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

2 Route description

2 Route Description

2.1 Introduction

The London to Birmingham Motorway was officially opened on 2 November 1959. The M1 was constructed to alleviate severe congestion problems which had developed on the local road network and also to provide a long distance route from London to the Midlands and the north-east of England.

The motorway was one of the first to be built in the UK. It is around 200 miles (300 km) long and was constructed in stages between the 1950s and 1970s, with a further extension in the late 1990s. The M1 was first designed and constructed as a London to Birmingham route broadly following the route of the A5, starting south of St Albans and ending at Coventry. Subsequently the road was diverted at the southern end to Watford and then in two stages to London. The stub to St Albans becoming the M10. At the northern end, with changing traffic patterns, the road was extended northwards to Leeds and the stub remaining here became the M45.

Figure 2.1: Newspaper Cutting Wolverton Express - 6 November 1959

It is described that the M1 is a car park, due to the huge increase of cars on Britain's roads from 2.8 million in 1959 to over 27.5 million today. More importantly, a mere 13,000 vehicles were estimated to use the M1 on a daily basis in 1959 compared with today's figure of just over 88,000.

The introduction of the long distances and the fuel consumption involved, plus the added strain on haulage lorries required structural and engine modifications to off-set these problems. Added to this was a new problem for the driver, tiredness, which resulted in two service stations being added. The first introduced was at Newport Pagnell, followed by the Watford Gap.

2.2 Road Condition and Type

The M1 between Junctions 1 and 19 is a total of 125.5 kms (approximately 80 miles) in length whilst the M10 is 4.5 kms (approximately 2.8 miles) in length. The M1 and M10 are primarily dual-3 lane and dual-2 lane motorways respectively; with the exception of the M1 Junctions 6A-7 northbound, Junctions 7-8 both directions and Junction 9-10 northbound which are all four lane standard.

Table 2.1 below gives details of the distances from Junction 1 along the M1 and the lengths of the other sections of road included in the study.

Table 2.1: Distances between Junctions on M1 and M10

Location along M1	Junction with	Distance from Junction 1 in kms (miles)	Distance between junctions in kms (miles)
Junction 1	A406 & A41	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)
Junction 2	A1	3.5 (2.2)	3.5 (2.2)
London Gateway Service		8.7 (5.4)	5.2 (3.2)
Junction 4	A41	10.8 (6.7)	2.1 (1.3)
Junction 5	A41 & A408	18.0 (11.2)	7.2 (4.5)
Junction 6	A405	21.9 (13.6)	3.9 (2.4)
Junction 6A	M25	22.4 (13.9)	0.5 (0.3)
Junction 7	M10	25.9 (16.1)	3.5 (2.2)
Junction 8	A414	26.4 (16.4)	0.5 (0.3)
Junction 9	A5 & A5183	33.6 (20.9)	7.2 (4.5)
Junction 10	A1081	37.5 (23.3)	3.8 (2.4)
Junction 11	A505	43.1 (26.8)	5.6 (3.5)
Toddington Service		50.2 (31.2)	7.1 (4.4)
Junction 12	A5120	51.0 (31.7)	0.8 (0.5)
Junction 13	A421 & A507	62.3 (38.7)	11.3 (7.0)
Junction 14	A509	71.6 (44.5)	9.3 (5.8)
Newport Pagnell Service		76.1 (47.3)	4.5 (2.8)
Junction 15	A508	91.1 (56.6)	15.0 (9.3)
Junction 15A	A43 & Rothersthrope Service	95.1 (59.1)	4.0 (2.5)
Junction 16	A45	101.3 (62.9)	6.1 (3.8)
Watford Gap Service		113.9 (70.7)	12.6 (7.8)
Junction 17	M45	116.6 (72.4)	2.7 (1.7)
Junction 18	A428, A5 & A361	119.0 (73.9)	2.4 (1.5)
Junction 19	A14 & M6	125.5 (77.9)	6.5 (4.0)
Location along M10	Junction with	Length
Junction 10 to 10A	M1	1.0 (0.6)
M10	M1 & A414	4.5 (2.8)

2.3 Traffic and Congestion

This section provides a review of existing traffic conditions and congestion on the M1/M10 corridor. In line with Government policy the HA is committed to reducing congestion on inter-urban trunk roads to 5% below current levels by 2010. It is also committed to strive towards a key objective of the 1998 Government White Paper "A New Deal for Transport Better for Everyone", that is, to take action to reduce congestion and increase the reliability of journey times.

Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) data has been supplied for the purpose of this RMS by the Babtie Group in their role as traffic monitoring agents (Southern Area) for the HA. Sixteen sets of fixed location ATCs sit the length of thestrategy route at variable distances. Two sets of links, between Junctions 12 and 14, do not have ATC counters. The easting and northing co-ordinates of the count locations have been plotted against the links and nodes defined in Table 2.1 to produce a data set that is consistent with the analytical framework of this report.

In July 2004, the Transport Secretary announced a Pilot Study Scheme to cut congestion and improve journey times on the M1 between Junction 13 to 7 (Milton Keynes South to St Albans). Details of which can be found in Section 2.16.

2.3.1 Existing Traffic Flow

The section of motorway within in the strategy area currently operates to varying levels of efficiency. Previous HA studies and information supplied by consultees to the strategy have provided a detailed insight into how the motorway operates on a daily basis.

Figure 2.2: M1 Junctions 1-19 2002 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

As Figure 2.2 illustrates, both the level and pattern of traffic flow on the M1 are almost identical north and southbound. The difference between northbound and southbound flow varies from just 170 vehicles between Junctions 4 and 5 and almost 4,000 between Junctions 16 and 17.

From a combined flow of 49,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) between Junctions 1 and 2, vehicle numbers rise progressively through to Junction 5 at Watford where a peak of 92,500 is reached. The next section to Junction 6A is notable for a fall in traffic flow to just over 70,000 AADT as the highway bypasses North Watford.

At Junction 6A, however, the M1's strategic function becomes clear as it joins with the M25, which is to provide one of the major corridors from Greater London to the Midlands and the north of England. Traffic doubles in both directions to bring combined AADT to over 148,000. From the M25, traffic levels on the M1 continue to rise to Junction 8 as traffic filters in and out of St Albans and Hemel Hempstead hitting a peak for the strategy area of AADT 177,000.

Junction 7 provides the main access to the M10 and although flows appear to be relatively low on this short piece of motorway, under AADT 24,000, the true impact lies on the M1 where the flows converge.

Junction 8 marks a change in the pattern of flow on the M1 as vehicle numbers begin to fall. From Junction 7 to Junction 15 south of Northampton, the level of traffic falls progressively to AADT 113,700¹.

At Junction 15 there is a further fall up to Junction 15A, with over 16,000 less vehicles on the motorway than travelling one junction up between Junctions 15A and 16. In addition to the presence of Northampton, this may be explained by the proximity of the A43 and A45 providing east west links to the M40 and M11 respectively. At Junction 15A, a further change takes place in the prevailing pattern with an increase in traffic level to Junction 17 as the A45 (via the M45) contributes to levels similar to those through Luton of around AADT 130,000. Here the situation changes with a further fall to the northern extent of the strategy area at Junction 19. AADT in the final section of the M1/M10 RMS is 111,000 over 50 percent higher than at its origin 125.5 kms south at Junction 1.

2.3.2 Congestion and Stress

The pattern of traffic flow described has created a level of performance that is quite different from section to section; some links bare a greater weight of local trips than others, some carry heavier HGV traffic and others are more influenced by local development than others. To take into account these prevailing traffic conditions, a Congestion Reference Flow (CRF)² has been calculated for each section of the M1 strategy area. The CRF is an estimate of the total AADT flow at which the carriageway is likely to be congested at peak periods and provides a useful mechanism for comparison with other elements of the trunk road network.

Figure 2.3 presents a graphical representation of the relationship between the CRF and actual 2003 AADT.

The CRF indicates a variable performance across the RMS study area with a number of link sections experiencing traffic flow above their theoretical design capacity.

