricket Wood also has to use the A405, which causes considerable conflict. If there is congestion on the M25 westbound, vehicles leave at M25 Junction 22 and use the local roads (such as the B556) around Bricket Wood in order to get to Junction 5 on the M1.	H	Use of A405 to access M25 / M1. This issue has been studied - "Golden Triangle Study". The issue needs to be examined by the M25 RMS.	HA	M25 RMS	Increase safety and reduce congestion
			Queuing onto M1 from Junction 6. This issue also needs to be examined by M25 RMS.	HA	Yes / M25 RMS	Increase safety and reduce congestion	+++
			Junction 6 access and egress is substandard.	HA	Yes	Increase safety and reduce congestion	+++
L7	M1 Junction 6A southbound off slip: Queuing accidents are common particularly in winter.	H	Confusion for road users is the major problem. There is some poor behaviour including pushing in to exit at Junction 6A and this results in accidents. This issue needs to be dealt with as part of the widening scheme.	HA	Yes	Increase safety and reduce congestion	+++
L9	M1 Junction 9 southbound on slip from the A5183 is a very tight bend which stops vehicles, particularly HGVs from accelerating and joining the motorway at a reasonable speed. Merging traffic then joins the M1 on a hill which exacerbates the problem. The result is that there are frequent collisions between slow moving HGVs climbing the steep gradient and much faster vehicles.	H	Cannot justify any additional lane proposed to solve this problem economically. The main problem is that the On Slip is too short and needs to be extended up the hill. To be resolved as part of M1 widening scheme.
L10	There are problems with ponding of water at M1 Junction 4 to 5 northbound. There are now 40mph signs used and static signs have been erected	H	Will be reviewed at Area 5 LNMS review.	HA / Area 5 MA	Yes	Increase safety and improve route availability	+++
L11	Short on and off slips at Junction 10 and 11	H	Accidents and acceleration problems uphill. Part of M1 widening considered Junction outside scope of widening.	HA	Yes	Increase safety and reduce congestion	+
L13	Junction 11 - hard shoulder use. Queuing occurs on the main line of M1, drivers tend to leave at Junction 11 and want to use the hard shoulder to speed journeys. This is also a problem at many junctions on the M1.	M	Review the existing junctions' layout and widening the entry and exit arms if necessary.	HA/ Are 5 MA / Area 8 MAC	Yes	Reduce congestion and improve accessibility	++
L16	Lack of HGV parking along the M1 resulting in queues on the slip roads. Problem at most of the MSAs was predominantly foreign drivers. Specific issue between Junctions 9 and 10.	H	Potential for accidents due to HGV's parking on hard shoulder. There is a study in the forward programme to identify the extent of the problem. This is being studied by the Area 8 MAC. Examine facilities on the continent and examine implementation.	HA / Area 8 MAC	Yes	Increase safety and improve journey ambience	+
2	Difficult access to London Gateway Service Area (MSA) from the M1 southbound carriageway. The slip lane off the motorway towards the MSA contains a very sharp right hand turn as it turns into an over-bridge to reach the MSA which sits on the northbound carriageway.	M	This is being addressed by the M25 Sphere commission.	HA / Area 5 MA	Yes	Improve traveller care and increase safety.	+
7	M1 Junction 7 with the M10: There is a lot of northbound weaving between vehicles on the M1 wishing to get off at Junction 8 and vehicles joining from the M10 and wishing to continue on the M1.	H	The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A- 13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes.	HA	Yes	Increase safety and reduce congestion.	++
8	M1 Junction 8 - 9 has a high accident rate on the southbound carriageway	H	There are some signs being erected to highlight to motorists the need to keep their distance. Also there are 2 VMS signs have been erected in April 2004. A further review of the accident cluster in the next financial year by the Area 8 MAC.	HA / Area 8 MAC	Yes	Reduce accident and increase traveller's information.	++
10	M1 Junction 10: The on-slips at this junction are not long enough for vehicles to build up their speed to merge onto the motorway.	M	This issue is currently being earmarked for a study review by the Area 8 MAC. The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A- 13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes.	HA / Area 8 MAC	Yes	Reduce accident and congestion.	+
13	Toddington Service Station: The close proximity of Toddington MSA to Junction 12 is causing Confusion for drivers over where the correct junction exit is. A high number of weaving movements and making access to lane 2 difficult for drivers exiting the MSA	M	The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A- 13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI scheme	HA	Yes	Improve traveller care and reduce congestion.	++
14	Slow moving HGV's on M1 between the south of Junction 11 and south of Junction 12	M	The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A- 13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes.	HA	Yes	Reduce congestion.	++

6.4.3 Accessibility

No	Key Problems	Problem Severity (H/M/L)	Comments	Responsibility	Considered by M1/M10 RMS?	Route Outcome	Benefits for route
L3	Current scheme to provide new parapets to bridges. Consider linking with study of usages of bridges by NMUs. Consider (in conjunction with the County Councils) the re-provision of Rights of Way severed at the time of motorway construction.	L	Specific Issue: Re-provision of rights of way.	HA	Yes	Increase accessibility and safety. Also reduce severance.	Neutral
		L	Specific Issue: Provision of higher parapets on bridges. Consider to replace the existing low parapets to avoid any projectiles being thrown over carriageway structure.	HA	Yes	Increase safety. Avoid congestion and increase and availability.	+
L15	Inconsistency signing between Area 5 and 8.	M	This should be expanded to also pick up any inconsistencies with TfL. Investigate issue further.	HA / Area 5 MA / Area 8 MAC	Yes	Increase safety and reduce congestion	+
L18	Crossing points for NMU's across the M1 at Junction 11.	M	Deal with this issue in partnership with Luton Borough Council.	HA	Yes	Increase accessibility and safety	++

