Highways Agency

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Existing Conditions
• 3. Scheme Proposals
• 4. Engineering Assessment
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 1
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 2
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 3
• 5. Environmental Assessment -4
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 5
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 6
• 5. Environmental Assessment -7
• 5. Environmental Assessment -8
• 5. Environmental Assessment -9
• 5. Environmental Assessment -10
• 5. Environmental Assessment -11
• 5. Environmental Assessment -12
• 5. Environmental Assessment -13
• 5. Environmental Assessment -14
• 5. Environmental Assessment -15
• 5. Environmental Assessment -16
• 5. Environmental Assessment -17
• 5. Environmental Assessment -18
• 5. Environmental Assessment -19
• 6. Traffic and Economic Assessment

1. Introduction

1.1 Scheme Background

The A14 is an all-purpose dual carriageway road, running from Felixstowe Docks tothe M1/M6 motorway junction, a distance of approximately 210 km. The A14 isdesignated the main east-west strategic route between the east coast ports and theMidlands and has European Route Network status. The section of the A14between Cambridge and Huntingdon also caters for north-south traffic between theM11 Junction 14 and the A1(M) at Alconbury.

The A14 through the Cambridge to Huntingdon corridor is heavily trafficked,carrying regional traffic and significant local traffic movements as well as strategicthrough-traffic, with a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).

1.2 Early Studies

Issues of congestion, journey time reliability and safety led to the Department ofTransport commissioning a number of feasibility studies into improving the A14 andits junctions between the M1-A1 link and the eastern end of the CambridgeNorthern Bypass (CNB). The following studies reported between 1990 and 1995:

• M1-A1 Link to Bar Hill, by LG Mouchel
• Bar Hill to M11 Junction 14, by WS Atkins
• Cambridge Northern Bypass, by Travers Morgan.

In 1997, a series of Working Papers was produced by Mouchel, investigatingoptions for on-line improvement to dual 3-lane standard. Further studies weresubsequently suspended in the Government's review of the trunk roadsprogramme. However, the strategic importance of the A14 resulted in options forits improvement being considered as part of the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS).

1.3 Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study

CHUMMS was undertaken on behalf of the Department of Transport, LocalGovernment and Regions (DTLR) by a consortium led by consultants Mouchel. Thefinal report, which was published in 2001, recommended a strategy of highwayimprovements combined with a rapid transit (guided bus) system, village trafficcalming and other minor highway improvements.

The highway improvements recommended by CHUMMS are summarised asfollows:

• The A14 is to be widened to dual 3-lane carriageway on-line between Horningsea/Fen Ditton junction and a point east of Fenstanton, to include the Cambridge Northern Bypass;
• A new dual carriageway, dual 3-lane east and dual 2-lane west of the A1, is to be constructed to the south of Huntingdon, Godmanchester and Brampton to rejoin the A14 near Ellington;
• Parallel local roads, of single carriageway 2-lane standard, are to be provided along the widened section as far as M11 Junction 14 to segregate local and strategic traffic;
• Additional links and slip roads are recommended at M11 Junctions 13 and 14 to enable more turning movements to take place;
• Improvements to the junctions at Histon and Milton are recommended as part of proposals to widen the CNB, with specific provision to enable public transport to cross the A14;
• Rationalise junctions and eliminate direct at-grade access onto the A14;
• Provide grade separated junctions throughout on the A14, with free-flow movements at the A1 and M11 junctions, with the A14 as the predominant movement;
• The de-trunked existing A14 should be used as a local access road, at reduced standard, and a public transport corridor for access to Huntingdon centre;
• Full consideration is to be given to the needs of non-motorised users i.e. walkers, cyclists and equestrians.

The highway improvements element of the CHUMMS strategy was developedfurther in 2002/3, by Mouchel and Faber Maunsell, to assist the Highways Agencyin recommending the A14 Improvement scheme for entry into the TargetedProgramme of Improvements (TPI).

1.4 Consultant's Brief

The Highways Agency commissioned Atkins Consultants Ltd in June 2003 to act astheir consultant for progressing the A14 Improvement Ellington to Fen Dittonscheme through Stage 2 Scheme Assessment and Public Consultation, leading toa decision by the Secretary of State for Transport on the Preferred Route for thescheme.

The following extract from the Task Order signed with Atkins sets out the Secretaryof State's objectives for this project, which are:

• to deliver the trunk road improvements required as part of the multi modal strategy for improving transport links identified by the "Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi Modal Study" (CHUMMS);
• to improve journey time reliability and safety on the A14 trunk road by reducing congestion and traffic conflicts between Ellington and Fen Ditton; and
• to ensure no significant worsening of the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) subcriteria assessment results and to improve on them, where possible, within the constraints of the brief.

Atkins was required to identify alternatives for improving the A14 between Ellingtonand Fen Ditton, undertake scheme assessment to evaluate alternatives in terms ofengineering, traffic, safety, economics and environmental impact, recommendschemes for Public Consultation and hence arrive at a preferred route.

The following factors were to be taken into account when identifying and evaluatingalternative routes:

• the strategy recommended by CHUMMS;
• the needs of local traffic and specific road users;
• the requirements for access to property and adjacent development;
• the location of Statutory Undertakers' plant;
• traffic management and safety during construction;
• integration and accessibility criteria; and
• local transport plans.

1.5 Technical Reports

A review of the route options considered in previous studies was undertaken and anumber of alternative route options consistent with the recommended CHUMMSstrategy were identified. This initial study was reported in the Initial Route OptionsReport (IROR) in October 2003, where a number of alternative schemes wererecommended for detailed technical, economic and environmental appraisal.

Further route development work and value engineering was undertaken to optimisethe designs to meet the objectives of the brief whilst taking full account ofengineering, environmental and traffic considerations. Detailed technical appraisalof those final route options was reported in the Technical Appraisal Report (TAR) ofAugust 2004, which includes a recommendation of a Preferred Route for thescheme.

Detailed traffic modelling, forecasting and economic assessment of options ispresented in the following reports:

• Local Model Validation Report (LMVR);
• Forecasting Report (FR);
• Economic Assessment Report (EAR).

A detailed environmental assessment of route options was undertaken, requiringthe preparation of:

• Environmental Scoping Report;
• Stage 2 Environmental Impact Assessment Report;
• Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs).

1.6 Objectives of the Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report

The objective of this Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report is to, by providing asummary of the technical reports described above, identify the factors to be takeninto account in choosing alternative schemes and the environmental, engineering,economic and traffic advantages, disadvantages and constraints associated withthose schemes.

The overriding aim is to enable the public and statutory bodies to comment onalternative proposals taking into consideration their environmental, economic andtraffic implications.

1.7 Structure of the Report

The Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report is structured into a further five chapters:

• Chapter 2 describes the existing conditions, primarily relating to traffic, engineering and environmental aspects;
• Chapter 3 describes the scheme options selected for detailed assessment, as those most likely to meet the objectives and limitations of the scheme brief;
• Chapter 4 presents a detailed engineering assessment of route options in terms of highway alignment, junction layouts, existing and new structures, geotechnics and contaminated land, earthworks, public utilities and compliance with Standards. Significant engineering difficulties associated with route options are also identified;
• Chapter 5 presents a summary of the environmental assessment of scheme options, including Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs);
• Chapter 6 summarises the traffic analysis undertaken, and presents traffic forecasts and economic assessment of route options;