In 2003, AADT on the strategy corridor was greater than CRF on the following performance sections:

• Junction 4 to Junction 5
• Junction 5 to Junction 6
• Junction 6A to Junction 7
• Junction 7 to Junction 8
• Junction 11 to Junction 12 and
• Junction 16 to Junction 17

The differential between CRF and 2003 AADT is most pronounced on the link section between Junctions 7 and 8. Here AADT is over 28,600 vehicles higher than the CRF. Although the disparity is greatest at this location, the sections that follow and precede this link are also notable for traffic levels above CRF. Link sections between Junctions 4 and 5, Junctions 5 and 6, Junctions 6A and 7, Junctions 7 and 8, Junctions 16 and 17 are all significantly over capacity.

Additionally, the link section between Junctions 11 and 12 is also over its CRF. Broadly speaking, sections that appear to be most congested are those between Junctions 4 and 8 affected by the M25, the M10 and the urban areas of Hertfordshire, Luton and Dunstable.

Figure 2.3: Relationship between CRF and 2003 AADTs

The differential between AADT and CRF described above can be converted into a Stress Factor; calculated as the ratio between the AADT and CRF, this is used to determine the level of performance between links. Values higher than 0.75 are generally held to give cause for concern. Typically, the sites with the highest stress factors are those with low road capacity. The application of the 0.75 threshold to performance sections on the M1/M10 indicates that all but two sections are under stress and threat of congestion.

In order to highlight congestion hotspots, the 10 sections with the highest Stress Factor on the M1 and M10 are listed below in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Congestion Hotspots on the M1 by Stress Level

Link		Stress Level
1	Junction 7 to Junction 8	1.15
2	Junction 5 to Junction 6	1.08
3	Junction 6A to Junction 7	1.07
4	Junction 16 to Junction 17	1.06
5	Junction 4 to Junction 5	1.05
6	Junction 11 to Junction 12	1.01
7	Junction 2 to Junction 4	0.91
8	Junction 9 to Junction 10	0.87
9	Junction 12 to Junction 13	0.83
10	Junction 17 to Junction 18	0.81

The potential stress points are easily identified as areas between Junctions 4 and 6, 6A and 8, 11 to 12 and around Junction 17. This identifies the central links between Junctions 6A and 8 and the links between Junctions 10 and 11 as experiencing congestion. Both these methodologies provide an indicator of link performance and broadly speaking suggest the most congested sections are those affected by the M25, M10 and the urban areas of North Hertfordshire and Luton and Dunstable. They do not, however, provide an analysis of congestion levels through and on junctions. Stakeholder comment has substantiated the theoretical study that has been undertaken on links. The main issues to emerge are detailed by junction:

• Junction 9 - Due to the amount of traffic wanting to join the southbound M1 carriageway in the AM peak period, congestion occurs at this junction on a regular basis. Additionally, the gradient of the carriageway between Junctions 9 and 10 slows the movement of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs); which affects the efficiency of the overall traffic flow.
• Junction 10/10A - The junction provides strategic access to Luton. This junction is currently 'operating at the limits of its capacity'. Although it is not a constant problem, congestion will occur at regular intervals.
• Junction 13 - Congestion is a regular occurrence at this location within the AM peak period. The junction provides access from the strategic highway network to both Milton Keynes and Bedford. Consultees have noted that congestion problems have worsened due to the implementation of substantial new development in the vicinity of the motorway junction.
• Junction 14 - The junction suffers from serious congestion problems within both AM and PM peak periods. This junction provides access to Milton Keynes, and through flows on the motorway combined with traffic joining and leaving the motorway causes tailbacks on both the southbound and northbound carriageways.
  
  A scheme is being designed at this junction based on mitigation proposals for the Milton Keynes expansion which only implements part of the developer's proposals. The parts to be implemented were only those related to traffic exiting the M1. The scheme required full signalisation of Junction 14 and partial signalisation of Northfield Roundabout. Due to the concerns about the capacity of the M1, one of the sets of signals proposed by the developer (for the A509 approach to Northfield Roundabout from Central Milton Keynes) was not to be implemented. The purpose of the funded scheme is to relieve queuing on the exit slip roadswhich extend to the main carriageway causing safety problems as well as disruption to the main line flow.
• Junction 19 - A Road Based Study for the existing junction arrangement has been completed by consultants Halcrow on behalf of the HA. The study acknowledged that congestion problems are caused by the M1, M6 and A14 converging at this key transport node. Serious delays on both the M1 and M6 are a common occurrence, and the junction study promotes several possible long term solutions. The Secretary of State (SOS) for Transport announced the proposal has been included into the Targeted Programme Improvement (TPI) scheme.

In summary, sections of main concern on the M1 motorway are those between:

• Junction 6A to Junction 7
• Junction 7 to Junction 8
• Junction 9 to Junction 10
• Junction 10 to Junction 11 and
• Junction 11 to Junction 12

Specific issues of concern have been identified on the following M1 junctions:

• Junction 9
• Junction 10/10A
• Junction 13
• Junction 14 and
• Junction 19

2.3.3 Traffic Growth Under a Do-Minimum Scenario

The 10 Year Plan for Transport, 2000-2010, commits the Government to reducing congestion on inter-urban trunk roads to 5% below current levels by 2010. As illustrated in Section 2.3.1, on the basis of 2003 AADT, the M1 and M10 are already experiencing unsustainable levels of traffic flow on many link sections. Later sections of this report will provide a view on the external factors which affect the future levels of traffic, however, in view of the 10 year life of this report it is useful to understand the base do-minimum increase in traffic caused by incremental year on year growth. Taking the central estimate for growth from the National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF)³, Figure 2.4 illustrates a 13.5% increase in all traffic on the M1/M10 corridor between 2003 and 2010. The net result will be to push those sections that are already under stress even further above their theoretical design capacity.

Figure 2.4: AADT in 2010 under a Do-Minimum (Central) Growth Scenario

To take four sections which are currently within limits (sections between Junctions 2&4, Junctions 8&9, Junctions 9&10 and between Junctions 10&11) above their threshold. Four sections that would remain below CRF are listed below;

• Junction 6 to Junction 6A
• Junction 15 to Junction 15A
• Junction 17 to Junction 18 and
• Junction 18 to Junction 19

It should be noted that no traffic data is available between Junctions 13 and 14 and no CRF data is available on this section and between Junctions 15A and 16.

The M1 is the principal corridor connecting London with major conurbations to the north including the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, East Midlands, West and South Yorkshire and beyond to the North East and Scotland. The standard on the M1 in the study area is mainly dual-3 lane, with the exception of Junctions 6A-7 northbound, Junctions 7-8 both directions and Junction 9-10 northbound which are all four lane standard. In the case of Junctions 7-8, the four lanes do not represent through running lanes alone, but need to accommodate weaving movements between the M10/M1 and M1/A414.

The HA carried out a review of the operational assessment of the main MKSM highway network of motorways, trunk roads and certain non-trunk roads, using the London-South Midlands Multi-Modal Study (LSMMMS) as a starting point. This review indicates that the proposed quantum of additional development arising from the Sub-Regional Strategy to 2016 and 2021 would have an impact on the sub-regional network as a whole that would be equivalent to adding about 2-3 years of trend-based background traffic growth. This additional growth would be added into a situation where peak hour spread and rising levels of congestion will be occurring already, despite the benefits gained from the new road infrastructure.

The Secretary of State has announced that the key recommendations from the LSMMMS, widening the two sections (between Junctions 6A-10 and Junctions 10-13) of the M1 to dual- 4 have entered into the Targeted Programme Improvement schemes.

2.4 Safety

2.4.1 Introduction

In 2000, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) (now the Department for Transport (DfT)), published a safety strategy in the document "Tomorrow's Roads Safer for Everyone" setting national casualty reduction targets for 2010. By 2010, against the average for 1994 to 1998, their aim is to achieve:

• a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road accidents;
• a 50% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured; and
• a 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate, expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100 million vehicle kilometres.

Within the context of these national targets, the HA have developed an additional set of targets that are specific to the UK motorway and trunk road network. Working within the same time frame, these aims are to:

• Reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) on motorways and trunk
• roads by 33.3%
• Reduce the casualty rate by 10%.