6.4.4 Environment

No	Key Problems	Problem Severity (H/M/L)	Comments	Responsibility	Considered by M1/M10 RMS?	Route Outcome	Benefits for route
L4	Noise pollution on the M1 motorway. Complaints have been received about noise between Junctions 2 and 3.	M	Work is being undertaken between Junctions 10 and 12. Junctions 6A to 13 noise issues are covered by the widening. Quieter surfaces and noise barriers should be widely use on the M1.	HA	Yes	Reduce noise problems	+
2	Noise pollution at Crick near Junction 18	M	Issue to be addressed by MAC	HA	Yes	Reduce noise pollution	+
3	Street Lighting: There needs to be a consistent provision without any dark patches and cut offs.	L	Issue to be addressed by MAC	HA / MAC	Yes	Reduce lighting pollution	+
4	Visual Intrusion: The lighting from Toddington Services has a large impact on the local residents within the immediate area such as the village of Toddington.	L	This is an issue to be addressed by the joint relevant LAs, the HA and MAC. It is felt that planting and screening could provide a solution to this problem which would also help to reduce the noisepollution in the area.	HA/ MAC / LAs	Yes	Reduce lighting pollution	+

6.4.5 Integration

No	Key Problems	Problem Severity (H/M/L)	Comments	Responsibility	Considered by M1/M10 RMS?	Route Outcome	Benefits for route
L12	A significant proportion of traffic on some stretches of the M1 appears to be made up of local trips. Unnecessary local trips could increase the traffic volume on the M1 and causing congestion.	H	To identify and control these unnecessary local trips running on the M1.	HA/ LPAs/ Regional Planning Body	Yes	Improve safety and reduce congestion	++

6.4.6 Economy

No	Key Problems	Problem Severity (H/M/L)	Comments	Responsibility	Considered by M1/M10 RMS?	Route Outcome	Benefits for route
L1	Between Watford Gap & Junction 17 Northbound. The problem is exacerbated by people leaving the Watford Gap service area.	M	Constraints: Watford Gap over bridge, M45 Junction, Crick Lane over bridge, Rail bridge.	HA	Yes	Improve safety and reduce congestion	++
L5	M1 Junction 5 southbound off-slip tail backs up onto M1 in peak periods. This is associated with the traffic signals on the junction with the A4008 and A41.	H	The junction is close to/at capacity at peak times resulting in collisions in the winter months. Poor driver discipline exacerbates the problem.	HA / Herts	Yes	Improve safety and reduce congestion	+++
L8	M1 Junction 8 Traffic going to Hemel Hempstead backs up onto the motorway slip roads and onto the motorway.	H	Congestion is common during the morning peak Northbound towards Hemel Hempstead. There is also conflict on the Southbound exit to the M10. Widening should solve all these problems therefore keep in the RMS as an overview/watching brief.	HA	Yes	Improve safety and reduce congestion	+++
L17	M1 Junction 1 and Junction 7: Bus Lanes Problems: Congestion, Driver behaviour.	M	Buses have not been identified previously as an issue. Junction 1: Buses should leave at Junction 2 to follow the preferred route into London. Junction 7: congestion issues should be reduced as part of the widening.	HA	Yes	Reduce journey times and increase integration	+
L19	The future of the route as it enters and starts/terminates in London and a particular point to be raised relates to accessibility from all directions at Junction 2, which limits vehicle choice often forcing strategic movement onto local Barnet/TfL roads to the detriment of the local air quality, noise nuisance and congestion.	H	Access problems at Junctions 2, 3 and 4 and problems with identifying the ongoing routes at Junction 1. There are major impacts of the planned regeneration to be considered	Barnet / HA / TfL	No	Improve accessibility, safety, environmental issues and reduce congestion.	++
2	M1 Junction 6 & 6A Despite improvements carried out between Junction 6 and 6A, there are still capacity and queuing problems for vehicles travelling northwards on the M1 from the M25.	H	The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A-13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes.	HA / MAC	Yes	Reduce congestion and increase accessibility.	+
5	M1 Junction 10: Future expansion at Luton Airport could cause queuing back onto the motorway	H	The White Paper "The Future of Air Transport" published by DfT in December 2003 states that the M1 is the principal access road for traffic to and from Luton airport. Improvements to the M1 and M25 and the provision of bypasses for Dunstable and Luton were announced in July 2003. Growth of the airport could contribute to pressures on the road network beyond 2015, depending on the rate of build up.	HA	Yes	Reduce congestion and increase accessibility.	++
6	M1 Junctions 13 and 14: Capacity problems	H	The LSMMMS recommended widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A-13. The SOS announced that the recommendation has entered into the TPI schemes.	HA	Yes	Reduce congestion and increase accessibility.	++