It should be noted that the less onerous casualty reduction targets set for motorways and trunk roads are due to the higher design standards required for the construction of these types of road and because they already have relatively low accident rates and also carry higher proportions of traffic. Towards this end and as detailed in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" (1998), the HA's key objective for safety is:

"To improve safety for all road users and contribute to the Governments new safetystrategy and targets for 2010"

2.4.2 An Overview of Accidents on the M1

As indicated in Table 2.3 data derived from the national UK STATS19 database of injury accidents (supplied by TRL) for the three years, 2000 to 2002, shows that there were 2103 Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) on the 131 km length of the M1 and M10 in the RMS study area. Of this number, 2% (35) were fatal, 12% (252) serious and the remaining 86% (1816) slight. This equates to 535 PIAs per annum per 100 km. A comparative value of 290 PIAs per annum, per 100 km for a motorway of this type (Highways Agency Operational Folder, 2002), suggests that the M1, as a route, has an accident rate significantly higher than the national average.

Table 2.3: PIAs on M1 and M10 2000-2002
PIA Data Provided by TRL M1 Junction 1 to Junction 19 and M10

Severity	No.	%
Fatal	35	2
Serious	252	12
Slight	1816	86
Total	2103	100

Although the accident rate is high, the data reveals that the overall severity of accidents on the M1 and M10 remains in line with average levels for a motorway in England. The severity ratio of accidents on the trunk road network is calculated as the fatal and serious accident total divided by the total number of accidents. At 0.13, the severity ratio of accidents on the M1 and M10 is identical to the 0.13 average index.

As a section of road, the M1 and M10 also appear to have no specific problems pertaining to road surface condition. The relative severity and proportion of PIAs on the M1 and M10 under various road conditions are consistent with national average levels, as are the proportion of accidents involving skidding.

There is also little to be drawn from statistics pertaining to the number of accidents by lighting condition. Both the proportion of PIAs in daylight and darkness and the severity ratio of accidents are consistent with national average levels.

2.4.3 Accidents on Performance Sections of the M1 and M10

In order to identify the accident history of different parts of the motorway, the route is divided into sections, which relate to the motorway junctions. The data is presented in terms of accident totals, severity ratio and an accident rate per year per vehicle kilometre is provided. The severity ratio and rate per vehicle kilometre provides a means of comparison with different sections of the strategy area and also the entire motorway network. This barometer for comparison has been adopted from the Highways Agency original guidance for Route Management Strategies, published in May 2002. Although the guidance has been revised, these safety performance indicators (see Table 2.4 below) still provide national comparative indicators, which can be used within the strategy to determine the operation of the overall network in terms of safety.

Table 2.4: Safety Performance Indicator Bands

Scale		Bad	Bad/Moderate	Moderate	Moderate/Reasonable	Reasonable
Accident rate (PIA per billion veh kilometres)	Motorway	> 0.20	0.20-0.16	0.15-0.11	0.10-0.6	0.5-0
Severity ratio	Motorway	> 0.32	0.32-0.25	0.24-0.16	0.15-0.08	< 0.08

2.4.4 Accident Rate for Performance Sections of the M1 and M10

Measured in Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) per 100 million vehicle kilometres (108 veh km), accident rates are available as combined results for junctions and links in each section.

Converting an accident rate into the points scoring framework in Table 2.4 shows that the high accident rate described in Section 2.4.2 is accounted for by a high number of accidents on a small number of links with very high accident rates. Under the scoring framework an accident rate of over 20 PIAs 100 million vehicle km is considered over the worst end of the scale. The M1 has six sections over this threshold and are listed in Table 2.5 below. Whereas the accident rate on M10 section is only 6.15 (10⁸ veh km).

Table 2.5: Accident Rate on the M1

Section	Accidents 2000-2002	Accident Rate (per 108 veh km)
Junction 9 to 10	306	55.21
Junction 10 to 10A	20	48.59
Junction 8 to 9	380	38.57
Junction 6A to 7	199	33.55
Junction 6 to 6A	21	25.12
Junction 1 to 2	47	22.56

The HA Operational Folder (2002), a supporting document to the HA Strategic Plan for Safety, provides additional context to the rates above. The report presents intervention⁴levels for safety. These are average values for a number of safety indicators for different road classes within the trunk road network. The average accident rate on a Motorway is 9.5. All six of these rates are, therefore, of concern.

2.4.5 Severity Ratio for Performance Sections of the M1 and M10

The severity ratio of accidents on the trunk road network is calculated as the fatal and serious accident total divided by the total number of accidents. Table 2.4 indicates the band classification for degrees of accident severity on the M1 and M10.

The data presented in Section 2.4.2 suggested that the severity ratio of accidents on the M1 and M10 is in line with the average ratio of 0.13 for a motorway and this is reflected in the section data. Severity ratios on almost half of the route (encompassing nine sections) are lower than this average. With the exception of two sections the remainder of the route has severity ratios in the central band in the scoring framework.

The two sections with severity ratios greater than 0.32 and falling into the worst banding are:

• M1 Junction 18 to M1 Junction 19 (0.38)
• M1 Junction 10 to M1 Junction 10A (0.33)

A degree of caution should be applied to these rates as they appear to be a consequence of a low total number of accidents rather than as being indicative of a wider safety issue.

The benefit of presenting accident rates and severity ratios as combined results for junctions and links is that they can be placed in the context of average national results providing a good over view of the general performance of the M1 and M10. The weakness of this data lies in its generality. To overcome this issue, data presented in the following section breaks down the PIA data received from TRL and allocates accidents to specific junctions and specific links in an effort to get under the surface of the overview presented. Data of this sort does not however, have any equal comparative national value and the analysis should, therefore, be treated in relative terms.

2.4.6 Accidents on M1 and M10 Links

Figure 2.5 presents the total number of accidents on link sections of the M1 and M10 by severity over the three years 2000 to 2002. In total over this period, there were 1870 PIAs on the 21 links that encompass the M1 and M10 in the RMS study area. Notably four link sections are responsible for over 50% of all link accidents on the M1 and M10. These are sections between M1 Junction 6A and 7, M1 Junction 8 and 9, M1 Junction 9 to 10 and M1 Junction 14 to Junction 15.

Figure 2.5: Total PIAs on Link Sections of the M1 and M10 2000 - 2002

Of the total number of link accidents in the RMS corridor, 2% (30) were fatal, 12% (222) serious and the remaining 87% (1618) slight. This equates to a rate of 479 PIAs per annum per 100 km, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 238 PIAs per annum per 100 km (Highways Agency Operational Folder 2002).

(i) Accident Rate

Although there is no national comparative indicator against which to measure the link only accident rates of the M1 and M10, calculating a link only rate does permit an identification of the relative performance of each link providing a degree of context to the absolute PIA numbers identified in Figure 2.6. Measured in PIAs per 100 million vehicle km (108 veh km), links with the highest accident rates on the M1 and M10 are:

• M1 Junction 9 to M1 Junction 10 (51.4)
• M1 Junction 8 to M1 Junction 9 (37.3)
• M1 Junction 6A to M1 Junction 7 (29.5)

(ii) Severity Ratio

The severity ratio of accidents on the trunk road network is calculated as the fatal and serious accident total divided by the total number of accidents. With no national comparative indicator available for link only accidents, the severity ratio calculated for links on the M1 and M10 simply highlights the relative performance of links in the RMS study area.

Links with the highest severity ratio are:

• M1 Junction 7 to M10 Junction 1 (0.38)
• M1 Junction 18 to M1 Junction 19 (0.34)
• M1 Junction 5 to M1 Junction 6 (0.27)

A degree of caution should, however, be exercised when approaching these results. As indicated in Figure 2.6, the links listed above have all experienced a relatively lower number of PIAs compared with other sections in the RMS corridor; the impact of a fatal or a severe accident tends to have a disproportionate impact in these circumstances.

2.4.7 Accidents on Junctions of M1 and M10

(i) Total Accidents on M1 and M10 Junctions and Motorway Service Areas

The UKSTATS19 database, from which the following data on accidents on M1 junctions is derived, defines a junction accident as one occurring within 20 metres of a junction. Figure 2.6 indicates the total number of PIAs that occurred on junctions of the M1 over the three years 2000 to 2002. The data is useful in highlighting the relative performance of junctions on the route, it does not, however, take into account the design or type of junction, nor the level of traffic flow through and on the junction's slip roads. The accident totals should, therefore, be approached with a degree of caution and simply seen in the relative context of the route.

Figure 2.6: Total PIAs on the M1 2000 - 2002

Junctions that appear to have a higher relative number of PIAs on the M1 are:

• M1 Junction 1 ( 24 )
• M1 Junction 15 ( 11 )
• M1 Junction 6 ( 10 )
• M1 Junction 9 ( 10 )

(ii) Severity Ratio

The relatively low number of accidents taking place on junctions reduces the validity of a comprehensive severity analysis. However, the PIA totals illustrated in Figure 2.6 are notable for:

• A severity ratio of 0.36 at M1 Junction 15
• A severity ratio of 0.20 at M1 Junction 1. (The product of 24 serious accidents)

2.4.8 Summary of Accident Data

The overview of performance of the M1 and M10 in terms of safety presented in Sections 2.4.2 to 2.4.7 is significant for revealing the very high number of total accidents that have taken place on the main carriageway over the three years to 2002. Accident rates on the route and on specific link sections are twice that of the national average. However, although the route is experiencing a high number of total PIAs it is notable that in terms of severity the M1 and M10 have ratios that are very much in line with average rates. It is possible that a correlation exists between these trends and the high level of traffic flow reported in Section 2.4.

Of particular note is the very high number of accidents reported on the central sections of the route around Luton area, between M1 Junctions 8 and 10, and a very high number of PIA incidents on Junction 1.

This section provides an overview of the overall accident situation on the M1 and M10. Within the context of this strategy document it would be inappropriate to assess each accident in detail.

Further work to solve problems at certain locations should be considered as an extension to the strategy.

2.5 Landscape Character and Key Environmental Features

The M1 from Junctions 1 to 19 and M10 pass through seven character areas as noted in TheCountryside Agencies Countryside Character publications, Volumes 7: South East andLondon and Volume 4: East Midlands (Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8).

The motorway begins in an area identified as the Northern Thames Basin, Hertfordshire Plateaux and River Valleys. This is a diverse landscape containing the River Colne. Extensive areas of broad-leaved woodlands are the principal feature of the areas beyond the motorway. Railway lines, prominent electricity pylons, elevated road sections, sound barriers and screen planting are key major influences on character. Any floodplain land is divided by hedgerow deficient boundaries. Some long views are possible over mixed scrub and woodland. The intensity of the industrial and residential 'town' contrasts strongly with the rural suburban edge.

The town of St Albans is visible from the M10 motorway, which connects to Junction 7 of the M1. The motorway then passes into the Chilterns, chalk hills and plateaus with prominent escarpments in many places. Extensive areas of the downland have been invaded by scrub. Luton lies to the east and extensive views are possible past industrial units. Electricity pylons run in extensive lines parallel to and across the M1. Small fields and dense ancient hedgerows are present along with extensive areas of beech woodland on the plateau. The agricultural landscape is dominated by hedges, trees and small woodland groups.

Panoramic views are now possible across the Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge to extensive tracts of woodland on distant ridges. Rolling countryside with settlements visible to the west of the M1 lie beyond the extensive solid hedgerows. Electricity pylons are still highly visible running next to the motorway.

On entering the Bedfordshire Claylands the landscape becomes open and intensively arable. Fields are bounded by sparse close cut hedges with varying hedgerow trees. The Great Ouse River is a prominent feature with it's' floodplains, river willows and larger hedges. Woodland is mainly deciduous and located on higher ridges. Views to towns and church spires can be seen to the east with long views to hills behind agricultural land. Major junctions to Milton Keynes dominate the immediate environment with lagoons and balancing ponds present at a number of junctions.

The motorway passes through a narrow section of the Yardley - Whittlewood Ridge characterised by medium sized fields with full hedgerows and numerous hedgerow oak trees. There is a low density of settlement and consequently few local roads.

With Northampton to the east, the Northampton Vales are dominated by views to the town. The River Nene and its' floodplains, spired churches and a flourmill are all prominent features. The motorway has characteristic (Owen Williams) concrete bridges which are noticeable landmarks along this stretch of the motorway. Further afield there are extensive views of small settlements and close-cropped hedges.

Open arable farmland mixed with pastureland enclosed by hedges and hedgerow trees are a key characteristic of the Northamptonshire Uplands. In the distance are mixed woodland, extensive hedge lines and farm buildings. Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is a major environmental and visual influence on the immediate area. Masts next to the motorway dominate the skyline, whilst the mainline railway and Grand Union Canal are both highly visible and run parallel to the west of the motorway. There is one service area (Watford Gap) on this stretch of the motorway. The characteristic concrete bridges continue to cross the motorway. Radio masts are also present at Rugby and dominate the skyline.

The motorway is of an age where the planting on the cut slopes has had the opportunity tomature.

• Figure 2.7: Countryside Character Volume 7 - South East & London
• Figure 2.8: Countryside Character Volume 4 - East Midlands
• Download figures 2.7 and 2.8 (480KB PDF)

2.6 Noise and Air Quality

2.6.1 Noise

The 1998 Roads Review outlined provisions for the mitigation of traffic noise from older (pre- 1988) roads, provided that certain criteria were satisfied. Within the current M1 RMS study area, a number of sites were identified as "noise hotspots" resulting from a history of public complaint, of which three inter-junction sections satisfied the criteria for further assessment and possible mitigation:

Section	Location	Managing Area
Junction 5 to 6	Watford/Garston (Herts)	HA Area 5
Junction 10 to 11	Luton (south)	HA Area 8
Junction 11 to 12	Luton/Dunstable	HA Area 8

All were included in a list of sites, published in Hansard in November 1999.

These sites were taken forward for a more detailed assessment to quantify the severity of noise impact and suggest possible means of noise mitigation (noise barriers/bund and/or "low-noise" surfacing). The results were presented in the Reports published by the Parsons Brinckerhoff (Area 5) and AIRO Ltd (Area 8).

Furthermore, the Government is committed to:

• the re-surfacing of blacktop roads with quieter materials when routine pavement maintenance is required and
• the re-surfacing of all concrete trunk roads with quieter materials by 31 March 2011.

Junction 1 - 2 Hendon

The original concrete carriageways were overlaid with a noise reducing thin surface course in early 2004.

Junction 5 - 6 Watford-Garston (Herts)

Most of the residential areas close to this section have had noise barriers installed at some time in the past. Until recently, two areas remained un-protected at Garston, for which calculations (Parsons Brinckerhoff K&D) indicated that mitigation measures were justified.

Appropriate measures were designed (Mouchel) with a view to installation within the Financial Year (FY) 2002/03. This work was delayed but was completed in early 2004.

Junctions 5 - 6 - 6A - 7 Watford-Hemel Hempstead (Herts)

Southbound carriageways of this section remain concrete. Now programmed for re-surfacing with noise reducing thin surface course in FY 2006/07.

Junction 10 - 12 Luton-Dunstable (Beds)

Substantial areas of residential development close to these sections remained un-protected until recently, for which calculations (AIRO Ltd) indicated that mitigation measures might be justified.

The following noise barriers were proposed in 2003, some of which have been installed as follows:

Section/Junction	Location	Status
J11 - J12:	J11 to Kestrel way (both sides):	now complete
	North of Kestrel Way (short section)	completion FY 2004/05
J11	Flyover (both sides):	now complete
J10 - J11	Bradley Road to J 11 (both sides):	now complete
	Farley Green to Bradley Road (east side)	completion FY 2004/05

Revised guidance on the treatment of noise hotspots was issued by the HA in December 2003 (Area Management Memo 43). This re-iterated the requirement that Hansard-listed sites which were constructed before 1969 and not altered since should be given highest priority for noise mitigation treatment (category 1) before 2011.

Action to achieve this aim has already been implemented as described above. A Table 2.1 detailing the responses received from Consultees is attached as Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Noise - Checklist of Consultees Responses

M1 Section	Parish	Private	Comment	Action
1-2
2-4
4-5
5-6
6-6A
6A-7
7-8
8-9	Redbourn PC		Excessive road noise: no mitigation, elevated carriageways, noisy surface. Suggest "low-noise" surface,	Depends on funding
9-10	Flamstead PC		Traffic noise: request re-surfacing with new softer asphalt	Depends on funding
10-10A
10-11
11-12
12-13	Tingrith		Noise: barriers and low-noise surface required	Depends on funding
13-14	Moulsoe PC		M1 outside of boundary: mitigation promise when M1 built never materialised: re-consider	Depends on funding
14-15	Hanslope PC		Noise; inadequate screening	Depends on funding
	Newport Pagnell TC Soundproofing required at Pennycress Way		Depends on funding
	Milton Keynes		Traffic nose	Depends on funding
15-15A
15A-16	Kislingbury PC		Noise pollution: new quieter road surfacing essential	Depends on funding
16-17	Watford PC		Noise pollution: Screening and noise baffling required	Depends on funding
		Lewis, Whilton	Noise, dust, dirt increasing: "silent" surface required	Depends on funding
17-18	Crick PC		Noise: constant hum with N/W wind: suggest quieter surface	Depends on funding
18-19

2.6.2 Air Quality

In November 2003, the HA have issued a new guidance on Air Quality Management (The Role of the Highways Agency in Local Air Quality Management). The HA's purpose is to operate, maintain and improve the strategic trunk road network with one of HA's key objectives being to respect the environment. The HA can influence their effect on air quality through:

• Contributing to strategic planning;
• Road improvements;
• Integrating transport and encouraging sustainable travel;
• Providing better information for improved operation; and
• Working with LAs to deliver the Air Quality Strategy.

The HA have plans for the network together with how these could affect air quality. LAs will need to be aware of these when assessing air quality and preparing their action plans.

Motor vehicles emit a variety of gaseous and particulate compounds, many of which are harmful to health and the environment. Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 and the subsequent Air Quality Regulations 1997 requires the LAs to review and assess the air quality 'from time to time' with a view to ascertaining if the AQ Objectives set for key pollutants could be achieved in time (2005 or earlier).

The review and assessment (R&A) of air quality is the first round in the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) process. It consists of 4 components; stages 1 - 3, and stage 4 and Action Plans. Each progressive stage consists of more complex screening, testing and modelling of pollutants. If pollutant levels are well below critical levels, a further stage is not necessary. On completion of stage 3, where it is expected that standards are likely to be exceeded at a future date (up to 2005), then an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) must be declared and a Stage 4 assessment and review undertaken, leading to the development of an Action Plan.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) issued a new guidance in February 2003. It requires LAs to carry out an Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) of local air quality (LAQM.PG03). This assessment is intended to identify those aspects that have changed since the first round of review and assessment, including any results of lessons learnt from the first round, which may require further assessment. The USA will also indicate which pollutants and specific locations within the District/Borough require a Detailed Assessment (DA) that will have to be carried out by the end of April 2004.

Whilst road transport is only one of the main sources of air pollution, nationally it is the largest single contributor for several pollutants (nitrogen dioxide NO2 and carbon monoxide CO). In general, the emissions are directly related to the volume of traffic. The width of the corridor affected by air pollution from roads in rural areas is relatively narrow: beyond 200m the impact is not generally considered to be significant. In urban areas, pollutants may combine with those from other sources such that broader areas can be affected.

Unlike the case for noise, where barriers and "quiet" surfacing can be effective, the scope for mitigation against air pollution from existing roads is limited to two potential measures: a reduction in traffic congestion and dense roadside planting.

The HA has direct involvement with the R&A process in a variety of ways. These include providing the DMRB air quality screening method to estimate concentrations near roads, providing traffic data, monitoring pollutant concentration, reviewing the LA's reports and participating in action plan meetings which will lead to implementing measures to improve air quality.

Table 2.7 provides a summary of the progress of each LA and any AQMAs declared to date.

Table 2.7: Air Quality - Checklist for Air Quality Management Areas (approximate boundaries) (will open in a new winow)

2.7 Integration and Accessibility

2.7.1 Introduction

Two of the main themes of the Government's 1998 White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport" are integration and accessibility. The paper marked a step change in thinking towards the provision of transport infrastructure in the UK, with the recognition that transport had a much wider role to play, with more far reaching impacts than those suggested in traditional appraisal techniques centred on economics, safety and the environment. The two concepts are inexorably linked by the HA's new strategic aim and new objectives as network operator.

The Government's vision of integration is twofold: firstly as a system that promotes seamless inter-change between different transport modes and secondly as the assimilation of land use and transport planning.

The concept of accessibility for the HA, is firstly in recognising that there are a significant number of non-motorised users utilising the network and secondly in acknowledging that not all members of society have access to the trunk road network by private car. In its new role as a network operator, the Highways Agency now has a clear remit to operate, maintain and improve its network for all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians and to contribute to the governments aim to create a fairer more inclusive society.⁵

Existing interchange facilities and the interface between the M1 and M10 and other transport modes are described below.

2.7.2 Integration and Accessibility on the M1/M10

(i) London Luton Airport (LLA)

In 2002, Luton was the United Kingdom's 8^th busiest airport, with a throughput of 6.6 million passengers and 32,000 tonnes of cargo handled⁶.

The airport site comprises 245 hectares to the south-east of the Luton - Dunstable conurbation, accessed from the M1 at Junction 10A via Junction 10. The airport is served by rail services from Luton Airport Parkway station which is situated in the midway between the airport and M1 Junction 10. The airport is also served by express coach services from London, the West and East Midlands, the North East and major destinations including Heathrow and Gatwick Airport.

Survey by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) indicates that 25% of passengers accessed the airport by rail, bus or coach in 2003. An employee survey reveals that in the same year, 89% of staff travelled to work by private car, 4% travelled by bus and rail and a further 4% on foot or by bicycle.

The London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (LLAOL) is bringing forward a Master Plan during the 2005 in conjunction with the HA which will appraise the impact of airport growth on the local and strategy highway network and set out a new Airport Surface Access Strategy.

Through its surface access strategy has set targets for the year 2006 to:

• increase the proportion of passengers travelling to and from the airport by public transport to 35% or above.
• reduce the proportion of employees travelling to and from the airport by car alone to 60% or less.

In order to achieve these targets the LLAOL will rely on the development of the existing levels of rail and bus/coach provision described below:

(ii) Rail Access

Thameslink Rail operates a mixture of fast (CityFlier) and stopping (CityMetro) services from the south of London to Luton and Bedford. Thameslink provides a high degree of connectivity with London and the south-east with between 4 and 8 services every hour running via West Hampstead, Kentish Town, King's Cross, Farringdon, Blackfriars, London Bridge and Wimbledon and south to Brighton.

Midland Mainline operates an hourly service from Luton Airport Parkway station to London St Pancras, Leicester and Derby.

Connection to the airport from the railway station is provided by an LLAOL operated shuttle bus that takes 5 minutes and runs at a 10 minute frequency.

(iii) Bus and Coach Access

A wide range of bus and coach services utilise a set of stopping facilities located directly outside the main terminal building. The location of the Airport in relation to the M1 and M10 ensures that the majority of services ply the M1. Services include:

• Direct services from Central London
• Rail Link services
• Services from the South east (including Brighton, Milton Keynes, Cambridge, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage, Corby, Kettering, Bedford, St Albans, Watford and Rickmansworth)
• Services from the East Midlands (including Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Coventry) and
• Services from the Northeast (including Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Darlington)

(iv) Translink

Translink is planned as a high quality guided bus service that will run between the urban conurbations of Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis. Figure 2.9 illustrates the proposed route running east - west, connecting London Luton Airport (at M1 Junction 10A) to Luton Parkway Station (at M1 Junction 10), the three town centres, the main line rail stations in Luton and London Luton Airport. The importance of the Translink system towards facilitating the sustainable growth of Luton and Dunstable has been recognised in two major studies. Both the "Sustainable Communities Strategy," produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and the LSMMMS argue that Translink and associated public transport infrastructure have a valuable role to play in the future development of the region.

In 2003, Translink was the subject of an application for a Transport and Works Act (TWA) order to secure powers to acquire land and planning permission and the DfT announced funding approval in December 2003. A public inquiry is expected in early 2005.7

Figure 2.9: Luton - Dunstable Translink Route Map

If Translink is approved and taken forward after the public inquiry, the developers hope to have the core route in operation by 2008. The impact that Translink could have on the M1 is not yet known.

2.8 Route Development Proposals

2.8.1 Managing Agents

(i) Area 5 - M25 Sphere Maintenance Area (M1 Junction 1 - 8 and M10)

The HA have appointed Mouchel Parkman as the Managing Agent (MA) and in partnership with Carillion as the Term Maintenance Contractor (TMC) for Area 5. The maintenance area includes the M1 from Junction 1 up to Junction 8 including the northbound off slip road and southbound on slip road. The contracts commenced on 1 September 2001.

Mouchel have provided the study team with all the available data including the future HA works.

Mouchel have identified various problems along the route which they hope to address during their maintenance period:

• M1 Junction 1 - Major maintenance between Junctions 1 and 2 has been programmed commencing November 2003. The bottom of the M1 has been has been highlighted as a section of the network which requires improved Variable Message Signs (VMS). There are proposals to reduce the speed limit to 50 mph between Junctions 1 and 2.
• M1 Junction 2 - The emergency access for the service area (London Gateway) north of Junction 2 is being severed. The service area is being refurbished and the layout revised. There is a problem with the tight bend on the single lane southbound off slip road, which needs to be addressed possibly by improved signing and a mandatory speed limit of 30 mph.
• M1 Junction 5 - There are no Hansard noise hotspots south of Junction 5, however there were problems with noise pollution between Junctions 5 and 6 adjacent to Watford. As a result, the acoustic fencings have been provided in February 2004.
• M1 Junction 6 & 6A - The M25 interchange with the M1 is not a full movement junction (lack of south-facing slip roads on the M1) with the result that there are considerable problems in the event of a major accident where emergency diversions are required. A study is being carried out to look at possible solutions to improve the Junctions 6, 6A and M25 Junction 21a triangle.
  
  
  
  Figure 2.10: M1 Junction 6A with the M25
• M1 Junction 7 & 8 - A study is being carried out to look at the problems of merging and diverging between Junction 7, the junction with the M10, and Junction 8 into Hemel Hempstead. From Junctions 7 to 8 merging and diverging problems will be superseded by the M1 widening proposals. It is hoped that short and long term proposals will result from this study.
  
  
  
  Figure 2.11: M1 Junctions 7 to 8
  

There are no plans at present for any variable speed gantries up between Junctions 1 and 8.

(ii) Area 8 - Maintenance Area (M1 north of Junction 8 - 19)

The HA have appointed Carillion-URS (C/URS) as the Managing Agent Contractor (MAC) for Area 8 commencing 1 September 2001. The maintenance area covers the M1 from Junction 8 to Junction 19.

C/URS have provided the RMS study team with all the available data including the future HA works programme.

C/URS are actively preparing strategic landscape plans, biodiversity plans and an environmental data base.

C/URS have highlighted a series of potential issues along the M1:

• Junction 8 - The north facing slip roads are under the maintenance of Area 8. There is a forthcoming scheme within the maintenance programme for highways improvements between Junction 8 - 9 Northbound but there are no problems at the junction at present.
• Junction 9 - There is very heavy congestion. The south on slip is of particular concern. From Junctions 9 to 8 going up hill, there is a need for the consideration of a crawler lane to be constructed. However, this is now on hold due to the forthcoming major motorway widening programme.
• Junction 10 & 10A - Junction 10 has been signalised. There is a scheme to improve signal co-ordination. The junction is operating at the limits of its capacity.
  Road to Rail signs have been erected at Junction 10 to the Luton Parkway Rail Station. Luton Parkway does not have adequate parking but this is being addressed.
  There is an ongoing programme to construct noise fencing along sections of motorway between Junctions 10 and 12 adjacent to Luton as part of the Hansard hotspot noise improvements. The annual budget for the whole network for hotspot improvements is £5 million. This scheme will cost £4 million.
• Junction 11 - This junction has been signalised. The capacity is less of a problem than Junction 10. The routes into Luton and Dunstable flow more freely than at Junction 10. The heavy traffic flow on the southbound between Junctions 11 and 8 give rise to a high frequency of accidents particularly rear end shunts into back of queues or slowing vehicles. In April 2004, there are 2 VMS signs have been erected at the north of Junction 10. In addition, a Stage 4 Road Safety Audit to evaluate the safety benefits to these improvements to be carried out in the next financial year.
• Junction 12 - This junction has been signalised. There are no major problems with this junction during normal peak hour flow. The very long north slip roads on and off the M1 assist queuing. The proximity of Toddington Services, which is less than 300 metres from the junction, causes problems with weaving.
• Junction 13 - This junction has capacity problems and queuing in the morning peak can be a major problem. The SOS announced a scheme to widen the M1 between Junctions 6A and 13 to be included into the TPI.
  The Bedford to Bletchley (Milton Keynes) railway line is being improved/ reconstructed and there are longer term plans to reconstruct the railway as far as Cambridge. At present Traffic Master shows that there is major traffic congestion on the A421 during the rush hours south west of Bedford. Improvements to this railway line may reduce commuter traffic between Junction 13 and Bedford. There are also proposals for a park and ride scheme for this section of the A421.
• Junction 14 - There are major problems at this junction, which result in mainline queuing northbound and southbound and severe difficulties for vehicles joining the motorway in peak periods.
  There is a design scheme being undertaken, which is funded by the HA, to signalise Junction 14 and partially signalise at the Northfield Roundabout. The purpose of the scheme is to take account of the Milton Keynes centre expansion and to relieve the queuing problem from the exit slip roads on to the carriageway.
  Junction 14 is part of a coachway to Milton Keynes. There are plans for a dedicated lane to Milton Keynes for buses/coaches in the next two to three years
• Junction 15 - This Junction has been substantially upgraded and it is now serving the Grange Park development.
  The A45 to the east of the Junction 15 (including the former A508 section) was designated trunk road in June 2001 and is currently being upgraded to trunk road standard. The strategic alternative to the M1 in the case of a major incident between Junctions 15 and 19 is to use the A45 and A14.
  The M1 is surface dressed beyond Junction 15. The surface meets all maintenance criteria but does not meet any subjective criteria regarding ride quality and surface noise.
• Junction 15A - This junction has recently been upgraded to improve links to Northampton. This junction provides an important link for the M1 and M40. This junction is free flowing except for the A43 back to Towcester. The main problem on the A43 from Towcester is queuing on the northbound and the southbound.
  
  Figure 2.12: M1 Junction 15A New Underpass (Finished Junction)
  
  The finished scheme provides a dual carriageway between the two roundabouts on the A43, either side of the M1 at Junction 15A, thus reducing delays on the A43 between Northampton and Towcester.
  
  The A43/A45 RMS report proposed a Route Outcome (No. 15) to reduce the traffic queuing at this junction where traffic travelling south from the M1 to the A43 crosses traffic travelling north from the A43 to the M1 at the roundabout south of the M1. It is suggested to provide a new northbound exit slip road from M1 to A43 directly onto the A43 west roundabout.
  
  Beyond Junction 15A there are no congestion problems.
• Junction 16 - No problems envisaged with junction capacity.
  Watford Gap northbound is an accident high risk site. An improvement scheme is now completed. An accident review study is currently being undertaken by the MAC which will identify potential safety improvement measures that could be implemented over the next few years.
• Junction 17 - No problems envisaged with junction capacity.
• Junction 18 - The main route for freight entering/leaving the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is via Junction 18. Plans to expand the size of the terminal will increase the pressure on this junction. Consequently, the operation of this junction may require to be reviewed as part of the development.
• Junction 19 - There was a Road Base Study Junction Improvement study by Halcrow Group Limited and their final report was published in August 2002. The Secretary of State for Transport announced that the proposal has been included into the TPI schemes in February 2003. Figure 2.13 shows the current junction arrangement with a direct link from the north of M1 to the A14.

Figure 2.13: M1 Junction 19 - The Current Junction Arrangement Looking North

2.9 Multi-Modal Studies and Policy Direction

After the General Election in 1997, which saw a change of Government, two documents were published that would change the method and process that trunk road schemes would be planned, appraised and delivered. The New Deal for Transport and New Deal for Trunk Roads in England set the Government's strategy for transport commitment and enhancement. In these two documents the Government introduced a variety of measures as a refrain from building new roads, including greater consultation, protecting the natural and built environments and improving integration with other transport networks.

In respect of these changes, the HA was given a new direction and aim;

"to contribute to sustainable development by maintaining, operating and improving the trunk road network in support of the Government's integrated transport and land use planning policies".

The Government also introduced the five investment criteria of, accessibility, economy, environment, integration and safety, to ensure that road-based schemes followed the consistency of the new approach to appraisal (NATA). The NATA procedure would be used against all current and future road schemes, especially those on the motorway and trunk road network. Schemes that were successfully appraised and approved by the Secretary of State (SOS) were entered into the Targeted Programme of Improvements(TPI), which was structured to deliver appraised road schemes more reliably and effectively than before.

The New Deal for Trunk Roads in England document sets out a programme of multi-modal studies that would be undertaken to focus and target improvements to the trunk road network.

In order to gain a wider perspective of the future of transport provision within a region, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" (DTLR 1998), proposed a series of studies to address problems on the strategic trunk road network not addressed in the Targeted Programme of Improvements. To implement these studies, in partnership with the Route Management Strategies; a series of Multi Modal Studies have been commissioned to consider problems and solutions affecting all modes of travel. This programme of studies is being taken forward by the Government Offices in partnership with Regional Planning Bodies. Thereafter it is anticipated that Multi-Modal studies will be instigated and led by Regional Planning Bodies.

MMSs are intended to be investigations of problems on or with all modes of transport. The initial programme of Studies was identified in the course of the 1998 Roads Review to address specific problems on the trunk road network. In practice, it is expected that the Studies will major on problems on the road, rail and bus systems, including access to ports and airports. The Studies could also include analysis of problems of air transport, coastal shipping and inland waterways.

A summary of the main recommendations made in each of the three MMSs which affect the outcome of this study are described below.

2.10 London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study (LSMMMS)

The London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study (LSMMMS) reported in February 2003 recommending a £4,159m package of measures designed to tackle existing and future transport problems in the South Midlands area north of London. In July 2003, the SOS made a statement on how these recommendations would be taken forward. The LSMMMS broadly looks at transport north of the M25 to include Junction 19 of the M1 as shown in Figure 2.14.

Figure 2.14: LSMMMS Study Area

The SOS has considered the study's recommendations for the improvement to the strategic road network in the light of the advice he has received from the Regional Assembly, the HA and the other interested organisations including the Statutory Environmental Bodies. In particular, the SOS has been mindful to ensure a balance for improved accessibility against the potential impact of schemes on the environment. The government remains committed to its policy presumption against new or expanded transport infrastructure that will adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas and sites, except where there is an overriding public interest in the development proceeding.

From his statement, the SOS confirmed his support for a programme of trunk road improvements which he asked the HA to take forward on a phased basis and to be implemented over the next 10 years. The SOS has announced that the following schemes to be included into TPI schemes.

• Widening the M1 to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 6A to 13;
• The Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5-M1 link); and
• A421 dualling from M1 to Bedford

The M1 between Junctions 6A and 13 will be taken to dual-4 lane standard. This stretch of the M1 has been prioritised into two sections as Junctions 6A to 10 and Junctions 10 to 13. With the former has been afforded the highest priority of any scheme within the study area. In the view of particularly high levels of congestion, the LSMMMS final report⁸ stated that this "should proceed at the earliest opportunity". Widening between Junctions 10 to 13 is recommended, but not in advance of Junctions 6A to 10.

The Dunstable Northern Bypass will be the main route around Dunstable and the main access to the M1.

The programme of widening will also affect adjoining roads in the proximity of the M1. The A421 will become dual-2 lane standard from M1 Junction 13 to east of the Milton Keynes and west to the existing section dual carriageway at Milton Keynes.

The SOS has also asked the HA to carry out a review of the operation of the M1 Junction 14 in the light of proposed expansion of Milton Keynes - South Midlands and the early priority to widen the M1 up to Junction 13.

The LSMMMS recommended the introduction of area wide road user charging post-2016. There is however little evidence of how physical demand measures such as ramp metering might work in the UK at present and it will be necessary to take into account the impact on safety and traffic flows across the road network.

The Government has decided to undertake a detailed feasibility study of road pricing⁹. Decisions on whether to implement such a regime are for the future.

The SOS has commented on the LSMMMS recommendations in terms of local road improvement on the following:

• A421 Milton Keynes to M1 dualling - The SOS invites Milton Keynes Council, working in partnership with neighbouring authorities to carry out further work on this proposal and submit an appraisal for consideration by the Department as part of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. The provision of funding will depend on the performance of the scheme against our appraisal criteria.
• Luton Northern Bypass (M1-A505 link) - The SOS also recognises the importance of such scheme for supporting economic development in the Luton area. Part of the route passes through the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and could have an adverse environmental impact. As a result the SOS is asking the Luton Borough Council (LBC) and Bedfordshire County Council (BCC) to carry out further work in liaison with the Statutory Environmental Bodies and neighbouring authorities, which include examination of alternative options with the aim of minimising environmental impacts.

The SOS encouraged the LAs within the study area to work with local partners and delivery agencies to develop the following in more detail and, where appropriate, submit proposals for funding to the Department through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process.

• A range of measures to improve public transport services and promote more sustainable travel choices (including improved bus/ rail integration, new parkway stations and measures to influence travel behaviour such as travel planning)
• Land Use planning polices

Provision of funding will depend on the performance of schemes against the government's appraisal criteria.

The SOS endorses the support from the LSMMMS for promoting measures to reduce travel demand and encouraging more sustainable travel choices, which he looks to LAs to take these forward. The guidance on LTPs asked LAs to set out how they would work with employers, schools and other local organisations to develop travel plans. They must publish annual reports of progress on implementing their LTPs and use their powers10 under the development control process to require travel plans for all new developments with significant transport implications.

Finally, the SOS also supports the recommendation from a number of studies on the need for close integration between land use and transport policies. Current national planning policy already places a strong emphasis on locating development in appropriate locations to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce the need to travel, especially by car. The SOS looks to local planning authorities to locate major generators of personal travel in areas best served by public transport.

2.11 London Orbit Multi-Modal Study (ORBIT)

The London Orbital Multi Modal Study (ORBIT) was commissioned to examine the existing and future problems for orbital travel around London and to produce a long-term management strategy for the M25 (see Figure 2.15). The study reported in November 2002 recommending and supporting a package of measures centred on demand side management and supply side infrastructure improvement. These were in the main supported by the SOS in July 2003. For implementation purposes the proposals have been divided into two time frames, 2002 to 2011 and 2011 to 2021.

Figure 2.15: The ORBIT Study Area

The SOS supports the widening schemes and recommended a phased programme for widening most of the remaining 3 lanes sections of the M25 to dual-4 lanes over the next decade. One of the sections recommended for widening which is relevant to this RMS is:

• Junction 16 - 23 (M40 - A1(M) )

2.12 East Midlands Multi Modal Study: North/South Movements on the M1 Corridor in the East Midlands (M1MMS)

The East Midlands Multi Modal Study (M1MMS) reported in February 2002, which looks specifically at transport issues in the M1 corridor between Junction 21 and just north of Junction 30, and between the A1 in the east and the A38/A61 in the west (Figure 2.16).

Figure 2.16: Movements on the M1 Corridor MMS Area

On 10 December 2002, the SOS has announced a £1.57 billion package of measures aimed at tackling congestion in two key East Midlands transport corridors (M1 Junction 21-30 and A453) and showed his support on the M1MMS's recommendation for:

• A programme for the M1 in the East Midlands of junction improvements, provision of climbing lanes and widening, generally to dual-4 lanes between Junctions 21 and 30, together with safety and traffic management measures.

The main recommendations as they impact upon the RMS study area, therefore, pertain to road widening, including climbing lanes and junction improvements. These are of particular note in the following areas:

• A new link road between the M1 and M69 linking into the section of motorway between Junction 21 to 21A.
• An additional lane in each direction between existing A46 slip roads at Junction 21A and proposed M69 link road
• A crawler lane provided north of Junction 22
• Widening to four lanes between Junction 21A and 23A

The implementation of these schemes will be subject to the successful completion of all remaining statutory procedures. The improvements will relieve congestion and improve safety and accessibility. The SOS is asking the HA to carry out further detailed work and to ensure the detailed design work on these schemes is carried out so as to minimise environmental impacts. Hence, these schemes can be taken forward quickly and largely delivered over the next 10 years.

In April 2004, the SOS has also announced the scheme below entered the TPI schemes

.

• Widening M1 Junctions 21 and 30

Unlike the recommendations from the M1MMS, the scheme provides widening to only 4 lanes plus climbing and weaving lanes where necessary, and major junction improvements at Junctions 21-21A, Junction 23A-24A; Junctions 26A and 28.

2.13 A43/A45 Route Management Strategy

The A43/A45 RMS is being undertaken by Carillion-URS (C/URS) on behalf of the HA. The initial consultations with stakeholders to identify problems and issues were completed in June 2003. In November 2003 a new Guidance document for the development of Route Management Strategies was published. A new draft RMS framework is being formulated by C/URS comprising their pervious inputs. Within the draft framework, there are two issues which are pertinent to the M1/M10 RMS. These issues are identified as Outcomes 10 and 15 of the A43/A45 RMS.

A43/A45 RMS Outcome 10	To ease capacity problems at the A45/M1 Junction 15 Interchange
Related Issues	Capacity problems causing peak hour queuing and delays Junction design Access difficulty from Grange Park Further development proposals will aggravate problem
Possible Actions	Review traffic signal timings and arrangements and amend as appropriate Review whole junction layout in conjunction with future development proposals Control further development proposals which could increase congestion

A43/A45 RMS Outcome 15	To reduce traffic queuing at M1 Junction 15A where traffic travelling south from the M1 to the A43 crosses traffic travelling north from the A43 to the M1 at the roundabout south of the M1
Related Issues	Traffic flow conflict causing queuing and delays Junction design
Possible Actions	Provide new northbound exit slip road from M1 to A43 directly onto A43 west roundabout
Other issues	Relevant LNMS construction currently under Area 8 Programme for 2005-6: M1 Junction 15A New Northbound Off-slip (December 2005)

The A43/A45 RMS completed its public consultation in June 2004 and is preparing the final strategy report to be published in due course.

2.14 M1 Junctions 6A to 10 Widening

The widening scheme was originally proposed in the early to mid 1990s and a Public Inquiry was held in 1995. Despite a positive recommendation by the Inspector, the scheme was subsequently put on hold. Following the completion of the LSMMMS the Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, announced in July 2003 that the widening would proceed as part of the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI). The Statutory Orders was made in January 2004.

The widening work will be carried out on both carriageways of the M1 between Junctions 6A and 10 to bring it up to a full standard four lane motorway with continuous hard shoulders. This will be achieved by widening the following sections:

• Junctions 6A-7 southbound
• Junctions 8-9 northbound and southbound
• Junctions 9-10 southbound

Figure 2.17: M1 Widening J6A-J10

2.15 M1 Junction 19

Junction 19 is a key node in both the national and Trans-European highway network; it is an intersection between three major motorway and trunk roads; the M1, the M6 and the A14(T). More than 100,000 vehicles a day use this Junction. It also gives access to Swinford and Catthorpe and minor local roads. At present it is possible to perform ten out of twelve possible turning movements at the junction; the exception is the A14 to/from the M1 (S) which is not possible.

Direct merge and diverge slip roads are provided for movements between the M6 and the M1(S). Other movements are catered for by a dumbbell roundabout arrangement linked beneath the M1. There is one lane eastbound beneath the bridge and two lanes westbound.

This arrangement does not currently allow for movements from/to the A14(T) to/from the M1(S).

The main issues at M1 Junction 19 relate to highway capacity, congestion and safety and the possible impact of future and planned developments on the local road network. The study has examined the problems and looked at a range of possible improvement solutions. These have been designed so that the junction can operate safely and without serious congestion well into the future. Consultations during this work have taken place with a wide group of public and private organisations, the local community and landowners. A variety of options were developed and assessed. A single 'Preferred Scheme' that addresses the problems for the long term has been selected (see Figure 2.18).

Figure 2.18: M1 Junction 19 Preferred Solution - All Movement Junction

A small scale improvement has recently been implemented by the HA on a short term measure. This has involved the signalisation of both the roundabouts and the rearrangement of both dumbbell roundabouts.

In February 2003, the SOS for Transport announced that the proposal has been included into the TPI schemes. It is anticipated that the construction period will be commenced during the financial year 2007/8 and will open to traffic in 2010/11.

2.16 Pilot Study Scheme - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane

On 9 December 2004, the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling announced an innovation scheme to reduce congestion and improve journey times on the M1 motorways by creating dedicated lanes which will be reserved for vehicles carrying 2 or more people. The High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or carpool lane could be created by using the hard-shoulder as a running lane or by widening the road to create an additional lane. They would be reserved for the use of cars, offering a faster and more reliable journey. The HOV lane aims to encourage drivers to share cars. Britain's first HOV motorway lanes will be tested on the M1, northbound and southbound as below:

• M1 Junctions 7 to 10 (St Albans to Luton)

The car sharing lane will operate at peak times to help minimise delay and congestion for road users. There is work already planned to widen the motorway at this section from dual-3 to dual-4 lanes. It is estimated that there would be 5% fewer cars on the road if car sharing was adopted. Work is due to start in Autumn 2005.

Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling said:

"the Government is determined to tackle congestion on Britain's roads. Carpool lanes help drivers carrying several people by providing dedicated lanes. This makes best use of scares capacity on our roads."

"Carpool lanes are part of the Government's commitment to provide better service to road users. These lanes have been used to great effect both in America and Australia and within the UK and could play a key role in reducing congestion on motorways. I hope that drivers will be encouraged to consider car pooling to take advantage of the new lanes. It works elsewhere. There is no reason why it can't work here as well."

If the scheme proves successful, the Government will consider extending the car-sharing lanes as far as Junction 13 when this section of motorway is widened.

2.17 Local Transport Plans

In July 1998 the government produced the integrated transport white paper, 'A New Deal For Transport - Better For Everyone', setting out the national transport framework. A centrepiece of the proposal was for the preparation of local transport plans (LTPs) by LAs to set out the way in which an integrated transport system would be delivered at local level. The Transport Bill was passed in parliament in 2000 which put a statutory duty on LAs to prepare an LTP to be submitted to Government Offices by 31 July 2000.

The LTP system is built around 5 year integrated transport strategies setting out LA policies for the promotion of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities. The current LTPs cover a period from financial years 2001/02 to 2005/06 and the LAs are required to publish annual progress reports throughout this period. LTPs contribute towards establishing the framework for the development of the RMS. New LTP guidance is currently out for consultation and once this is finalised it will guide new LTP's from 2005/06 until 2010/11.

---

1. No count data is available between M1 Luton Spur junctions 10 and 10A. back [1]
2. A Methodology for the calculation of the CRF is included in Appendix B. back [2]
3. National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997, DETR. back [3]
4. In forthcoming guidance the term 'intervention level' is be replaced with 'investigatory level'. In this light and for the purposes of this report, the term 'investigatory level' will be adopted henceforth. back [4]
5. Source: "Encouraging Sustainable Travel - Highways Agency Strategic Plan for Accessibility", Highways Agency 2000. back [5]
6. Response to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" Second Edition (February2003), London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, June 2003. back [6]
7. Source: http://www.translinkexpress.org.uk/timescales01.htm back [7]
8. London South Midlands Multi Modal Study (2003), page 215, paragraph 25. back [8]
9. Further details of the Government's thinking are set out in, "Managing Our Roads", which is available on the DfT website. back [9]
10. Guidance on these powers is contained in "Using the planning process to secure travel plans" which is published jointlywith the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in July 2002. back [10]